BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)

[M.Mouse]

I am sure the trend monitoring is great too - but what happens if it starts to paint an ugly picture halfway over the atlantic?

Trend monitoring is an engineering function. If I understand you correctly what you are saying is what happens if another engine starts to give concern half-way across the atlantic.

The answer is you would continue on two to the nearest suitable airport.

If you are half-way across the atlantic in a 757, 767 or 777 and an engine fails, what would you do if the remaining engine started giving cause for concern?

Similar situation. Tell me which you would rather be on board.

Regarding the interview question if it were asked there would be no right or wrong answer. What they would be interested in hearing is your analysis of the hypothetical situation they presented you with and the quality of your thinking.

[timzsta]

Does that mean there is no right or wrong answer when it happens for real? Or does that just apply in the interview room? Because when your strapped to 350,000kgs of 747 with 350 punters onboard the consequences are a tad more serious.

My thinking would be I am not going to dump a huge amount of aviation fuel into the atmosphere at great expense and return to LAX and land my company with a huge hotel bill.

I would have chosen to continue to somewhere like Boston or New York, meaning I would not have to dump fuel and from those cities there would be more flights to the UK enabling the airline to get the passengers back to London quicker perhaps then if I returned to LAX.

I would not have attempted to fly all the way back to the UK on 3 engines. But that is my opinion as a 200 hr pilot who has not yet flown commercially. It maybe different if was a 10,000 hour 747 Captain.

Other people have mentioned the publics perception of BA's safety policy. Sometimes in aviation whilst arguably we remain safe, we don't do ourselves any favours in terms on public perception. There will be those who find it more then odd that if you loose an engine out of LAX bound for LHR you continue for 11 hours to London. Vice versa and you dump fuel and go back to Heathrow. Or if your in a twin you return to departure point regardless. Not saying that any of the above are right are wrong, thats just how joe public may see it. Although I saw it as a bold, but arguably justifiable decision to continue to Heathrow, when I showed my mum the Flight International piece on the incident she was alarmed to say the least.

The whole think might like good from an operational, JAR OPS and company manual point of view, but it doesn't look so good now it has found its way into the press. Perhaps we need to add another item to the checklist:

1. Is it safe?
2. Is it legal?
3. Is it convenient to the passengers?
4. Is it going to damage the environment?
5. Is it going to look good in the papers?

[mutt]

M.Mouse,

We operate all variants of the B747, in a case like this the decision would rest with the Captain based on all available information, sometimes they have dumped fuel and landed, sometimes they have continued. Either way, paperwork is required on landing.

Nobody has posted that any B747 operator strictly prohibits continued flight following an engine failure!

Mutt.

[RatherBeFlying]

I remain largely content with the decision making process. Most likely a diversion closer than MAN would have been chosen had the fuel been less.

rossma reports that the pax were treated to a rather more spectacular show than was viewed by the cockpit:uhoh:

Once the situation was sorted out, the continuation decision was made and the workload had settled down, it may have helped to have offered a more complete explanation to the pax -- from rossma's account, it does not seem one was made.

rossma also leaves open the question whether any crew came back to inspect the engine -- mind you in the post 9/11 environment, sending a flight crew member back into the cabin for inspection may no longer be an option; also the workload may have precluded sending any flight crew back and this duty may now be delegated to the cabin crew.

Also he did not say whether any external damage was apparent or not.

[M.Mouse]

Mutt, thanks for that answer.

timzsta

There rarely is a definitive right or wrong answer. Your reasoning in your answer is sound (in my view).

You go on to say
1. Is it safe?
2. Is it legal?
3. Is it convenient to the passengers?
4. Is it going to damage the environment?
5. Is it going to look good in the papers?

Again, very sound questions but isn't it a sad fact of life that number 5 has to be considered, given its influence is out of all proportion to its usefulness in making a balanced judgement?

[HiDrvr]

Perhaps I can add a little information that will clear up the fuel situation.

First the credentials. I am a 744 Captain of 20,000 hours total flying time, and I have flown a 744 on 3 engines.

Second - the crew did the right thing.

OK.

Once we have reached the "tank to engine" stage of flight, at about 52 tonnes fuel remaining (ie 13 tonnes in each of main tanks 1-4, we normally feed each tank to its respective engine until landing (2 and 3 have an open crossfeed gallery, simply to keep that gallery pressurised).

On three engines, the dead engine's fuel tank will not feed any fuel in that circumstance, but we plainly want (need) to use fuel from that tank. To facilitate this, we use the override/jettison pumps in that tank to feed fuel to the remaining engines. They cut out at about 3 tonnes left in tank as they feed from the top of standpipes, intentionally leaving fuel that can only be reached by the lower pressure main tank boost pumps.

If you have not had experience of just how aggressive you need to be to feed this fuel to the other engines, it may catch you out later in the flight. In my opinion, it is best to decide how much fuel you wish to arrive with, in the dead engine's tank, and feed all other engines with this fuel early so as to allow normal tank to engine feed to the three live engines later in the flight (withing the constraints of lateral balance).

Here, the guys were left with more fuel in the dead tank than the others. However NONE OF THAT MEANS THAT THE FUEL WAS UNUSEABLE. If they had reached a state where fuel pumps in the low tanks were becoming uncovered, they would have operated with all pumps on, all crossfeed valves open, and, at that stage, all the fuel would have fed from wherever it was, to the three live engines. It just wouldn't have looked, or felt, very tidy.

Company policy requires the use of a Mayday call if you are going to land with less than reserve fuel (about 4.3 tonnes on a 744) and a PanPan if you think you MAY land in such a state. Now whether the guys on the day realised that that seemingly unuseable fuel was actually useable, I do not know, but nothing they did compromised the safely of the aircraft, or the passengers in the slightest.

[FullWings]

There seem to be two main concerns here:

1. The flight didn't land immediately after an 'engine failure'.

2. There wasn't an incredible amount of fuel left after eventually landing in the UK (after declaring an emergency).

For the first point, this operator (as many others) does not count a 'contained' engine failure on a 4-engined aircraft as a major emergency necessitating a quick landing. Interestingly, it is quite legal in the USA to take off from an airport you cannot land back at as long as you have an alternate less than 2hrs away.

Once the initial fuss over the surge and shutdown had died away I expect the crew took a objective view of the situation. They carried on in the direction of their flight plan as they were going to be over an area with a reasonable density of suitable airfields for 2-3hrs, should they decide not to continue. They would have calculated the fuel burn at the lower altitude, then considered the impact of another important system failure on the operation, i.e. loss of pressurisation, another engine, etc. This would include MSA & driftdown considerations.

The decision to carry on would have been influenced by reports from engineering as to the severity of the failure and the health of the remaining systems. Crossing the North Atlantic is no different to crossing any other part of the globe where diversion airfields are thin on the ground. (Saharan Africa and Northern Canada, to name but a few.) I would surmise that their flightpath back from the West Coast probably took them fairly close to the 'non-ETOPS' route, leaving them alternates at Goose/Iqualuit, Sondestrom, Keflavik, etc. giving not far away from 1hrs flying to reach an alternate in the event of further problems.

Naturally progressing to the second point, I'm sure that regular checks were being made on the fuel burn and quantity predictions for arrival. I would imagine that LHR had long been ruled out as an achievable destination and that MAN had been selected as the first airfield off the North Atlantic with two independent runways (one of which could be nominated as the alternate for the other). The fact that it was a main maintenance base for the airline and had regular 'shuttle' flights to LHR would have been noted but not allowed to override any other safety criteria.

Just before landing, there was some uncertainty over whether all the fuel from one of many tanks on the -400 would make it to the operating engines. I would guess the crew were 99% sure that it would but just in case, declared a MAYDAY and requested a sterile runway so they didn't have to find out...

They landed with Reserves + some amount. Not an incredibly ususual situation and one which you would expect following a diversion to an alternate in normal operations in any airline. By committing to an 'assured' landing at Manchester they could safely and legally use any 'diversion fuel' on getting to the destination.

I feel that many of the emotional replies on this thread come from those who have a) no experience of modern LR OPS and/or b) are not very familiar with JAR-OPS and it's application...

[AUTOGLIDE]

Fullwings, finally a rational sensible response. However, MAN has not been a main maintenance base for BA for about 3 years...

[FullWings]

Fullwings, finally a rational sensible response. However, MAN has not been a main maintenance base for BA for about 3 years...
Thanks for that. Yes, you're right about the 'main maintenance base' - takes away yet more of the supposed 'commercial pressure' doesn't it?

Edited to add:

Another thought just occured to me. The crew had an engine surge and shut it down, continuing on three. Now, if the situation became really desperate in terms of power units left, they could attempt to restart it and get some thrust out of it. They wouldn't want to do this outside of a pressing emergency (as no-one could know what the actual damage was until inspected on the ground) but it still remained as an option. Given that leaving it shut down unless absolutely necessary would probably save BA £millions in repair costs, then that could be termed a commercial decision - but one that could be overturned at a moment's notice.

[barit1]

Not that the subject hasn't been flogged sufficiently already - But a spot of awareness might help here.

Firstly, the engines are not visible from the pointy end of the Jumbo.

Second, after a 20:45 takeoff from LAX, it's going to be several hours before they are visible in morning light from the cabin.

[Rockhound]

For what it's worth, after reading rossma's (a pax on BA268) first post, I replayed BA268's departure from LAX on the PASSUR Airport Monitor site, a dependable source of entertainment for the aviation aficionados among us SLF.
BA268 first appears on the screen after takeoff at 21:24 local and heads out over the ocean climbing rather sluggishly. It turns SW and completes an anticlockwise loop over the ocean mostly at 5000 ft W of LAX at 21:33. It completes a second, tighter loop off Palos Verdes Point at 21:42, then starts climbing as it turns southward towards the coast, which it crosses at 14000 ft at Seal Beach (E of Long Beach) at 21:48. It heads NE and passes Victorville at 22700 ft at 21:57, before disappearing off the screen.
So it looks like the crew spent just 18 min (not 30-45 min as was rossma's impression) circling over the Pacific before deciding to head for home.
Rockhound

[mutt]

This isnt from BA, but it should give you an idea of a companies policy in relation to this situation.

Engine failure or precautionary shutdown.
1. When one engine is stopped in flight due to mechanical failure or
as a precautionary measure to prevent possible damage, a
landing shall be made at the nearest suitable airport in point of
time where a safe landing can be effected, except,
2. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft having 3 or more engines
may, if not more than one engine fails or is shut down, proceed to
the airport of his choice if, upon consideration of the following
factors, he determines that proceeding to that airport is as safe as
landing at the nearest suitable airport (FAR 121.565):
a. The nature of the malfunction and the mechanical difficulties
which may be encountered if flight is continued.
b. The altitude, aircraft weight, and usable fuel at the time of
engine stoppage.
c. The weather conditions enroute and at possible landing
points.
d. The air-traffic congestion.
e. The type of terrain.
f. The familiarity of the pilot with the airport to be used.
3. When an engine is stopped in flight, the pilot-in-command shall
immediately notify the company and ATC and shall keep them
fully informed regarding the progress of the flight.
4. If the pilot-in-command selects an airport other than the nearest
suitable airport in point of time, he shall on completion of the trip,
submit a Pilot’s Use Of Emergency Authority Report Form 0-000,
giving his reasons for determining that the selection of an airport
other than the nearest in point of time was as safe a course of
action. If the aircraft has 3 or more engines, continuation with one
engine inoperative does not constitute a use of pilot’s emergency
authority. Form 0-000 is used merely as a convenient document
on which to submit the required report.
5. The pilot shall advise the company and ATC of the course of
action he is going to follow after an engine failure or malfunction.


Mutt.

[RatherBeFlying]

after a 20:45 takeoff from LAX, it's going to be several hours before [the engines] are visible in morning light from the cabinAfter sunset, there's usually ambient light from a variety of sources. It's even possible to use a flashlight.

[Danny]

Once again, could I ask the enthusiasts to refrain from their uninformed speculation. The flight crew will be aware if the engine has seized (catastrophic failure) or is still windmilling (plain vanilla failure or rundown). Sending someone back after dark to 'inspect' the failed no. 2 engine is about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick. Ambient light or whatever still won't let you see much of the no. 2 engine and waiting until daylight will still give you as limited a view! :rolleyes:

The continued uninformed hand wringing about continued flight with 3 engines is also unnecessary as we have had plenty of replies by experienced B744 pilots who all state that an immediate landing at the nearest suitable airfield is not necessary just because of an engine shutdown. Also, the suggestions that the flight continue to the east coast USA shows a distinct lack of understanding of spherical geometry and why all those lovely inflight route maps have such long curvy paths up from the UK to the US west coast!

One thing is certain with this incident and that is the fact that the crew will have made safety their number one concern and any speculation otherwise is just uninformed scaremongering. To claim otherwise is an insult to all of us who consider ourselves to be professional pilots. BA are a legacy carrier and have a very good safety culture. Just because a journalist takes a few known facts and ads his or her own spin to it does not change the fact that this crew operated safely. The doomsayers who like to add fantasy scenarios that end with a ditching in the Atlantic only show their ignorance of 4 engined LROPS and would be better served if their confined their questions to the very well considered SOP's that have evolved over many years operations.

If the replies by some of the most experienced B744 pilots can't convince some of you that the operation of the flight on 3 engines was safe then you are either not a professional pilot flying heavy metal or just plain argumentative! The pax point of view is perfectly acceptable, however, if they were left uninformed for a period of time, that would be because the crew were taking their time to make sure that the flight was operating safely and would be able to continue to do so. The old adage; AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE is still valid and it is precisely that order that the crew would have dealt with matters.

[Backtrack]

each individual pilots' threshold for safety, there must be a line that can never be crossed.
Don't think any of us would disagree with that, ManagedNav

However could 'the line' in this instance have been at Manchester?

[ManagedNav]

Yes, I suppose it could have been MAN.

Am I to take it that everyone believes that the outcome was satisfactory and would do it over again exactly the same way if they had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight? I concur that it is not fair to pass judgement until the investigation is complete, but that doesn't mean that the decisions that were made are going to be automatically exonerated just because a few biased opinions were made here on this board.

By the way, I have yet to find one 744 pilot here at Northwest that isn't scratching their head in wonder at the sequence of events; They all say they would probably elect to divert alot sooner than MAN as they do not consider the intent of the guidlines governing 3 engine operations to be a free ticket to bypass more prudent alternatives.

[aiglon]

Also, the suggestions that the flight continue to the east coast USA shows a distinct lack of understanding of spherical geometry and why all those lovely inflight route maps have such long curvy paths up from the UK to the US west coast!

Nope, sorry, you've got me there Danny (but then, I'm not a "real" pilot). Are you suggesting that the BA268 would have routed from LAX to LHR in a westerly direction, across the pacific, arriving on the east coast of the UK, nearer to LHR than MAN? I thought it would have routed in an easterly direction, across the atlantic (prsumably that's why it's trans-atlantic not trans-pacific), arriving on the west coast of the UK, nearer to MAN that LHR.

Aiglon

[hobie]

aiglon, do you have a crash helmet? :confused:

put it on would you old chap :p

[timzsta]

I hate to have a go at Danny, but as someone who was awarded an Astro Nav Certificate and a Bridge Watchkeeping Officer's Certificate whilst in the Royal Navy I am well aware of the curved nature of the earth. I have in fact flown with BA from LAX to LHR when I did my PPL in California, so I am well aware of the likely route. I also have a fATPL and a very good mark in Gen Nav.

Just because the original flight plan was probably a route well away from the likes of Boston or New York is there anything to prevent the Captain choosing to make such a city the destination? He after all the Captain and has ultimate responsibility for decision making. Or thats what they taught me when I did air law. Maybe different when on the line these days though.

Let us also consider if the engine had failed 60 seconds or so earlier ie before V1. If it had done the take off will have been abandoned, aircraft to hangar, crew & pax to hotel. But because they got 100ft of the ground before the failure they can continue 5000nm to London. And that is legal and safe, if it seems on the face of it a little odd. As they say 'the law is an ass'.

There is no way you can determine in my opinion, other then by visual inspection on the ground, as to whether or not an engine failure is contained or uncontained. Somebody posted earlier the EGT was 120 degrees above the max limit of 1080. The engine had to be completely shut down to bring the EGT back in limits. No way of telling that some piece of Rolls Royce's finest has not been spat out and damaged the underside of the leading edges, the flaps, maybe hit an elevator or rudder, or perhaps punctured the underside of the fuselage at some point. Was anything like this considered? Or was it assumed all was ok in regard to this as no such indication received by the time the finished circling off the coast?

Seems to me that the whole decision was based entirely on did they have enough fuel and enough performance to get back to the UK on three engines. To my mind there were other things that needed to be considered before considering a 5000nm, 10 hour trip back home following an engine failure at take off.

My MCC instructor was an ex BA 744 Captain. He did say it was not uncommon for 747's to continue to destination OEI. But I am not sure he said it was normal to do so if the failure occured 100ft above the ground following take off.

My greatest concern is that 'pilots' and 'aviating factors alone' are no longer the sole individuals involved in deciding what to do following a malfunction. What is known as 'good airmanship' seems ever more to lag behind economics, passenger convenience, environmental concerns and what you could losely describe as 'making the rules work for you'.

[rossma]

I was basing my 30-45 minutes on the time it took them to let us know we were flying all the way home. Everybody assumed that we were going around to the other side of LAX to get a decent run at a landing (not being pilots). They only told us the news as we passed Las Vegas.

I still think most people are missing the point - the passengers pay to be on the plane and surely their (perceived) safety and contentment must be a priority for airlines & pilots.

It seems that commercial planes are quick enough to land if a disagreement breaks out on board - is that because the airline won't get any stick for the delay as it can be blamed on rowdy passengers ? I am just asking for us to be considered !

[Rollingthunder]

OK for aiglon.

Open this site
http://gc.kls2.com/

In the paths section put in LAX-LHR.
Hit display map.

[barit1]

Stop and think, timzsta: If a bit of stray innards has enough energy to penetrate the steel structural case of the engine, it will CERTAINLY penetrate the aluminum cowling, and the high-pressure air (probably with burning fuel) will be very evident around the nacelle, and the fire warning bell will be interrupting cockpit chat. The result air loss will soon bring the engine to an involuntary halt.

The fire warning is a GENUINE emergency, and the procedure is well defined. I bet no crew would waste any time finding the nearest safe runway, dumping fuel if necessary.<quote>There is no way you can determine in my opinion, other then by visual inspection on the ground, as to whether or not an engine failure is contained or uncontained.</quote>

[FullWings]

Nope, sorry, you've got me there Danny (but then, I'm not a "real" pilot). Are you suggesting that the BA268 would have routed from LAX to LHR in a westerly direction, across the pacific, arriving on the east coast of the UK, nearer to LHR than MAN? I thought it would have routed in an easterly direction, across the atlantic (prsumably that's why it's trans-atlantic not trans-pacific), arriving on the west coast of the UK, nearer to MAN that LHR.
To answer on Danny's behalf:

No, they wouldn't carry on westwards but they would normally go quite a bit north, then come south again.

If you have a globe of the world handy, take a look at the relative positions of California and the UK and trace the most direct route over the surface - a Great Circle. You will notice the peak latitude it reaches is higher than that of the departure or destination airfield.

These sort of routes are varied because of wind components, and generally go to higher latitudes Westbound to avoid the worst of the jetstreams and return lower down to get the benefit of same.

-------------------------------------------------

Just because the original flight plan was probably a route well away from the likes of Boston or New York is there anything to prevent the Captain choosing to make such a city the destination?
No, but why would he want to? The passengers would like to go to LHR not JFK. If it's OK to fly for 4hrs across the USA to BOS, then why stop there? If you replan to overfly the NY area on the way back from LA it is extremely unlikely you will have enough fuel left for an Atlantic crossing, due to the extra distance involved, so you are committing yourself to the mainland USA.

Let us also consider if the engine had failed 60 seconds or so earlier ie before V1. If it had done the take off will have been abandoned, aircraft to hangar, crew & pax to hotel. But because they got 100ft of the ground before the failure they can continue 5000nm to London. And that is legal and safe, if it seems on the face of it a little odd.
Yes, below V1 you stop, above V1 you go. Legal and safe, that's how the aeroplane is certified and operated.

I still think most people are missing the point - the passengers pay to be on the plane and surely their (perceived) safety and contentment must be a priority for airlines & pilots.
I agree with everthing in that paragraph except for the 'perceived' bit. Like a surgeon performing an operation or a lawyer in court defending a client, we are relied on as professional pilots to use our professional skills to do the utmost for those entrusted to our care. This does not often involve taking ad-hoc input from people with no knowledge or experience in the field.

Not to mention that our own necks are on the line just as much as our passengers and most of us have homes and families to come back to as well, so sheer self-preservation kicks in quite early, I can tell you...

[hobie]

here is a very simple example .... LAX > LHR

Link (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=LAX-LHR%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=)

[rossma]

quote:
I agree with everthing in that paragraph except for the 'perceived' bit. Like a surgeon performing an operation or a lawyer in court defending a client, we are relied on as professional pilots to use our professional skills to do the utmost for those entrusted to our care. This does not often involve taking ad-hoc input from people with no knowledge or experience in the field.
--------------

most lawyers and surgeons act on their clients behalf and with their consent i.e. they ask the untrained client before removing a leg or deciding upon a defense strategy. You still can't grasp the point can you - a lot of passengers were scared and wanted to land and the Stewards knew this. I know this as i was at the back of the plane and spoke to lots of people as they were wandering around stretching their legs or queueing for the toilets (restrooms). As you can surely understand it was the hot topic for discussion

At the very least you must concede that this was not a good marketing/PR move by BA. Surely as a pilot (the smiling professional face of the airline) you must be part of the drive to keep hold of business in an increasingly cut-throat marketplace.

[FullWings]

most lawyers and surgeons act on their clients behalf and with their consent i.e. they ask the untrained client before removing a leg or deciding upon a defense strategy.
Yes, they do, but would you give advice to a surgeon actually operating on your leg on how to do it, if you had only rudimentary medical knowledge? Would you stand up in court to override your defense counsel if you didn't understand the case?At the very least you must concede that this was not a good marketing/PR move by BA. Surely as a pilot (the smiling professional face of the airline) you must be part of the drive to keep hold of business in an increasingly cut-throat marketplace.
I don't think the pilots dealing with this problem on BA268 had "good marketing/PR" as their first priority when dealing with this situation. I take on board that you were worried when the engine surge happened. (Incidentally, probably one of the more spectacular ways of an engine going outside it's normal operating parameters. A run-down, cowling fire or even a seizure can go by unnoticed in the cabin whereas a 30ft trail of fire and bangs rarely does. :D )

After the incident, when all the safety considerations had been reviewed and the flight 'put back on an even keel', then there would be time for a more detailed explanation to the passengers as to what happened and why a particular course of action was being followed. If you as a passenger on this flight felt kept in the dark in this respect, then that is a valid complaint and I'm sure that the crew and the airline would like to know so they can do better in this respect in the future.

I would still say that with the facts as they are known at the moment, the crew did a good job in terms of a SAFE operation to get the passengers as near to their final destination as possible...

[Rockhound]

Rossma,
I'm with you 100%. I think it was very derelict of the crew not to advise you pax of their intentions shortly after establishing themselves on course for the UK. It looks like they set course for home well before crossing the California coast after completing their second circuit over the Pacific. As you passed Victorville, which lies some 75 mi as the crow flies NE from LAX, right behind you on the same course and at the same altitude, was a Virgin A340 out of LAX (I shouldn't say ex-LAX) headed for LHR. From Victorville it's another 170 mi or so to Las Vegas.
Rockhound

[Captain Airclues]

Quote from Rockhound
....then starts climbing as it turns southwest towards the coast which it crosses at 14,000 feet at Seal Beach...
It's a while since I've been to LAX, but doesn't the LAXX SID stipulate a minimum altitude of 14,000 feet on crossing Seal Beach. How many of us could complete several turns, on three engines, and roll out so as to cross Seal Beach exactly at the minimum altutude? (Apoplogies if my memory of the LAXX SID is incorrect, but it's rather late :) )

Airclues

Edit;

Just found this (www.laartcc.org/charts/DP-LAXX.pdf)

[gator10]

This just hit the street. Can someone post the article?

Monday, Feb 28, 2005

[$$] Crossing the Atlantic With a Dead Engine
at The Wall Street Journal Online - 26 minutes ago

Thanks.

[EWA@MEL]

What is the RR maximum time limitation for a windmilling engine in regards to insufficient lubrication and bearing damage? Other manufacturers stipulate 7 hours.

[ManagedNav]

Gator10....Here you go....Can't wait to hear the knee-jerk replies by the self-proclaimed experts...


Crossing the Atlantic
With a Dead Engine

Saga of British Airways Flight
Raises Concerns at FAA;
Forced to Land in Manchester
March 1, 2005
Passengers heard the pops, and people on the ground saw sparks flying out from beneath the wing. A British Airways 747 had an engine fail during takeoff in Los Angeles 10 days ago.

But instead of returning to the airport to land, Flight 268 continued on across the U.S, up near the North Pole, across the Atlantic -- all the way to England.

The flight, with 351 passengers on board, didn't quite make it to London, its scheduled destination. It eventually made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, setting off a controversy over the risk of flying 10 hours with a dead engine hanging under the wing.

The Feb. 19 British Airways incident came just two days after the European Union began making airlines compensate passengers for delays. In the aftermath, the British Air Line Pilots' Association, the union representing British Airways pilots, issued a statement warning the industry that the new regulation could pressure pilots to take more risks to save money.


British Airways flew a 747 to the U.K. after one of its four engines died on takeoff from Los Angeles.


In addition, airline regulators, pilots and safety experts are raising questions about the crew's decision to fly such a long distance after an engine failure, since it narrows the safety margin in the unlikely event that something else goes wrong with the plane.

Engine failures on jet aircraft occur only infrequently, and pilots are trained to handle them. Jet aircraft are designed to climb and cruise after losing one engine, and the four-engine Boeing 747 can fly on just two engines (though at lower altitude, and with some strain).

British Airways says the plane was safe flying on three of its four engines. The airline also says it has flown 747s with just three engines before -- once in April 2003, for instance, on the same Los Angeles-London route. "Had there been any kind of question on safety, they would have turned back to Los Angeles or gone to another U.S. airport," says British Airways spokesman John Lampl.

For U.S. airlines, Federal Aviation Administration regulations require commercial carriers to land at the nearest suitable airport after an engine failure. However, British Air and safety experts say that British regulations don't. In the complex world of aviation law, which is governed by bilateral treaties and international agreements, the bottom line is that the FAA doesn't have jurisdiction over a British crew in this instance.

Yesterday, an FAA spokeswoman said the agency has "concerns" about the flight and is going to contact regulators in the U.K. to discuss the incident.

Turning around a plane and landing it immediately can be an expensive proposition. First, there is the cost of dumping tons of expensive jet fuel (planes have difficulty landing with full tanks), and the likely additional cost of putting up the passengers in hotels. In addition, under last month's new EU rules on passenger compensation, British Airways would have also had to pay travelers €210,600, or about $280,000 -- €600 apiece -- if they got to London's Heathrow Airport more than five hours late.

Mr. Lampl of British Airways said any suggestion that the plane continued because of financial pressure from the new EU rules is "total rubbish." The issue "most likely was never discussed with the crew," he said. British Air hasn't released the names of crew members.

Many aviation experts say most pilots won't take undue risks to keep costs down -- after all, their own lives are at stake, as well as those of hundreds of passengers. While economics can factor into airline decisions, "I don't think the crew would take a risk they thought was unacceptable solely for money," said Bernard Loeb, a former top investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board.

However, he criticizes British Air's decision to fly on to the U.K. with the disabled engine. "I don't think it was an appropriate decision at all. There are a lot of events that could have occurred that would have created a major problem."

Flight 268 took off just after 9:24 p.m. from Los Angeles, according to a track of the flight recorded by the airport. The inboard engine on the left side of the airplane experienced an unusual power surge at takeoff, and Los Angeles officials said residents near the airport reported seeing sparks and hearing "popping of engines."

The Boeing 747-400 headed southwest over Santa Monica Bay, climbed to 5,000 feet and circled for more than 20 minutes while the crew diagnosed the problem and communicated with British Airways operations center in London. After deciding the flight could get to London on three engines, the jet headed to the U.K.

Passengers heard two loud pops as the plane took off, one passenger told the Times of London, which wrote about the incident on Friday. The captain announced that the plane had lost an engine and the crew was considering whether to continue to the U.K.

One former pilot questions the decision to proceed with an ailing airplane. "Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts," says Barry Schiff, a retired 747 captain with Trans World Airlines who has written books on proper flying procedures and has received a congressional commendation for his work in aviation safety.

Unable to climb as high as planned, the plane flew at a lower altitude across the Atlantic, increasing drag. That increases fuel burn. In addition, with two engines on one side of the plane but only one on the other, the plane's rudder had to be used to keep the aircraft flying straight. That increases drag as well.

While crews are trained for all of these contingencies -- 747 pilots have special charts detailing three-engine performance -- they didn't get as much tail wind as they had expected at the lower altitude, British Air said. That made the emergency landing in Manchester necessary. Mr. Lampl said he didn't know if the airline would still end up paying penalties because of the diversion to Manchester.

Compared with the majority of planes flying across the Atlantic today, the 747 has more redundancy than most. That's because most trans-Atlantic aircraft these days have two engines, compared with the four engines on a 747. Stuart Matthews, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, a nonprofit aviation-safety group, says he's been on a 747 that had to shut down an engine while cruising, and it continued on to its destination rather than diverting to the nearest airport. "Lots of aircraft fly across the Atlantic with fewer than three engines," he said.

But he, too, said he was surprised at the decision to continue the flight when one engine was lost so early in the trip. Flying more than 5,000 miles is a long way to go without all your engines.

• Write to Scott McCartney at [email protected]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110963519929666421,00.html


Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:[email protected]
(2) mailto:[email protected]
(3) mailto:[email protected] Gator10

[RoyHudd]

BA do indeed have a good safety culture, except seemingly where expensive diversion issues come into play.

The tragic example of the 747 approach-go around at LHR where a hotel was nearly struck, and the captain ended up taking his own life months later is a case in point. One of the key factors there was the pressure applied by the airline to Captain Stewart to attempt a landing at LHR in low vis with an incapacitated co-pilot at the end of a long flight. The captain's wish to divert to MAN, for a safer approach and landing, was over-ruled on the basis of cost.

This took place some years ago, but sadly BA do not seem to have learnt an important lesson. The negative publicity from this story, and possible litigation, may result in more costly fall-out than the diversion would.

Expecting some pompous comments now from BA experts!

[28L]

RoyHudd,

>>One of the key factors there was the pressure applied by the airline to Captain Stewart to attempt a landing at LHR in low vis with an incapacitated co-pilot at the end of a long flight. The captain's wish to divert to MAN, for a safer approach and landing, was over-ruled on the basis of cost.<<

That's the first time I've heard that. Where does that come from?

(Not a pompous comment, I hope, just intrigued)

I can only go on my personal experience of 18 years in BA; in that time I have NEVER been criticised for costing them money when safety has been an issue.

[L337]

RoyHud: Sorry m8 but that is utter rubbish. I have the full accident report in my filing cabinet.


L337

[aiglon]

Gosh, there are a lot of pompous twits on here aren't there :rolleyes: Surely we are all entitled to hold our own views and, more importantly, to express them.

Danny, sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted your comment as a suggestion that the flight would depart in a (generally) E-W direction. However, I still don't see why you consider it silly of people to suggest that the flight divert to an east coast airport. OK, so it's not on the planned flight path, so what, diversions often aren't. It would have taken the aircraft, crew and passengers that bit closer to London and would either (I'm guessing here, OK) have burnt off sufficient fuel for a landing or at least meant they would have to dump less.

Hobie, yes old chap, I do have a crash helmet but I don't feel the need to put it on. I'm big enough and ugly enough to look after myself. Besides, I don't really care; they're my views and I'm entitled to voice them :)

Aiglon

[hobie]

Danny, sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted your comment as a suggestion that the flight would depart in a (generally) E-W direction

Aiglon, I'm sure Danny will be happy with that apology ..... and do put the crash helmet back in the cuboard ;)

:ok:

[barryt]

For all the "ivory tower" 744 commanders out there who think what happened was quite OK, read this (copied from previous article), and read it SLOWLY and CAREFULLY.


"One former pilot questions the decision to proceed with an ailing airplane. "Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts," says Barry Schiff, a retired 747 captain with Trans World Airlines who has written books on proper flying procedures and has received a congressional commendation for his work in aviation safety."

And if you don't know who Barry Schiff is, and the calibre man THAT guy is, then you may as well get back onto 152s then...

[M.Mouse]

Apart fromup near the North Pole and the fact that the article insists on calling British Airways British Air the article was factual and well written, unlike the rubbish in The Times.

[barryt]

Quite agreed M.Mouse. Never had much time for reporters or "The Times" myself. But when a guy like Barry Schiff talks, best one sits up and takes note...

[FullWings]

Just as well some of these guys have never seen an MEL...:rolleyes:

[frangatang]

By the way all the hysterical reports have been posted here it would seem BA is the ONLT airline to ever continue onwards to destination after suffering an engine failure.What total b****lcks.
I would put money on virgin having done so on many an occasion.The only difference is they are could at covering up.
Interestingly l have been on a 747 that had an engine run down an hour out of tokyo and continued to LHR and the pax never knew or felt a thing.
If you passengers are really terrified then you would never fly across the pond in a twin,where you can be over 2 hours away from a suitable place to land at the moment of engine failure.
TWO hours (actually the limit is 3 hours) on one engine,in the depths of winter.Like the idea?

[barryt]

frangatang : I'll wager you are correct and that BA is not the only airline to have done this.

But I think you are missing the point with regard to your ETOPS related comments. You are mixing chalk and cheese here. Sure I like the idea of ETOPS - I'll take the risk any day....but DON'T ask me to take the risk when I don't HAVE TO (ie, as in one of those motors failing just after take-off) mate....

I'll gladly take the risk of flying on when I am 3 hours out over the ocean with only 1 engine - I don't have a choice, do I now, so it isn't even a question of "risk" anymore anyway...

And I suppose you think Barry Schiff is also wrong in his comments on this episode....

[Bellerophon]

barryt


...For all the "ivory tower" 744 commanders out there read this...SLOWLY and CAREFULLY...

Fortunately, during the many years spent ascending our ivory towers, most of us developed the ability to read items of no substance rather quickly.


..."Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts,"...

A well reasoned, rational and intellectual position. Always good to hear. Can't argue with something as well written and researched as that!


...who has written books on proper flying procedures...

That settles it! There's no contradicting someone who has written a book on "proper flying procedures" now is there!

If his comment was correctly reported; and if it is indicative of the general level of logic, insight and intellectual rigour to be found in his publications; then I don't feel any pressing need to read them.


...and if you don't know who Barry Schiff is, and the calibre man THAT guy is, then you may as well get back onto 152s then...

I'd never heard of him before now, but, despite this obvious deficiency in my education, I still feel able to remain on the B744.


Regards

Bellerophon

[M.Mouse]

Well said Bellerophon.

And for those who are unaware Bellerophon would qualify as somebody whose words are worth listening too as well.

[Valve Kilmer]

Frangatang wrote:I would put money on virgin having done so on many an occasion.The only difference is they are could at covering up. So what you are suggesting, is that BA is not as good as Virgin to cover up incidents, or in this case, maybe a bad decision? That is "commercially" an interesting thought. I don't think that any legacy carrier deliberately is trying to cover up things. There is a big difference, in trying to cover up things, and to refrain from sending out "Breaking News" each and every time a crew files an FSR or Voyage report.

As I've said before, I can't wait to read the report. I have a feeling that most of the 747(BA?) "non event, perfectly safe, no commercial pressure" guys in this particular case, are up for a surprise. Then someone will have some really interesting safety culture issues to solve. I shall however be the first one to stand corrected if the coming report has nothing to comment about safetywise/decisionwise in this incident. There seems to be lessons to learn for "either group", no matter what the outcome of this report is.

- and by the way, it doesn't really matter how much of an expert you are, if your decisions or statements are based on very limited, biased or even wrong facts. So while we are waiting for facts to surface, anyones opinion can be as good or bad as the orther!

VK

[tafftheraf]

From my limited experience - I know that with the 747-200 the rules (my company) were different if the No 1 engine had problems as opposed to the No 2 because of the hydraulic systems differences when run from No 1 or No 2. Also whatever decision was made was that of the Captain and was without doubt (to me) within company rules and what he or she deemed as safe and reasonable. With all the wild posts here don't you think that a 747-400 Captain on a 10+ hr flight over the North Atlantic at night - electing to continue to the UK - might - just might - have known what they were doing???

[Capt.KAOS]

With all the wild posts here don't you think that a 747-400 Captain on a 10+ hr flight over the North Atlantic at night - electing to continue to the UK - might - just might - have known what they were doing??? One wonders, did the Captain expected/calculated the unexpected head wind? Were there other unexpected issues to be expected? Mayday landing in MAN was requested to get priority to landing, so I guess there was an unexpected fuel issue after all? Things would have been viewed a lot different if the a/c had reached LHR on 3 engines without drama.

[JJflyer]

Capt. KAOS

I am sure that the crew in question took into account possibe loss of a second engine or loss of cabin pressure as well as stronger than forecast winds and other relevant factors before their decision to continue.

JJ

[cavortingcheetah]

:)
If I remember correctly, Barry Schiff writes a column which appears regularily in the magazine World Airnews. Africa's Leading Aviation Journal.
He has some 26k hours and has flown 280 types of aircraft. He has said ' The safest pilot is the one most likely to complete a fruitful flying career (professional or otherwise) without ever having endangered his aircraft or his passengers.':ok:

[hobie]

thats the man ....

http://www.barryschiff.com/schiff_info.htm

[Oilhead]

Barry Schiff (yes, I know him) is a pompous twit who is totally in love with himself. He has exceeded his useful shelf life.

Time for this thread to go!

[FullWings]

Barry Schiff (yes, I know him) is a pompous twit who is totally in love with himself. He has exceeded his useful shelf life.
Well, I don't know him but I can confirm we have a few like that in the UK as well.

Every now and then a "retired Concorde Captain" or "ex-BA Jumbo Captain" gets dusted off for a 30-second spot on the news.

I hate to say this of my 'peers' but 90% of the time they talk a complete load of ****e! It's amazing how the industry changes in just ten years. Over 20 it's unrecognisable - and that's how most of these people remember it.

The last two decades have seen the advent of Fly-by-Wire, ETOPS, Ultra Long Range, FADEC, TCAS, Low Cost, GPS, 9-11... you name it, it's happened. It's just unfair to expect someone who has been out of the airline business for a while to have a complete understanding...

Time for this thread to go!
Yes, I think so too.

[barit1]

NBC Nightly News chimed in on the story. At least they got the major facts right, and something of a balance of opinion on safety.

They could have omitted the pax sobstory though.

[barryt]

When people start rubbishing a guy like Barry Schiff on this forum then it really is time to go - evidently the ones who don't think much of him are complete idiots themselves and probably a downright danger to themselves and their aircraft - no doubt about it.

Good luck to y'all! (Some of you are really going to NEED it by the sounds of it...)

[DingerX]

...just as an aside, I understand the bulk of the users of this board are located in the UK. I also see a lot of "hand-wringing" about "this is surely not the first time something like this has happened", and wonder as to why it happened to make the news this time.

Well, if you read through the whole thread, you'll see the initial notice of the event was by spotters with radios at Manchester. Then we had discussion from some people who had spoken with the cabin crew, and a few maintenance folks. Then the press caught wind of it.

As I thought about it, I realized that just about every emergency, non-emergency, fire drill, prang, go-around or similar event that occurs at MAN usually makes at least the Manchester papers. And often before they do, you see it here.

I understand that Manchester is the second-largest airport in the UK, boasting something on the order of 18 million passengers a year. Still, I decided to do a little study.

First, I grabbed Microsoft's list of the 30 busiest airports in the worldhttp://encarta.msn.com/media_701500539_761552091_-1_1/World's_Busiest_Airports_by_Passenger_Traffic.html, then I went over to the photo database at popular Planespotting site airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/search/index.main), and I tallied up the number of spotter photographs taken from each of the 30 airfields on the list, plus Manchester. The theory is:
1. Total Passengers are roughly an indicator of total movements.
2. Total Photographs taken indicate the number of amateur observers and the degree to which the airport is under observation.
3. From this, we can calculate a Spotter Quotient of (Photos/Million Movements). A High Spotter quotient should indicate an airport where aircraft and aircrew behaviour is closely monitored by a band of net-savvy, anorak packing enthusiasts.

Here's my results:

MPax Pho SQ
ATL 75.8 5210 69
ORD 66.5 2359 28
LHR 63.3 25110 397
HND 61.1 1727 28
LAX 56.2 16353 291
DFW 52.8 3203 61
FRA 48.5 23714 489
CDG 48.4 8698 180
AMS 40.7 24611 604
DEN 35.7 3619 101
PHX 35.5 6711 189
LAS 35.0 3005 85
MAD 33.9 4915 145
IAH 33.9 1965 58
HKG 33.9 9859 291
MSP 32.6 2551 78
DTW 32.5 664 20
BKK 32.2 2075 64
SFO 31.5 3447 109
MIA 30.0 11485 382
JFK 29.9 8062 269
LGW 29.6 6988 236
EWR 29.2 2725 93
SIN 29.0 4285 147
NRT 28.9 2049 70.9
PEK 27.2 4721 174
SEA 26.7 1492 56
MCO 26.7 2184 82
YYZ 25.9 7952 306
STL 25.6 839 33

and...down the list quite a bit:

MAN 18.3 17419 952

So in terms of Spotter Quotient, Manchester is first in the world. Only one airport -- amsterdam-- has more than half the SQ of MAN. In absolute terms, if we determine spotter community by the number of photos, then Manchester is fourth in the world -- with LHR, AMS and FRA in the 1, 2 and 3 slots.
There are more eyes on aircraft coming into and going out of Manchester than anywhere else in the world.

Since, in the case discussed in this thread, economics played a factor (as it does in every other case: why run an airline if not to make money?), and a significant part of economics is global news exposure, if, after having suffered an engine failure, the crew elected to proceed across the pond, with the full knowledge that adverse winds might put them in MAN in an emergency, they acted very poorly indeed.

Had they landed at any other airport on their path, the odds of this event hitting the international press would have been greatly reduced.


...just something to think about when you're planning alternates.

[OverRun]

DingerX,

A man after my own heart. Excellent post, sir :ok:

[L337]

DingerX:

Fab post! At last some hard facts.

:-)

L337

[bullshot]

Haven't had time to read all posts on this thread so I apologise if I am being repetitive.

Capt Doug Brown, BA Senior 747/777 Fleet Manager, states (Flight International) that this was "not a safety issue".

The editorial in the same issue also argues that the pax were 'not in danger at any point during the flight....'

Personally I have no problem with the crew continuing after shutting down an engine - all other things having been considered.

I do have a problem with the decision to continue to a point where an emergency had to be declared due to shortage of fuel. Getting the wrong transatlantic level is no excuse - this comes under 'contingencies' and should have been accounted for.

Declaring an emergency means that the aircraft is in 'grave and imminent danger'. It is misleading and disingenuous to state that, in this case safety was not an issue - it was!

[Capt Pit Bull]

Well, I've never heard of Barry Schiff either.


If I remember correctly, Barry Schiff writes a column which appears regularily ... <snip>... He has said ' The safest pilot is the one most likely to complete a fruitful flying career (professional or otherwise) without ever having endangered his aircraft or his passengers.'

Let me get this straight - A safe pilot is one that doesn't do anything dangerous.

Well, I'm glad thats sorted out. Where would we be without gems of wisdom like that!

CPB

[Jordan D]

DingerX - superb post, and just something to lighten the mood!

Jordan

[L337]

bullshot:

If you care to read the complete thread you will find how the fuel issue was not a fuel issue. He just thought he had a fuel issue.

L337

[sammypilot]

According to the Aviation Safety Network (1st March 2005) the FAA are looking at this incident from a different angle. It is suggested that the decision to continue on only three engines was as a direct result of recent European Legislation requiring airlines to reimburse passengers for lengthy delays. By continuing the flight to the U.K. and not returning to L.A. no penalties were incurred.

(Light blue touch paper and retire.)

[PAXboy]

Regular pax speaking:

SP, that point was covered in this thread. It was reported that the new European legislation is about delays prior to departure and cancellation, not post departure delays.

The info about Spotter Quotient is FANTASTIQUE!!! That ought to be compulsive reading in all corporate HQ and by those that plan standard routings.

As to those who say that they should be informed of such events mid-flight. The answer must be No, because: You/I/us are in no position to have an opinion.

If my doctor treats me without consent, I can complain because the process is slower. I can understand because I am on the inside of the problem and know how each medication is affecting me and give positive feedback. In an aircraft, I cannot possibly know this. Not least, there is no time for a round table discussion between us and the flight crew.

When a friend gives me a lift in their car, I can advise on risks due to weather conditions and traffic patterns, as I have been driving a car for 27 years. If my friend continues against my wishes, I can (usually) get out as the car allows this.

One of the reasons that an airline ticket from London to Paris will usually cost more than, say a coach, is that more precautions have been taken and the crew are trained to a higher standard. Lastly, because they cannot pull the 'coach' over to the side of the road and then decide what is wrong.

When we buy an airline ticket, we entrust our lives to the airline and, if they fail, they will pay, either: we never fly with them again and tell everyone how bad we think they are (such as I do with FR) or the airlines pays the executor of our will.

It really is that simple.

[frangatang]

Some points here.
1 The flying manual says carry on after a chat with the powers that be if it is safe to do so and at the time it was safe to do so.

2 the fuel state only became an issue when it appeared that the contents of one tank became unuseable and that was only noticed towards the end of the flight and did not manifest itself earlier on as the tank was behaving properly.

3 If the said tank apparently has unuseable contents then you are down below reserve and you quite rightly declare an emergency.So what the bloody hell is wrong with that,leave the crew alone.

[L337]

sammypilot:

Just how many times does it need to be said.


BA does not apply pressure on pilots to continue or not to continue.

There is one page of advice in the flying manual. Entitiled "Flight Continuation Policy" with a revision date of 1 March 2002.

It has to be a made up story. The FAA cannot be that stupid?

L337

[sammypilot]

Soirry if you don't like the story but it appeared in the Washington Post on the 1st March 2005 - inserted by their Aviation Correspondent - who has the unfortunate surname of GOO.

Check their website for verification.

[Captain Airclues]

We are probably going round in circles here, as everyone has their own opinions, and no amount of argument is going to change them.
However the aspect of the new EU compensation legislation, which the newspapers seem to have picked on, needs investigating. From what I have read, the compensation is only paid for departure delays, and is not paid for 'extraordinary circumstances', which a surge on a RB211-524H most certainly is. If this is a factor that we are going to have to consider in the future, then it can only have a negative impact on flight safety. Do any legal experts have an opinion on the application of this legislation on airbourne delays?
I do not have anywhere near the experience of Captain Schiff. However, I have been flying the 747 for nearly 30 years and can assure you that, while this crew were circling over the Pacific sorting out their problems, the last thing on their mind would have been the issue of compensation.

Airclues

[The SSK]

Sammypilot

For goodness' sake, how often does it need to be said - the new EU regulation does NOT require airlines to reimburse passengers for lengthy delays.

The Regulation is out there for anyone to read - not that the Washington Post bothered to, apparently, nor the 'Aviation Safety Network' (whoever they are) who just parroted what the Washington Post said, nor yourself, who just parroted what the 'Aviation Safety Network' said.

Please... Otherwise the next poster down the line will be saying that Sammypilot said that the Aviation Safety Network said that the Washington Post said that the EU Regulation said that ...

Therefore it 'must' be true

[bellend]

Great thread !

My opinion is that the crew made the RIGHT decision ,okay a mayday? on app but if i were a pax on that flight i would not know any different if it werent for this site.I just wonder if this has happened before and if so how many times.The end result is they landed safely period and back in the good old UK .My question though is WHO`S decision in BA is it to continue? if its the Captains then i dont have a problem ,but if its Compass center then ........well Mike Street? comes to mind!!!

keith

well done to the crew,in my (limited)opinion you did well:ok:

[Animalclub]

I'm with you Paxboy & Bellend - passengers should NOT be told of any in flight difficulty (unless it has been fixed) as we can't do a darn thing about it - just worry. If passengers knew of what could and does go wrong they wouldn't fly.

Was in the jump seat in an Airbus A300 at night going into Kai Tak (Hong Kong) when the instrument and cockpit lights went out... just as we're approaching that big hill for a right hand turn (I think) onto the runway. Pilot flying calmly searched his nav bag and gave me his torch and said "Shine where I point". Landed no problem. He never had the time or inclination to tell the passengers. What's the point... why worry them.

Often wondered why pilots carried torches!!

[411A]

Now you know, Animalclub.
I have always carried two...and sure needed one on a dark night in a TriStar...:ooh:

Now about the BA 747.
It would appear that clearly the Captain was well within his statutory rights in continuing, and within company rights as well.

Was it a 'wise' decision?
Everyone seems to have their opinion, of course.

But for me....not especially a good show.
Legal? Yes.

Prudent? I don't think so...at all.:ugh:

Should the Captain be called in for a chat?
Don't see why, as he has appeared to be well within policy.
BA however, might want to review that policy, in view of possible safety implications...and the rather bad press they have received over this...ah, incident.

The CAA I'm sure will remain mum on the subject.
Why should anyone expect more?

[Capt Pit Bull]

Barryt

I'm not rubbishing Mr Schiff, I'm poking fun at something he (might) have said, because it struck me as amusing, in a "zero information content / blindingly obvious" sort of way. He sounds like an experienced aviator, but most of us would admit to have utterred something fatuous at some point in our life. (seems to happen to me every time I pick up the PA.... )

Since you ask, no, I have not flown any of the the types mentioned. I am in fact a medium time commercial pilot of strictly average capabilities. No ace of the base here.

But I do have enough wisdom to not spout off on topics I am not fully conversant with. I have my opinions about this incident, but since its not my area of expertise I'll keep them to myself.


Dinger,

<grin> Excellent post btw.... Maybe that explains the urge I get to moon at the MAN spotters everytime I taxi past.

rgrds,

CPB

[etrang]

desk jockey, can you clarify this statement,
"For goodness' sake, how often does it need to be said - the new EU regulation does NOT require airlines to reimburse passengers for lengthy delays."

Because everything i have read confirms that passengers will be compensated for
1) being bumped off a flight
2) a flight being cancelled, and
3) long departure delays.

This includes the press release from the European Airlines Association which includes, amongst many others, British Airways. This is from their press release:

"There is also provision for assistance in the case of long delay including overnight accommodation if necessary. In the case the passenger chooses to abandon his travel plans, the delayed airline must reimburse him the entire cost of the journey, including sectors already travelled."

[TopBunk]

Blimey, a first, a post from 411A that one can almost agree with!
Apart fromWas it a 'wise' decision?
Everyone seems to have their opinion, of course.

But for me....not especially a good show.
Legal? Yes.

Prudent? I don't think so...at all.


What is the world coming to?

[Capt.KAOS]

2 the fuel state only became an issue when it appeared that the contents of one tank became unuseable and that was only noticed towards the end of the flight and did not manifest itself earlier on as the tank was behaving properly.Exactly because of these unexpected problems, one might consider better to be safe than sorry? This time it's at the end of the flight, what would have happened if something occurs 2-3 hours before the end of the flight?

Interesting theory DingerX, but didn't you forget the factor hamburgers sold on the mentioned airports?

[The SSK]

desk jockey, can you clarify this statement
From the Wall Street Journal, quoted in this thread:
"British Airways would have also had to pay travelers €210,600, or about $280,000 -- €600 apiece -- if they got to London's Heathrow Airport more than five hours late." - WRONG

From The Times, quoted in this thread:
"The regulation requires airlines to refund passengers the full cost of their tickets as well as flying them home if a delay lasts longer than five hours." - WRONG

The Regulation states that, once a delay has exceeded five hours, if the passenger decides that the journey no longer serves any purpose , he may elect not to travel and receive a refund of the ticket price.

I invite you to consider how many passengers on a LAX-LON flight would turn around and say 'I've had enough of this, I'm going home'. Bear in mind that this would not be an option for those returning to the UK because they cannot claim that the journey 'no longer serves any purpose'.

Yes, the Regulation requires airlines to provide meals and where necessary hotel accommodation, but in the case of overnight delay that would be standard BA practice anyway, Regulation or no Regulation.

[sammypilot]

Desc Jockey,

Sorry to see you geting so frustrated about the Washington Post. I make no comment on the question of compensation because I don't have the knowledge. However the Washington Post is a respected journal close the Adminstration and there is little doubt that their report will be accurate.

You should realise that our "Allies" in the US consider the European Union a threat to their World Leadership and therefore take every opportunity to take a swipe at Europe.

[BEagle]

Good post, 411A!

Pretty well sums up my views as well.

:ok:

[aiglon]

desk jockey,

From the Wall Street Journal, quoted in this thread:
"British Airways would have also had to pay travelers €210,600, or about $280,000 -- €600 apiece -- if they got to London's Heathrow Airport more than five hours late." - WRONG

I have read the EU regs and you are correct that this statement is wrong, but only because it refers to the time of arrival and the delay period under Art. 6 is actually > 4hrs. The regs (Article 6) provide for compensation under Article 7 where the departure of the flight is delayed. In the case of a delay to this flight of >4hrs, Art. 6 says that the passengers are entitled to the following:


meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time (Art. 91(a))
free of charge, two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails (Art. 9(2))
EUR600 each


Further, if the delayed departure time would not be the same day, they are entitled to hotel accommodation and transport.

So, the Wall Street Journal was not far from getting it right - not too bad for a journalist :)

PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT commenting upon the decision to continue or what factors may have payed a part in it, simply commenting on the EU regs and how they MIGHT have applied.

Aiglon

[Sky Wave]

Does anyone know if the A340 gives a "LAND ASAP" ECAM memo for a single engine failure?

That would give us an idea of how much emphasis Airbus put on a single engine failure in a four engine aircraft.

[ManagedNav]

Was just talking with a NWA mechanic about the report of visible flames etc. coming from the back of an engine and he maintains that usually indicates "shelling" of an engine; ie: the expulsion of blades resulting from an uncontained or contained failure.

His point was there is no way to know and if there was molten metal coming out the back, the possibility of damage to either the flaps or horizontal stab is distinct, and if there was damage (in the form of skin damage), then over ten hours the potential of that damage to propogate was certain.

Like I said before, literally all of the people that I have spoken to at NWA that have intimate experience with the 744 cannot rationalize the decision to continue across the continental US and the northern Atlantic after such a failure.

Although it may be unpopular, my take on this is that the crew was suckered/coerced into the notion that continuing to destination was a good idea.

[PeetD]

from WSJ (via Bloomberg)

By Alan Purkiss
March 4 (Bloomberg) -- A British Airways Plc 747 that flew
from Los Angeles to the U.K. on three engines on Feb. 19 had a
carbon-copy incident on its very next round flight, the Wall
Street Journal reported.
The aircraft, registered as G-BNLG, left Singapore for
London on Feb. 25 with 356 passengers and suffered an engine
failure after three and a half hours; after consulting BA's
operations center, the crew continued on three engines, landing
at London's Heathrow Airport 11 hours later, the newspaper said.
In the Feb. 19 incident, the engine on the left side next to
the fuselage failed on takeoff; it was replaced, and the
replacement failed on the Singapore-London flight, a circumstance
described by BA Spokeswoman Diana Fung as ``a strange
coincidence,'' the Journal said.
In mid-February, a European Union regulation requiring
airlines to pay compensation of as much as $788 per person to
passengers in the event of long delays or cancellations came into
effect, but BA says that had nothing to do with the decisions to
proceed with the two flights, the paper reported.
Les Dorr, a spokesman for the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration, said the agency believed the Los Angeles flight
would have violated U.S. regulations, which require most planes
to land at the nearest suitable airport after an engine failure,
according to the Journal.

(Wall Street Journal Online 3-4)

[The SSK]

Aiglon, sorry, I suggest you read the Regulation again.

There is nothing in the Regulation which states that financial compensation (on a scale set out in Article 7) is to be paid out in the case of Delay. The compensation provisions are invoked only in the case of Denied Boarding or Cancellation.

Let me walk you through it:
Art.4 (Denied Boarding) - reference is made to Art.7 in 4.3
Art.5 (Cancellation) - reference is made to Art.7 in 5.1.c and also in 5.3
Art.6 (Delay) - there is no reference to Art.7

Whatever its merits or demerits, this Regulation is going to cause so much grief between airlines and their customers, precisely because of the amount of misunderstanding and misinformation surrounding it, as well as the shoddy way it was drafted by people far removed from the realities of air transport operation.

[Carnage Matey!]

the report of visible flames etc. coming from the back of an engine and he maintains that usually indicates "shelling" of an engine; ie: the expulsion of blades resulting from an uncontained or contained failure.

What nonsense is this now? Have they never seen a video of an engine surge? Massive fireball but certainly no shedding of blades. If an engine surge was indicative of blade shedding with damage to the rear fuselage from molten metal spray I think we may have seeen a lot more damaged aircraft over the years. I don't know what engines NWA use but I don't recall any incidents involving an RB2111 spraying molten metal over the rear fuselage, and we've have a lot of engine surges on the three fleets we use those engines on.

[barit1]

ManagedNav:

I'm not sure what school NWA techies attend, but I taught engine troubleshooting for decades to dozens of different airline & military customer groups, and never ever heard anyone use the term "shelling".

A stall or surge may or may not imply physical damage to the engine, even though a spectacular flame front suddenly appears at the inlet and exhaust. Some engines are quite prone to surges, as I'm sure you are aware since you list DC-8 in your bio; a few surges are hardly unusual on a downwind outboard JT3D in reverse thrust.

And while I have seen shrapnel damage to aircraft skin, it has always been the result of major engine case penetrations and always accompanied by severe engine vibration during the spooldown. (Most notable was a Pan Am A310 at Hamburg in 1987 - it even bent the pylon!)

I've seen no report hinting that BA had this kind of problem.

[ManagedNav]

It took me a minute, but I think I got it now. If an engine "surge" is the same as a compressor stall, then yes, I have certainly experienced them. They are rarely cause for a shutdown unless there are other more serious symptoms.

The way the articles explained it made it sound more like a failure. Most compressor stalls I have experienced produced a flame ahead of the inlet. I don't remember any mention of that.

Don't worry about the education of our NWA mx staff...they are some of the finest in the world.

Did you teach engine trouble-shooting to BA by any chance?:ok:

[swh]

I beleive what the crew did was not only safe, but was in the best interests of the pax. They didnt rush any decision, sought advice where ever they could. The flight resulted in a totally safe landing, without any additional damage to the aircraft, or passenger or crew hurt.

An engine shutdown is not an emergency on a 744, its a non-normal situation.

The crew would have had full support of all the dispatchers and flight followers at BA, and would have used the technology in the aircraft to seek advise and performance updates for the situation at hand.

In our company if the updated Wx indicates that our alternate is no longer availabe as an alternate, and we were using it as an alternate we would have to declare a maday or pan, as the term "fuel emergency" means nothing. We may land with a fully servicable aircraft with excess fuel, but without an alternate in reach we are not meeting the perscribed fuel policy.

Its standard practice for RFF to be in attendance if a pan or maday is called, those RFF crews love to get their trucks out for a drive whenever they can.

No doubt if they were able to get the higher level they wanted things would have been different, I think ATC may have been lookng at the overall traffic across the tracks, and the mach number required to have the original level without upsetting the whole flow.

Some CRM aspects I received by email ...



Let's be a little practical about this and imagine we are on the flight and in real time.

I am assuming several items to describe my thoughts but I have flown across the Atlantic many times to-wards the UK when I also worked for BA (not BAA which stands for British Airports Authority a different company).

Planning: You have a company produced fuel calculation and decide as Captain (or Pilot Flying) to load minimum legal fuel as no adverse conditions expected.

Event: You have an engine surge at a reasonable time after take-off. You have safe altitude and you have no control problems or any items requiring immediate action after recall items of thrust close and autothrottle disengaged. First conscious thought is: We have ample time to consider this. Maintain present altitude is probably decided intuitively.

Decision Process: Here we move into what most pilots have all done intuitively to high degrees but now British Airways and most UK operators are specifically trying to use a decision process that suits the circumstances. In this case with time available almost certainly the Captain and crew would be working to-gether discussing and using available resources.

The NOTECHS behaviour marker system validated under the JARTEL project uses the following for decision-making, as used by BA.

Problem definition and diagnosis:

Hyperthetically: We have an engine surge and the parameters indicate no damage or adverse effects to the aircraft. Discuss with crew members and even draw in relief crew for discussion. Call up maintenance for advice of possibility of any ongoing problems or not. Confirmation and agreement reached that one option is : flight can remain airborne for time being and also well within safe range of many suitable airfields. Suggestion and confirm engine should be shut down rather than increase any risk of damage.

Option generation:

Options: Circle further to consider and ponder, continue en-route for time being, return to nearest suitable airfield such as departure airport, continue to destination. Anything else?

Risk Assessment and Option generation:

Aircraft and passengers and crew are not at risk. All above options safe at present. Which is best ? Which is acceptable? Can fly all of USA over land within safe range of airfields so why not continue en-route for time being and at same time consider options further. Do we have enough fuel for destination if that becomes a viable option? Is it legal and is it acceptable for our company? Etc etc.

Option decided after such deliberations: Continue en-route and buy time in the direction we wish to go and possibly see if destination is achievable, acceptable and viable. Time taken to do this perhaps 20-30 minutes of fuel burn at very heavy weight. Internal thought of Captain

" Is this critical ? I will not know until later in flight but need to carefully watch and consider this." Tell other crew of this thought.

Outcome Review:

Travel a thousand miles and have no adverse problems and all options still available. Fuel burn computer and manual calculations indicates can reach London with legal minimums although have used some contingency fuel. Can contingency fuel be used for such a situation thinks Captain? Yes it can is the agreement of the crew members, and then checked in the ops manual for confirmation as time allows this.

So we now are approaching the Atlantic. Can we proceed legally? Yes

Do company requirement allow us to do this? Yes

Do we have enough anticipated fuel? Yes

Is it completely safe within our acceptable parameters? Yes

Is this an acceptable option to all crew concerned? Yes

Conclusion. Continue to destination London knowing that in any event Shannon in Ireland, ( 90minutes prior to London) Prestwick in Scotland (50 minutes prior to London) Manchester (30 minutes prior to London) and en-route alternatives are still going to be available crossing and approaching landfall the other side of the Atlantic.

En-Route: Fuel monitoring starts to show a poor picture. Poor flight level achieved and cannot improve and cruise fuel burn worse than expected due headwind.

Start the decision process over again:

Problem Definition and diagnosis/ Option generation/ Risk Assessment and Option selection/ Outcome review?

New option selection after the process. We are going to be tight on fuel for London. We may need to select an alternate. Let's go as far as we can which will in any event be well past Ireland before making a final decision but our bottom line is that we shall not go below legal minumum to reach London.

Approaching Scotland realise cannot reach London. Manchester is a likely new destination as we have BA staff coverage at this place. During descent fuel indicates will land with fuel marginally below final reserve fuel. Company requirement is that we must declare a fuel emergency so make a Pan Pan call. ( UK requirements no longer allow crew to request fuel priority descent and landing it's either an emergency or it's not !!!)

Because Pan Pan emergency call made the fire trucks and emergency services have to be in attendance on landing. The media love to report and see this.

Final Outcome Review again:

Was it a safe landing? Yes

Was a decision process used throughout with review? Yes

Were risk factors understood and acted upon ? Yes.

Did the crew exercise Co-operation? Yes

Did the Captain and crew exercise leadership and managerial skills? Yes

Was the captain and crew Situationally Aware in noticing, understanding and projecting ahead changing circumstances? Yes

Did outside influences of wind and altitude allocation affect Captains ongoing decisions? Yes

Did the crew communicate plans and contingencies and bottom lines ahead of events? Yes.

[catchup]

@swh

Good analysis.

:ok:

regards

[Capt.KAOS]

Event: You have an engine surge at a reasonable time after take-off. You have safe altitude and you have no control problems or any items requiring immediate action after recall items of thrust close and autothrottle disengaged.

1) I believe the real event was not at a reasonable time after take off, it was immediately after take off?

2) I do miss the unexpected event of unusable fuel from tank #2 in your CRM evaluation. I guess that amount of fuel was included into the calculations reaching LHR?

The way the articles explained it made it sound more like a failure. Most compressor stalls I have experienced produced a flame ahead of the inlet. I don't remember any mention of that. One pax in this thread mentioned loud bangs and shaking of the a/c.

[Captain Rat]

Just to add to the debate...from CNN the same aircraft and the same position engine (new engine I believe) shut down again and the aircraft continued to LHR....what are the chances of that....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/04/ba.jet.ap/index.html

[RatherBeFlying]

That's what they called the 377 which had one ditching to its name:)

[Jordan D]

Unlucky conincdence .... these things happen though ... alls well that ends well.

Jordan

[Anti-ice]

Maybe a very unlucky coincidence - same aircraft ,same engine...

Now if you guys say it is safe, then ok , we believe you - but and i quote BA have said "If it happened again they would definitely not continue as the PR has looked so bad on them" . . . so why the change of heart in a matter of days?

I don't think this will look good in the press unfortunately , as although it will be just facts, fare paying customers will be alarmed that this is actually happening - and not much can stop that .............

[BEagle]

It would be interesting to learn more about the NAT level allocated.

Is the possibility of a fuel-punitive lower FL considered during the planning stage for normal NAT operations? Or is normal contingency allowance assumed to be sufficient for such an event?

Was the non-normal (sic) state of the 747 in question known to the Oceanic system before onward clearance was sought? If not, would the OEI status of the a/c have made any difference to the allocation of available levels when Oceanic clearance was requested? Or would the fact that no emergency was declared mean that the Oceanic controller could reasonably assume that the 747 should be capable of accepting whatever level it had been allocated?

[411A]

Actually, RatherBeFlying, the Stratocruiser in question (a PanAmerican machine, at 30N,140W)...ended up a twin.

One engine had a runaway prop (eventually rotation was stopped, by pulling the fire handle, for oil starvation) and another engine sputtered ...and died.
Well, not totally dead right away.
Sadly, the GE turbosupercharger died, followed eventually by the engine.

It just wasn't their day.

[L337]

but and i quote BA have said "If it happened again they would definitely not continue as the PR has looked so bad on them" . . . so why the change of heart in a matter of days?

Because it is the Captain on the day who makes the decision.

L337

[bullshot]

Yes - the Captain makes the decision. This flight landed without injury to anyone so the Captain will be able to ponder his / her decision making. Would they make the same decisions again? Hmm I wonder.

The attempts of some to argue that a normal level of safety was maintained of this flight, or even that the decisions made were in the best interests of the passengers are brave but flawed. The CRM evaluation using behavioural markers was complete tosh - a spin worthy of Waterside or even the Labour Party. So - it's as safe to continue until an emergency has to be declared due to shortage of fuel (perceived or actual), as it would be to land earlier at any one of a number of suitable airfields is it? Go figure!

[RatherBeFlying]

Ah 411, it was for many more IFSDs than this one occasion that the Stratocruiser became known as the Boeing Trimotor.

Perhaps the ditching concentrated Boeing's mind on making sure the 747 would fly so well on two.

[CM_Falcon]

Interesting thread, I see three camps:

The first says that any engine shutdown is a major event and the only proper action is to find nearest airport.

The second says that on a four engine plane you have enough redundancy to evaluate the cause of the shutdown and based on that and related checks it may be safe, and proper, to continue.

The third agrees with the second camp on a technical level but says that the public perception will be so negative that you’re better of landing.

Most interesting is that almost everyone with knowledge seems to be in the second camp…..

My take: I follow knowledge when it is built on verified theories and qualified statistics. Basing it on nothing but personal conviction and preferences tends to be counter productive.

Also, it seems Manchester should be avoided
:D

[sky9]

It's a shame that since The Times has become a tabloid it has adopted the journalistic values of its sister paper (to be honest it happened well before then); the Sun. Sod the facts write anything for a good story. If operational decisions are made on the basis of what will be written on PPRuNe and in the tabloids I fear for the future.

As so many who have knowledge of the 747 have stated on this thread the loss of one engine has no technical safety implications only operational. It is ironic that some of those who have criticised the crew also eulogise about the Tristar; a 3 engined aircraft whose RB211’s were not nearly as reliable as they are today.

Personally I have only ever flown twins. Now if one of those engines stops 3 hrs away from a suitable airport the risk assessment of that is far greater than on this flight. The crew of the "Atlantic Glider" must have thanked someone for tectonic plate movement that put the Azores in the middle of the central Atlantic.

[Diesel8]

Must be money to be saved!

"CBS/AP) A British Airways jet that continued on an 11-hour flight from Los Angeles to London after one of its four engines lost power also flew on three engines on a later flight from Singapore to London, the airline said Friday.

The Boeing 747 left Singapore on Feb. 25 and landed at London's Heathrow Airport the next day, arriving only 15 minutes behind schedule, BA spokesman Jay Marritt said.

Three hours into the 14-hour flight, an oil pressure indicator showed there was a problem with one of the engines, which the captain shut down as a precaution, Marritt said. It was the captain's decision to continue with Flight 18, which was carrying 356 passengers, he added.

"It's still very safe to fly a 747 on three engines," Marritt said. "It is certified to do so."

[Shore Guy]

my two cents.......

I don't really have a problem with a four engine aircraft continuing on three across the North Atlantic. He has one more operating engine than most of the aircraft on the track system.

HOWEVER.....this was not just an ordinary precautionary shutdown. Most reports tell of fire/sparks coming from the engine on takeoff. Systems integrity may be monitored from the cockpit, but any ancillary damage done (FOD, cowling damage) cannot. If the cowling were damaged/distorted, for example, three engine cruise data would not be valid. Yes, the burn could be established during the trans-con segment, but all in all, the "flame/spark" part of the story is the tiebreaker for a fuel dump/return to origin (that is assuming the crew was told of this- reports vary).

Interesting discussion.

[SLFguy]

Well done CM Falcon..where were u 20 pages ago?!

As PAX I fly on the baisis that 'they' know more than me and that if 'they' make a decision it's putting their own ass/es on the line as well.

[Localiser Green]

if 'they' make a decision it's putting their own ass/es on the line as well.

Quite right, it has possibly escaped the perception of many people that the crew would actually not take any action which would endanger their own lives, never mind those of their passengers.

If they are happy, so should you as a passenger be. Just sit back and enjoy your Gin & Tonic. If something is seriously wrong, they will tell you about it. :ok:

[mutt]

Quite right, it has possibly escaped the perception of many people that the crew would actually not take any action which would endanger their own lives..... or risk losing their licence and career.

(Edited, in hindsight i agree with M.Mouse. )


Mutt.

[M.Mouse]

I'm sure that a lot of them remember the "support" that BA offered to Captain GS

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

[catchup]

"Support" to CPT GS?

What are you talking about?

regards

[M.Mouse]

He is referring to a 747 Captain who had an incident at LHR, well documented at the time. There were no similarities in any way, shape or form to an IFSD ex. LAX.

The Captain involved tragically committed suicide some time after the event.

As I said completely and utterly irelevant to this thread.

[geldap]

An interesting point may be that if you are going to ferry a three engined 744 (without PAX) then a required check would be to boroscope your remaining 3 good engines to ascertian absolute serviceability. It does therefor seeem a little strange to carry on with 3 for such a long flight.

Having said that however I can see both sides of the argument here, like in or not in this day and age commercial concerns are a high priority. If the gain from carry on outweighs the bad PR and small increased risk then that is the way it will go. Its still up to the man at the front to make the decision and I do not think there is any black/white situation here. The captain was within his FCOPs so made the call, end of story.

[catchup]

An interesting point may be that if you are going to ferry a three engined 744 (without PAX) then a required check would be to boroscope your remaining 3 good engines to ascertian absolute serviceability.

Yeah, but the difference is, that you have to do a takeoff before cruising that long;)

regards

[lomapaseo]

An interesting point may be that if you are going to ferry a three engined 744 (without PAX) then a required check would be to boroscope your remaining 3 good engines to ascertian absolute serviceability. It does therefor seeem a little strange to carry on with 3 for such a long flight.


What?? you propose to do an out of schedule, multiple engine on-wing maintenace of all engines to ensure that there is a least a better chance of leaving out the plugs, washers, seals etc. on all of them at the same time???

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

The time has perhaps come for a rational analysis of this incident, without the xenophobic defensive posts of the BA gang and other pilots, nor those of the 'spotters' nor the 'Flight Simmers', but for a calm look at what happened?

The 'glitterati' at BA claim that 'safety is our number one priority'. So, let us have a look, and examine the less obvious 'pressures' pressing on the captain's decision:

1) It is perfectly in order AND NORMAL - for a four-engined aircraft to continue with an engine out, providing no degredation of passenger safety is incurred. For example, setting off across the Atlantic if there was damage to the engine, its cowling or any other part of the structure would NOT be a safe idea. It would, hopefully, be reasonable to lay this one to rest?

2) At some point, it became apparent that the aircraft was short of fuel for its planned destination, LHR. It subsequently became 'short of fuel' for its diversion airfield, MAN, such that a go-round was not possible, and there appeared to be some fuel in the tanks which was not 'easily useable'.


The question is, how and when did this happen? For a MAYDAY to be declared, following a PAN, things must have gone bad fairly quickly, otherwise a MAYDAY would have gone out first. Was the fuel shortage 'unknown' earlier due to -

a failure in the Boeing information system,

in the BA training system,

in the aircraft systems themselves, or

in the crew's lack of understanding of the aircraft system?

As captains we are charged with ensuring the safety of our passengers, crew and aircraft. We have to be strong enough to resist 'commercial pressures'. Let us now look at those. Airlines are extremely adept at applying 'subtle pressures' on captains, and BA, as hinted on this thread, are not clean in that respect. As others have stated, the failure of an engine out of LHR would probably have resulted in a return, so there is SOME 'commercial pressure' straightaway on the captain out of the USA. A 'safe' decision is then taken to continue towards destination, with constant monitoring and reviews, but like it or not, there is that 'pressure'. At the back of his/her mind is the knowledge that out of LHR he/she would be 'expected' to return, but out of USA, 'why did you................'?

Now we move on, several hours and reviews later, to a few hours before landing at MAN. Apparently unsatisfactory cruise levels were achieved 'due to ATC'. Options now are to divert to KEF, PWK, BFS, GLA, MAN etc as the fuel situation develops. Is there any, even subconscious pressure, on the captain to get it to a BA base like MAN? 'Why could you not go to....? It would certainly be reasonable - and expected - to go as far as is 'safe'.

A new fuel problem appears to have arisen - for whatever reason - and company procedures, as posted before here, are to declare a PAN if you will probably land with less than reserve fuel and a MAYDAY if you definitely will. Presumably an inability to carry out a g/a would also justify at least a PAN?

Depending on when this assessment was made, was there again any, even unseen, 'pressure' on the captain NOT to declare the PAN too far out, as he would then logically HAVE to land at the nearest suitable (NB not 'commercially' suitable), thereby taking away the fuel emergency. Were the emergency states ratcheted up late in the arrival by design or did things really catch the crew TOTALLY unaware as it appears?

There is, unpalatable as it may be to some of our contributors, a justifiable need for the passengers we carry to know some of the detail. BA in particular have a heavy responsibility to make this transparent, partly due to their eternal posturing about 'safety'. It is not enough for the vocalists to say 'get some time in on the 747 before you criticise' or 'go back to your FSim programme and play', 'leave it to the professionals' or 'what do YOU know about the Jumbo' as some have done. Leave it to 'the professionals' is what the passengers do and did - they have no choice.

I'm sure the BA investigation will probe thoroughly, but I defend the right of all readers here to ask (SENSIBLE PLEASE) questions of the 'professionals', even if they are not 747 qualified!

[Rainboe]

Mitty- I am a BA 747 Captain. I can categorically state that there is no company pressure on me whatsoever in such circumstances to either press on or return. Broad guidance is supplied to assit with decision making, but I operate knowing any sensible decision I take on safety grounds WILL be supported by the company. If I were to judge with the input of the other pilots on the flightdeck that there were any adverse safety implications with continuing, the company would support me, and so I have little doubt it will support the crew for deciding it is OK to carry on. Those pilots were concerned about their own safety as well as that of the cabin crew and passengers- they knew there was no problem with continuing, exactly as I would have done. Part of the deliberations of what action to take would be (in no special order):
where can repairs most easily be carried out
weather problems
position and favoured diversions
extent of damage
where the passengers could most effectively be handled and sent on their way
If I concluded the ability to reach home base was possible and perfectly viable, then that would be the decision.
-I want to do right by the company, but more important is the safety decision which overrides company convenience.

Many inexperienced people have made much of the Mayday call. This was not a 'grave and imminent danger' call- it is an automatic one made under fuel condition guidelines. That was a problem with fuel access that we all await with interest, but they did the right thing and made a quick diversion into MAN.

This thread has been used as a handwringing exercise by people demanding they be informed of every failure, any failure must result in return to departure/diversion nonsense. This thread has also been used to peddle rumour like 'the fuel shortage was caused by being made to fly at a lower altitude'- not proven at all yet. The 747 is a delight to fly even on 3 engines. Other aeroplanes cross the Atlantic on two, and will end up on one with a failure! In this case, I assume it was just a surge with no damage (spectacular though they may be). I believe they displayed correct airmanship- it's just a shame a lot of hand wringing 'experts' here have to express opinions on the very limited information that has come out. As for the new airline compensation regulations out in Europe, they will have received absolute zero consideration- we have not even been informed of them. They mean nothing to the operation- believe it or not it is the truth.

I intensely dislike the way Rumours & News has become a self appointed 'court martial' where airlines are tried and convicted on the flimsiest of information, opinions passed and judgements made as has happened here. News of 3 or 4 lines is enough to get people pontificating about 'how they know better' with no experience of flying whatsoever. I see no reason why people can't 'discuss' as you suggest, but they can leave out the judicial opinions based on very little knowledge of the actions of professionals who have made a lifetime career out of safe and skillfull operations- then they do overstep the mark.

[PA28Viking]

From dailybreeze.com (http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/1337802.html)


"The controller felt the pilot was not happy with the decision but followed company guidance,"

The LAX control tower called out fire engines, expecting the pilot would soon return to the airport. Brann said he has witnessed five or six engine blowouts in his 17 years at L.A. Tower, and pilots opted to return each time. Controllers were shocked when they learned that the plane was proceeding to its destination.

[geldap]

Lomapseo

I am not saying this is my suggestion - it is a procedure carried out whenever a 3 engine ferry takes place on the B744

Regards

[Rainboe]

Why when civil airliners fly with 4 fully seviceable engines? Once in a blue moon an engine hiccups- there is no reason to believe another one is likely to....except if someone has been working on all 4 doing unnecessary checks! Shades of Tristar Miami?

BTW, since when have 'contollers' been aviation experts with a better knowledge of what is required than the pilot? Why fire engines when the aeroplane has 3 good engines and needs the best part of 40 minutes to dump fuel down to landing weight?

[stickyb]

I know I probably should not, but I can't resist having a quiet chuckle at the article quoted from daily breeze. It ends with

Mike Foote, the NATCA representative at LAX, said the episode should serve as a cautionary tale.

"Any time you set up a system where safety and profit are in direct competition, you're heading for trouble," he said.


But then the immediate advertising below is

Aircraft Parts for Sale
Great deals on quality aircraft parts. Start your savings now!
With a link to all sorts of cheap spares!

[Valve Kilmer]

Rainboe
- it's funny that you state, that there is no commercial pressure on you BA guys categorically, when 3 of the 5 deliberations you mention, on what action to take in a somehow similar scenario, is based on commercial considerations:

"where can repairs most easily be carried out" - Commercial consideration

"weather problems" - operational consideration

"position and favoured diversions" - Commercial/operational consideration

"extent of damage" - operational

"where the passengers could most effectively be handled and sent on their way" - commercial consideration

Just a thought!

VK

[Rainboe]

Not at all odd! When safety is not an issue, passenger convenience and commercial efficiency become over-riding factors. Safety was not an issue in the decision to continue- there was no question of it being compromised, therefore the other factors take prominence.
I'm amazed at the capacity of people who are not familiar with the environment, even said 'controllers', to make judgements based on such sparse information. The only judgement after the event of any interest is the one made by the CAA. Even the FAA, large though it is, is pretty well irrelevant. It seems hard for Americans to understand that the FAA is not the be all/end all bible of international aviation. The pilots are only answerable to the CAA and their employer.

[carolosm]

Brit 747 Loses Engine, Again

LONDON, March 4, 2005


(CBS/AP) A British Airways jet that continued on an 11-hour flight from Los Angeles to London after one of its four engines lost power also flew on three engines on a later flight from Singapore to London, the airline said Friday.

The Boeing 747 left Singapore on Feb. 25 and landed at London's Heathrow Airport the next day, arriving only 15 minutes behind schedule, BA spokesman Jay Marritt said.

Three hours into the 14-hour flight, an oil pressure indicator showed there was a problem with one of the engines, which the captain shut down as a precaution, Marritt said. It was the captain's decision to continue with Flight 18, which was carrying 356 passengers, he added.

"It's still very safe to fly a 747 on three engines," Marritt said. "It is certified to do so."

Six days earlier, the same aircraft lost power in one of its engines shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.

The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the Boeing 747 ran low on fuel after facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

The failed engine was later replaced in London, Marritt said. The aircraft then flew to Melbourne, Australia, before continuing to Singapore. It was on the return flight from Singapore, covering 6,765 miles, that the replacement engine failed, The Wall Street Journal reported.

"It was the No. 2 engine that failed but in totally different circumstances. It's one of those very strange coincidences," Marritt said.

The FAA and British aviation officials are investigating the Feb. 19 flight from Los Angeles to London to determine whether any regulations were violated.

"We are concerned," said Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman.

The decision not to return that flight after the engine lost power raised concerns about a new European Union law which requires European carriers to reimburse passengers for substantial delays. Those payouts can be hundreds of dollars per passenger.

After the first incident, the British Airways pilots' union issued a statement saying the new regulation could pressure pilots to take risks to save their employers money. British Airways denied that financial considerations were part of the crew's decision to continue the flight from Los Angeles.

U.S. officials said they have no evidence the airline's decision to continue on was influenced by the regulation.

"We would never compromise the safety of our passengers," said British Airways spokeswoman Diane Fung on Monday. "The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to do so. The pilots are trained for such situations."


©MMV CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[F4Fan]

Hi

Just reading this thread and am new to this world but a quick query...

"Six days earlier, the same aircraft lost power in one of its engines shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.

The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the Boeing 747 ran low on fuel after facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the Federal Aviation Administration said"

If the engine is shut down, then its not using fuel right ??

So...if they declared low on fuel on 3 engines, then what would have happened if they were on all four ??

F4Fan

:ugh:

[Dave Gittins]

If they'd had all four they would have been higher and used fuel more efficiently.

Haven't we rather done this one to death in the previous thread on the same subject ???

As this isn't News and doesn't seem to promolgate any new Rumours, shouldn't it be merged with the previous thread and removed to Tech Log or somewhere ???

DGG

[davethelimey]

Think you've grasped the wrong end of the stick there mate. The fewer the engines, the lower the altitude, the slower the speed, the lower the efficiency (thanks to the lower altitude).

[Dave Gittins]

There y' go F4Fan three answers for the price of one.

Fortunately all the same.

DGG

[Shuttleworth]

You can see F4 Fan has a real good grasp of aerodynamics! (not).

Danny why can't we keep thsi forum for pilots and stop all these silly tiresome "waste of time " postings ?

[3Greens]

Just think how much fuel they'd save if they shut all four down. But i suppose they'd have been up there all day if they did that.;)

[Dave Gittins]

Aren't you being a little mean spirited Shuttleworth ??? I don't for one moment think that PPRune should be restricted. (and from the variety of Forii neither does Danny !!!)

F4Fan has asked a genuine question, without suggesting that the rest of us are idiots, and we have responded without intentionally being rude or patronising. Isn't that the way it should be ??? Knowledge should be shared and when a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, isn't it up to all of us to make the world a little safer ???

If we respond so badly to questions (no matter how good or bad they are) isn't that going to simply put off the questioners for fear of being ridiculed and where does information flow go to then ???

If I want to get upset by a thread, it's more likley to be from reading insulting remarks made to each other by professional pilots following petty disagreements, genuine misunderstandings and minor spelling errrorrs (which I must be the owrld's worst for.)

If I was going to appeal to Danny for anything, it would be a spell checker and for PPRune to be sometimes equipped with a breathalyser.

Oh happy day.

DGG

[Dan Winterland]

For information, a 744 has about a 17% range penaly on 3.

[F4Fan]

Hi

Never mentioned I knew anything about AeroDynamics...was merely a Q - Apologies if i am not up to your standards.

I'm sure if you needed to know how to treat a person who had collapsed in front of you , you would expect a civil answer from me....but thats my training.

F4Fan



:mad:

[cavortingcheetah]

:) F4 Fan. Tricky things, these old 747s. Not quite the same old grannies as the HS 748s and perhaps rather less complicated. The number 2 engine, on the US standard specification Boeing 747, Presidential Mode/ mod 1999, has an extending nozzle, hydrauliccaly powered from green system, which allows for in flight refuelling. This allows for the ingestion of tankered fuel, cold soaked, at the rate of some five tons per hour. If the number 2 engine goes down, sometimes known as: CIA/SPEC/PRES/FLT Code Amber, then no in-flight refueling can occur. Standard operations call for an aerial and global redistribution of tankers in the event of shutdown of what is, in real terms, the critical engine on the Presidentially modified 747.
There is no overwing manual deployment facility for this refuelling node.
Did the owners of the aircraft in question backsource their suppier to determine whether the specific mod had been incorporated? Call up the tankers?
More later, perhaps.:eek:

[maxy101]

Recently did a 9 hr ish flight where the engine was shut down in flight on a -400. We worked out there was a 8 % additional fuel burn compared with flt plan. Very impressive.

[barit1]

maxy101, was that an inboard or an outboard? It makes a difference in trim drag.

Also, what was your typical altitude differential 3 vs. 4?

It'll be nice to get some real data.

[stormin norman]

Just read articles about the incident in flight magazine.
One by Mr learmont and another in the letters page.
Both contain incorrect information.
Is it not about time Mr L went out to pasture and flight checked to see that it has its facts right ?.

[Backtrack]

Stormin
Have I got this right; you really read Flight International?

[maxy101]

Barit1 It was an inboard engine. Rudder trim was pretty minimal, about 1.5 units in the cruise IFRC. Optimum altitude reduced from about FL310 to FL280.

[Montt]

Herald Tribune states following this morning :

U.S. plans to act after 'careless' BA flight
By Don Phillips International Herald Tribune
Tuesday, March 8, 2005


link : http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/07/news/faa.html

FAA weighs steps over 747's long route with one engine out

WASHINGTON Federal Aviation Administration officials said on Monday that they were preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because of the airline's decision to allow a Boeing 747 to fly from California to England with one engine inoperable. Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action against British Airways because such issues would be handled by Britain.
.
But senior U.S. aviation officials have become so concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors in London that they were preparing direct action.
.
"We will pursue every legal option available to us," said an FAA spokeswoman, Laura Brown.
.
British Airways expressed surprise over the developments.
.
"I am surprised that anyone at the FAA would make such statements," said Steve Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways.
.
Shelterline said it was clear that even the portions of the federal aviation rules cited to a reporter by the Federal Aviation Administration would not prevent a four-engine airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one engine out.
.
"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said. "There is no requirement to land."
.
Based on their investigation so far, U.S. aviation officials said they doubt that the crew's decision had anything to do with new European Union rules on monetary compensation to passengers for canceled flights and lengthy delays.
.
"It is our understanding of the rules that they would not apply in a situation like this," said an official who requested anonymity. That may make the decision even more difficult to comprehend, the U.S. officials said.
.
BA Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and quickly developed trouble with one engine. Shelterline said this was caused by an engine surge.
.
Such surges sometimes happen in jet engines when the mixture of air and fuel is suddenly incorrect. The crew considered attempting to restart the engine, but decided instead to shut it down and continue to London.
.
However, partly because the plane could not climb to its planned altitude with one engine out, it used extra fuel in the thicker air at 29,000 feet.
.
As the fuel level decreased approaching the English coast, the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in Manchester.
.
Senior U.S. aviation officials, who asked not to be quoted by name because they would be directly involved in legal actions against the airline, said the actions would be based on sections of U.S. aviation law dealing with careless and reckless operation of an aircraft and continuing operation of an aircraft in an unairworthy condition.
.
"There was an absence of judgment," said a senior official. "This is an indictment of the safety culture of British Airways."
.
Shelterline said a careful reading of the regulations cited by the Federal Aviation Administration to a reporter show that the British Airways pilot took actions that are specifically allowed.
.
Senior officials said the United States always has the right to block entry to the United States by British Airways, but that action is unlikely. Instead, a heavy fine seems more likely, they said. The U.S. agency was still considering its penalty options on Monday.
.
The officials said there is simply no way the airline could claim that continued operation of the flight was safe. The crew could not determine whether there might have been other damage in the area, the officials said.
.
"The crew could not assess why the engine failed, nor could they determine damage," said an official. In addition, with only three engines operating, the plane was forced to fly at lower altitudes in more dense air.
.
"You are sucking fuel like you are Exxon itself," an official said.
.
It is clear that the crew should have dumped fuel and returned to the airport in Los Angeles, the official said. On Feb. 25, six days later, the same BA 747 flew 11 hours on three engines when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London. However, in that case, the aircraft had been in flight several hours before the engine stopped functioning.

[Rainboe]

Is this the same FAA that permitted the 737 to keep operating following 2 fatal mysterious rudder hardover accidents plus several more non fatal hardovers, that licensed the DC10 with a definitely non-failsafe leading edge slat system? One could go on. They have licensed a US aircraft which Boeing have sold to the world based on failsafe- ie operate perfectly safely in the event of engine failure. If they are implying that the 747 has a reduced safety margin because of an engine out, then it will be necessary to re-examine the whole question of 747 failsafe operation and the basis under which Boeing have sold the aeroplane to the world.
I think this is a question of the big bully FAA wishing to demonstrate its administration over the whole world's 747 operations. Until it understands its control doesn't stretch far from the US borders, there will be disagreement.
I think they would be better served actually taking action over events that are physically killing people.

The quality of the information they are working from is suspect. You 'are sucking fuel like Exxon itself'.....can one really listen to such an 'expert'? Fuel flow increases about 6% for an inboard engine out and up to 17% for an outboard. To make serious accusations against an airline's safety culture in view of that very airline's almost perfect safety record, particularly in comparison to US airlines is serious- BA has the world's most advanced Safety reporting system and analysis (BASIS). They have got to be joking!

[maxy101]

Sounds to me like the US-UK bilateral talks are about to start again. A bit of politiking from the US side?

[forget]

The Herald Tribune isn't given to inventing stories, so we can be pretty sure that someone in the FAA made the statements.

BA has every right to go ballistic on this one - it will have done untold damage to their safety image in the US - and the best defence is attack!

How can the FAA argue that a 747 on 3 is unsafe when they allow ETOPS. What is it now? 3 hours from the nearest 'suitable' airfield with 300+ passengers - and one donk?

I'm not the biggest fan of BA - but I'm with them on this one.

Go for it BA - in spades! Insist on an immediate retraction, today.

FAA statement - "You are sucking fuel like you are Exxon itself," an official said. Official what. Duty Prat?

[sky9]

On this basis the FAA are guilty of "careless and reckless" certification of all ETOPS twins.

On any analysis I would suggest that dumping fuel and a return landing at a high weight at LAX is many times more risky (all be it a very small one) than flying on 3 engines for 12 hours. In the last 4 hours of the flight (i.e. North Atlantic) the power to weight of the aircraft on 3 would be the same as on 4 at TOC.

Does the BA Captain have the right to sue the FAA for defamation, because what has been said seems to be coming very close to it?

[Rainboe]

Just a reminder, the engine in question was an inboard, with probably just 1 division rudder trim needed in cruise (4 with an outboard). Total increase in fuel requirement over the flight would be about 5 tonnes due to very minor trim drag and slightly lower cruise altitude.

The surge problem happens in jet engines- big bang, the engine is basically 'hiccuping' and coughing forward. It can look spectacular, especially at night with instantaneous flames/smoke, maybe even sparks. Usually it just recovers straight away and all parameters return to normal. Sometimes the exhaust gas temperature carries on rising, and first action would be to retard the thrust lever to see if that stops it, and cut off the fuel if that doesn't. It doesn't mean anything has broken. There are valves in the engine that open to relieve excess pressure and stop too large a pressure differential building up over a short distance in the engine. If the valves stick or just don't operate, excess pressure relieves itself with a resounding burp. The perceived wisdom used to be that if the event occured during thrust lever movement, then if shutdown, it was OK to relight, if the surge occured with no change of thrust, then it was likely the valve failure was a little more serious and best not to attempt a relight.

I would guess in this case, they knew it was just a surge, there was no damage, better not to relight, but should another problem occur, they always had the option to attempt to relight it, and they would highly likely have had the thing back again.

Before anybody makes anything out of surges, I have had some 30-40 over my career. The VC10 Conway engines used to cough something awful- always self recovered. I've shut down and relit several Pratt & Whitney and RR RB211 engines on Classics when they haven't self recovered. It's no more of a traumatic event to an engine than a car backfire is. That is why BA pilots are so vigorously defending the crew's actions- we know the engine, we know the aircraft capability- we have families of our own we want to get back to in one piece, we value our own safety just as high as anybody else values their safety. Delay cost issues and compensation just did not come into it- those people wanted to get to London, the pilots knew it was safe to continue.

[forget]

What astonishes me here is that some people, aircrew and FAA included, believe that two sensible pilots have accepted 'orders' from their Head Shed to cross the Atlantic with, according to the FAA, a fair chance that they wouldn't actually make it. FAA quote - 'careless and reckless operation of an aircraft and continuing operation of an aircraft in an unairworthy condition'.

Get real people! Those same pilots know better than most precisely what a winter North Atlantic has to offer in terms of hospitality.

After the engine hiccuped they concluded, in agreement with billions of $ worth of engineering back-up at Heathrow, that there was no additional risk in continuing to UK. None. Pity about the eventual shortfall in range but, as they say, them's the breaks.

[swh]

From the NTSB "factual report" (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA05WA040&rpt=fa) Brief narrative statement of facts, conditions and circumstances pertinent to the accident/incident:
On February 20, 2005, a British Airways Boeing 757-400, registration G-BNLG, experienced an engine
failure shortly after takeoff from Los Angeles International Airport, called PAN, and request
divert to Manchester, United Kingdom. The point of intended landing was Heathrow International
Airport, London, United Kingdom. There were no injuries to the 370 persons on board and
airplane landed safely.
The incident is being investigated by the United Kingdom's Air Accident Investigation Branch.

What event was reckless in US airspace ?

Does the FAA statement have any jurisdiction for events outside the US/US airspace in non-US flaged aircraft, and pilots using non-US licences, and an aircraft operating on a non-US AOC ?


:hmm:

[catchup]

Boeing 757-400

????

[BA268passenger]

My wife & I were passengers on BA268 on 19 February 2005. Now that I finally have a few minutes to spare, I thought I would give you a quick passenger’s eye view of the incident. (When reading it, it might be worth bearing in mind that I am a pretty “laid back” individual who doesn’t easily get stressed – so other passengers may have a different point of view.)

My wife & I were in the “World Traveller Plus” (Premium Economy) cabin, sitting over the front of the starboard wing, so unfortunately (or is that fortunately!) we couldn’t see the affected engine from where we sat. We were, however, well aware of the problem a few seconds after take-off when we heard a loud (but muffled) “bang, bang, bang, bang…” noise and felt a violent vibration which went on for what I would estimate was about 5 or 6 seconds (this would tie in with reports I have read from an eyewitness on the ground, who reported a 20 ft jet of flame coming from the inner engine on the port wing, lasting for about 6 seconds). The noise and vibration then stopped and the plane continued its ascent – but it was climbing VERY slowly, so it seemed pretty obvious to me that the pilot must have shut down one of the engines.

There were a lot of anxious looking passengers at this point (not least my wife) – but I was surprised to see that (at least within my field of view and hearing distance) there was no sign of panic or screaming. I’m not sure if it was any different at the back of the plane (from where the flames would have been easily visible). Not surprisingly, the captain hadn’t made any announcement at this point (I assumed he had much more important things to think about at that time, so I was quite happy to wait!).

We continued to climb slowly and headed out to sea. At some point later (as I remember it, it seemed quite soon after takeoff, but it may have been after we started circling over the Pacific) we went through two more sequences of the loud banging and violent shaking – which I assumed was caused by the pilot trying (and failing) to get the engine running again, although I have no proof of this. I don’t know whether there were any more flames present during these events.

I think it must have been a short time after this that the captain made an announcement to the effect that (I’m paraphrasing) “as the people on the left hand side of the plane must be only too aware, there was a ‘surge’ in one of the engines just after take off, so I have shut it down. I am now going to circle over the ocean for about 10 minutes while I assess the situation and contact BA headquarters before deciding how best to proceed”.
The cabin crew then started moving about the cabin to help to reassure anxious passengers. I heard one of the cabin stewards suggest to one passenger that he thought we would dump fuel over the ocean then return to Los Angeles – little did he know…

After circling for about 15 minutes(?), the captain made a second announcement to say that, having assessed the situation and spoken to the people on the ground, he had decided to continue to London on three engines. He did say that in his opinion it was perfectly safe to do this and we could be assured that if he had had any safety concerns he would not be taking this course of action. He also said that having recomputed the flight plan, he was confident that we had sufficient fuel for the journey. The new flight plan gave a landing time of 4:20pm (rather than the scheduled landing time of 2:55pm).

I think the cabin crew were somewhat surprised by this announcement, but they soon got into their cheery, “continue as normal” mode and quickly set about handing out the free booze! (although I did later hear from a passenger nearer the back of the plane that things had not been quite as cheerful back there). There was some muttering amongst the passengers, but on the whole I think most people (at least within my earshot in the small World Traveller Plus cabin) were willing to trust the captain’s judgement on this (not that there was much we could do about it, anyway).

Watching the “moving map” display, it was interesting to see that the plane headed off across the USA in a much more easterly direction than might be expected (the solid line showing where we had been was heading roughly east, but the dotted, great circle continuation line was much more northerly). I assumed at the time that the pilot was keeping his options open with regards to possible alternative landing sites in the US, but it did worry me slightly that he might run short of fuel if he took a longer route. Having thought about it since, I suppose the easterly course might also have been to avoid any mountains that might be higher than we could fly over if we lost another engine – but I have no way of knowing what the pilot was actually thinking.

Unfortunately I didn’t spend much time studying the moving map during the flight, since it seemed to make my wife more anxious – so I thought it was better to keep her calm than it was to study the flight in great detail. I did occasionally look at it though – and the two things that stuck in my mind were that we seemed to spend a lot of time at only 27,000ft (although we did get higher later), and we were flying through almost still air (without the tail wind we would have expected if we had been in the jet stream). The display often showed headwinds of, say, 4mph or tailwinds of, say, 3mph – tiny figures. I therefore made a mental note to myself that I would be surprised if we made it all the way to Heathrow (although I thought it best not to mention it to my wife). Another interesting piece of information from the flight display was that our arrival time stayed pretty constant at about 4:20pm or 4:30pm – so we can’t have been losing too much time due to the unexpectedly low altitude or unfavourable winds. Indeed we finally landed at Manchester at about 4:04pm (so not much later than the flight plan had predicted 10 or so hours earlier) – but presumably only by burning more fuel to keep our speed up.

I didn’t notice the precise time that our destination on the moving map changed from Heathrow to Manchester – but I think it was very late on (only a few minutes (maybe 20 minutes?) before we landed there). The captain made an announcement that we were running low on fuel so he had decided to divert to Manchester “where we would be met by an army of ground staff who would help us with our onward travel arrangements to either Heathrow or other destinations for which we had missed our connections”. He said that our shortage of fuel was because Canadian air traffic control had been unable to allocate him the altitude he needed (I assumed at the time that he meant over Canada, but I suppose he might have meant over the Atlantic).

At Manchester we made a pretty good landing (past a group of fire engines, with lights flashing) although we did seem to brake very hard and stop very quickly. I can only guess that this was because we needed to leave the runway at one of the early exits, to keep us well away from the terminal building. We sat on the tarmac for quite a while before the doors were finally opened and we transferred to buses to drive us to the terminal. We were told we needed to collect our luggage (which took quite a long time) then check in at the BA desks for a shuttle flight down to Heathrow (they had sent a plane up from Gatwick to pick us up, and said there would be a later flight for anyone who didn’t make it onto this first plane). There was an enormous (but surprisingly calm) queue of people checking in for this flight. The ground staff coped pretty well (as the cabin staff had done on the flight). In addition to this special BA flight, some people were put on a British Midland flight; I’m not sure how many people failed to make it onto one of these first two flights (nor how many people decided to continue their journey by road or rail). The original intention was that the BA flight would leave Manchester at about 6pm, but people weren’t being checked in that quickly. My wife and I got onto the plane at about 6:15pm but had to wait there for over an hour until the final wheelchair-bound passenger could be carried to her seat. We finally reached Heathrow at about 8pm (5 hours later than scheduled, but glad to be home).


As to whether the captain made right decision in the circumstances, I’m not really in a position to say. I’m inclined to think he did (at least from an operational point of view – although the resulting bad publicity might make it less good from a commercial point of view). After all, it was his life on the line just as much as ours, so I doubt he would wilfully have made a reckless decision. I’m also not as sure as some of the armchair experts seem to be that the alternatives were that much safer (and they were almost certainly less convenient).

Some people seem to believe that we should have immediately returned to LAX – but, as I understand it, we would have been too heavy to land immediately, so that meant that we would have had to spend an appreciable amount of time either burning up or dumping fuel prior to landing. I don’t understand the mechanics of dumping fuel, but I am not sure that I fancy the idea of dumping it anywhere near an engine that has recently been emitting a sheet of flame! In any case, if we could stay in the air long enough to do that, why shouldn’t we be heading in the right direction while doing it (and assessing the situation as the flight progressed)?

One thing that might make me change my mind about it being the right decision is if it turns out that the engine suffered something other than a simple “surge”. Is the banging & vibration a normal feature of a surge? – and is it normal for engine to cause the same noises & vibration if the pilot tries to re-start it?

If I had been given the chance to vote on it, I think I might have chosen to land somewhere like New York or Chicago, rather than flying across the Atlantic on 3 engines (has there ever been a successful landing of a 747 on water?) – but I am willing to believe that the pilot understood the situation better than anyone else, and so was the best person to make the decision as to how to continue. As it turned out, we all got home in one piece – and even on the right day, so I didn’t have to take an extra day off work :o)
It’s unfortunate that we had to land at Manchester rather than actually making it to Heathrow in one go, but in the great scheme of things it wasn’t a big problem.

As to the amount of fuel remaining, I don’t understand how a 747’s fuel system works, but I have seen suggestions that (despite still having about 5 tons of fuel) there might have been some doubt in the captain’s mind as to whether the fuel pumps could get all of the fuel to where he needed it for the remaining three engines. It therefore seems only good sense to get the plane on the ground as quickly as possible.

A lot has been made of the fact that the captain made a mayday call (although we weren’t aware of this as passengers) and didn’t want to “go around” – but as I see it, that was a sensible precaution to ensure that he had a clear runway to land on. I have also seen it suggested by someone who seemed to know what he was talking about, that it is best to avoid flying “nose up” (as when “going around”) when fuel is low – something to do with the way that fuel is fed from the tanks.


All in all, this was a pretty dramatic flight, and not one that I would care to repeat any time soon, but it hasn’t put me off flying BA – in fact I’m flying to Baltimore with them next week. I will however be interested to see the final report into this incident if it’s ever made public (particularly given that the same plane appears to have had a problem with the replacement engine in the same position, only a few days after our flight – so there is at least a suspicion of a fault with something other than the engine itself).

[wiggy]

BA268passenger

Thanks for that considered "report", it makes interesting reading.

[TopBunk]

BA268Pax

Thanks for your sensible account from an actual passengers perspective. If I may just point out that the map display does not 'know' the flight plan, and merely draws the Great Circle route from present position to destination. Therefore it can vary quite considerably on the day due to the jet streams, and the fact that you routed more to the south should not be taken as an indication of anything else.

Depending on the LAX departure routing, there are various altitudes required to be met out of LAX which are quite onerous on a heavy 4-engined 747, therefore it would not surprise me to hear that some extended routing was necessary to gain the altitudes necessary.

[cavortingcheetah]

:) 268. Thoroughly enjoyed your letter.
Hope by now that you have received massive compensation for possible aortic imbalance perhaps caused by decision of BA and/or, its servants..
Have seldom seen so much unadulterated balderdash as has appeared on this steamy thread, much of it from chaps who disengage autopilot after twelve hours and land. Precious Platignum, fly up the Wild Coast with me in an Islander.
No doubt, more later.
:p

[gas path]

particularly given that the same plane appears to have had a problem with the replacement engine in the same position, only a few days after our flight – so there is at least a suspicion of a fault with something other than the engine itself).
Believe it or not it, was a sheer coincidence. the no2 engine was replaced on arrival at Heathrow and following that and extensive checks on the fuel system the aircraft departed for SYD the day after, on it's return leg ex SIN about 3-4 hours out the (replacement no2) engine suffered an oil pressure problem and was shut down this resulted in another engine change on arrival at LHR.
The cause of the second failure is being taken up with the overhaul facility GE.

[lomapaseo]

Re: Herald Tribune states following this morning :

U.S. plans to act after 'careless' BA flight
By Don Phillips International Herald Tribune
Tuesday, March 8, 2005

A well respected aviation reporter. However. please do not read into this an FAA decision or opinion has been made and released. What you have here, is one or two FAA officials (aren't they all) expressed their opinion to the reporter off-the-record.

This may or may not procede to an FAA action. If in fact that it does, then there is going to be a much bigger problem between the FAA and CAA about juristiction and I am afraid of great retribution if that happens.

I prefer to believe that calmer heads will prevail in both the FAA and on this forum.

[L337]

If I may just point out that the map display does not 'know' the flight plan,

Wrong:

The Map display gets its information direct from the FMC. So the route displayed to the passengers is the actual route taken.

L337

[offa]

At least they shut down the correct engine ..... NTSB can't even get the correct aircraft type!

[Mini mums]

Wrong:

The Map display gets its information direct from the FMC. So the route displayed to the passengers is the actual route taken.


Ur, wrong yourself L337, TopBunk is yet again correct (second time today I've made this comment).

The IFE system on the BA 744 (Rockwel Collins and not very good) does indeed start off with a great circle route, whih is then progressively over written with the actual track.

Edited due poor syntax

[catchup]

NTSB can't even get the correct aircraft type!

Yes, maybe they are too much concerned about other (non contributing) factors...

Regards

(Non brit)

[woodpecker]

Nice to see Shirley, I mean Steve Sheterline having to come out of the woodwork to counter the FAA input.

Go for it Shirley!!

[BOAC]

Yup - even the press got confused with his nickname, calling him 'Shelterline' - kind of a mix of Shirl and Shet:D :D

[L337]

is then progressively over written with the actual track.

So am I not correct in saying. "the route displayed to the passengers is the actual route taken"?

Either way it is a bit off topic. Let me go and have another look when I next operate. I'll pm you to keep it out the thread.

L337

[Globaliser]

L337: So am I not correct in saying. "the route displayed to the passengers is the actual route taken"?The track already flown is the actual track.

The dotted line for "projected route to destination" appears to be the great circle projection having nothing to do with the actual flight plan route.

I have tried to stay off this thread as it's more a place for professional pilots rather than us SLF, frequent or otherwise. But this at least is something that I can report observing very frequently. :)

[cavortingcheetah]

:) My goodness, my gracious, good golly gosh.
After all this very confusing stuff as to what you might be seeing on the back of your seat, is it not a minor miracle that any of the wonderful pilots flying today even manage to get from A to B without passing Beachy Head in an uproar with sextant upeld and wangling? Drifting down the rhumb line, but not, with me.:eek:

[Da Dog]

Ba268 pax re the "southerly route" I came out of SFO a day later our route took us just north of Denver, over ORD across lake Michigan then due north of Grand Rapids and Toronto finally making Oceanic just to the NW of Gander.

The winds that night were much more favourable at this latitude than going further North towards the pole and Churchill/Yellow Knife, looking at the sig weather chart it "appeared" that the jet stream we used had been at this latitude for a few days, certainly since we had left LHR for SFO 2 days before.

I thank you for your honest and open account.

[av8boy]

...rather than flying across the Atlantic on 3 engines (has there ever been a successful landing of a 747 on water?)
I think personal preference for me would be an unsuccessful landing in the North Atlantic in winter. Like my missus says, "might as well be acid..."

[BA268passenger]

Is the banging & vibration a normal feature of a surge? - and is it normal for an engine to cause the same noises & vibration if the pilot tries to re-start it? Does anyone know the answer to this?

Also, does anyone (any Heathrow service engineers out there?) know what was actually wrong with this engine? I had a quick look at it as I walked down the front aircraft steps at Manchester, but I couldn't see any obvious sign of damage. Was it just a sticking valve (or something similar)? - or was there any physical damage?

Hope by now that you have received massive compensation for possible aortic imbalance perhaps caused by decision of BA and/or, its servants.. That would be nice :D

[cavortingcheetah]

:D You might call an aortic imbalance a surge. One which I would prefer to defer. If you were in First Class, write the little ones a stroppy note and see what comes from it. It worked for me, when I lay on a beach all day in Barbados while Concorde stayed stuck in London. Oh yes, we shall leave the 'who was flying the thing' for another time.:=

[lomapaseo]

quote:Is the banging & vibration a normal feature of a surge? - and is it normal for an engine to cause the same noises & vibration if the pilot tries to re-start it?

Does anyone know the answer to this?

Also, does anyone (any Heathrow service engineers out there?) know what was actually wrong with this engine? I had a quick look at it as I walked down the front aircraft steps at Manchester, but I couldn't see any obvious sign of damage. Was it just a sticking valve (or something similar)? - or was there any physical damage?


You probably missed the link I posted in the first pages of this thread to www.fromtheflightdeck.com

which in turn shows all the info about engine failures in general as well as surges from a doucment published by the FAA, including supporting video

Yes for a surge alone the engine will rock and vibrate simply because the surge is localized and rotates backwards to the spinning rotor at about 1/4 rotor speed while at the same time producing pressure pulses at a rate of about 7 per second.. Since the mounts are single point in the top front, this rotating pressure wave causes the engine and pylon to shake and in turn the wing and passengers as well. It's all very short lived until the pilot retards the throttle and reduces the pressures in the engine.

The sparks seen could either be from rubbing of the blades against a case or moe likely a few loose bits in the engine.

Often the F/A s as well as the passengers are not familar with this and it can create some apprehension although it is typically ho-hum to the aircraft.

[Jordan D]

BA268pax ... tahnk you for that very informative, very interesting and generally useful passenger perspective.

Jordan

[cavortingcheetah]

:) Yes indeed, my goodness and my gracious, I never did hear an aircraft go Ho Hum, at least not out of the jungle and that was a rumble tum too.

[BA268passenger]

Yes for a surge alone the engine will rock and vibrate simply because the surge is localized and rotates backwards to the spinning rotor at about 1/4 rotor speed while at the same time producing pressure pulses at a rate of about 7 per second.. Since the mounts are single point in the top front, this rotating pressure wave causes the engine and pylon to shake and in turn the wing and passengers as well. It's all very short lived until the pilot retards the throttle and reduces the pressures in the engine. Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense now. My initial worry was that the shaking of the aircraft might indicate some kind of imbalance in the engine (such as rotor damage).

[fireflybob]

This is a long and entertaining thread which I have been reading with great interest.

However, I think it is about time that this crew was complimented for a job well done. The flight was conducted safely, efficiently and professionally.

Part of a professional pilot's job is to operate economically for the company with safety being the overriding consideration and this is precisely how this crew operated.

Having to deal with even a "technical" emergency at the end of a 9/10 hour flight on three engines cannot have been easy and I think the crew should be commended for acting in the correct manner.

In conclusion, I say, WELL DONE!

[catchup]

Î fully agree.

Well done to the crew.

Regards

[MPH]

I find it incredible that this type of decision could have been made!! The possibility of continuing on three engines is meant to facilitate airlines to continue onto a 'suitable' airport, i.e maintenance wise, logistics, etc. To argue that from the west coast of the USA to the east coast, onto Canada and over the north Atlantic to the UK, their are no 'suitable airports' is obsered! A 2nd eng failure over the north Atlantic, could have been a possibility. And then, I am afraid he would have to had called a 'Mayday'. Expalin that to the paying pax!! What are we thinking here, economics or saftey?:confused:

[Carnage Matey!]

No, the possibility of continuing on one engine is to facilitate airlines to continue onto a suitable airport, hence the existence of ETOPS. The possibility of continuing on three engines is to allow you to operate a commercial service.

Now call me a cynic but does anyone think the FAAs new aggressive stance on three engine operations could be linked to their commercial mandate? After all, Mr Boeing isn't selling many four engined aircraft but Monsieur Airbus is selling loads of the things. What better way to tilt the playing field than to ensure there is no commercial advantage in buying a four engined aircraft over a twin?

[fireflybob]

Carnage Matey - I think you have a valid point which may not be far from the truth.

Boeing have just rolled out the B777-200 LR which will, I believe, be able to fly nonstop from, say, LHR to SYD with a decent payload.

[Charley B]

BA 268 PAX ---very good posting,very informative.

Rainboe --hear hear.BA need to deal with some of this idiotic drivel thats been said by the FAA and others.
The crew did very well-their lives are just as important and no way would they compromise safety.

[cavortingcheetah]

:) Well, then again, this might not be too popular. But, no doubt more later.
If a group of passengers has paid the price to charter a four engined aircraft, crew and company logo, to fly from A to B; then were the payees of the cost of the flight neither entitled to an opinion, nor able to make a statement of wishes such as: 'Dear Old Captain, now that you and your handling agent (aka BA) have told us absolutely everything, the whole truth and so on; may we please touch down in the windy city, (aka, in that part of the world: Chicago) for a jolly good beefsteak dinner (steer city of the world) and then toodle pip off the next morning? The Boeing, as Boeings do, did a good job. Passengers are not really an uninformed species of vermin and while I will not use inflammatory language; I could understand easily enough, how one or two of the poor encapsulated victims might have become a teeny little bit upset at being carted around the world on any less than the four engines (not donks) for which one might presume, that payment had been made and thus a legal contract established. By the very nature of the length and verbosity of this thread, to which tangled web I am a guilty party, BA have, with its agents, been the producers of possibly a PR fiasco which perhaps might make springtime in Hitler's Germany resemble a walk in the park, always presuming that you were beside The Wailing Wall.:{

[M.Mouse]

cavortingcheetah

Can I have some of whatever it is that you have smoked too much of?

[sky9]

MPH

Lets get a perspective on the possibility of a second engine failure.

1 I flew jet aircraft for 30 years and 18,000hrs and didn't have a single engine failure. The company that I worked for had only a couple in that time.

2 Jet aircraft are reliable. So reliable in fact that the FAA and JAA allow aircraft with only 2 engines to operate up to 3 hrs away from a suitable airport (about 1200nms).

[Rainboe]

cavortingcheetah- you may be able to get away with idiocy disguised as attempted humourous comment so far, but to suggest some type of vote, by 370 people.....on an aeroplane? Indeed you have been smoking something! Are you sure you really are a pilot?

That was a very illuminating and well written passenger report, and most interesting to read. Surges, especially at night, are quite amazing spectacles. I suspect the sparks that emanate from the engine are either burning dust shaken off bits or sparks from the fan contacting the acoustic liner around the big front fan during the vibration.

The self appointed experts are coming out of the woodwork again. As to the suggestion to lob into Chicago, nice airport though it is, it is nowhere near a station holding a spare RB211, so it would not be a nightstop! More major being messed around and horrendous delays! Even JFK probably doesn't hold a spare, and after presumably failing a relight attempt, or the nature of the original failure, this was most certainly an engine change job.

It has been mentioned elsewhere, but I agree, it would appear the FAA's opinion is majorly skewed by the fact our US competitors ALL fly twin engined aircraft across the Atlantic with just a very very few on 4 engines. The 'American way' now seems to be 'twins are good', so to make 4 engines no further advantage over a twin can only benefit US operators and the whole Boeing v Airbus thing. It's just sad. For umpteen years, they were telling the world the 747 is amazingly redundant, now it is alleged to be no more redundant than a twin?

[Capt.KAOS]

ROTMFLAO cavortingcheetah :ok: No doubt sergeant-major Rainboe does not appreciate your irony as most of the British members here who seem to form a close front against the enemy across the pond.

I don't remember the other passenger, who apparently had a less stiff upperlip earlier in this thread was praised in the same way for his story on the infamous flight.

No doubt the crew did an outstanding job, yet PR was not helped but luckily we can blame the Manchester spotters for that.

[cavortingcheetah]

:) Can you just imagine what might have been the result had the 370 odd (yes) people on the flight who might have been voting, been pilots? Very General Electrifrying, I should have thought.

[eman_resu]

And would there have been any abstainers? :uhoh:

[Rainboe]

CC- do you talk to people like that in your normal life or do you think typing like a fool is somehow funny in a serious discussion? Trying to discuss something and you are coming up with daft ideas and babytalk. Either discuss properly or give it a rest!

[cavortingcheetah]

:) A resounding yebo gogo, on all counts Snr Rainboe.:p

[Globaliser]

Carnage Matey!: Now call me a cynic but does anyone think the FAAs new aggressive stance on three engine operations could be linked to their commercial mandate? After all, Mr Boeing isn't selling many four engined aircraft but Monsieur Airbus is selling loads of the things. What better way to tilt the playing field than to ensure there is no commercial advantage in buying a four engined aircraft over a twin?I make no comment about the further facts that the FAA's commercial mandate also includes looking after the N- registered competitors on the North Atlantic routes, many of which are struggling financially, most of which do not operate any four-engined aircraft on those routes, and many of which are subject to ETOPS on all their North Atlantic flights and thus do not have the luxury of making the decision that this crew was able to make.

[hobie]

does anyone think the FAAs new aggressive stance on three engine operations could be linked to their commercial mandate?

in a word ..... "NO"

[SeniorDispatcher]

>>>does anyone think the FAAs new aggressive stance on three engine operations could be linked to their commercial mandate?

Seriously doubt it...

Based on the Don Phillips article, FAA appears to be going after "careless and reckless" and "continuing into unsafe conditions" violations (91.13 and 121.627(b), respectively).

What's not said is how they plan to charge a Part 129 carrier (BA) with Part 91 and Part 121 violations, as if BA was a Part 121 carrier. It seems more likely that FAA is responding to perceived public pressure to "do something" and that once the attention span of the average Joe Q. Citizen wanes, so too will any legal efforts related to this incident...

[barit1]

This is a can of worms. Safety can only be a quantitative value (x events per 100,000 hrs, etc). There is no such thing as a binary "safe condition" vs "unsafe condition".

As has been pointed out before, it's entirely possible for a pilot to fly his entire career without a real engine failure. Is this "safe" or "Unsafe"? How seldom are two failures on a single flight? It has happened, sure, but has a Captain's decision to press on EVER affected the outcome in this unlikely case?

FAA needs some operations engineering expertise, as evidenced by their puerile language.

[Rainboe]

I'm sorry to post twice, but I posted this in Tech Log and it seems more relevant here:
<<<It's really strange, isn't it? Some operators have been known to despatch, and fly over the ocean with just two engines to start with!!!! (the exclamation marks are added for extra drama). Is this an adequate safety margin? Can you imagine being west of Greenland on one?!! How do they get away with it?- perhaps the FAA should be informed! I mean- they only have two engines, up in the Arctic wastes- with hundreds of children and sweet innocent old ladies doing their knitting on board!

Funny me, I thought the whole point of having FOUR to start with was that if you lost one, you still had THREE. You could do the near statistically impossible and lose another and still be better off than a twin, because there ain't no way you gonna lose ANOTHER (well if you do, the odds are so unfair to you you should never enter another lottery in your life!).

So what would you rather fly in? A 4 engine 747 or a twin 777? And they're going to send that thing half way around the world?

Let's face it, the 747 has passed. Boeing is only interested in selling as many big twins as it can, so taking away the advantage of 4 engines and making it play on the same playing field to the same rules as the twin Boeings is to their advantage. They want to licence that thing with ETOPS endurance that seems to be going up exponentially- is the latest figure 3 hours on one engine? Can you imagine 350 people on a 777 on one engine for 3 hours or so? (whatever the figure is). Don't you think that merits closer examination by the FAA than a 747 on THREE engines? What an extraordinary issue this has become!>>>

[Valve Kilmer]

Allways been difficult for yours truly to figure out why many people solely base their safety focus on whether you are flying a two, three or even four engined plane on polar tracks or above other hostile territory. It doesn't make a big difference if you experience an uncontrollable fire onboard - you have noplace to go!

Rainboe, the majority of my fellowpilots, does not worry to much about the fact that BA268 carried on three engines. What they are concerned about, is that they pressed on, and had to divert to MAN with possible less than reservefuel available, and declared an emergency.

VK

[lomapaseo]

This is a can of worms. Safety can only be a quantitative value (x events per 100,000 hrs, etc). There is no such thing as a binary "safe condition" vs "unsafe condition".

As has been pointed out before, it's entirely possible for a pilot to fly his entire career without a real engine failure. Is this "safe" or "Unsafe"? How seldom are two failures on a single flight? It has happened, sure, but has a Captain's decision to press on EVER affected the outcome in this unlikely case?

FAA needs some operations engineering expertise, as evidenced by their puerile language.

Agree, safety is truly a quantitative value, but most of us have a lack of comparisons vs other risks that we live with daily. So our tendancy is to use the binary on-off approach to justify our own individual opinions.

Boy can you ever see this in this thread.

However, the rulemaking by the authorities including US and European does consider the quantitative approach in developing the rule, and then decides at what level is "safe enough".

Using this approach, it is generally accepted that if you exceed the rule you have thrown a switch and you are no longer safe.

This is the basis of the rule, but obviously like all rules it can't cover such unforseen circumstances where 500 operators decide to operate right to the edge on every flight. Thus the safety is really assumed on the basis that the minimum level (flying on only 3 engine) will be a rare event.

So we now need to ask ourselves if it indeed was. Once again I doubt that we will ever obtain consensus on this board, so I truly await the outcome of the examination by the authorities of the individual circumstances for this event within this operators operating practices..

[catchup]

@Rainboe

Basicly I agree with you and others who compared a 4engine A/C flying on 3 donks with twins like 777.

But there is one little point which should considered to be fair, those planes are subject to ETOPS regulations.
And I mean not only the 3h rule, there are many other requirements like maintenance, MEL, and so on.

Regards

[fireflybob]

>Can you imagine 350 people on a 777 on one engine for 3 hours or so?<

Rainboe, I believe this has already happened - may not have been a 777 - but there has been at least one case where a twin jet has had to fly on one for the three hours to make an airport - good game!

[catchup]

@fireflybob

Yes, it happened. Think it was an US carrier (United ?) on the southpacific back home. More than 3 h, I think, they missjudged the wind;)

Regards

[lasernigel]

As to the suggestion to lob into Chicago, nice airport though it is, it is nowhere near a station holding a spare RB211, so it would not be a nightstop!

I'm NOT a pilot but do know that RR has a large engine maintenance factory in the Bay area which would have.SFO approx 1 hr from LAX.Nice nightstop.:ok:

[Globaliser]

catchup: Yes, it happened. Think it was an US carrier (United ?) on the southpacific back home. More than 3 h, I think, they missjudged the wind It was indeed UA on a South Pacific flight, but I can't remember the routing. IIRC, they were 193 minutes on a single engine. I can't remember all the technical details of why it was 193 minutes but still legal - something to do with planning the flight according to estimated diversion times, but then the winds changing so that actual divert time was more than they'd planned for.

Familiar scenario, that? ;)

[Algy]

Just for info, from Flight International at the time.



Engine-failure 777 busts ETOPS limit
Flight International (25Mar03, 342 words)


DAVID LEARMOUNT / LONDON

Pacific incident was longest ever single-engine diversion

A United Airlines Boeing 777-200ER was forced to fly a 190min diversion on one engine over the Pacific Ocean when it had been dispatched on a 180min limitation, according to the US Federal Aviation Administration. Boeing confirms that this is the longest ever single-engine diversion under extended-range twin-engine operations (ETOPS) rules.

The aircraft was operating Flight 842 from Auckland, New Zealand, to Los Angeles, USA, on 17 March when the captain was forced to shut down the No 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4090 engine because the oil pressure dropped dramatically, says the airline.

The aircraft was immediately cleared for diversion to Kona in the Hawaiian archipelago where it landed safely after a flight that United describes as "textbook". Early indications are that the engine may have suffered a bearing failure. United says the single-engine flying time was "just over 3h", but the FAA says it was "190 to 193min".

According to sources at the airline, the maximum FAA-approved concessionary one-engine flying time from suitable diversion airfields for a long-range United 777 is 207min, but this is only for exceptional circumstances.

Technically, the 777 is in a category of specially equipped long-range twins that are cleared under a standard ETOPS maximum of 180min, but in May 2000 the FAA approved United's 777s for a 15% increase to 207min under special circumstances. The airline normally, however, dispatches the aircraft on the basis of operational flight planning that assumes a 180min clearance, and this was what it did on 17 March, it confirms.

The FAA at present is working in co-operation with US industry body the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to draw up a new set of standards for long-range aircraft regardless of the number of engines they have, possibly taking modern twins into the 240min ETOPS range and beyond.

Europe's Joint Aviation Authorities, also working towards new standards for long-range flights over oceanic or wilderness areas, so far finds itself very much at odds with the US proposals (Flight International, 31 December-6 January).


Source: Flight International

[gas path]

lasernigelI'm NOT a pilot but do know that RR has a large engine maintenance factory in the Bay area which would have.SFO approx 1 hr from LAX.Nice nightstop.
Er! not quite TAESL overhauls Tay, Trent 800 and the RB211-535 and at Oakland it's the T56 and Model 250, nearly all military stuff:ok:

[Rainboe]

V Kilmer

Rainboe, the majority of my fellowpilots, does not worry to much about the fact that BA268 carried on three engines. What they are concerned about, is that they pressed on, and had to divert to MAN with possible less than reservefuel available, and declared an emergency.

Sorry if it smacks of teacher shouting at a classroom, but it is first quite necessary to sort out the whole question of the mechanics of continuing on 3 to allay the fears of the handwringing inexperienced who have been unstinting in their criticism of that decision. So far, we have had "the passengers should be told EVERY defect on these flights", we have had "a vote should have been taken by the passengers". When we clear that nonsense away and appreciate that it was a perfectly safe decision, we can start to examine what should fly this route, and in this (non) incident, the outcome.

1- So our heroes set off on 3 engines. I would hazard a guess that as numerous Trijets used to fly this route (even the Tristar until it was realised you can only stretch an elastic so far), then a 747 on 3, still with the same redundancy as a Trijet, is not 'bad news' in any way. It is as good, or better, than a long range twin in that it can still have another worst engine failure on the same side, and be equivalent to a twin losing one, and like a twin still have full power available on one side......except.......that is distributed over 2 engines, so you could still lose another and still have 1/4 thrust available, which the twin wouldn't- it would be a glider. I give this crew a vote of full confidence!

2- The outcome. They were on course for LHR with reduced fuel reserves (actually a daily occurence in normal operations!). So when fuel starts running low and it appears there are feeding problems, and it appears some fuel may become unusable, they immediately arranged to divert to MAN. Following low fuel procedures requiring a 'Mayday' if landing is likely with below official Reserve minimum, all actions by the crew are in accordance with guidelines. Some people, even pilots with no 4 engine long range experience, are using these facts to attack the whole question of the safety of the operation. This is the way long range operations are carried out people! Unlike a shorthaul operation where you can guess to the nearest 100kgs how much fuel you will use, long range ops are vastly more affected by winds, altitudes achieved, speeds flown, and the fuel disparity for the flight can be proportionately greater than in a shorthaul environment, so we are used to operating to lower reserves than in a shorthaul arena.

3- The FAA should not throw stones before the event is judged. I agree that they are following public disquiet, and once the issue is looked at again, there will be a silence from them. They really have no leg to stand on, having sold the world this miracle of modern engineering with multiple redundancy, and now trying to pretend it's no safer than a twin. Talk about arrogance!

PS Did United get the same flak for flying people for 3 1/4 hours ON ONE ENGINE as BA have taken for flying people ON THREE ENGINES? The world has gone crazy! Trouble is there are hundreds of 'instant Judges' pontificating here on matters they know not a dicky bird about!

[barryt]

Rainboe : I am interested to hear what your reaction to Barry Schiff's comments on this episode are.

[Rainboe]

I can't find his comments here- this thread is getting rather large, but I recall they were critical. Looking at his experience, he has an unknown amount of 747 time, but it mainly seems to be trijet/twins apart from the old days on Connies (with unreliable piston engines.

I have 18,000 hours wide experience from twin turboprops to shorthaul twins to 17 years on 747s- 34 years BOAC/BA and 38 years flying expeience. I think his comments as I recall them might be skewed to a less than 4 engines point of view. I disagree with them. He probably feels heavily committed to support the new American product and belief (ultra-long range twins are good) as opposed to the good old 747 (and Airbus product) of 4 engines for safety. He is not the author of the bible! I think those comments were indiscreet. A lot of experienced pilots, including the wealth of longhaul flying experience in BA (and BOAC) advocated what was carried out. Is there any airline with more active longhaul flying experience than BA/BOAC? I don't think so! It raised absolutely no disquiet there.
Even the Pope keeps banging on about not using birth control devices- does that make his word final?

[Stan Woolley]

Unless Barry Schiff is a BA 744 Captain his opinion and the opinion of V Kilmer's colleagues or my own friends including 747 TRE's appears to be of no interest to the likes of 'Rainboe the experienced.'

Flying the aircraft to 30 mins fuel and declaring a Mayday may seem a good show to him but whether he likes it or not a significant number of inexperienced* pilots disagree.

*Not BA

I wonder if Hapag Lloyds' procedures and crew training were considered high quality right up until the A310 accident?

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

Rainboe

<Following low fuel procedures requiring a 'Mayday' if landing is likely with below official Reserve minimum, all actions by the crew are in accordance with guidelines. >

Wrong! I am reliably informed that according to BA SOPs 'Will be' are the words you seek. 'is likely with' requires a PAN? Unless, of course, you know differently?

<Trouble is there are hundreds of 'instant Judges' pontificating here on matters they know not a dicky bird about!>

Tweet, tweet

Edit required?

[Rainboe]

I have almost as much experience as Schiff, and probably far more on Intercontinental and ex-US border flying experience than him. I am saying his word is no more final than mine.

I leave aside your facetiousness Mr. Woolley. The end of the flight was a new problem. No adverse event resulted from the decision to proceed on 3- it went like clockwork, and was no more dangerous than flying a DC10. That decision to continue was the one that raised criticism here. The events at the end of the flight were a different matter and should be examined separately, don't you think? I still await information about it. It was the apparent suddenly unusable fuel that caused the final problem.

[BA268passenger]

So far, we have had "the passengers should be told EVERY defect on these flights", we have had "a vote should have been taken by the passengers". When we clear that nonsense away and appreciate that it was a perfectly safe decision, we can start to examine what should fly this route, and in this (non) incident, the outcome. Speaking as a passenger on that flight: of course I wouldn't want to know about EVERY defect on an aircraft (why worry me regarding something I can do nothing about), but when I am already worried & frightened - having heard loud banging, been shaken violently, and seen sparks and flames coming from an engine (I didn’t see the flames personally, but other passengers on my flight did) - it would seem to me to be sensible to give us passengers as much information as possible (particularly if it is information that is likely to reassure us that we’re not about to die).

The fact that you, as a captain, could describe what had happened, and what it meant to the continued safe operation of this flight, would help in several ways.
In particular, it would let us passengers know that you are fully aware of the situation and are trying to do something about it (it would also allow us to alert you, via the cabin crew, if the situation you described was different from the one we had observed – for example, if you didn’t seem to be aware of the presence of flames from the back of the engine).

On this particular flight the captain said the problem was caused by a “surge” in the engine, and he did mention sparks or flames & vibration. This did at least tally with what we had experienced – although I don’t suppose many of us had any idea what a “surge” was. Personally speaking, I would have felt less anxious if he had gone on to say something along the lines of:
“For those of you who don’t know, a surge in a jet engine is somewhat similar to a car back firing. It looks & feels dramatic, but it is not in itself dangerous, and does not imply serious damage within the engine, or to any other aircraft function. I can see from my instruments & gauges, that all other engines are functioning normally, and the engine I have shut down is not causing fuel loss, or any other problems. This aircraft incorporates a high degree of redundancy in its design and is certified to fly for long distances on three engines. In the extremely unlikely event of me having to shut down another engine, it is also perfectly capable of flying, and landing, using any two of its engines. Whilst this situation may seem somewhat dramatic, please be assured that it is something that we pilots train for on a regular basis”.

I would only have wanted him to say things that were true, but if he could have said at least some of this, it would have made me feel happier and less anxious. It might also have given me something more concrete to discuss with my wife when trying to convince her that we weren’t about to fall out of the sky.

I also think it would have been good to have been told why we couldn’t immediately loop back and land at LAX – which is what I assume most of us passengers expected him to do. We don’t know about maximum landing weights or things of that sort, nor do we know what is involved in dumping fuel, and how long it might take.

The captain on our flight did sound reassuring when he explained that we would be flying to London on three engines. It sounded as though he had weighed up the pros and cons, and assessed the safety implications, but for me personally I would have liked to have more insight into his thought processes – although I suppose not everyone thinks like me, and there could then be a slightly increased risk of people trying to argue with his decision (despite not having his experience, or access to many of the facts of the situation).

So to summarise my point of view: keep us passengers informed of what’s going on (particularly when we already know that something is going wrong), but the final decision as to how to proceed has be the captain’s (making use of other expert resources, as appropriate, and keeping safety as his uppermost concern).

[Rainboe]

Those comments are really interesting and should be taken on board by us all. I can say that we really sympathise on the flight deck with the sheer verbosity and quantity of BA cabin public addresses. There is a definite trend amongst pilots to minimise what we say because we are aware (being frequent BA passengers ourselves) what an unusually violent, frequent and lengthy ear bashing our passengers are subjected to from the public address. Nobody else does anything like as much- I hate to say it, but our cabin crew are on that PA 3 times as much as they should. And then at the end of the flight, instead of peace and quiet, you are touched for charity donations. I sympathise, as do many of us- it is frequently raised in despair in our bulletin board. I know the pilots would have been working incredibly hard for several hours talking to home base and assessing the situation and en-route weathers. It is possible the task of informing you may have been pushed firther down the list of priorities than it should have been. I will bear your comments in mind- they are very valid, should such an event occur to me.

[Bearcat]

From Flight Mag



US agency voices concern over captain’s decision

The US Federal Aviation Administration has raised concerns with its UK counterpart over the recent decision by a British Airways Boeing 747-400 captain to continue a Los Angeles to London flight following an engine failure seconds after take-off. The FAA’s surprise move is likely to have significant ramifications in the ongoing transatlantic debate over future regulation of long-range airliner operations.

The FAA says the BA captain’s decision – which the UK flag carrier has subsequently said it fully supports – was contrary to the course of action it would expect the crew of a US-registered aircraft to take. However, it recognises that the UK Civil Aviation Authority is the agency responsible for setting the rules by which UK-registered operations fly.

“A US carrier would not typically fly any distance with one engine shut down,” says the FAA. This would not necessarily mean the crew would land at the nearest airport, the agency says, because the captain could reasonably take into account the feasibility of reaching “a base where the [failed] engine could be looked at”.

The FAA says its discussions with the CAA are intended to establish “what the exact facts are”, and the agency says its only concern is “the safety of aircraft operating in our airspace”. The CAA says that it is “continuing closely to monitor the BA investigation into the occurrence and is in contact with the FAA on the matter. But at this stage, and without wishing to pre-empt the outcome of further investigations, the CAA sees no necessity to issue any new operational advice to UK carriers in comparative situations where an aircraft has suffered an engine failure.”

The 19 February BA flight did not, in the event, reach its London Heathrow destination, but diverted to Manchester 320km (170nm) to the north because it ran short of fuel.

The No 2 engine suffered a surge as the aircraft was passing 100ft (30m) just after take-off from Los Angeles (Flight International, 1-7 March). The captain elected to continue the flight to London Heathrow on the remaining three engines, but the aircraft ran short of fuel after failing to obtain its optimum flight level 310 cruising altitude.

DAVID LEARMOUNT LONDON

[Rainboe]

I find this disturbing. Does the FAA really sanction United to fly across those enormous Pacific wastes on twin engined aircraft such that with an engine failure at a critical point, flight times of up to 190 minutes + (Algy posting, page 30) are possible on one engine only? Is this seriously a way for modern technology to try to mock statistics? And at the same time, are we really to believe that the FAA finds it unacceptable for a 747 to continue its flight on 3 engines?

Who is going insane here? I know I will not traverse the Pacific as a passenger on twins. Who are they trying to kid? Which is the greater problem?


“A US carrier would not typically fly any distance with one engine shut down,” says the FAA. Oh yes?

[Backtrack]

“A US carrier would not typically fly any distance with one engine shut down,” says the FAA. This would not necessarily mean the crew would land at the nearest airport, the agency says, because the captain could reasonably take into account the feasibility of reaching “a base where the [failed] engine could be looked at”.
LHR for instance.
and the agency says its only concern is “the safety of aircraft operating in our airspace”.
So they don't give a damn what happens over Canada, NAT or UK/Eire then?

[DOVES]

Earlier on this forum I was talking about the 'funnels' I was taught by the other's and my experience not to enter.
Apart from the possible consequences that could have been arisen from the engine surge (flames to the fuselage, to the stabilizer, blades to the other engine or to the body or to the wing/fuel tank),.
Can you imagine which was the atmosphere in that cockpit after the decision was taken to proceed to the destination?
I am sure that nobody slept on that plane that night.
And so when the sun came back to kill the dark: how many pilots were not incapacited to end that mission?
But I want to reassure everybody.
Once upon a time, in the first carrier I have been flying for, a Captain, who had landed La Caravelle with the landing gear up during a training flight, was appointed after a short while as a Flight Operations Manager.
Think it over!
Safe flights to everybody

[Rainboe]

I am fascinated by this 'funnel' every twin jet pours itself down when it passes Fiji heading up towards Honolulu, and the thought that should an engine fail, how far the distance on one engine pumping out maximum continuous power for up to 3 hours! Tell me, how does that 'funnel' compare to the LAX-LHR flights funnel on 3 remaining engines? Now an answer from someone- would you rather be 3 hours from Honolulu on one engine or 10 hours from destination on three engines in a 747? Is the attention of the FAA (and said Barry Schiff) well placed or misdirected?

Surges are a well known quantity on wide bodied aircraft for 34 years. They are harmless apart from the fact the engine may not be available for relighting.

It's been 31 years since I flew between Honolulu and Fiji. I remember a damn long way, precious little to navigate on, almost nowhere to divert to, tiny island to find at the end after hours of astro- and I think about 8 hours flying. And they do that in twins? With people?

[fireflybob]

Rainboe, quite so.

Reminds of the definition of the ideal aeroplane is when the flight engineer taps the captain on the shoulder and says "We've just lost number 4" and the captain responds with "Which side?".

[barit1]

Ah yes - the dreaded 7-engine approach...

[BOAC]

I wonder what the statistical chance of a second engine failure would be..................

[Final 3 Greens]

Rainboewould you rather be 3 hours from Honolulu on one engine or 10 hours from destination on three engines in a 747? No brainer for me - in the 747

Is the funnel from LAX to LHR really 10 hours?

Plenty of diverts are available through the US and Canada and when oceanic there are diversions available in Greenland and Iceland, as well as turning back.

So how long is the real 747 funnel and how does the risk exposure compare to a big twin on one for three hours?

[DOVES]

And what if ... a depressurization? (Remember blades/bullets)
Flyng at 14000' which would have been the range?
Only to the next shark.
I think that the skin of a certain organ has been drawn too much.
Usque tandem CATILINA...?

[Rainboe]

There was absolutely no external damage nor fuel leakage. If you are now talking about depressurisation, you are raising a whole new subject about risk and aviation in general. Perhaps it would be safer to take the train from LA to London?....no, not with the record of railway accidents.....maybe drive?......I don't think so, certainly not 'safer'. Flying these Arctic routes, we are well aware of risk of fire or depressurisation, and we always prepare and check weather for suitable diversion points. There are quite a few diversion airfields that are occasionally used ( I think the last user was an Air France B777 up in the Arctic a couple of years back).

If it is reassuring, we do not EVER operate out of range of diversion airfields at any time, even in the event of depressurisation and max 14,000' cruising. We can always make diversions quite rapidly. The one thing that is a big problem is fire. I think every flight there are still fools who creep into toilets for a quiet smoke- I would like to see them sent to prison!

[MPH]

SKY 9
I also flew for 30yrs + and have 18,000hrs+. Mostly on three engined A/C. Even though the birds flew on two and indeed on one. I would never continue for 10 hrs with a single engine failure. According to JAR/ops flame out's and surges should be treated as an engine failure.
The B744, being the wonderfull bird that she is, I for one, would certainly not like to be in the middle of winter flying across the north -Atlantic and have have a 2nd eng/fail. Even though certified, this bird flies as bad the DC10/MD11 or even the good old L1011! It's not a question of probabilities it's, to do with saftey and preventing further compications. I no doubt the crew on this particular flight had taken into account all the probalities and followed company SOP's, but the end result did turn into an incident!:hmm:

[M.Mouse]

but the end result did turn into an incident!

No it didn't however much you and others try to hype it into one.

[policepilot]

If it wasn't an incident, why did Manchester stop all out bounds, and advise the fire engines that the 744 was not able to do a go-around due to low fuel. Normally if one declares a PAN, especially fuel related, it's an incident.
Had the crew not said PAN, nor made comments about not being able to do a go-around, this wouldn't even have made PPRUNE.

For my 5p, although SOP's etc had been met, I think it's stretching the limits a bit flying the distance they did with an engine out.

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

Bit of a 'Mickey Mouse' comment there, ?'Minnie'/'Muddled'?

Outside BA, I'm sure that all professional pilots consider a 'MAYDAY' - unable to go round and not having a lot of fuel available to use - to be at best an incident, at worst a potential accident.

But then, what do we know? Best live in your world, I guess, but what sort of world can it be? It worries me greatly to see such comments.

[Hotel Charlie]

This is what it comes to when the Beancounter get to run the airlines!



M.Mouse
No it didn't however much you and others try to hype it into one.
Don´t insult your own intelligence. Loosing an engine in itself is an incident. Flying half way round the world afterwords and getting priority due fuel starvation does definitely not make it any less of an incident!

[M.Mouse]

OK I shall re-phrase.

The aircraft landed at MAN, having declared a MAYDAY as required by SOPs.

They landed with more than the legally required minimum fuel.

They in fact did have the ability to go-around.

If that makes it an incident then it was an incident.



loose = something that is not tight
lose = a loss of something

[barit1]

I wonder what the statistical chance of a second engine failure would be..................

I know some engines where the rate is 1 loss of thrust in 100000 engine flight hours. Or 0.0001 in 10 engine flight hours. Running on three, you treble that.

Your mileage may vary. Consult your engineering dept. for further details.

[Hotel Charlie]

loose = something that is not tight
lose = a loss of something

M.Mouse, pardon my spelling! Either way it´s still an incident!

[BOAC]

.....er actually it was referring to the previous two posts, but thanks!!

Whoops! Someone got in the way. That was for barit1

[GlueBall]

I don't think that it's pressure from management nor from the beancounters who contributed to this unfortunate incident.

When all is said, written and done, the decision to continue a revenue passenger flight for 10+ hours, overflying and bypassing many suitable airports, minus one engine rests soley with the captain.

Sorry to say, but it was poor judgement of the captain. And it was lack of assertiveness on the part of the First Officer to challenge the captain's decision.

Except perhaps in a state of war or other extreme emergency, there is no logic and no intent of any SOP at any airline anywhere to suggest or to justify that it's "optional" or otherwise "acceptable" to continue a revenue passenger or revenue cargo flight for an additional 10 hours after an engine failure.

Assuredly there is a small paragraph in every airline operations manual that states that the flight crew is not constrained to exercise good judgement and common sense in interpreting rules and procedures....

Nevertheless, I'm sure that this episode will cause SOPs at many airlines to be rewritten with additional guidance about "continuing to the nearest suitable airport" after an engine failure of an airplane with 3 or more engines.

:ouch: :ouch: :ouch:

[RatherBeFlying]

Herr Dr. Dipl.-Ing. Dornier's ghost and I have been having a quiet chat. According to him, you can't have too many engines; so, here's his proposal for the 747-600: Add fifth pod ferry structure to opposite wing,
Provide control, fuel, hydraulic, electric and bleed air connections to the two extra pods.
Herr Dr. Dipl.-Ing. Dornier's designs were never that good for payload.

[cavortingcheetah]

:)Dear Glueball, I am reminded of that little anecdote about never letting the small chaps (ie: squids, first officers and so on) touch the controls until 10k ft, or Flight Level 100, or whatever. This is not a plan to which I subscribe, by the way, we'll just leave the FL oout of the equation.
I have Commanded, (sic) and even flown, certain aircraft, jet, turbine and emasculated for some time over some parts and in some places, for more than thirty years++(yeah!), and, have had the great advantage of reading on this thread, these past many pages. Once, long time ago, I was an FO. I do remember those great days of sitting next to God and working out how might I extricate him from the Alligator pond into which his backside had landed; without him having realised that he had even got himself into such a murky place in the first instance. I know that there were many great guys who returned the same ancestorial favour to me. In the travails of my aeronautical experiences there have been Captains who are opinionated, intransigent and generally twinned up. Think of that movie 'The Caine Mutiny' or, if you prefer, jolly old Captain Bligh. Good navigator though, damn good, what! Bosuns' pipes for him. Crossed The Pacific in a longboat, not an engine within a centimetre! So, who pulled out the voice recorder then, or did they sit, as I often have, with my little finger on the 'erase' toggle?

:ok: :E :ooh:

[Capt.KAOS]

I wonder what the statistical chance of a second engine failure would be..................
I wonder what the statistical chance of another engine on the same position on the same plane would be to expire one week later. Very, very, very slim, yet it happened. Consult your engineering dept. for further details.

[MPH]

M.Mouse.



If you don't classify this as an'incident', how would you describe it as, 'unfortunate circumstances'! Standard procedure under the circumstances or what?

As stated earlier on this post. I would love to see this crews 'special report'.


And let's get one thing clear, I respect this crew's decison. Was it the right one. In my opinion, nooooo!:ouch:

[Rainboe]

You speak as a trijet pilot. The B747 is a step up. The 'incident' at the end of the flight is independent of the decision to continue on 3. I still maintain that that aeroplane had far more redundancy and safety flying on 3 engines over an area with many emergency diversion airfields than a B777 gamely setting course across the Pacific where it has been shown if it loses an engine, it will be flying for up to 3 hours + on one engine at max continuous. We have dabblers in aviation here with experience only on single engine or maybe twins expressing disquiet- you have no idea about 4 engined operations and the redundancy built in to the B747, so please stop expressing verdicts!

[cavortingcheetah]

:eek:
I regret to have to say that, as I found upon reading page 31 ( I think) there is a degree of: 'verbosity and quantity' in this discussion which keeps surging on. Self opinionation in as closed an area as a cockpit can be remarbably destructive and hardly conducive to babytalk, whatever that may be, to quote Nubar Gulbenkian. Sometimes I really am glad that I am just a retired Tyrannosaurus Captain (but a Rex for all that) and not a simply an old Diplodocus.:uhoh:

[JW411]

I have so far refrained from comment on this subject.

I have never flown a Boeing 747 of any variety.

I have, however, quite a lot of experience as a DC-10 captain and have a fair amount of experience on the LAX - LON route.

In addition I flew the DC-10 across the Atlantic (and the Pacific) under two regimes; I have a UK ATPL and an FAA ATR on type.

In general, the FAA regulations were more restrictive than the CAA and, from my point of view, that was quite welcome.

If I lost an engine on take-off from LAX heading east (on the N-register) I knew that I would have to explain "in great detail" to the the FAA exactly why I considered it OK to continue to any other airfield other than the "nearest suitable airfield".

It certainly would not have been a possibility to announce that you were going to continue across the whole of the USA , Canada and the North Atlantic.

In all of my many years of flying long haul before JARs, I was always required to arrive with "emergency holding" plus "diversion fuel" to an alternate.

Under JARs, I hear BA calling London on a very regular basis that they "Are committed to Heathrow". For those of you out there that don't understand JARs this basically means that they no longer have enough fuel to go to an alternate but, because Heathrow has two runways and the weather is reasonable, they can continue.

In other words, as long as both runways at Heathrow keep going without a single glitch, they can land without breaking any rules. Needless to say, nothing ever goes wrong at Heathrow!

So what is my point? I can live with going round Santa Monica Bay twice (which must have used up a lot of fuel) and then proceeding eastwards to the amazement of a lot of people. I could just about have made a case to continue across the USA/Canada but the Pond might have stretched my good humour somewhat.

What really bothers me is the last hour of this flight.

Having got past 30W the crew must have had a very good idea of how the "Howgozit" was going. I would have thought that it would have been obvious that Heathrow was already an impossibility to any sensible person.

So why did this hard-working crew that had done their level best for BA go past PIK/BFS/SNN etc and end up with a "Mayday" at MAN?

With 11 hours to think about the problem, I would certainly not have got myself in a situation like this.

Perhaps the big worry here is the the way the BA crew were trained or indoctrinated. I have already seen on this thread (and others) ample evidence from BA pilots that they think such situations are perfectly safe and that any criticism is superfluous. Indeed they dismiss the FAA as an irrelevance.

This, having done both with big aeroplanes, is a very arrogant statement. I can say that with a great deal of confidence that the numberof US-registered aircraft exceeds the the rest of the world put together.

Therefore, the posting from "BA God Help Me" should be seen in context.

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

Thank you, JW411 - you beat me to it - We both know what we are talking about despite what others may wish to think? This was in preparation as you posted.

Lets forget 'FAA v CAA', 4 motors v 2/3 motors and all that mess. Lets talk 'nuts and bolts'. I have to put my cards on the table - based ONLY on what I know from here, someone screwed up. Now, if one of my crew got themselves into this position -

OK, firstly it is unlikely, as said earlier. Let us suppose, however, that they HAD to press on, and the only 'suitable' airfields were 'across the water', several hours away.

I would have expected to be told - yep, woken up if necessary, and that is something the guys don't do lightly! A team would have looked at it. Dispatch, engineering, flight tech, commercial etc etc. At least hourly sitreps from the airplane would be coming in. We would be running a 'howgozit' in dispatch. The crew would NOT have gotten to a low fuel drill position UNLESS there were no other 'suitables'!

After the event - suppose they had done just that - I would have everybody in - same lot again - plus flight crew. I need to know why they let this happen. If, now, the matter had gone public on the web, as this has, I would expect a large number of others to want to know why as well. Were they keeping a howgozit on the flight deck? When was it obvious they would not reach LHR? When was it obvious they were going to be 'in difficulties' with available fuel at MAN? Why did they not land somewhere earlier? Perhaps one of the advantages in them keeping going instead of landing at 'nearest suitable' is that they had HOURS to work all this out. Why did dispatch let them carry on so long? I believe that would be OPS for BA - you don't use 121 dispatchers. I CANNOT believe that there was NOT some 'interference' from the ground in the decision.

Why the 'mice and men' are so anxious to keep everybody in the dark I cannot understand. We even have a self-proclaimed BA long-haul pilot picking someone up for spelling when he/she does not even seem to understand the english language! This incident needs to be looked at thoroughly and not trivialised. I'm sure the guys I know in BA and the CAA will. The pax also have a right to know what went wrong and what is being done about it, and then, perhaps, they can 'leave it to the professionals' with a bit more confidence.

[Rainboe]

So a trijet pilot gives us the benefit of his experience (not awfully relevant- losing an engine on a trijet does not equate to a 747), and judging by his harebrained profile, some Walter Mitty dispatcher gives his verdict. Can you explain how some people dare to set off across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans on just 2 engines to start with? I still think this needs re-examining. People are ducking this issue- answer please- what is your opinion of a planeload of passengers lives hanging on one engine, over the Pacific Ocean for 3 hours? How does this compare to a 747 on 3 engines for 10 hours? Not really much comparison?

I don't know what benefit the comment about how large US aviation is. BA is the biggest 747 operator in the world with 57 747, something less of 777. Nobody else has the breadth and depth of intercontinental, long range experience BA has. We lost a couple in 1948 or so, but haven't done bad since then!

[M.Mouse]

We even have a self-proclaimed BA long-haul pilot picking someone up for spelling when he/she does not even seem to understand the english language!

Wasn't so much spelling as a common misuse of the language.

I understand English quite as well as I understand the pompous, opinionated twaddle from those who clearly have insufficient knowledge to make a reasoned argument.

Walter mentions the team on the ground. A fundamental misapprehension about the way BA operates.

JW411 mentions his experience on an old, and somewhat disaster prone tri-jet, and then pontificates about a modern 4 engine aircraft.

It is little wonder those working for the company become irritated by half-baked, misinformed argument.

[Capt Fathom]

I think this thread has lost it's way a little.
The point I will make is that regardless of how many engines you have, be it 4, 3, or 2, when one of them stops, your margin of safety has been reduced. It is then up to the pilot in command to manage this reduction in safety as per the company SOPs and other relevant regulations. At the end of the day, you may be asked to justify your actions.
Is it safe, is it practical and is it legal?

[GlueBall]

BA is the biggest 747 operator in the world with 57 747, something less of 777. Nobody else has the breadth and depth of intercontinental, long range experience BA has. "...crossing oceans with pax on three (3) engines."

PS: Even if I were at BA earning top-dog salary, it wouldn'd be enough money for me to fly a 74 loaded with pax for 10+ hours on 3 motors! :ooh:

[Nippon1]

Rainboe

Correction, Ba is not the biggest operator of B747s in the world..JAL have 100+ in operation at this time.

[Rainboe]

Glueball, you haven't answered the question. Would you prefer to be on a 747 on 3 engines (ie, it has magically become a trijet that used to fly this route) for 10 hours, or on a 777 over the Pacific wastes on 2 engines, with the likelihood of 3 hours cruising on one engine to get you to safety if you lose another.
I know with the enormous redundancy built in to the 747 which I would like- even down to 2 engines, you still have 2 more. You could even lose another engine- not at all pleasant, but you would still be flying.
Fathom- you haven't thought this through. If our B-52 loses #4 (on the left wing), he is (according to your logic) 'reducing his margin'. Should he scrub the mission or carry on and ignore? Where do we cross the line from dodgy ETOPS operations to safely redundant 4 engine ops? We go from twins (land at nearest if engine out) to Trijets (think about landing soon if engine out) to 747 (carry on if engine out, but watch out for 2 eng driftdown and monitor diversion airfields).

[JW411]

I wonder if some of the posters on this thread are caught up in a sort of corporate arrogance? The theme seems to be "we are the biggest therefore we are the best and we have absolutely nothing to learn from anyone else". In this case the corporate arrogance goes right back to Imperial Airways. It must be strange to imagine that you are better than anyone else.

If the DC-10 was such an awful aeroplane why did BA fly them? They even borrowed DC-10s from ANZ before they had their own (for the LAX-LHR route). In fact, the BA DC-10s were still going strong long after their L-1011s were dead and buried.

[Rainboe]

BA has never had a DC10. The LAX LHR ones were ANZ operated by BA crew the right side of LAX.
I think they didn't have enough engines for BA! (That was a facetious attempt at humour!)
It's not corporate arrogance. 2 engine ops are different to 3 engine ops as are 4 engine ops different. Perhaps we need 6 engine ops on this route to totally satisfy everybody, but then the 'anything wrong with an aeroplane should cause a diversion' brigade will still grumble.

I'm still getting my head around 300 people over the Pacific on one engine. One thing this thread has let me appreciate is that ETOPS has gone too far. How many 777s are going to take a swim in the lifetime of the aeroplane?

[JW411]

Sorry old son but you are talking rubbish. British Airways operated and owned the following DC-10-30s:

G-BEBL, G-BEBM, G-BHDH, G-BHDI, G-BHDJ, G-DCIO,
G-MULL and G-NIUK.

They came from BCAL and were operated for many years by BA.

So the history of BA is obviously not your strong suite either.

[maxy101]

Yep...At the time, the BA DC10 fleet was the happiest little fleet in BA. Routes out of LGW with some decent CC and routes like Bermuda, San Juan, Miami,Dallas, Houston, New York,Atlanta, as well as the odd African excursion and places like Baku. Great little fleet and one of BA's best kept secrets. Rainboe is probably getting confused with the Caledonian operation where BA mainline pilots got seconded for a couple of yrs of shagging...oops, sorry, service.

[Human Factor]

The theme seems to be "we are the biggest therefore we are the best and we have absolutely nothing to learn from anyone else".

I can say that with a great deal of confidence that the numberof US-registered aircraft exceeds the the rest of the world put together.

Pot, kettle, etc..... :yuk:

As has been asked several times, and ignored by a few, would you prefer to be on a three-engined 747 or a 777 with either two or one?

[bullshot]

Personally I would prefer to be flying on the number of engines that the aircraft was designed to operate on for normal operations. e.g. 2 for a 777/767 4 for a 747 A340 etc etc

If an engine is shut down for good reason, I expect the crew to take account of all relevant factors. I might not expect them to land at the nearest suitable airport but I would not expect the flight to develop into a mayday situation due to shortage of fuel.

I have not and will not criticise the crew on the flight in question - I was not there so am not aware of the full circumstances. I do criticise the few who, against all reasonable argument, continue to demonstrate complete arrogance and stupidity. I cannot believe that you guys are really BA pilots. They must be ashamed of you.

By the way, flying as we know it was invented in the USA. The magnificent 747 was built in Seattle. To argue that BA (or us Brits in general) know better than anyone else is absurd and ridiculous.

[Rainboe]

If an engine is shut down for good reason, I expect the crew to take account of all relevant factors
That's exactly what they did, taking into account a myriad of factors, enroute weather, diversions, terrain, alternates, spares, where the pax wanted to go. To repeat again, all was going to the new plan until a fuel feed problem occured late into the flight.
I was incorrect about BA and the DC10. I forgot several were unwillingly inherited and operated out of Gatwick. They were rapidly subbed out to charters and saw out their existences there. Experience of Trijet operations does not necessaily cross over to 4 jet ops just as twins are different again.

[BEagle]

The very length of this debate just goes to show that there is no 'right or wrong' verdict which can be applied to this case.

Idiotic comments about 747s on 3 engines being the same as DC-10s or TriStars are spurious; at the end of the day the sole concern shown by most who do not support the ba view is that it is the overall level of risk exposure which ba is prepared to inflict on its customers which needs to be re-examined. That level is the product of degree of risk multiplied by the time during which that risk applies.

Hence people can understand a decision to cross the CONUS on 3 engines with plenty of en-route alternatives and no fuel factors to worry about. But 'halfway around the world' on 3 engines and a very tight fuel state anticipated on arrival? Many see that as just too chancy - I certainly do.

[28L]

>>at the end of the day the sole concern shown by most who do not support the ba view is that it is the overall level of risk exposure which ba is prepared to inflict on its customers which needs to be re-examined<<

BEagle,
As a BA 747 Captain, I still am not sure what you and others understand the risk exposure of a 747 crossing the Atlantic to be. I have seen many 'human' comments, ie a general feeling of concern, but no objective reasons why we shouldn't. What exactly do YOU see the risk exposure to be? A further engine failure? A systems failure? Lack of fuel?
I understand the 'human' aspect, and I understand the PR aspect to BA, but I still don't exactly understand what you and others perceive the RISK to be.

[Rainboe]

There is little difference between a 747 on 3 engines and a Trijet. I would equate it to a slightly underpowered Tristar trying to stretch itself to do the route. What is the difference?

[cwatters]

I understand the 'human' aspect, and I understand the PR aspect to BA, but I still don't exactly understand what you and others perceive the RISK to be.

It would be interesting to know how many accidents are caused by mistakes made when distracted by a seemingly minor problem.

Wasn't there a famous case where a crew spent so much time trying to resolve an UC problem they few into terrain?