747 - US agency voices concern over captain’s decision

[QF Quoll]

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.


Should make the B 777 etops look really good. :ok:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Interesting case this one. I remember about 10-12 years ago QF had a -400 coming LHR-SIN and they shut down an engine over Iran due to an oil pressure problem. QF SOPS for the -400 stated that the aeroplane must go to the nearest Suitable Airport, the definition of suitable being a company Main or Alternate with appropriate weather/ fuel reserves.

I don't know what the weather was like at en-route ports like Karachi/Mumbai etc but the decision was made that the nearest Suitable was Singapore and they continued and landed safely.

It is a long time ago and as I said, I don't know what the enroute ports were like, but it seemed a interesting decision at the time. I also wasn't privy to the company reaction either.

This BA case has been covered extensively in Rumours and News. If operating under QF SOPS, I doubt you could justify going past JFK. Seven hours over the Altlantic on three engines when a Company Main airport is sliding below would not be what I'd personally feel comfortable with.

[DirectAnywhere]

You'd be a lot further north than JFK - probably Hudson Bay or similar and going further North, but I see your point.

[Baron Captain ?]

Obviously a Company MAN!!!!


But I'm sure if you got the passengers to vote on it.... I'm sure they would have preferred to land at JFK too....

Obviously the Capt didn't want to dump all that expensive fuel to land back at LAX.... But at least on the Eastern side of the USA would have been a much better option that going across the Atlantic on 3 donks....

Crucify the Captain for that decsion I say!!!!.....

[Capt Fathom]

A long way from JFK and the East Coast!
LAX-LHR (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=LAX-LHR%0D%0A&RANGE=%0D%0A&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&SPEED-GROUND=500&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=)

[TAC On]

We,ve come a long way, haven't we.

Once upon a time, DC6/7, Connies, Stratacruisers, and Solents, it was a cause for celebration if the tour was completed with all engine operating.

"Engines, give me 5 feet of Boost."

TO

[tinpis]

Oh...and of course he wouldnt have been straight on the horn to the company about this?

[404 Titan]

Capt Fathom

Of course you are assuming that he was flying the Great Circle route. While I don’t know the exact circumstances of this flight, I would has it a guess that he was well on the southern side of this taking advantage of the Jet Streams that prevail this time of the year. All in all the failure occurred at 100” after take off LAX. Plenty of time to modify the flight plan and divert to JFK. BA has lots of flights to JFK and it wouldn’t be too hard to protect all the PAX on to LHR.

[Capt Fathom]

Titan
I have made no comment regards where the aircraft should have gone! Merely pointing out the track in relation to JFK and the East Coast. I'll leave the armchair flying to you experts!

[RaTa]

Borg

If my memory is correct with regards to QF, landing at the nearest suitable airport was for 767/737.
Back then the four engine aircraft could continue with an engine shut down. Briefly the following points had to be considered before continuing:

1. What caused the engine to be shut down. (some causes are far less of a worry than others)
2. Enroute weather and weather at destination.
3. Availability and weather at enroute diversion airports.
4. Terrain enroute.
5. Fuel requirements.
6. The effect of another engine failure. (terrain, fuel etc).

I don't know if the above still applies but back then there were occasions where you could continue on, others where you could not.

I just read Capt Fathom's post below and it is pretty close to what I've said.

[Capt Fathom]

CIVIL AVIATION ORDERS
PART 20
SECTION 20.6
Issue 4

CONTINUATION OF FLIGHT BY MULTI-ENGINE
AIRCRAFT WITH 1 OR MORE ENGINES INOPERATIVE

SUBSECTIONS
2 Application
3 Requirements

2 APPLICATION
This section applies to all Australian aircraft.
3 REQUIREMENTS

3.1 When an engine of an aircraft fails in flight or where the rotation of an engine of an aircraft is stopped in flight as a precautionary measure to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall notify the nearest Air Traffic Services Unit immediately, giving all relevant information and stating the action he or she intends to take in regard to the conduct of the flight.

3.2 The pilot in command of a multi-engine aircraft in which 1 engine fails or the rotation thereof is stopped, may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if, upon consideration of all relevant factors, he or she deems such action to be safe and operationally acceptable. These factors shall include the following:
(a) nature of the malfunctioning and the possible mechanical difficulties which may be encountered if the flight is continued;
(b) availability of the inoperative engine to be used;
(c) altitude, aircraft weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage;
(d) distance to be flown coupled with the performance availability should another engine fail;
(e) relative characteristics of aerodromes available for landing;
(f) weather conditions en route and at possible landing points;
(g) air traffic congestion;
(h) type of terrain;
(i) familiarity of the pilot with the aerodrome to be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read into that what you will. As long as you can justify your decision at the inquiry.
PS...this ANO/CAO has been around for years!

[4Greens]

Reference the CAO; flying across the Atlantic with suitable airports on offfer takes a bit of beating!

Passengers are not in a position to judge whether the operation is safe or not . The CAO rightly refers to operational matters only.

[Blip]

(b) availability of the inoperative engine to be used;

I never did understand this one. If it's inoperative it's gota be unavailable. If it is available, why would it not be operating??

[Capt Claret]

Perhaps the Captain considered the trigger happy paranoia of the state of departure and deemed the most appropriate course of action to be to get out kwik! :p

[Windshear]

Would have been an interesting P.A. to the passengers. Don't tell them about the problem with the aircraft but some how attempt to explain the reason that 3 engines uses more fuel than 4 engines.

I'll bet there's a number big companies in the U.K. and the U.S. asking B.A. to explain to risk management involved in this decision. :confused:

[Feather #3]

Blip,

Say you shutdown an engine due to a known oil leak. You figure it's got about an hour's running in it. Re-light below F200 on descent and make a normal landing. Been done several times during my career.

Thus, it IS available [albeit for a reduced period] should a second engine have to be shut down.

G'day ;)

[P Mitchell]

This incident, as far as I can gather from other testimonies raises a few very pertenent questions. Firstly, considering the engine failure took place so early into the sector and also flying over most of the width of the USA, the captain had ample opportunity to divert to a "suitable airfield". The underlying decision was the one to continue upon reaching the Atlantic. I wonder how sure he/ she was of making land when this decision was made. I suggest that not having enough fuel for a go around upon arrival at MAN would suggest not very. The failure of engine number 2 would undoubtedly cause the aircraft to yaw, which would be compensated by rudder deflection. This would surely increase the profile drag on the aircraft, not to mention the spillage drag from the inoperative engine. This combined with not being able to reach the optimum cruise left no margin for error. I ask the question if the aircraft had experienced increased headwinds over the Atlantic, would it have even reached Shannon? I suspect personal factors to have been the driving factor in the making of this decision. Anybody remember Tenerife? I rest my case. Pax lives were jeopardised for the sake of keeping a social schedule and I challenge anyone to prove me otherwise. If it was as I suspect, the decision maker personifies unprofessionalism!!!!!!!!!!

[Capn Bloggs]

P Mitchell (of Topgun fame?),

You are showing some ignorance of 4 engined-high capacity operations. All of the issues that you raised re- 2 engined ops were considered by the crew, after consultation with the Flt Ops department on sat phone. Flying IS a commercial operation designed to make money, and commercial considerations MUST be taken into account.

I cannot for the life of me see the similarities between Tenerife. That was a case of an egotistical dutchman who could not be told; the BA 747 was a measured, calculated decision having regard for all the facts.

While I am not justifying the crew's actions (I think I probably would have landed early), your criticism, in my opinion, is unfounded. Get a copy of Flight Intl of 1-7 March and read the facts. You may then change your opinion.

[DirectAnywhere]

Actually, P Mitchell, there was PLENTY of room for error. They may not have reached Shannon but would have certainly reached Iceland (Keflavik?).

Aeroplanes fly all the way across the Atlantic on, shock, horror two engines every day. Trial by media followed by trial on here, without all the facts at hand, is hardly fair or professional.Pax lives were jeopardised for the sake of keeping a social schedule and I challenge anyone to prove me otherwise Actually mate, the burden of proof rests with you. Any facts to back this up or is it merely more uninformed speculation from an armchair skipper?