Back to Squawk list

Terrified British Airways passengers told 'don't rock plane'

Submitted
This video shows the terrifying moment a packed British Airways plane was forced to make an emergency landing at Heathrow after its landing gear failed to work. The Boeing 747's landing gear on both wings failed and passengers were warned "not to rock the plane" when getting off as it could have overturned. The 293 passengers on board were asked to leave the holiday jet destined for Chicago "very slowly" in case it toppled over on the runway following the mid-air emergency.… (www.msn.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


honzanl
honza nl 8
UK investigators have determined that a maintenance error resulted in a British Airways Boeing 747-400’s having to land without deploying either of its wing main-gear assemblies. The aircraft (G-CIVX) had departed London Heathrow on 30 January this year, its first flight since a scheduled A-check. This check included replacement of the landing-gear control module. When such a replacement is carried out, maintenance manual requirements include fitting a rig pin in the undercarriage selector valve quadrant through which the landing-gear is controlled from the handle in the cockpit. But the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch states that the rig pin was omitted. It says this occurred through a combination of deficiencies in the operator’s task-card system, inadequate handover between engineering shifts, and the distraction of an engineer – who had noticed the rig pin’s absence and, concerned about possibly being injured, had taken an overdue break. The incorrect rigging during the module replacement subsequently caused the landing-gear lever to jam after the crew retracted the undercarriage. It would not move to the ‘off’ position, which depressurises the hydraulic system. Having opted to return to Heathrow, the crew lowered the nose-gear and the two fuselage main-gear assemblies using the alternate gear-extension procedure. BA has since introduced additional rig pin processes, reinforced handover procedures and provided supplementary task-card training.
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 11
What a poorly written article.
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
Freshman reporter or High school dreamer :)
sueridge307
sueridge307 10
Good old Jumbo's I reckon there the safest jet of there era to be trusted
expertonyssyairport
Mark Cussions 4
I agree with you there Sue. It's a legionary aircraft and the Queen of the skies the Boeing 747B I have being a few times to KPAE where Boeing's are made and love looking at the old lady the first Jumbo jet made that sits proudly down the road not far from Boeing comapny the first 747B 100 made
northwestspotter
northwestspotter 5
Very reliable long serving aircraft and I would feel much safer in the 747's then the airbus jets
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 4
Why. National pride or data?
linbb
linbb -4
What difference would it make but on here the only thing you hear about Boeing is problems but seems Airbust never has any NOT.

Production problems are never noted on this forum that Airbus has but are on others, too many EU lovers on here.
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
Are you referring to certain few posters who report anything they can find that may possibly show Boeing in a bad light? If a B737 hits CAT, it's reported as if it were a Boeing design failure. Not sure if it is a one-poster grassroots effort or astroturf.
Back in the 1890's it was called yellow journalism.
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank 3
So the answer is national pride. OK. We should (if anything) be comparing global companies performance.
brianroyal
Brian Royal 1
Go Qantas!
andrewcarter747b
andrewcarter747b 2
My Goodness where have you being?. Airbus have had many floors and defect problems on there production list of A330 aircraft I don't like deep sea diving in A330 aircraft or BBQ'S at the end of runways having to disembark from a airbus jet Air France is good at this
yr2012
matt jensen 3
Feel safer on any four engine a/c, not just Boeing
andyc852
Andy Cruickshank -1
Snooze. Balance cost and reliability. B777 fleet has amazing reliability as does the equivalent Airbus fleet
wx1996
wx1996 2
emergency happened on January 30th 2016
nasdisco
Chris B 2
Why post a 10 month old story?
emlouise
Em Fairley 3
Because the incident report has only just been published
E1craZ4life
Edward Bardes 2
I'd like to know where they got the notion.
liko2k
Jakub Bialek 2
What does it mean its landing gear failed to work?? Extend? Retract? Lock? Rotate....???
pilot62
Scott Campbell 2
Besides the real story - the Boeing / Airbus debate ends with this aircraft the 47,100,SP,200,400 & 800 - there will be no successor to this aircraft or it's type. Time has has not only confirmed this, but also economics. It isn't a US over Europe thing, it just is. The A-380 can compete for sure, in mass and comfort but without the middle east's cash cow, transferred via American gas tanks, the 380 would've already been over. But, the A319,20, & 21 are by far the more comfortable, in comparrsion to any of the 37 variations, and currently, the Brazilian ERJ-170, & 175 blow them all outta of the water - with all around comfort, noise, etc - In fact outside of a wide body, (anything) this is the preferred aircraft of most frequent flyers.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 4
I'm hearing the Hues Corporation...
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 2
Also, the body gear are further back than the ones that did not deploy, so where's the risk of the plane tipping backward?
andrewcarter747b
andrewcarter747b 2
The 747 can actually stand up right with the body gear not deployed. That has being done many times even the scrap yards where the BA 747's retire to it show's this clearly the two main landing gear's on the main wings can hold the plane up without tipping backwards while the the rear landing gear is tucked away under the body of the multi engined aircraft
744pnf
744pnf 3
"The 747 can actually stand up right with the body gear not deployed."
See the Pan Am KSFO accident. It will tip.
Friday 30 July 1971 http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19710730-2
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
Not sure that incident is representative. The A/C N747PA continued in service until 1993 when it was scrapped and became a restaurant in Seoul S. Korea. Sadly, the venture failed and in 2010 was dismantled.
http://www.airframes.org/reg/n747pa
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/historic-747-in-south-korea-now-history/
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 2
Sure, but in the article, it was the rear gear that was deployed and the outer gear that did not deploy. With that situation, there would more likely be a situation where the plane tipped over onto a wingtip than that the nose came up. That was my point. I guess yours is that even if it had been the main gear rather than the body gear that had deployed, there still would not have been an issue. Is that it?
Doobs
Dee Lowry 2
Not only is it a a poorly written article, it's the most ridiculous thing I have read or experienced! Flown the B-747 forever and she can take care of herself withoit pax moving around...are you kidding me! She's the Queen of the skies!
d0ugparker
Doug Parker 1
"This video shows..." but I don't see any link to any video.
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
The source is the 'Mirror' some time ago http://www.mirror.co.uk/
The may have replaced the video with a series of stills. OTH, they may have some confusion between the two media.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
So, who did the mx, where, and where are the personnel employed now?
wx1996
wx1996 2
AAIB report
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57d6bad740f0b65264000031/Boeing_747-436__G-CIVX_10-16.pdf

Reads like it the maintenance was performed at Heathrow as this was the first flight after the maintenance was performed. So most likely BA maintenance crew.
ssobol
Stefan Sobol 0
How is this terrifying? If they had any sense they would've put a jack under the tail and let everyone get off normally.
tevinger
tevinger 0
What a non-technical, lay person article which only leaves more questions. No aviators in the newsroom apparently.
ah6oy
Jim DeTour 0
Most airlines rig the maintenance department as a separate business so that profits can be pushed to the repair side which comes back to the owners keeping airline stock owners from taking big profits from the owners pot of gold. Here's better info with diagrams on the event.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57d6bad740f0b65264000031/Boeing_747-436__G-CIVX_10-16.pdf
expertonyssyairport
Mark Cussions -2
But luck escape for them all
linbb
linbb 5
They didn't escape they deplaned one way or another they were not fleeing something........
peterlmaas2
Peter Maas -5
I am a U.S.Air Force veteran. Safety procedures differ in many countries. The best procedures are practiced in the U.S. The only foreign airlines I trust are K.L.M. and Lufthansa. The rest of the world are flying by the seat of their pants.
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 3
You are aware of course that KLM belongs to Air France?
peterlmaas2
Peter Maas 1
Yes, but maintenance is performed on dutch territory. Procedures are followed to the T.
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 1
Maybe yes, maybe no. On my recent trip to Tanzania KLM screwed up. Going there the flight from AMS to YUL had left 5 hours late because of technical issues, therefore I would have missed my flight to JRO. I was rerouted via CDG and NBO on very uncomfortable aircraft, an Air France extreme density B777 with 10 abreast seating and Kenya Airways B787 with 9 abreast seating, losing my upgraded economy seats I had paid for in the process. On my trip back home the NBO to AMS leg was cancelled for technical reasons, I was rerouted via IST, again losing my upgraded seats. At least I got excellent service from Turkish Airlines. The only thing worse then that was having to deal with customer service from Delta, as they handle refunds for KLM and Air France in North America, and they constantly try to stiff you out of money you are entitled to receive.

So yes, you may be right, procedures may possibly be followed to the T, but my anecdotal evidence does not back this up.
peterlmaas2
Peter Maas 1
Sorry about your trip to Tanzania. My son is in the U.S.Air Force in the Pentagon. He is in charge of safety Air Force Wide with the Air Force Combat Wing. You indicated that one of your flights was delayed by 5 hours due to technical issues. That delay may have been caused by the destination airport. It could have been the weather or the landing slot the pilot would have to make. Then if it was a mechanical delay KLM would fix that first before taking of. British AirwAYS engineer went on an "overdue break" and left the Rig Pin unattached. The relief engineer missed that.
wopri
Wolfgang Prigge 1
There was no delay at YUL on that day, as I was able to leave without any problems for CDG. Of course I prefer airlines that have the safety of their operations as primary goal, and I know that things happen, but both flights, outbound and inbound, that was a bit too much. I would also like to mention that I've used a variety of airlines in Europe and Africa and a few in North America, and as a whole the safety of air travel is excellent. In recent times I've not used any US airlines though, I don't have the need.
peterlmaas2
Peter Maas 1
thank you for your answer. Have a great day.
KineticRider
Randy Marco 2
Best safety procedures.... like the KLM Tenerife 747 Top Instructor Pilot causing the worst aviation accident in history?
peterlmaas2
Peter Maas 0
the aircraft accident at Tenerife was the fault of the Air Traffic Controllers. KLM was given the green light for take-off. Ground control directed the U.S. plane to a taxi-way. The US Plane crossed the runway which KLM was instructed to use. And yes, it still is the worst Aircraft accident on record.
KineticRider
Randy Marco 1
You are completely and utterly WRONG!

It was the KLM Captains ABSOLUTE fault, he was in a hurry to leave and never received clearance to take off... he only thought he had clearance > his KLM FIRST OFFICER said "Wait a minute, we don't have an ATC clearance" but the Captain proceeded with takeoff anyway.

The 1st officer was intimated by the KLM Chief Instructor Captain and did not press him to wait and double check with the tower only to his and 583 other soles demise!
KineticRider
Randy Marco 1
*intimidated (auto spell check error > unlike the KLM Captain I double checked)
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
"583 other souls" 1166 other soles, assuming nobody was barefoot.
KineticRider
Randy Marco 1
Really..... N.S.Sherlock obviously a spell check error.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
autocorrect and autocorrupt are interchangeable
TorontoJeff
Jeff Phipps 0
Spoken like a true U.S. vet! KLM and Lufthansa ranked 13th and 14th respectively in a recent independent safety ranking. Qantas ranks number 1, AGAIN.
peterlmaas2
Peter Maas 1
I do not believe in the recent safety rankings.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!