Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000

[kokpit]

Thoughts? This article from Times Online:

Turning back after engine failure would have left airline liable to pay out for delays under new rules on compensation.

A British Airways jumbo jet carrying 351 passengers was forced to make an emergency landing after an 11-hour transatlantic flight with a failed engine.

The fault occurred on take-off from Los Angeles but the pilot declined all opportunities to land in the US and instead continued on three engines for 5,000 miles to Britain.

The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000.

Balpa, the British Air Line Pilots’ Association, gave warning last night that the regulation could result in pilots being pressured into taking greater risks for commercial reasons.

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. Passengers must also be put up in hotels if the delay continues overnight.

The BA flight departed at 8.45pm on Saturday and the airline admitted that the delay would have been well over five hours if it had returned to Los Angeles.

BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the flight. But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only 100ft above the ground.

Air traffic controllers at Los Angeles spotted streams of sparks shooting from the engine and immediately radioed the pilot. He attempted to throttle the engine back but was forced to shut it down after it continued to overheat. The plane then began circling over the Pacific while the pilot contacted BA’s control centre in London to discuss what to do. They decided the flight should continue to London even though it would burn more fuel on just three engines.

The Boeing 747 was unable to climb to its cruising altitude of 36,000ft and had to cross the Atlantic at 29,000ft, where the engines perform less efficiently and the tailwinds are less favourable. The unbalanced thrust also meant the pilot had to apply more rudder, causing extra drag.

The pilot realised as he flew over the Atlantic that he was running out of fuel and would not make it to Heathrow. He requested an emergency landing at Manchester and was met by four fire engines and thirty firefighters on the runway.

Philip Baum, an aviation security specialist on board the flight with his wife and three daughters, said he had heard two loud bangs shortly after take-off. “The pilot came on to say we had lost an engine and he was negotiating about whether or not we should land back at Los Angeles.

“A few minutes later, I was amazed to see from the map on the TV screen that we were flying eastwards towards Britain. I would be disgusted if the issue of compensation had any bearing on the decision.”

BA said financial concerns had played no part in the decision. Captain Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.

“The plane is as safe on three engines as on four and it can fly on two. It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue. The options would have been limited for passengers [if the plane had returned to Los Angeles].” He said the pilot would have had to dump more than 100 tonnes of fuel before landing at Los Angeles. “The authorities would have had words to say about that.”

Captain Brown said pilots always took the final decision on any safety issue and would never choose to put themselves at risk. “Even without 350 passengers behind you, you are always going to be concerned about your own neck.”
But David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, said: “It was a very odd decision to continue to London. Even if the pilot didn’t want to dump so much fuel, he could have diverted to Chicago.

“You are not as safe on three engines as you are on four and I suspect that, given the choice, most passengers would have opted to return to LA.”

Some airlines are trying to avoid paying compensation for delays involving technical failures of an aircraft. They are citing a clause in the regulation which excludes delays “caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.

But the Air Transport Users Council, which advises passengers on how to obtain their rights, said airlines would still be liable in cases involving engine failure because the cause was likely to be poor maintenance. Simon Evans, its chief executive, admitted that the regulation could lead to airlines taking greater risks. “We recognise there is a possibility that an airline might take a decision to fly in order to avoid paying compensation.”

Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Balpa’s chairman, said: “The EU regulation is poorly drafted and increases the pressure on pilots to consider commercial issues when making judgments in marginal safety situations.”

Article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html

[Rollingthunder]

But David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, said: “It was a very odd decision to continue to London. Even if the pilot didn’t want to dump so much fuel, he could have diverted to Chicago.

Chicago? What flight path is that? Try Calgary or something like it.

[PilotsPal]

Would this be the same event featured in a 13 page thread in Rumours and News?

[Tony Flynn]

If the crew are happy to do this then so am I

[Globaliser]

kokpit: Thoughts?Yes: Please can we leave this one to the Rumours and News thread, where at least some of the posters have some idea what they are talking about.

Even there, there is already too much uninformed or downright ignorant hysteria from people who ought to be keeping their mouths shut as they have not the faintest idea what they are talking about.

[mutt]

Can anyone tell me if this new regulation applies to European Airlines or ALL airlines operating into Europe?

Mutt.

[Avman]

Globeliser , this is the SLF forum and all of us who are SLF can have our say - right or wrong. Let the crews/engineers etc discuss it on R&N and leave the "ignorant" SLF to discuss it on THEIR forum.

I for one have every confidence in a BA captain's decision. I appreciate all the valid points made by qualified B744 pilots. I'm in the aviation business. BUT, as SLF, I still would feel very uneasy about embarking on a 10 hour flight after experiencing an engine failure so early into the flight. It doesn't make me right in a technical sense, but damn it I can say that I don't like it. And yes, I'm not very keen crossing the ocean on twins - which is why I tend to go for 4 engined a/c when I have the choice.

[BEagle]

I agree. To cross the pond after an EFATO (which this effectively was) seems wholly imprudent. Diverting into and organising onward transfer of passengers from an East Coast alternate would have given me a far warmer feeling.

[TheOddOne]

We had this debate a couple of months ago (before this legislation was put in place) with another carrier and the concensus was that provided the reason for the engine failure didn't suggest that another failure was more likely to occur, then it's just as safe to burn off the fuel you'd need to dump anyway by getting closer to your destination as it is to turn back to your point of origin.

I do think it's at best ill-informed to suggest that flight at 290 is inherently less safe than at 370 and that the upper winds are automatically more favourable at the greater level. Has anyone actually checked what the relevant upper winds were for this flight? Thought not. Of course the flight would have been less efficient, that's why the tech stop at MAN. Hopefully it was a 'splash 'n' dash' rather than a full unload.

As has been said before, in the days of piston a/c, engine failure was routine and the go/no-go decisions were based on remaining available range and not on a panic knee-jerk to get back on the ground asap.

As to the 747 flying on 3 engines, we permit TAKE-OFF on 3 engines, for heaven's sake! (admittedly without pax but with overflight of our PSZ and the local community etc...) There's NO PROBLEM with this procedure, provided the rules are adhered to.

BTW it's absolutely Standard Procedure to meet any a/c with an engine failure with the fire equipment. In our case, with only one out on a 747, we'd have probably gone for a Local StandBy, (LSB) rather than another category of response, but MAN might be different. You can't tell the category of response from the report, but 30 firefighters in 4 trucks sounds a little cramped to me!

I'm afraid, in my personal opinion, David Learmont once again makes an inappropriate comment to the media. It rather tarnishes the excellent work he's done in the past to promote aviation safety.

Cheers,
TheOddOne.

[slim_slag]

Globaliser

Yes: Please can we leave this one to the Rumours and News thread, where at least some of the posters have some idea what they are talking about.

Could you do us all a favour and let us know which ones these are? :)

Captain Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.

This is the sort of arrogance one comes to expect from BA. I bet a significant percentage of passengers would have voted to return to LA, and if I'd known it would end with a MAYDAY I'd have been one of them. If that makes me a SLF duffer so be it.

[wombat13]

But the Air Transport Users Council, which advises passengers on how to obtain their rights, said airlines would still be liable in cases involving engine failure because the cause was likely to be poor maintenance.

TOSH

[PAXboy]

Taking the a/c to a suitable way point would seem reasonable. Use the fuel rather than dump it and have time to get a stand by a/c into place, which might obviate the need for penalty payments. The newspaper report is just another newspaper report to be ignored. Crossing on three? Probably operationally valid but probably not valid from a PR perspective!

Last year, I was at an event which was reported in The Daily Telegraph and they reported that incorrectly. Since they had a reporter inside the hall and spoke to the person running the event (me) and STILL reported it badly... I no longer expect any newspaper report to be valid.

[TightSlot]

Given that a majority of people involved in the incident were SLF, it seems to me that we have every right to discuss it in this forum: However contributors would be well advised to read the technical postings on the thread in R&N before posting, which can be found here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164208). It's worth noting that there appears to be some difference in opinion, even within the professional flying community.

As Cabin Crew, I'm accustomed to trusting my Captain's judgement on technical matters on a daily basis, so it is hard to imagine that this would have been different (had I been on board). However, given the nature of the job, this probably isn't surprising, and I can see that others might take a different view.

Most pilots I fly with don't take ill-considered risks because their favourite person is on board, and they want them to get home safely. Commercial considerations get chucked in the pot with the other stuff, but they are never the dominant ingredient.

[HotDog]

.Taking the a/c to a suitable way point would seem reasonable. Use the fuel rather than dump it and have time to get a stand by a/c into place, which might obviate the need for penalty payments.


Not sure about the 744 but in a Classic, dumping fuel with six pumps down to max landing weight, takes approximately 31 minutes. That certainly wouldn't take you very far from LA to a suitable en-route alternate

[kokpit]

Even there, there is already too much uninformed or downright ignorant hysteria from people who ought to be keeping their mouths shut as they have not the faintest idea what they are talking about.

Having been an aeronautical engineer for the last 25 years, and a P-SEL , I feel I have more than a 'faintest idea'.

However, that was not the reasoning behind my post. I simply wondered on what the passenger perspective might be, hence the post in SLF ;)

[manintheback]

From reading the professionals forum and the information given, the aircraft wasnt taken to some suitable point closer to home but had to declare a Mayday to land at Manchester airport as it was running out of fuel. Is this normal practice?. Doubt it somehow.

[BEagle]

But what is most interesting is the whining and squealing from the so-called aviation professionals asking for the R&N thread to be closed.

It's as though they don't want people to make any comment upon a very long flight after an engine failure on take-off, which was conducted over some pretty sparse terrain for most of its route, culminating in an emergency landing at Manchester with insufficient fuel for a second approach....

Why would such debate seem unreasonable?

[Hotel Mode]

As a 747 pilot, i just thought i would add that with 1 engine out the 747 is still 1 more engine away from crashing than a twin is at take off. The 4th engine is needed until V1 after that there is no performance problem apart from slightly increased fuel burn. The aircraft will also fly on 2 and the crew would have worked out the critical point for a second failiure and the fuel burn to the nearest suitable (and this means cast iron) diversion. Any other in flight contingencies could just as easily happen with all 4 turning and we're not considering banning oceanic or arctic flights are we?

As for the mayday on the approach, i gather this was due to a low fuel warning in 1 of the tanks, the tank supplying the dead engine still had plenty of fuel to allow a further approach, but by declaring a mayday pilot gets sterile runway and avoids that risk. 3 engine go arounds being a bit of a nuisance. 2 engine go arounds are also possible by the way. Unfortunately the use of that word causes much excitement in the press and what was an unfortunate incident becomes front page news.

[mutt]

BEagle,

The discussion is interesting, lets look at the two elements involved….

1: Continued flight after engine failure, there is nothing in the QRH stating to land at the nearest suitable airport. The decision to continue will have involved the crew, dispatch and maintenance. As all communications through ACARS and SATCOM are recorded, transcripts will be available for any required investigation. A pilots report should be submitted to the authorities, but as these same authorities haven’t insisted on a policy banning continued flight, I doubt that any action will be taken.

2: Arrival fuel. JAA regulations appear to permit the use of a 2nd runway at the same airport for the declared alternate. So my understanding of the regulations is that the flight should have arrived overhead MAN with:


[1]Fuel to make the approach.
[2]Fuel to hold for 30 minutes.
[3]Fuel for another approach to the alternate runway.


5000 kgs “appears” to be the fuel they expected to arrive in compliance with these rules.

We will have to wait to see why the MAYDAY was declared.

Mutt.

[sixmilehighclub]

Few years back on a tristar belonging to a charter company, the passengers were informed prior to departure that the aircraft had suffered a problem with the landing gear. After take-off developed a bigger problem with the landing gear. Despite knowing it would slow them down, burn more fuel and lower the altitude, they took the decision to continue to london rather than circle, dump fuel and return to origin. It eventually diverted to Portugal. Emergency landing. Didn't make the press.

It happens more than whats advertised. Only now the press have the new compesation regulations as a reason to arouse suspicion amongst the public making it a more interesting read.

BA would not compromise the safety of its passengers for financial gain. It has a fairly good compensation policy in place as it is (better than most airlines). The Captain would have made the decision to continue as it was safe to do so. I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have been on the phone to management in London to ask how much money they would have to pay out if they returned to LAX, just so he can add that into the decision.

Think about it logically. You choose:
1 - Aircraft is safe so continue to destination.
2 - Aircraft not safe but continue anyway because of new compensation law, risk ditching, lose aircraft and hundreds of lives, face law suits, loss of life compensation, unrecoverable damage to business, thousands of greiving relatives on your conscience.

[Final 3 Greens]

If a highly experienced airline captain decided to continue on three, that's okay with me, having read some of the more rational posts on the R&N thread.

WIth a whole series of diversion fields across the USA, the decision was made with a lot of options and could be charged at any time in the first few hours of flight, whilst overflying the continental USA and Canada.

What would be interesting would be to understand why the Atlantic crossing was made at FL290 - was this an ATC imposition? Its not entirely clear to me, from what I've read, whether 290 was an operational limit due to 3 engined flight.

If it was due only to ATC, why wasn't the service a little more flexible for a flight on 3?

[1DC]

Doesn't appear that any rules were broken and a safe efficient decision was taken by an airline that has a good reputation. I suspect that it happens more often than we passengers realise and if Manchester hadn't been involved it would have not been a newsworthy event.

[strake]

When a pilot saves the lives of all on board in a true "there we were upside down....." type of emergency, that pilot will rightly be seen as a hero/heroine.

This incident however seems to be different. It was not an immediate emergency. However, a pretty important piece of the aeroplane stopped working. In a p*****g competition between "Professionals" and "Public Opinion", the latter will ALWAYS win. I think (imho) if 100 experienced travelling PAX were asked what they would prefer in this situation, the majority would say "land".

As to those who say "leave it all to the Professionals"..:

Professional Seamen decided that a great way of saving time and money was to close the bow-doors of ferries as they were leaving port. It worked, hundreds of times...........

Professional Engineers decided that a program of preventative maintenance scheduling rather than inspection was adequate for rail tracks..they were right..for years..

Professional Auditors decided that pro-forma audit tools were all that were needed for big businesses like Enron.....

And so on.

Perhaps a word from Henry Ford who, on being asked why his latest aircraft had SIX engines replied " because there's no room for a Seventh...." My kinda guy.

[1DC]

Strake..

Can't disasgree with what you say.

As the joke reads "If I knew where I was going to die, I wouldn't go there!"

[Globaliser]

Well, if we're going to continue the parallel discussion here, then I might as well throw in a couple of cents' worth. Final 3 Greens: What would be interesting would be to understand why the Atlantic crossing was made at FL290 - was this an ATC imposition? Its not entirely clear to me, from what I've read, whether 290 was an operational limit due to 3 engined flight.

If it was due only to ATC, why wasn't the service a little more flexible for a flight on 3?It seems to me that this is one of the key questions. It sounds like ATC positively descended the aircraft from the original level to cross at 290, and thus turned an OK situation into one which needed re-planning.

The other key question seems to be that identified by mutt:-mutt: 5000 kgs "appears" to be the fuel they expected to arrive in compliance with these rules.

We will have to wait to see why the MAYDAY was declared.It seems that the aircraft actually arrived with enough fuel on board that (in retrospect) they hadn't needed to call MAYDAY, but perhaps only a PAN.

Neither of these questions suggests to me anything other than a flight which was going fine until a second curve ball was thrown, and then some sensible re-planning. The only other real question I can think of is why to MAN rather than to GLA or PIK - but again it will probably turn out that that was an entirely legitimate decision.

So I adhere to the view that, on the basis of what appears to be known, the crew did everything by the book at the time the decision to press on, and there appears to have been no safety reason for a return to LAX at that time. And as we all know, there are added risks and environmental damage involved in such a return, before you get to commercial considerations.strake: This incident however seems to be different. It was not an immediate emergency. However, a pretty important piece of the aeroplane stopped working. In a p*****g competition between "Professionals" and "Public Opinion", the latter will ALWAYS win. I think (imho) if 100 experienced travelling PAX were asked what they would prefer in this situation, the majority would say "land".Which is why it is such a good thing that airliners are not operated by the popular vote of uninformed pax. If my fellow pax had to decide when we were and weren't going anywhere, I suspect that I'd only get about half of my trips completed as booked.

Let's face it, if given the choice between a riskier return to origin and a safer three-engine continuation, which would you choose?

[TightSlot]

With apologies if incorrect (it's not my aisle) but...

As I understand it, 290 was the best level achievable, at that weight/time and with three good engines.

[Final 3 Greens]

StrakeIn a p*****g competition between "Professionals" and "Public Opinion", the latter will ALWAYS win Agreed, but it doesn't mean that public opinion is always right.

TS

The R&N posts are now saying that the 744 was instructed to descend by ATC, but there does not seem to be any official corroboration of that.

[slim_slag]

Isn't that usually what happens when you are going to land? :)

[Final 3 Greens]

Very funny slim!

That would have put the aricraft on about a 2,100NM final ;)

[slim_slag]

Perhaps the master plan was to arrive overhead LHR at a nice fuel efficient 39,000ft, flame out and deadstick it in. ATC are wholly to blame for asking them to come down early.

Still waiting for the experts on here to tell us which posts on that highly entertaining R&N thread are the ones we should take seriously.

[Final 3 Greens]

Perhaps the master plan was to arrive overhead LHR at a nice fuel efficient 39,000ft, flame out and deadstick it in. ATC are wholly to blame for asking them to come down early. Perhaps the plan was to arrive at LHR with rather more fuel, by crossing at a more fuel efficient level - assuming that the posts in the other place are correct. However, we should remember that the flight appears to have been in compliance with SOPs and regulations and the MAYDAY at MAN was the implementation of a SOP designed to protect all on board.

[mutt]

The cruising level has nothing to do with this, it quite legal to plan to arrive overhead manchester with fuel for the approach, 30 minutes holding and then divert to the 2nd runway, using the Jeppesen flight planning system and our B744 fuel biases, the required fuel comes to 5500 kgs.

I dont know the weight of the BA aircraft, so its quite conceivable that it planned to arrive with 5000 kgs. If you have problems with this, they shouldnt be addressed to BA but the JAA.

Mutt.

[Final 3 Greens]

Mutt

were you addressing me, because I don't have any problems with the flight or the calling of a Mayday in line with company SOPs?

I am interested though, whether 290 was the altitude that the crew chose for optimum fuel burn or whether it was imposed by ATC and meant worse fuel consumption, because if it was the latter, then they were working under an additional constraint and it would appear that the system did not assist them as much as it could have.

And just to be very clear, I have immense respect for BA and believe that they are a safety oriented company.

[mutt]

Final 3 Greens

were you addressing me... Nope..

As for reasons for crusing at FL290, can anyone tell me if you are allowed into RVSM airspace with an engine out?

Mutt.

[Hotel Mode]

You are allowed in RVSM

[Globaliser]

slim_slag: Still waiting for the experts on here to tell us which posts on that highly entertaining R&N thread are the ones we should take seriously.Not an expert, but I'll happily start with Danny's, and the ones he recommends reading.

Good enough for you?

[slim_slag]

Morning Globaliser.

Not sure Danny recommended reading any posts, and I what he says doesn't help me understand what happened in the slightest.

One of the pax on the flight mentioned 'consent' this morning. This concept has been kicking around in my head for a few days now and I think is what us 'enthusiasts' and pax need to consider.

My trade uses 'informed consent' in it's line of work. When you walk through the hospital door you don't suddenly give up all your rights to make informed choices. The same applies to when I walk though the door of an aeroplane.

Informed consent was developed by the courts to restrict the previous 'godlike' powers and attitudes of surgeons who were making inappropriate decisions on behalf of their customers. I think somebody needs to hit BA with a lawsuit and let the courts decide the limits of authority of airline pilots when out of the ordinary events happen. I'm not suggesting the courts should decide which buttons a pilot pushes and in which order when an engine fails, but they should set out the rights of the people in the back (who are quite capable of understanding risk etc) when things like this happen. There is obviously significant 'professional' opinion out there saying what BA did is wrong, it needs clearing up, and the courts are the place to do it.

Calculating fuel burn, effect of altitude and temperature on the same, and subsequent range is a skill a student pilot is expected to understand before you send them out on their first solo cross country. If the student pilot had to land short of his destination with a MAYDAY there would be questions asked. Bookworm's post is the one I would bring to your attention, he asked some very pertinent questions, nobody seems to want to answer.

Looks like the US business press has got hold of the story, one can see US companies not wanting to put their highly paid executives in BA's premium cabins now. Would you blame them?

[The SSK]

Why is it generally assumed that BA’s decision was at least partially influenced by the new EU compensation rules? Has anyone actually read them (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_046/l_04620040217en00010007.pdf) ?

Firstly, it is relevant to ask, had the aircraft returned to LAX, would the passengers have been entitled to anything at all?

‘The BA flight departed at 8.45pm on Saturday’. In other words, it wasn’t delayed, it wasn’t cancelled, it was a routine departure. Nobody was denied boarding. What subsequently happened was an en-route event. The EU rules deal specifically with departure delays, they make no reference to en-route delays, arrival delays or diversions.

Secondly, even if the aircraft had been delayed on departure, there seems to be widespread ignorance of what the new rules provide for.

‘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.’ INCORRECT. The airline is obliged to offer passengers the opportunity to abandon their journey and receive a full refund, OR continue with their journey.

In other words, the LAX-originating passengers could have said ‘I don’t want to go to London any more’ and claimed a refund. The London-originating passengers would have flown with a delay or on an alternative flight. They would not have been entitled to any financial compensation. The only exceptional cost to BA would have been if any passengers had originated in, say, Sydney, and opted to abandon their trip – the airline would have been obliged to get them back home AND refund their ticket.

Whatever the issues surrounding this particular event, I am sure that liability for compensation under the new rules played no part whatsoever in BA’s decision.

[Hotel Mode]

The difference with the medical profession is that you are dealing with 1 person at a time! How do you suggest they get consent from 350 passengers? maybe a polling card? And how do you decide who to listen to, i can assure you the regular pax at the front would want to get as close to london as possible, and they pay more, shall we do what they want? Or do we let the majority rule, many of whom will have read 1 too many daily mails and watched 1 too many When planes crash on channel 5?

The average patient at least has some knowledge of their body and how it works, most airline passengers would not have the first idea how a 747 works, whats safe whats not.

Additionally another difference is that doctors dont have 6 monthly licence renewals, medicals, line checks, and written exams every year to establish their competency. And much more importantly, if a doctor makes a mistake he doesnt accompany it to the mortuary.

"Calculating fuel burn, effect of altitude and temperature on the same, and subsequent range is a skill a student pilot is expected to understand before you send them out on their first solo cross country. If the student pilot had to land short of his destination with a MAYDAY there would be questions asked. Bookworm's post is the one I would bring to your attention, he asked some very pertinent questions, nobody seems to want to answer."


After the failiure Manchester was the planned destination, having used your ppl fuel planning techniques. (It may come as a shock but with different levels and temperatures and large weight changes over 5000nm its ever so slightly more complicated than in a cessna) So aircraft arrives overhead MAN with enoough fuel for approach go around, 30 mins holding at 1500ft and another approach (ie the same fuel it would have made LHR with on 4) only the fuel is imbalanced because it is difficult to crossfeed at low tank quantities. So although one of the tanks has plenty of fuel the other 3 are down below 2t ish which generates a low fuel message. Of course when these tanks run dry the aircraft will just take the fuel from the fuller tank, but not wishing to check this out and anyway who wants to do a 3 engine go around, they declare a mayday to get a sterile runway and make certain of a landing. Mayday does not mean "help we're crashing" (except in daily mail and tv programmes described above) it means "we have a problem which requires your help" A PAN will not prevent you holding/get you a sterile runway at a major airport.

The aircraft landed safely as a result.

As for losing US business, you only have to check BA's safety record over the last 20 yrs to see its one of the safest airlines around, US conglomerates will not take any notice.

[slim_slag]

It is the surgeon’s job to wield the scalpel and the pilot’s job to fly the airplane. That's where it stops. The customer is master of his own destiny; it is not the pilot’s role to decide what is best for the customer. It is up to the surgeon/pilot to present the options and likely results to the customer and for the customer to decide which option to take. The customer does not hand over all decision making to the pilot when he walks onto the airplane. If the customer makes a bad decision then so be it.
As for how the customers' decisions are passed to the pilots? That's for the courts to decide, naturally with the input of the experts in the field. Perhaps the presumption is that in non-standard situations the plane lands as soon as reasonably possible, sort of how the FARS suggests one should proceed if you have an engine failure on a US registered 747. It sounds from the witness on the plane that the pax did not want to continue, this was known by cabin crew, and this should have been communicated to flight deck.

I am not interested in the minutiae of how a 747 pilot plans his fuel burn. All I said was that if a student pilot has to land short of destination with a MAYDAY questions will be asked. It is incredibly arrogant to expect this should not apply to 747 pilots. Looks like the FAA are getting interested, they obviously have questions about how flights are managed in their airspace, quite right too.

To say an airline is safe because it hasn't had an accident in 20 years shows extraordinary complacency.

So MAN was the planned destination all along? Perhaps you should put that in the R&N thread so the experts can discuss. From a PAX point of view, if I have to change planes anyway, I'd rather stop at an enroute airport which didn't require a three engined winter atlantic crossing. I'd also rather stop at an airport where they didn't have to make sure the runway was sterile because of fuel concerns.

Feel free to rubbish me :)

Cheers

[Globaliser]

slim_slag: Not sure Danny recommended reading any posts, and I what he says doesn't help me understand what happened in the slightest.Well, Danny has said:- It is obvious that continuing after an engine 'failure' (as opposed to a catastrophic failure) on a B744 does not require an immediate land at the nearest suitable airport. The crew will base their decisions on all the information available which includes the indications in front of them, other parameters that are accessible through various on-board systems and advice from their maintrol. Shutting down an engine and continuing on 3 on a B744 is not the dire emergency that some of you think it is. The decision to continue to cross the Atlantic will also have been based on many other parameters including wx and other commercial reasons.

Can we now please leave the debate to those with experience in B744 ops as the signal to noise ratio on this thread is getting uncomfortable with the sensationalist remarks from enthusiasts and a few professionals alike.And later he said:-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!As I say, that's good enough for me.slim_slag: One of the pax on the flight mentioned 'consent' this morning. This concept has been kicking around in my head for a few days now and I think is what us 'enthusiasts' and pax need to consider.

My trade uses 'informed consent' in it's line of work. When you walk through the hospital door you don't suddenly give up all your rights to make informed choices. The same applies to when I walk though the door of an aeroplane.

Informed consent was developed by the courts to restrict the previous 'godlike' powers and attitudes of surgeons who were making inappropriate decisions on behalf of their customers. I think somebody needs to hit BA with a lawsuit and let the courts decide the limits of authority of airline pilots when out of the ordinary events happen. I'm not suggesting the courts should decide which buttons a pilot pushes and in which order when an engine fails, but they should set out the rights of the people in the back (who are quite capable of understanding risk etc) when things like this happen. There is obviously significant 'professional' opinion out there saying what BA did is wrong, it needs clearing up, and the courts are the place to do it.This is an interesting idea, but I don't believe that it would work, for three main reasons.

First, the people in the back are not in truth capable of understanding the risk that's involved in airline operations. Take, hypothetically, an engine failure on takeoff, in circumstances where it's more dangerous to land immediately than either holding for three hours to get below MLW, or to pressing on to destination. I would bet that a poll of the passengers would produce a large body of opinion - very possibly a majority - would still vote to land immediately. That, simply, is how irrational most passengers are about air safety. It's a subject about which few passengers know anything of substance, and you could not educate them sufficiently in the time available for them to make any sensible decision.

Second, the courts are not the answer. The English courts will not decide in favour of one body of professional opinion over another about whether what was done was right or wrong. There is clearly a large body of informed opinion that says that the crew did nothing wrong, ending up with a perfectly safe divert to Manchester simply because of a few more things going wrong during the remainder of the flight. The court will not go beyond that in looking at any question of professional judgment. The courts will not say this body of opinion is right, this body of opinion is wrong - that is an approach firmly and repeatedly rejected.

Third, even if the English courts were asked to look at the issue in the way that you suggest, I believe that they would regard the decisions taken by this crew in the same way as the decisions taken by a surgeon in the middle of an operation when, say, a vessel unexpectedly ruptures. Or the decisions taken by a barrister in the middle of a case when a witness suddenly starts "going wobbly" (sorry to use a technical lawyers' term) about which questions to ask or not ask, or which arguments to continue to run and which to abandon, in the light of the evidence as it is then coming out. These decisions are not amenable to the taking of instructions from the patient or the client. They're rightly left in the hands of the professionals.

BTW, I don't know which side of the Atlantic you're on, but the doctrine of "informed consent" as such doesn't exist in England. It's been firmly and definitively rejected by the courts. But the idea that you have to give proper advice, including proper information allowing a proper decision to be made by the patient or the client, is very much part of English law and I suspect that you are in fact referring to that principle. (And I say England and English because that's all I'm really qualified to comment on.)

[slim_slag]

Globaliser,

I will have to spend more time than I have right now to answer your splendid post. However, I don't believe Danny has experience of 744 ops, which would make his own posts on the subject fly against his own rules :) However it's his bandwidth, and he can say what he likes, IMHO. Which 744 pilots are we to believe? Those that work for BA, or those that don't (because I think we have polarised opinion based upon those lines)

[28L]

There is also the practical question of how many passengers would understand enough English to understand the situation - BA operates throughout the world. If the Cabin Crew were to have to translate into the native language of all on board, how long would that take?
In the case of LAX, if the majority of passengers elected to dump fuel and return to LAX, and because of an ill wind at the time it (the fuel) ended up over Beverley Hills, who would be responsible?
Much as I understand your posting, I can't see that having a vote among the passengers is a viable option.
I would guess too that a large number of passengers, upon hearing the Captain asking for a vote, would say something along the lines of "Jeez...did you hear that? He's the Captain for Crissakes, if he doesn't know what to do then who does?"

[TightSlot]

slim_slag just a heads up to let you know that Danny's current a/c type is 747-400.

[Final 3 Greens]

is up to the surgeon/pilot to present the options and likely results to the customer and for the customer to decide which option to take So, a poll is held and....

57 decide to return to LAX
23 decide that they would like to divert to SFO
1 awkward sod has a close relative in Ontario, CA and votes to go there
31 fancy Salt Lake City
2 decide that burning fuel and stopping at EWR would be a good idea
6 wish to use parachutes, as they are convinced they are about to die
89 have never been to Mexico City and vote for a nightstop there
47 think that Halifax makes sense
29 vote for YYZ
14 vote for Goose
55 think that Reykavijk makes sense
3 demand euthenasia tablets, because they can't stand the stress

Need I go on?

Ships and Aircraft are not democracies and those who choose to travel on them accept the captains authority as part of the deal - it has always been so and it is not appropriate to compare a many-2-1 relationship (pax to captain) with a 1-2-1 (patient to doctor.) It's also illogical, but that does not surprise me from you slim :}

[radeng]

I'm afraid my reactions as slf would be to say 'OK, guys, keep up the good work' and go to sleep. They have demonstrated that they appear to know what they're doing, they've been doing it for some time, and they know more about it than I do. If it's good enough for the blokes up the sharp end, it's good enough for me. (Well, if they're a legacy airline like BA, that is - there are other airlines where I would be more worried - but I would avoid them anyway)

[Hotel Mode]

Exactly, thanks guys, I think a lot of the opinion is from the other side of the atlantic where the FAR's say land. But all european operators fly to the JARS which say make up your own mind. American pilots will be sceptical because its not what their rules say. European pilots are pretty happy in general. There are a lot of FAR regs i find deeply scary when i operate to the states, Land and Hold Short, landing clearance without a clear runway, Visual approaches in marginal conditions to busy airports, no appreciation of how long it takes to slow a 747 down etc but thats because in a European trained pilot, so its just what your used to.

What happened here was 300 pax and 18 crew flew from LAX to the UK and landed safely, with minimal disruption to their plans.

[Final 3 Greens]

Hotel Mode

landing clearance without a clear runway I know what you mean! The first time it happened to me, I was on about a half mile final in a rented 172, when ATC launched a commuter on a cross runway.

The separation was over a mile (about 1 minutes flying time in a 172 on approach!) given where the intersection was, but it does come as a bit of a shock when you are not used to it.

So, I think that your point about the US pilots feeling uncomfortable with pressing on, when they have been trained to land, is well made and insightful.

Part of my day job involves designing educational programmes (not aviation) and I am very mindful of the impact that training has - trying to unlearn practices and relearn new ones is not easy - witness the recent thread on the Private Flying forum about whether the stick controls ROD or airspeed.

[BEagle]

Well, personally I wouldn't feel very keen on being flown on an 11 hour flight with the Perf A redundancy already used up on take-off...

Diverting to an eastern seaboard airport and transfer to another aircraft would be a far safer course of action.

I await the report with interest.

[28L]

Beagle,
Why this fascination with the eastern seaboard? A 3-engined 747 has FAR more redundancy than the twins which make up more than 75% of the traffic across the Atlantic. I can understand the emotional arguement, but that was discussed years ago with the introduction of ETOPS. From the technical point of view - having already flown for 3 hours or so across the States (plenty of time for any potential problems to show up) there's really no reason not to continue.

[strake]

28L

I don't recall being asked my point of view, emotional or otherwise, about ETOPS. Then again, I'm only a member of the Public who regularly flies on Public Transport.

I still suggest a poll of PAX would say land as soon as possible.

And by the way, by that I don't mean a poll of the PAX who were ON the aircraft in question.

[Hotel Mode]

You always use your Perf A requirements on take off because thats what Perf A is, once clear of obstacles you dont need it again until you next try and take off!

Can someone just tell me of a further problem in flight that is more likely with a secured, safe engine out than it is with 4? A further engine failiure and depressurisation would have been looked at before the decision to continue, anything else is just as likely on 4 as 3.

[slim_slag]

TightSlot, thanks for heads up. I'm basing what I said on Danny's post where he says "Having flown the B737, B757 & B767 and just finished B744 ground school". I haven't before considered that one can be considered to have "experience in B744 ops" without having first flown that type. Obviously I live and learn.

Globaliser,

Excellent post.

First, I'm not expecting a judge to decide whether the pilots made the correct decisions during the phase of flight when things were not routine. The regulations are quite clear that pilots can do what they like when things are going wrong, but when things are sorted they have to obey the regs again. Also, there has been no suggestion that the pilots did anything wrong when diagnosing and shutting down the engine.

I'm also not expecting a judge to decide which of the two polarised bodies of opinion is correct. God help anybody who has to sit down and listen to the prima donnas this incident has dragged out of the woodwork, must be worse than a divorce case :) However you need to accept that there is an expert body of opinion which says land as soon as possible.

What I'm saying is the rights of the people in the back need to be defined and recognised.

What rights do the people in the front have? Well, the commander is responsible for the safe operation of the flight. Responsible. That means he is obliged to divert to an alternate if weather is sufficiently bad at the planned destination. He is authorised to ignore any regulations as he sees fit if there is an emergency, but only while the emergency lasts. That's about it I believe.

The passenger has to obey instructions from the crew, and the commander is head of the pyramid here, but surely that can only mean instructions that are required for the safe operation of the flight. i.e the captain can tell me to sit down when the seatbelt sign is on when flying in turbulence, but cannot tell me to sit down if the sign is off and I am safely heading to the toilet. Well he can tell me to, but it is not a lawful instruction, and I believe I can ignore it.

The question in my mind is, can the commander take me somwhere against my will? Which regulation gives the commander the authority to do anything outside his obligation to ensure the safe completion of the flight? Landing back at LAX is safe, if the incident had happened after departing LHR he would have returned (been there, done that), so as returning to LAX is not dangerous the pilot cannot say he is not allowed to do this.

Obviously when I get on a flight bound for LHR, I consent to the commander getting me there safely, that is his responsibility laid down in the regulations. It's his expertise to fly the plane, not mine, I am happy in the back sipping a G&T. If the flight is proceeding normally I obviously cannot change my mind mid-flight and tell him to take me to Cuba. I have consented to being taken to LHR.

But what happens if there is a material change to the circumstances under which I initially gave consent, like losing an engine? This is definitely material because several experts have said they would land, and the regulations of the country where the incident took place suggest one should land. The witness on the flight implied he no longer consented to being take to LHR and wanted to land.

Can the commander now take passengers to LHR against their will? I don't know, but I think there is a case.

Some people here say they would vote to continue. So what, it's the people who no longer want to continue I am referring to.

So what do you think? Am I talking legal nonsense? Wouldn't be the first time :)

F3G, please hit me with your brand of logic :ok:

Shouldn't the more recent posts be in R&N? Sure, it's nicer here, but even so, you are ruining what could be an interesting thread :)

[Final 3 Greens]

slim

I see where you're coming from, but IMHO the contract made is for the professional, i.e. the captain (or the CSD on BA :}) , to use their reasonable endeavours to take you from point A to B, dealing with irregularities as necessary, using their professional judgement as appropriate and taking full accountability for those decisions.

So once they shut the doors and push, your basically out of the decision loop.

Of course, the average SLF probably never thinks the implications through.

It could have been worse - how would you like to have been a passenger on the Titanic, when they decided to go iceberg chasing :ugh:

[slim_slag]

F3G,

I absolutely reject the concept that once the doors are closed I am out of the decision loop. The pilot's have their responsibilities and authority laid down quite clearly, and they do not have the powers or authority to detain a group of passengers and take them somewhere they no longer want to go once the initial conditions of the flight have significantly changed. It's an interesting question I think. No doubt there are Americans on the flight, BA has a business presence in the States, and lets see whether Americans are as litigious as the general concensus of opinion on this website holds them out to be.

Iv'e been waiting for 411a to post. He speaks with a lot of authority (not a popular thing to say!!) and he blames BA the company, not the pilots. I think he has got it right this time too.

[PAXboy]

slim: the opinion from 411A is this. Posted 3rd March 2005 03:48 in the main thread runing in R&NIt 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.
I think that it was a good show but, in today's age of inflammatory media response? Setting down at a suitable point in North America might have been better. Will this instance change anything? Not of itself but it will only require one or more of these events (with any carrier) and the planners will have to change. I don't agree or disagree with that, it is simply where we are.

[Dogs_ears_up]

I absolutely reject the concept that once the doors are closed I am out of the decision loop Is this an absolute? - i.e. Do you expect to be included in all decisions made by the Flight Crew, only those relating to take-off or cruise performance, or only those that you may construe as being safety related? Or would you prefer to be included in the loop for all decisions affecting the flight, and filter out those that you are happy to delegate to the Flight Crew on the day?

You are free to reject the concept, but the simple truth is that, in effect, you are out of the decision loop every time you fly: You delegate the responsibility for the safe operation of the flight to individuals who have been highly trained to deal with that reponsibility. It is plainly ludicrous to expect that you should be involved in safety related decisions during a flight that you are travelling on as a passenger: Not only might the Flight Crew be somewhat wary of your ability to reach an appropriate solution, but so would a large number of your fellow passengers. You are of course free to reach a judgement afterwards, with the benefit of hindsight, a freedom that you are presently enjoying. If the decisions made by the Flight Crew/Airline were incorrect, then surely this will be identified by the various authorities afterwards, and may become the central thrust of a lawsuit.

to detain a group of passengers and take them somewhere they no longer want to go once the initial conditions of the flight have significantly changed It is not clear that passengers were taken somewhere against their will. They bought tickets for LHR, and that is where they were taken. Passengers must be "detained" on board - releasing them in mid-flight is bad for business (although often, tempting). Detention is a necessary function of being on an aircraft. It is not possible to accomodate those who wish to continue andd also those who don't. Any decision taken will disappoint one group or the other. A this stage, we do not know whether all, a majority or a minority of passengers wanted to land or continue on the flight. Your view is I'm sure, one of many possible, and no more or less valid than others.

slim_slag I'm not unsympathetic to your views (nor looking for a barney) - I just feel that you're wading in waters that are deeper than you may realise, and that you're asking for something that is simply impractical in real terms.

:hmm:

[The SSK]

Can I throw another factor into the equation?

Over the two current threads there seem to be a large number of respondents who would have elected to fly the aircraft to an East Coast point and take their chances from there.

OK let's think this through...

They would arrive in New York (or Boston, or Washington) at around 5 or 5:30am. What then? Daytime transatlantic flights eastbound are few and far between. BA has one flight each from Boston, Washington, Newark and JFK so in theory our flight could connect with one of those, assuming it had some space. Maybe a few other passengers could be accommodated on Virgin or United/American (assuming they too had space).

As for the rest (the majority of the 351, I would guess), they would face a day in whichever E. coast city until the evening departures kick in.

At a guess, the airline would not want its passengers dispersed so would not let them leave the airport. So they would have done an overnight transcon, sat around a terminal all day, and then done another overnight flight to arrive 24h late.

Now, doesn't 11h on 3 engines begin to sound a bit more of an attractive prospect?

[Globaliser]

slim_slag: What I'm saying is the rights of the people in the back need to be defined and recognised.

...

The question in my mind is, can the commander take me somwhere against my will? Which regulation gives the commander the authority to do anything outside his obligation to ensure the safe completion of the flight? ...

But what happens if there is a material change to the circumstances under which I initially gave consent, like losing an engine? This is definitely material because several experts have said they would land, and the regulations of the country where the incident took place suggest one should land. The witness on the flight implied he no longer consented to being take to LHR and wanted to land.It's a good question, but the impracticalities of doing what you suggest (as others have pointed out) are in themselves a strong indicator that the answer is that the airline may still lawfully continue to convey you to wherever the commander considers appropriate.

I think the legal analysis will indeed be that (for the purposes of the law of tort) you have consented to being carried to LHR or to any other point to which the commander considers it necessary to divert, in his discretion and judgement - and that you can't withdraw that consent once the flight has got under way. It's almost certainly part of the contract of carriage; it will be implied into it if it is not expressly spelt out.

The reason it will be implied is because the consequences otherwise are absurd: What if 10 passengers out of 300 withdraw their consent, but the other 290 positively wish to continue and do not consent to the extra time and risk of a diversion to please those 10? Whose wishes are paramount? There cannot be an answer to that question; hence the legal position must be that you can't withdraw your consent at that stage.