[kanga]

"Leeds East Airport: Aircraft's safe landing despite undercarriage and engine problems"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-y ... e-61340907

[Andrew Sinclair]

That pilot was having a bad day! Glad the outcome was good.

I used to have a Seneca once which used to have bad days!

[Iceman]

Gear problem followed by one engine out. That’s a ‘strange’ combination of events.

Iceman

[Lefty]

I was inbound to Leeds East as this occurred. They closed the ATZ just as I entered and I had to orbit outside whilst they managed the PAN. The problem seemed to be a gear unsafe light after a touch and go. They did a low pass and ATC advised that the gear appeared to be fully up with doors closed. The Seneca said they were leaving the area to activate the emergency gear extension before returning to land, ATC were unable to suggest how long before the ATZ would be closed for, so I diverted into Sherburn in Elmet.

Incidentally the Seneca is operated by Advanced Flight Training based at Sherburn and obviously everyone in ops was very focussed on what had happened. They were happy to hear that the crew was unhurt, but they didn’t seem to be aware of the engine failure, right up to 45 minutes later when I departed.

Glad everyone was ok.

[pullup]

Iceman wrote:
> Gear problem followed by one engine out. That’s a ‘strange’ combination of
> events.
>
> Iceman

Wouldn’t be the first time someone was so busy with the gear they forgot about fuel management.
Only yesterday I was reading about a Baron doing this.

[flybymike]

Lefty wrote:
> I was inbound to Leeds East as this occurred. They closed the ATZ just as
> I entered and I had to orbit outside whilst they managed the PAN. The
> problem seemed to be a gear unsafe light after a touch and go. They did a
> low pass and ATC advised that the gear appeared to be fully up with doors
> closed. The Seneca said they were leaving the area to activate the
> emergency gear extension before returning to land, ATC were unable to
> suggest how long before the ATZ would be closed for

Orbiting outside a closed ATZ?
Is “closing an ATZ a thing?” rather than closing a runway.

(Fenton radio is A/G not ATC.)

[Lefty]

flybymike wrote:
> Lefty wrote:
> > I was inbound to Leeds East as this occurred. They closed the ATZ just as
> > I entered and I had to orbit outside whilst they managed the PAN. The
> > problem seemed to be a gear unsafe light after a touch and go. They did a
> > low pass and ATC advised that the gear appeared to be fully up with doors
> > closed. The Seneca said they were leaving the area to activate the
> > emergency gear extension before returning to land, ATC were unable to
> > suggest how long before the ATZ would be closed for
>
> Orbiting outside a closed ATZ?
> Is “closing an ATZ a thing?” rather than closing a runway.
>
> (Fenton radio is A/G not ATC.)

I really can’t be bothered to justify your pedantic dross with an answer.

[flybymike]

Sorry Lefty, I wasn’t getting at you.

I pondered what the A/G operator meant by “closing” the ATZ.
In doing so, did they mean that they considered that the ATZ had now been disestablished and no longer existed until it was “reopened” by them again, and that other aircraft could therefore theoretically overfly the airfield without information below 2000ft agl, or did they (more likely) consider that in so doing they had created an exclusion zone which now required a clearance for entry?

Just askin’ purely on a point of pedantry. (And alliteration)

[skydriller]

flybymike wrote:
> Orbiting outside a closed ATZ?
> Is “closing an ATZ a thing?” rather than closing a runway.

Lefty wrote:
> I really can’t be bothered to justify your pedantic dross with an answer.

In the light of the whole "Barton interpretation" and "you must be authorized" before entering any ATZ idea the CAA has been promoting and enforcing through their Airspace bust policy, I really dont think it is unreasonable to ask for a clarification as to what an A/G "controller" actuallly said and by extension thought they had the power to enforce.

But hey, maybe the CAA are just pedantic too?

Regards, SD..

[GAFlyer4Fun]

Regarding aerodromes with A/G and an ATZ in general, it seems reasonable that if they have been granted an ATZ by the authorities under whatever legislation that might be confusing to pilots, they ought to be able to tell traffic to keep out otherwise whats the point in having an ATZ.
I suppose an aerodrome could call the CAA and have a TRA established to be completely unambiguous to inbound pilots when they are told there is an incident and a TRA and to stay away.

If an A/G aerodrome without an ATZ had an incident they were dealing with and they asked traffic to keep away due to the incident then I know I would respect their wishes with the options of holding, diverting or RTB.

[flybymike]

Politely asking traffic to keep away is one thing and may well be quite reasonable.

Declaring an ATZ “closed” with an implicit suggestion that a clearance to enter is required, is another.

GAFlyer4funwrote:
“otherwise whats the point in having an ATZ. “

Many people have asked that question.

[A le Ron]

I guess the A/G operator was faced with a situation he hadn’t been faced with before, and was doing his best to ensure a safe and good outcome. No criticisms from this quarter.

[Lefty]

A le Ron wrote:
> I guess the A/G operator was faced with a situation he hadn’t been faced
> with before, and was doing his best to ensure a safe and good outcome. No
> criticisms from this quarter.

Nor from me!

Once again people are taking their own interpretation from my description of the events - and then running with it in whichever way they choose.

When I called and said “GABCD 5 miles east, request joining information”, the a/g operator said something along the lines of
“ sorry, we have a PAN in progress, we cannot accept you for landing until the PAN has been concluded”

I could hear the PAN aircraft radioing that he was position for a low fly past for a visual inspection and later that she was orbiting whilst trying to lower the gear. On hearing this , I turned around to hold out of way outside the ATZ. Some time later, I asked if they had an estimate of how long the PAN might take (before I could land). They replied they had no estimate- so I diverted.

So he never said “ the ATZ is closed”
He did say that “he couldn’t accept me for landing whilst the PAN was in progress”

I took what I consider to be best course of action - namely to stay well out of the way whilst the other pilot worked to resolve the problem.

Frankly, it never crossed my mind to question what authority the a/g operator had to refuse me landing permission.
There was a real emergency in progress and the last thing anyone needed was some pilot arguing about whether the a/g guy was within his authority or not. Just keep quite and do whatever needed to be done - (stay out of the way)!

[skydriller]

[usermention=429]@Lefty[/usermention] the above clarification of events and what was said sounds eminently sensible for the situation at hand. I too would have stayed clear. However it is not at all what you initially posted, so its not really about others interpretations, is it?

[flybymike]

Thanks Lefty. I wouldn’t have raised the query had you explained that initially.