PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - WA: Push on or Pull Out?
View Single Post
Old 8th Feb 2021, 02:00
  #8 (permalink)  
megan
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,881
Received 362 Likes on 192 Posts
There was a difference of opinion between the FAA and the CAA as to whether the decision was correct
I know there was much discussion at the time about so called differences between FAA and CAA policy at the time, originating from where I know not, of course it was subject to much discussion on the forum. Essentially no difference between the two authorities by my reading. The report says,
Operational Policy - Flight Continuation

The aircraft manufacturer did not provide guidance as to the acceptable period of continued flight following an IFSD. The crew was subject to the operator’s written policy for flight continuation which was that, once certain considerations have been satisfied, the flight should continue to destination or to an operator-served destination as close as possible to it. This policy had been approved by the UK CAA. The following factors were to be reviewed before making the decision to continue:

1. The circumstances leading to the engine failure should be carefully considered to ensure that the aircraft is in a safe condition for extended onward flight.

2. The possibility of a second engine failure should be considered. This would require evaluation of performance considerations, diversion requirements and range and endurance on two engines.

The USA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR Part 121.565) requires a landing at the nearest suitable airport following an engine failure or IFSD, except for an aircraft with three or more engines. In this case, the commander ‘may proceed to an airport he selects if he decides that this is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport’, having considered a number of factors. These included the nature of the malfunction and possible mechanical difficulties, fuel requirements, weather, terrain and familiarity with the chosen airport. The commander is required to keep ATC informed and the operator is required to inform subsequently their airworthiness authority of the event.

As part of this investigation a review was also made of other UK and overseas operating companies to determine the guidance given to their crews in the event of an engine failure on a 4‑engined aircraft. One operator required that the aircraft land at the nearest suitable airport. Another had no policy and left it as a commander’s decision. One operator required the aircraft to return to the airfield of departure if the engine failure occurred prior to reaching cruise altitude and the conditions at that airfield were suitable; otherwise, the commander could continue to an airfield of his selection. Three other operators had policies similar to that of G-BNLG’s operator. All of the continuation policies emphasised that any continuation was dependent on the aircraft being in ‘a safe condition for flight’.
They had to divert to Manchester due insufficient fuel to make Heathrow
Just prior to the diversion fuel on landing London was estimated at 6.5 tonnes, required minimum being 4.5 tonnes. The aircraft landed Manchester because the crew lacked confidence in being able to access the remaining fuel, the airlines balance procedures differed from Boeings and after this incident the airline reverted to Boeings procedure.
there were indications of deficiencies in the training regarding fuel management provided to the flight crew. The three qualified pilots were not confident that all the fuel was available and their difficulties with fuel management indicated that their knowledge of the fuel system with three engines operating was insufficient. The fuel balancing procedures used by the operator, while suitable for normal operations, was a factor in the diversion involving G-BNLG. Following the incident, the operator provided guidance to crews that was more extensive, whilst progressing discussions with the airframe manufacturer. This has resulted in the operator reverting to the fuel handling procedures recommended by the manufacturer.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...BNLG_06-06.pdf
No one would have criticised the crew if they had returned to LAX
There's always someone who'll complain, missed wedding, dumping 70 tonnes of fuel etc etc
megan is online now