VS015 today (2 June 15)

If you take a look at thebasource then you will see that BA had to fly a 777 to Bermuda a few times non etops due to a minor engine fault. It took about 1.5 hours longer. Not sure what etops is or if linked to this but as mentioned above I am sure planes fly with little niggles, but they won't fly if not 100% safe. Not worth it in any instance.

I would bet my house that there was no safety issue here - VS (and other top-class airlines) would never fly a plane if it were unsafe - I can guarantee that.

There are a great many faults that are allowable on a plane (very tightly regulated and approved by the manufacturer), that might limit operations but NOT safety.

Apart from anything else, a serious incident is the very worst thing that can happen to an airline (just look at what has happened to Malaysaan, and at least one of those was due to outside forces). If it were discovered (and it would be), that the airline had knowingly dispatched an aircraft with a fault not documented and approved, that would be it - license removed, airline collapses.

I am absolutely confident safety was not compremised in any way.

The curious part of me just wants to find out what the issue is!!!

ETOPS - Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards, is an approved regime the governs the operations of planes with two engines only and is designed essentially to limit distance/time from suitable airports (which is why certain routings happen) in the massively unlikely event that one engine develops a fault (and, all twin engine planes can take-offf, fly and land on a single engine by design and by regulation).

For it not to be able to fly at full speed or the normal height there must be an issue though and isn't that a hazard?
Surely if planes are not 100% then they shouldn't fly?

To repeat

The plane is flying within it's operational parameters.

If it was unsafe it would simply not be flying.

If you take a look at thebasource then you will see that BA had to fly a 777 to Bermuda a few times non etops due to a minor engine fault. It took about 1.5 hours longer. Not sure what etops is or if linked to this but as mentioned above I am sure planes fly with little niggles, but they won't fly if not 100% safe. Not worth it in any instance.

ETOPS only applies to twin engine aircraft and how far away they can fly from the nearest airfield (particularly over oceans). In that instance if the ETOPS240 had been cut to 180 minutes the 777 would have had to take a longer route, skirting north to stay near Reykjavik and Halifax. 747s can go straight across.

To repeat

The plane is flying within it's operational parameters.

If it was unsafe it would simply not be flying.

+1

Anyone who suggests VS is putting safety at risk is potentially guilty of defamation.

Safety is never, ever compromised on any British airline.

There's a major delay on the VS93 to Cancun today, estimated at 4 hours. Wonder if it's related to the above.

[Neil]

There's a major delay on the VS93 to Cancun today, estimated at 4 hours. Wonder if it's related to the above.

VS93, being operated by G-VROS, pushed back at 13:07, so only a 47min delay.

VS93, being operated by G-VROS, pushed back at 13:07, so only a 47min delay.

That was weird, delay showed much more than that at 1pm. Apologies.

Update on G-VAST, after doing Wednesday’s VS16 she spent 2 days in LGW before moved up to GLA this morning to operate this weekend’s VS71/72. She took off 1h 20min late for some reason but is currently over the Atlantic at 36,000ft and was doing 495kts earlier same as other aircraft in the area so presumably due to headwinds, whatever the issue was it looks to have been fixed.

Update on G-VAST, after doing Wednesday’s VS16 she spent 2 days in LGW before moved up to GLA this morning to operate this weekend’s VS71/72. She took off 1h 20min late for some reason but is currently over the Atlantic at 36,000ft and was doing 495kts earlier same as other aircraft in the area so presumably due to headwinds, whatever the issue was it looks to have been fixed.

Fuzzy is correct, G-VAST is back to normal after some much needed TLC in LGW yesterday.

It seems although the minor technical issue that made it fly "low and slow" last week re-occured and as many people have correctly stated, VS clearly did not have the capacity within their fleet in order to ground another 744 unecessarily. Rest assured, the aircraft would have been operating perfectly safely, albeit much slower than usual.

BA alsohaving issues

Just a thought - nothing more but perhaps worth a second of thought.

Could VS be flying this way deliberately with not issues to the metal..? Would flying lower and slower be an economic saving and deliberate plan?

In my little car if I drive say 15% slower and smoother then I can make a significant saving on fuel, tires and engine wear. Perhaps VS are looking at this on the 747 fleet - some of the oldest and longest routes they have around at the moment..?

Then surely they would be doing it on all 747 flights. As would other airlines.

But they aren't.

This is true Tonty - however perhaps this is more of a trial to understand the impact upon customer perception and costing's. As with most trials they would select a segment to run this in to analyse against a control group to understand the impact.

It was just a thought...

Flying lower burns more fuel as the air is thicker.

Higher is better at an efficient speed

Flying lower burns more fuel as the air is thicker.

Higher is better at an efficient speed

Thinner air will reduce drag - but for efficacy of the engines alone its more about air temperature. I am sure that there is a really complex scientific equation for this. But essentially its density of air vs. temperature. If the drag at 30,000ft is only a little different to 40,000 ft and the temperature is the same then climbing higher may be inefficient.

As I say, I am sure its a very complicated subject. My point was that there may be nothing wrong with the planes, just Virgin are trying out a new way of running them to save costs?

Update: I have spoken to virgin and they have said and I quote "I'm sorry for the delay to your flight on this occasion. The aircraft was not able to operate at its maximum speed due to a minor technical issue. I would like to assure you there was absolutely no safety implication of flying the aircraft"

When asking what exactly was wrong I got back:"Unfortunately we can’t share the details of technical issues as this is commercially sensitive information."

Anyone got any ideas on what, if anything, anyone from that flight should do now or what could of been wrong?

Anyone got any ideas on what, if anything, anyone from that flight should do now

Absolutely nothing! I'm guessing you arrived with a delay of less than 3 hours so you're not entitled to anything. If you're curiosity is getting too much, you might try a post on one of the aviation forums (Pprune) where you could get a technical response. I'm also quite intrigued so do report back.

[Neil]

Update: I have spoken to virgin and they have said and I quote "I'm sorry for the delay to your flight on this occasion. The aircraft was not able to operate at its maximum speed due to a minor technical issue. I would like to assure you there was absolutely no safety implication of flying the aircraft"

When asking what exactly was wrong I got back:"Unfortunately we can’t share the details of technical issues as this is commercially sensitive information."

Anyone got any ideas on what, if anything, anyone from that flight should do now or what could of been wrong?

"Do now" in what way? You can't do anything, and I'm not sure what you would want to do?

I hope I have a better plane in Sept when I am off to MCO on VS15 ;)

To all, see response below from the FAA who investigated this further:

The best way for me to explain this – all commercial aircraft flying today have several redundant systems on board for the electrics and hydraulic systems. When a particular system is inoperative there are back up system’s that are designed by the manufacturer (ex; Boeing , Airbus) that allow the aircraft to be flown until the particular system is corrected. This by no means makes the aircraft unsafe. The manufacturer along with the FAA approve which systems can be inoperative for flight with no degradation in safety. When certain items are inoperative and the aircraft is approved for flight there are in some instances restrictions placed on speed and altitude the aircraft can fly. This as I stated has no degradation in safety. This is only a precautionary measure the airlines take. All airlines whether domestic or foreign use these procedures. The aircraft fling today are very sophisticated, and without these procedures in place there would be many delays. The aircraft you flew on was required to fly at a lower altitude and also a speed reduction required. This also with fact the aircraft departed over thirty minutes late due to a late arrival into Gatwick. Today’s aircraft fly as high as they can for fuel savings and faster speed and to avoid weather. Because your aircraft had to fly with restrictions of a lower speed and lower altitude the Captain may have had weather to navigate around which accounts for the longer flight time. Virgin Atlantic has an excellent safety record , and procedures like these are in place to ensure the safest possible flight.

[Neil]

To all, see response below from the FAA who investigated this further:

The best way for me to explain this – all commercial aircraft flying today have several redundant systems on board for the electrics and hydraulic systems. When a particular system is inoperative there are back up system’s that are designed by the manufacturer (ex; Boeing , Airbus) that allow the aircraft to be flown until the particular system is corrected. This by no means makes the aircraft unsafe. The manufacturer along with the FAA approve which systems can be inoperative for flight with no degradation in safety. When certain items are inoperative and the aircraft is approved for flight there are in some instances restrictions placed on speed and altitude the aircraft can fly. This as I stated has no degradation in safety. This is only a precautionary measure the airlines take. All airlines whether domestic or foreign use these procedures. The aircraft fling today are very sophisticated, and without these procedures in place there would be many delays. The aircraft you flew on was required to fly at a lower altitude and also a speed reduction required. This also with fact the aircraft departed over thirty minutes late due to a late arrival into Gatwick. Today’s aircraft fly as high as they can for fuel savings and faster speed and to avoid weather. Because your aircraft had to fly with restrictions of a lower speed and lower altitude the Captain may have had weather to navigate around which accounts for the longer flight time. Virgin Atlantic has an excellent safety record , and procedures like these are in place to ensure the safest possible flight.

So basically the FAA have told you exactly what you were told by us all in this thread anyway then!