Originally Posted by jondc9
I will make it clear:
I would have returned to LAX.
I mentioned the BAE146 as a plane that has 4 engines that I have personally flown on 3 engines (see post on 3 engine ferry). This was to indicate operationaly knowledge of 4 engine aircraft.
I have never flown a 747 of any type. Nor have I indicated that I have.
AS to your judgement of losing a generator and going on to KLAS, you were within your rights under your MEL I am sure.
I would have gone back to the gate and gotten it fixed.
You must be quite afraid to have your procedures and knowledge challenged by someone.
You all seem to be so defensive about this operation. It makes one wonder if you are just worried about losing this one in the FAA battle ahead.
I have done mainly short haul stuff. Each of my hours in the air was followed by a landing. Perhaps after ten of your hours in the air you got one landing...does this make me a bigger expert on landings than you?
I have already indicated that under your regulations and rules you may have legally proceeded to England. I do think that the FAA has a point though and it will be up to the process to decide the outcome. Perhaps, as I mentioned, a new regulation will come up after this incident.
Also, if you feel that someone with about 12,000 hours, a captain for a major airline in the USA on another boeing aircraft does not have the right to offer his opinion, say so. my ticket includes cfiimeiatp.
Since your probably never flew the Vulcan bomber (neither did I) would you think it improper to weigh in on a crash of the Vulcan in a thunderstorm on one of its earliest flights? I think any aviator could weigh in just fine thank you.
I am happy to pontificate. My background allows me to. I imagine yours would too, but you don't.
A forum is just that. A place to speak.
Again, so you are not confused.
I think the BA 747 in question should have returned to LAX.
I think the judgement of the pilot was wrong.
While 4 engine planes have certain regulatory rights, good judgment has precluded additional regulations. Certainly if the FAA loses this one, I will look for a new regulation to be created. I may proffer it myself.
Being a 747 pilot for BA does not make you correct. NOT being a 747 pilot doesn't make me incorrect.
Still waiting for those answers to the questions I posted earlier...especially the one where the Queen of England is aboard a 747 in the same situation. (our own president cancelled a helicopter flight due to radio problems...in a pinch they could have used a cellphone I suppose)
And tell me, is it your normal operating procedure to count on declaring a low fuel emergency at the end of a flight that has started so badly?
pontificatingly yours,
jon
Just to be clear, the FAA are not fining BA over 121.565 (Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting), the flight was operating under Part 129 whilst in the US airspace.
The are not challenging the crews decision under FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation), they allege BA violated 91.7(a) by operating an unairworthy aircraft.
For those not familiar with the FARs,
Sec. 91.7
Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
Please note, the FAA does not have a say if the aircraft was airworthy or not at the time, the airworthiness of the aircraft is determined by the state of registration, being the UK CAA. The FAA does not have a say, as the UK CAA have said the aircraft was airworthy.
To see public comments from the UK CAA on issue see this flight international article : http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/11/Navigation/195/205869/British+Airways+appeals+FAA+fine+over+2005+Boeing+747+engine +shutdown+'safety.html
To see the actual papers filed for this matter please see :
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...rchType=docket
The whole flight was legal in terms of ICAO Annex 6 International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes, Chapter 8 and Annex 8 Airworthiness of Aircraft.