Originally Posted by
Meikleour
LeadSled: A bit harsh on Megan!
The BA 747 "fly-on on 3" was certainly conducted well within the BA SOPs - HOWEVER - the fuel balancing procedure derived by BA never envisaged the situation where using the Override/Jettison Pumps for fuel balancing would not work once the tank fuel levels got down to the Standpipe levels! The crew then showed a stunning level of ignorance of the fuel system and failed to fuel balance correctly ( like on any other aircraft) thereby allowing the aircraft to land, off diversion, with very, very low fuel quantity in one of the tanks. BA has "history" with regard to modifying it's own SOPs away from the manufactures. (personel experience here )
With regard to the QF1 incident - had the captain been checking another crew who did what he did , then I suspect his debrief would have been most robust! As an aside the captain had, only a short time before, been delivering a talk to CX about CRM procedures at QF!!!! That incident should be a classic example of "things that should not be done in an aircraft".
In broad terms I agree with your comments. Sorry, Megan.
Re. BA, many moons ago, a chap from Boeing (who was one of the best aeroplane handlers I have ever seen) made the interesting comment: " We have 199 customers for the B707, 198 do it our way, then there is BEA".
QF had a three engine diversion years ago, where not quite enough understanding of the fuel system resulted in a "very interesting" situation, but they finally got on the ground in one piece. In this case, the "expertise" of an E/O was a big part of the problem.
"Committees", whether in the office or the flightdeck, can have some very unfortunate outcomes, give me one person who really knows, versus a room full of "opinions" any day.
Tootle pip!!