A new report into a US cargo plane's emergency landing at Heathrow Airport has led aviation bosses to call for a review into the safety of people on the ground.  Heathrow 'was visible' |
Before take-off, the pilot of a plane is supposed to identify airfields all along its route where the plane could land in an emergency. The pilot should then make sure charts detailing routings to these airfields are on board. On 24 April 2004, a US cargo plane took off from Ramstein in Germany bound for Wright Field in New York State in the US. Although the pilot's route would take him over England, he was carrying US military charts, which did not include major airports such as Heathrow or Gatwick. Unfortunately the Boeing 747, owned by Evergreen International Airlines, lost power in one of its engines while it was flying over the Thames estuary. Questions raised The plane flew as far as Reading in Berkshire before turning around to fly back to Germany. While he was flying eastwards over Kent the pilot felt the other engines were not operating properly. He decided to make an emergency landing in England, but with no charts to rely on he had to fly back over London and land at Heathrow Airport - simply because he could see it. The incident has raised questions over whether aircraft in difficulty should be diverted over built-up areas. 'Rare' incident An inquiry into the emergency landing was carried out by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, part of the Department of Transport. The investigators recommended there should be more definite guidelines for air traffic control staff to deal with a plane that is so badly damaged it cannot safely fly over densely populated areas. "The balance between delaying an aircraft's landing by routeing it around a congested area, versus the aircraft's condition deteriorating and possibly leading to an accident outside the congested area, should be considered," the report stated. The Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for safety issues in British airspace, publishes the rule book for air traffic control, the Manual for Air Traffic Services. The manual states: "It is desirable that aircraft in an emergency should not be routed over densely populated areas," he said. But it goes on to say that when avoiding urban areas would "jeopardise the safety of the aircraft, the most expeditious route is the one which should be given". Chris Mason, of the CAA, described the incident as "extremely rare" but said the authority was considering the recommendation of the report. "At the end of the day, it is the pilot's decision on what he should do depending on the circumstances. The situation here was that he could see Heathrow Airport." Military destinations The report also recommended Evergreen, the US company that owned the plane, ensured its pilots have all "pertinent" charts for their routes. The airline said it believed it had complied with all regulations laid out by the Federal Aviation Administration, which governs US-registered companies. It said much of its work was in support of the US military and it was more convenient to use US Department of Defense charts because they covered military destinations as well as many civil airports. Evergreen's charts included Stansted Airport, but not Heathrow. The airline said the flight crew would have diverted to an airport for which they had charts but the emergency was too serious.
| 
One-Minute World News 
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
At the end of the day, it is the pilot's decision
BBC News
Bookmark with:
What are these?