Just a few points.
1) To suggest the loss of engine at LAX and the MAYDAY at MAN due fuel are unrelated is incorrect. Had they not lost the engine, they would have made LHR.
2) When talking about 747-400 operational safety, I agree that pilots with little experience of 747-400 operations should defer to those that have this experience. Should those 747-400 pilots who are (sometimes rudely) demanding this of others, keep quiet about the operational safety of Pacific ETOPS? - as to my knowledge, BA or any other UK airline doesn't fly that way
As an aside, I have no doubt that if BA was able to get permission to operate LAX-SYD, and they wanted to do it in a 777, the CAA would rubber stamp their application without much ado
After all, politics works on both sides of the pond.
3) Looks like the FAA are exercising jurisdiction over what happens in their airspace after all.
4) It's not only about the engines, it's about the fuel. In my opinion, mainly about the fuel. How much exactly did they have departing LAX?
5) All this bluster about the FARS about continuing on three is shown to be missing the point. It's about operating an aircraft in an unairworthy condition.
How does the FAA define unairworthy?
http://tinyurl.com/8a4l3 may help,
9. INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “AIRWORTHY” FOR U.S. TYPE-CERTIFICATED
AIRCRAFT. The term “airworthy” is not defined in Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.), or in
14 CFR; however, a clear understanding of its meaning is essential for use in the agency’s airworthiness
certification program. Below is a summary of the conditions necessary for the issuance of an
airworthiness certificate. A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that must
be met for an aircraft to be considered “airworthy.” 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c) and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b),
and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an airworthiness certificate:
a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is considered attained when the
aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications,
and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type certificate (STC) and
field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.
b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the
aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing,
fluid leaks, and tire wear.
NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would be
considered unairworthy. Aircraft that have not been issued a TC must meet the
requirements of paragraph 9b above.
It is noted that this mentions "U.S. TYPE CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT", but the FAA are going to be using this as a guide to what they allow in their airspace. Part b makes reference to 'fluid leaks', the conclusion I draw is that there has to be sufficient "fluid" for the plane to be airworthy. Was there sufficient fuel on board to make LHR while it was in US airspace? When did they decide to head for MAN? Was this in US airspace?
Just ideas to be thrown out, just trying to work out how the FAA are thinking, I could easily be wrong, but it's far more interesting than the hamster wheel this thread has become.
As for this thread, I am most impressed by what skiesfull has to say, I tell you there was a lot of trash to wade through to find it.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=114
It's the fuel management, not the engine management, stupid.
Perhaps all our nonsense discussion on this site is moot. A reasonably recent court decision says the FAA can make it up as they go along, see Garvey, FAA vs. NTSB and Richard Lee Merrill. Perhaps some lawyer can comment on this case? Personally, I'd like to see the FAA get a bloody nose re the Merrill case. If BA can take this to the highest courts and get Merrill overturned it will be a good thing. That's not the same as saying BA deserve to win.
Posted in the spirit of good debate