Originally Posted by jondc9
And as to airworthiness. Was the 747 in question airworthy on landing at MAN? Of course not, the engine was out! It needed repairs to return to standard airworthiness, didn't it?
Few comments, a defect is normally only legally a defect once its written in the aircraft log. When are they written in the log in your company ?
From memory the crew had almost real time diagnostics from BA operations on the status of the aircraft systems, the results of the diagnostics (which was a healthy aircraft) would have influenced the commanders decision.
I am not aware if the crew felt they could not restart the engine again later in flight if required. Unlike Danny I don’t have the full details of the problem with the powerplant. Some powerplant problems where crews decide to do a precautionary shutdown can be returned to service without replacement of the powerplant, an engineering inspection is all that was required.
From memory the 744 FCOM has charts for flights up to 14 hrs OEI.
Flight on 3 engines is not unairworthy, the 747 is actually FAA approved for takeoff and flight on 3 engines, and flight with 5 engines (one engine bolted to the wing and blanked off if it has the required internal structure on the wing). BA recently flew a 744 empty from SIN-DXB-LHR on three engines, two long flights, and two takeoffs on three engines.
At no time did the BA crew deviate from any FAA (and UK CAA) approved flight manual limitations, or FCOM procedures, or company SOPs.
Please note, under FAR 91.7, which BA are being fined under, only the PIC has the say if the aircraft is airworthy.
Originally Posted by Mike Jenvey
The FAA’s rules state: “If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines [fails or is shut down] the pilot in command may proceed to an airport he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport.”
Not applicable in this case, this was a Part 129 flight, that rule is Part 121 (i.e. applies to US flagged Part 121 carriers)
Originally Posted by alf5071h
Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.
OEI flight is authorised by the FAA, UK CAA, and BA SOPs. The FAA point is "how much" OEI flight is acceptable.
Numerous US flagged aircraft have made either north pacific or atlantic crossings OEI, the perception now is that since most US carriers are not operating quads, the operation on quads long haul with OEI provides a unfair advantage to foreign carriers.
In this case the BA flight is dammed if they do, and dammed if they don’t. If they wanted to return to LAX, they would have to dump fuel. To dump fuel you need to be in a state of urgency or distress. To land overweight they would need to be in a state of urgency or distress. An engine shutdown on the 744 does not render the aircraft into a state of urgency or distress, no emergency exists.
I am of the view that BA could not have landed the aircraft in a reasonable time whilst in US airspace without breaking another rule.
I am very puzzled why in the FAA they mention Canadian airports. The Canadians have not said any rules was broken in their airspace, the FAA seems like they are trying to dictate how non-US carriers not only carry out their operations in US airspace, but airspace of other ICAO contracting states.