psusaver

Doesn't this sound very very unusual for someone who has been a First officer from 2017 with the airline? Any other thoughts on what may have prompted this? My mind is going that VS is definitely trying to hush up something here.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/v...gbr/index.html

thoughts?

UKtravelbear

What do you think they are hushing up?

Looks to me that they have been very open about this.in making a public statement and also reported it to the CAA who have confirmed no regulations have been broken.


It's not as though they employed a pilot who has been jailed for lying about his experience (looking at you BA) and pressed a button in mid air that no qualified pilot would press

https://news.sky.com/story/british-a...t-job-12578731

KARFA

It was something that was not in line with company policy rather than a breach of any regulations.

I imagine Virgin F/Os have to do a certain number of hours before they progress from being designated a trainee to no longer being a trainee, but obviously the last two years has probably slowed that down somewhat.

mnhusker

Nope, Virgin Atlantic, like all airlines requires that FO have completed certain number of flights on that aircraft type with training officer on board to be cleared for line service.
The FO in question had all his other training completed successfully except this last monitored flight.

Somehow he was rostered onto Virgins flight without the box being ticked. As far as CAA and FAA is concerned he was "legal" to fly the plane and complete the flight to JFK (and back for that matter!). However doing so would have violated Virgins internal policies so that had there been any problems with the flight leading to passenger injuries, say from turbulence or rough landing by the Captain, having the FO on board would open Virgin to legal repercussions by Virgin knowing violating their own policies, even if the FO's presence had nothing to do with what happened. Don't you love lawyers .

So back to London they go for a heavy weight landing which stresses the aircraft (risk) and new pilot and off to JFK.

KARFA

Where did you read it was an overweight landing?

psusaver

thank you, that sounds like a reasonable explanation.

Re: heavy weight, it's also possible that they dumped some fuel over the ocean before landing. Maybe some NTSB style incident report for UK would discuss this?

mnhusker

They were fully fueled for a transatlantic crossing and only made it to the Irish coast before returning to London.

Thus, the must have been very close to gross weight at the time of landing in an A330.

I had a medical emergency in an American 777 where we had flown two hour out of ORD, headed to LHR and because of weather, the only landing option was back to ORD, and according to the pilots it was a "heavy weight landing" whom I spoke to while the EMT's where getting my patient off the aircraft.

Took two hours to perform "heavy weight landing" checks on the aircraft and then refuel for the flight back to LHR.

Missed our connections to Rome but AA was great about rebooking and then meeting my wife and I and getting us through Flight Connections to that flight.

I spent over 4 hours with a very sick young girl and my wife (the ICU nurse) back in J didnt even wake up until we landed in ORD .

mnhusker

A330 may or may not have "fuel dumping" capability depending on how it was ordered from Airbus, but most do not.

What does need to happen is a "heavy weight landing" inspection, mandated by reporting authorities to make sure that no damage was done to aircraft structures from landing above normal weights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

KARFA

Ok. Thanks for the clarification that the suggestion it was an overweight landing is speculation on your part.

mnhusker

Two things:
1. There is a difference between a "heavy weight landing": this one within the planes parameters.e. at or below the maximum landing weight, but higher than the usual landing weight requiring a check of the aircraft after it occurs per FAA and other regulator bodies.

"Overweight landing" would be one beyond any of the the certified landing weights of the aircraft and would ground the aircraft until it was completely inspected for damage.
Note I said the former not the later as you said, as "heavy weight landings" are not at all uncommon events with long haul aircraft.

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11715164

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...icle_03_1.html

2. I prefer intuitive logic rather than "speculation" as the facts as to what occurred are clearly laid out so that one can resolve what must have happened without much doubt.

All the best.

KARFA

I think it is interesting you suggest it must have happened without much doubt. The link you posted suggest factors which may relate to an operational landing weight which was lower than the max landing weight, but I am not sure any apply to any significant extent to an aircraft landing at LHR.

RAPC

I'm assuming that it wasn't a heavy weight landing, based on the fact that mnhusker mentioned that checks would be needed as a result.

The plane in question was G-VWAG which returned to London and took off within a couple of hours operating VS45. It was cleaned and loaded with VS45 passengers and straight back in service.

Sigwx

Not my place I know, but just from an aviator’s POV this all stems from lockdowns and furlough/redundancies made at the time. This is in effect return to work training. Plenty of pilots in my own airline have been doing the same of late.

Yes they were fully qualified, yes this is sensational reporting. Yes I’m truly amazed the term ‘death plunge’ wasn’t used in any headlines.

The aircraft on a short hop over the pond would very likely be departing below max landing weight out of Heathrow or very close to it so that it would no doubt be under it as it landed. It’s really not that far to go for a long haul aircraft and it really doesn’t need much fuel for the trip compared to what it can do and carry.

The only real ‘drama’ is the PITA that it incurred delay wise for all those affected.