BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article

[sailing]

In jondc9's ideal world the MEL contains everything on the aircraft. If the light in the toilet doesn't work, you don't fly. Simple really, fewer awkward decisions for the skipper to make!:bored:

[Danny]

AS to your judgement of losing a generator and going on to KLAS, you were within your rights under your MEL I am sure.

I would have gone back to the gate and gotten it fixed.
Aha, you have finally confirmed to me and no doubt the great majority of us on here who are airline pilots that you do not have any real experience of airline operations. So, from now on, we can treat your opinions as just more of the same old drivel. We know you would not have continued on the BA flight and if you were with my airline you would have returned to stand with a single generator inop when downroute, returning to home base in a B744.

Now, kindly leave the discussion so that something new and that makes sense to us can be debated. Opinions, once made are fine. Repeatedly soapboxing on here with flawed opinions based on limited experience soon leave you with no credibility and degrade the thread as more and more of us feel the need to put you in your place which is as a voice over on CNN as they play endless repeat loops of some light aircraft with it's gear partially extended or some other drama on a quiet news day. :rolleyes:

One thing is plainly obvious to us on here... you will never be in the position to make the decision whether to return to LAX whilst piloting a B744 if you shut down an engine or just lose one of four generators. 'Nuff said. :hmm:

[Globaliser]

To Globaliser. All of the people I mention have been or are currently captains for major airlines in the US. While our 4 engine planes are now gone, their views as pilots are still valid. Each one of these pilots has at least 12thousand flying hours. (except the one I mentioned who felt that going on was just fine...she has 1200 hours, but a degree from stanford).

One pilot was the lead flight engineer instructor on the 747 (not 400 of course).Thank you.

As before, I will revert to listening to the views of those who operate or who have operated the 747-400, wherever they may be in the world.

[Zeke]

I will make it clear:
I would have returned to LAX.
I mentioned the BAE146 as a plane that has 4 engines that I have personally flown on 3 engines (see post on 3 engine ferry). This was to indicate operationaly knowledge of 4 engine aircraft.
I have never flown a 747 of any type. Nor have I indicated that I have.
AS to your judgement of losing a generator and going on to KLAS, you were within your rights under your MEL I am sure.
I would have gone back to the gate and gotten it fixed.
You must be quite afraid to have your procedures and knowledge challenged by someone.
You all seem to be so defensive about this operation. It makes one wonder if you are just worried about losing this one in the FAA battle ahead.
I have done mainly short haul stuff. Each of my hours in the air was followed by a landing. Perhaps after ten of your hours in the air you got one landing...does this make me a bigger expert on landings than you?
I have already indicated that under your regulations and rules you may have legally proceeded to England. I do think that the FAA has a point though and it will be up to the process to decide the outcome. Perhaps, as I mentioned, a new regulation will come up after this incident.
Also, if you feel that someone with about 12,000 hours, a captain for a major airline in the USA on another boeing aircraft does not have the right to offer his opinion, say so. my ticket includes cfiimeiatp.
Since your probably never flew the Vulcan bomber (neither did I) would you think it improper to weigh in on a crash of the Vulcan in a thunderstorm on one of its earliest flights? I think any aviator could weigh in just fine thank you.
I am happy to pontificate. My background allows me to. I imagine yours would too, but you don't.
A forum is just that. A place to speak.
Again, so you are not confused.
I think the BA 747 in question should have returned to LAX.
I think the judgement of the pilot was wrong.
While 4 engine planes have certain regulatory rights, good judgment has precluded additional regulations. Certainly if the FAA loses this one, I will look for a new regulation to be created. I may proffer it myself.
Being a 747 pilot for BA does not make you correct. NOT being a 747 pilot doesn't make me incorrect.
Still waiting for those answers to the questions I posted earlier...especially the one where the Queen of England is aboard a 747 in the same situation. (our own president cancelled a helicopter flight due to radio problems...in a pinch they could have used a cellphone I suppose)
And tell me, is it your normal operating procedure to count on declaring a low fuel emergency at the end of a flight that has started so badly?
pontificatingly yours,
jon
Just to be clear, the FAA are not fining BA over 121.565 (Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting), the flight was operating under Part 129 whilst in the US airspace.
The are not challenging the crews decision under FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation), they allege BA violated 91.7(a) by operating an unairworthy aircraft.
For those not familiar with the FARs,
Sec. 91.7
Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
Please note, the FAA does not have a say if the aircraft was airworthy or not at the time, the airworthiness of the aircraft is determined by the state of registration, being the UK CAA. The FAA does not have a say, as the UK CAA have said the aircraft was airworthy.
To see public comments from the UK CAA on issue see this flight international article : http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/11/Navigation/195/205869/British+Airways+appeals+FAA+fine+over+2005+Boeing+747+engine +shutdown+'safety.html
To see the actual papers filed for this matter please see : http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=23539&searchType=docket
The whole flight was legal in terms of ICAO Annex 6 International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes, Chapter 8 and Annex 8 Airworthiness of Aircraft.

[jondc9]

Why would I get off my soapbox when this argument is just getting good?


To the MEL watchers. My MELS do cover things like lights in the toilet...maybe your MEL needs more work. ( and the simplicity of the statement which covers this contingency is magnificent)


I flew one kind of plane that requires a special inspection light to be operating to check for an emergency gear down procedure. IT can be MEL'd while operating in daylight...so the day it broke we waited for the sun to come up and off we went.


To mr. generator man. Did Vegas have a spare IDG for you? And there are some pilots (none on this forum I am sure ;-) ) who might have known of the problem prior to pushback and waited for the plane to move under its own power one foot prior to putting the generator on line. Now of course the plane is underway and can continue with the generator offline.

(And your chief pilot would fire you? You must not be working for a fine UNION airline if your chief pilot would and could fire you for doing something that is on the safe side of flying.)

But none of you would do that , would you?


And as to airworthiness. Was the 747 in question airworthy on landing at MAN? Of course not, the engine was out! It needed repairs to return to standard airworthiness, didn't it?

I will take all the flack you guys can generate.


STILL waiting for the answers to questions asked earlier.

and yes, I have flown about 100 different kinds of airplanes, only a few of which required type ratings.

And believe it or not flying long haul 747's only interested me in the glory days of Pan Am. Those days are long gone. There are actually 747 jobs available that pay less than 737's. Take a pay cut to fly a 747? That makes great sense!


The lawyers will have a lot of fun on May 16th. Was the plane air worthy? What was the status of the MX logs? Why did the engine reportedly spew flames from the aft end? May we listen to the recordings between the maintenance people and the aircraft? (if recordings available)


Awaiting your next salvo!

jon

[Stoic]

In March 1977, on my second trip as a fully qualified 747 classic copilot, the aeroplane suffered a severe No 2 engine failure on the climb out from MIA back to LHR.

Mindful of the fact that we were in the business of safely getting our pax from MIA to LHR as expeditiously as possible, after consulting the Company and his flight crew, the captain elected to divert to JFK for best onward transmission of pax and the most suitable place to repair the a/c. God knows how many "suitable" airfields we passed on the way from MIA to JFK. Nobody (apart from one or two posters on this thread) would seriously suggest that we should have landed at one of them.

And that was 29 years ago when engines were relatively unreliable.

Strange thing, but the FAA didn't fine us!

Stoic

[GGV]

jondc9 you say I will take all the flack you guys can generate but how you say that just continues to demonstrate that you are not only opinionated, but also quite badly misinformed (and that is to be charitable). You are welcome to you opinions, but your grasp of a number of issues - not least your contrived response to the #4 generator example - suggest that you would probably argue with your own shadow.

Danny got it right, you have expressed your questionable opinions. Leave it at that. It is clear you will argue. What is not clear if you have the wit to stop and think for long enough to learn.

[jondc9]

stoic

let's put the FAA aside on this one. At least you stayed on this side of the atlantic and got repairs and took care of your passengers. I also see that you didn't have to declare a low fuel emergency.


I think the real question about this whole thing is OPTIONS.

IF you were in a 747 and thousands and thousands of miles from anyplace in the aviation ''first world'' continuing on 3 would be fine with me. (I think that was the spirit and intent of the regs.)


Got that, fine with me!


BUT, on the west coast of the USA I can think of many ''first world'' airports which were much closer than MAN England. Granted BA might have had to pay some extra money to take care of things in the USA instead of England...but then the money is the decision maker isn't it?

In your case, 29 years ago, I can think of a few airports, and I can see why JFK was your choice...but you didn't go another 3000 miles after JFK. Perhaps that is why the FAA didn't do anything.



Anyone remember the regs about takeoff alternates and the differences for the number of engines? But that is another subject.


j

[Danny]

jondc9, this is not about taking flak. This is the Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork and I will decide whether you will be allowed to continue wasting too much space on this forum. So far, you have not added one iota of new evidence that, in your 'opinion', the crew broke any rules. All we have is your 'jack of all trades' opinion which has been noted.

Repeatedly trying to stir up the debate on here with repetitive but uninformed accusations which have so far only served to confirm to those of us who DO operate the B744 that you are yet another of those 'armchair experts' who seem to think that experience sitting in hundred or so ultra-lights or obscure recreational aircraft, the QuadraPuff and a claim in your CV that you have commentated for Chicken Noodle News on aviation matters, does not confer on you the right to ignore my warnings that you are going nowhere with your arguments on here. I repeat, your 'opinion' has been noted and as far as I and the majority of my colleagues who DO fly the B744 for a living are concerned, your opinion is based on nothing more than the fact that you hold a flying licence and an over inflated ego. Repeatedly making the same point when the rest of us have moved on, particularly because your 'point' lacks credibility, means that I have decided you need to introduce something new to your argument because I need to save my bandwidth.

Yours sincerely,

Generator Man. :rolleyes:

[alf5071h]

Some background reading for the FAA before the hearing:
ICAO Doc 9859 Safety Management Manual Chap 3
…. State civil aviation administrations are guided by:
a) A clear statement of their vision and mission (regarding safety);
b) A well understood and accepted set of:
1) Operating principles, such as delivering safe and efficient service consistent with public expectations and at reasonable cost; treating clients and employees with respect, etc.; and
2) Corporate values such as competence, openness, fairness, integrity, respect, responsiveness to client needs, etc.;
c) A statement of the Administration’s safety objectives; for example, reduce the probability and consequences of unsafe aviation occurrences, improve understanding throughout the aviation industry and general public of the State’s actual safety performance; and
d) Strategies for fulfilling their objectives; for example, reduction of safety risks to aviation through the identification of those operations that fall below accepted levels, encouraging their return to an acceptable level of safety or, if necessary, rescinding their certification.
but of course, this assumes that the FAA follow ICAO guidelines.
Thus, they could read the introduction to Aviation Safety: Dominant and minority culture obligations. (www.spatiald.wpafb.af.mil/2003/ISAP_189.pdf )

Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.

[Rananim]

I can only reiterate what the general feeling this side of the pond is;your BA pilot was too clever by far and should have got his skinny ass on the ground and damn well checked the condition of his aircraft.This was no precautionary IFSD due low oil half way across the pond.Stoic's attempt to draw parallels with a '77 case are puzzling;I see no similarities between the two whatsoever.

The FAA are naturally upset;firstly,by the Captain's cynical interpretation of the reg and secondly,by the reaction of the CAA who I suppose are hamstringed.I guess you have politics your side of the pond too.

I can understand BA pilots coming on this forum and defending their colleague;loyalty is a good attribute.However,an airline pilot's most solemn duty is the care of his passengers and crew.You never ever let commercial pressure come between you and that tenet.Just what were the passengers thinking when the Captain tried to explain that he was continuing to London after they had just seen no.2 engine disintegrate on takeoff?Their fear is very real and it must be part of the equation.

[jondc9]

danny

if you are in charge of pprune, take me off if you like. but then it is not a forum, it is a rah rah group for BA. Disagree and lose posting status. Fine.

as for the "my mel" and me being medically grounded, I was refering to the MEL's I used to use when actively flying. do you understand?

And to Vulcan bomber man... the entire point was does it matter what kind of plane it was if the decision to land in a thunderstorm caused it to crash? can any pilot discuss thunderstorm flying? Robert Buck wrote "Weather Flying" while doing research in a B17...would that limit his views because the plane in question was a Vulcan bomber?

By your standards, yes!

So by your standards the only people to comment on this 747 problem isn't a pilot, but a BA 747-400 pilot.



And Rules open to interpretation? Well, let's just put it this way...AL Capone went to jail on income tax evasion charges, not for the other dasterdly works he accomplished. Now some of you won't understand this reference...but maybe if you think about it perhaps careless and reckless might be a hard charge to prove with current regulations, but approaching it from a different angle might still prove its point.

And back to the generator question. Is it possible your airline is encouraging pilots to "carry" lame airplanes? Perhaps the inbound crew just mentioned problems with the generator to the outbound crew and didn't want to write it up. The outbound crew with a wink and a nod waited for the plane to move before MEL'ng it.

Tell me that you have never heard of such a thing happening. Go on. Tell me.

I am still waiting for the answers to the questions posed:


would you have returned to LAX if the Queen was on your 747-400?

what was the final report on what caused the engine problem?

is declaring a low fuel emergency part of BA's normal procedures?


what caused the same plane to have an engine problem some 3 weeks later?


You mentioned more evidence about breaking rules. Answer the question about fuel and declaring a low fuel emergency. Would this pilot have had to declare a low fuel emergency if he had returned to LAX?


Danny, you spoke of my inflated ego. Isn't it time that someone make the case that this pilot made a mistake in judgement? If I am the only one doing it, how is that an indication of inflated ego? It is time however to acknowledge the role money had in the decision making process.


And for shear debating, you take my case and I will take yours...shall we do it that way?


j

[Rainboe]

Rananim- it was a surge, nothing more or less, just a surge. Not unusual in big fans. I've had loads, some you can relight, some you cannot. The rules change. Just a surge, meaning that a pressure relief valve inside the compressor did not operate when it should have and the engine hiccupped. It coughs out some sparks and maybe an instantaneous flame along with an EGT rise. Sometimes it corrects itself and carries on happily, other times the EGT keeps rising and it has to be shutdown, but it is no big deal. It did not 'disintegrate'. If you are going to comment here, you must read and understand all the events that happened and not gloss them up for Hollywood.

A shame that yet another thread gets taken over by a transatlantic slanging match. It's out of order and quite unnecessary. Maybe someone mistook criticism of the FAA's role as a swipe at 'Mom and Apple Pie'? As far as the comments about Tornados getting shot down, we are immensely proud of those guys- they were getting shot down because the runway disruption weapon they use means flying low along the runway dropping bomblets all along it. Dangerous in the extreme- not dropping a remote weapon from 15,000', but the RAF was always proud to get up close and personal.

Jondc9-
1- If I was carrying the Queen, exactly the same decision would have been taken by me.
2- It was a surge, nothing more, as far as I know.
3- Obviously not. It was a later fuel interpretation problem- read back about it, nothing to do with the immediate decision to continue
4- We are not aware what the later problem was. Strongly suspect engineering installation- it happens occasionally, like the Eastern Tristar oil problem you brought up.

You simply do not believe the Captain had complete authority on the day- US airlines don't operate like that. Believe we are not swayed by commercial considerations if conflicts with safety. You simply can't accept that, so why don't we stop batting it back and forth?

[JW411]

I have no interest in getting involved in the main debate but Rainboe makes a very valid point.

US pilots can't even fa*t without the authority of a despatcher. The concept of a British captain being able to make his own decisions is unheard of in the US of A.

I first came across this phenomena when I was in Transport Command. We used to arrive on USAF bases and were immediately asked for our TDYs. I believe that these were written instructions given to each captain within which it was explained exactly what he could do and what he could not do.

When I explained that me and my crew were loose in HMS Belfast for 18 days on our way around the world and that HM did not require me to carry such instructions. Furthermore, I was expected to know what to do and what not to do without reference to Buckingham Palace every time I wanted to go flying.

Later in life, I spent more than 3 years based at JFK as a DC-10 captain working for a Part 121 operator. I found the FAA re-clearance flight plan system ridiculous beyond words but went along with the charade. However, I did find it extremely strange being in a situation where I could only reclear from 50W to CYQX to KBOS etc etc by discussing the matter with someone in MIA whereas I could do the job myself under Part 135 with just as many passengers on board and with no interference.

The fact is that US pilots are simply not used to being allowed out on their own.

[Danny]

jondc9, you really don't seem to get it, do you? Whether the Queen, the pilots children or Uncle Tom Cobbly were on board is irrelevant in this debate. What you, a pilot with no B744 or long haul heavy jet experience would have done is returned to LAX. Fine. Accepted. What I or any other B744 pilot would have done is irrelevant. Some of us would have returned, others would have gone east and reviewed the situation and maybe diverted to JFK and some others may have continued further towards their destination.

The points being raised here are about the FAA making the decision to fine the airline because of the way they decided to interpret the regulations. So far, no one has been able to show that the regs were broken.

The B744 didn't lose an engine in some catastrophic failure. It suffered a surge at about 100' after take off with an EGT over temp (Max 1185?C) and low fluctuating RPM. ATC reported flames from the engine exhaust. The crew actioned the engine surge checklist but the engine continued to surge above idle and they decided to shut down the engine. They then consulted with their Maintrol and the decision was made to continue to LHR. What happened later is a totally separate issue and was due to being unable to get their planned oceanic level and not part of the initial reason this debate was resurrected.

You seem to be under the impression that I work for BA. Well, I don't, probably because my height to weight ratio didn't fit their HR matrix. :bored: However, if you want to raise the 'generator' problem then at least have the decency to try and comprehend the fact that a B744, a four engined airliner, will have different systems and redundancies than anything you have ever flown. The B744 is able to dispatch with only 3 operative generators. We actually lost one after engine start so didn't even have to consult the MEL but we did anyway. The QRH just tells you to attempt one reset. It doesn't mention anything else. Maybe you had to land at the nearest airfield if you lost a generator on aircraft you have flown but on the B744 it is only a pilot awareness item.

Your lack of long haul, heavy aircraft operations once again shines through when you refer to "carrying a lame aircraft" and a nod and a wink to the inbound crew. Have you any idea of the turnaround time for a B744 on long haul ops? The inbound crew are long gone by the time we get to the aircraft and we rely on the Tech Log and the ground engineer for information on any carried defects. Oh my gawd! I mentioned 'defects'! Believe it or not, we are actually allowed to carry defects and the reason for that, believe it or not, is actually commercial expediency.

So, once again we learn that had you ever completed a B744 type rating and been employed by a B744 operator as a pilot, you would disrupt an operation when it was otherwise safe to continue and the manuals permitted continued operation. You would cost your company hundreds of thousands of dollars to put up your pax in hotels overnight as well as the knock on effects because you decided that operating with only three generators was just too unsafe. You didn't work for one of the US majors in chapter 11 did you?

Says a lot about why you have never done a B744 type rating then doesn't it! :hmm:

To even raise the issue about the same airframe having another (different) engine problem a few weeks later only serves to show a total lack of understanding, so why raise it?

Your questions are irrelevant. The Queen on board? She doesn't fly with my airline but if she did the crew would still consider all the options and I'm sure Betty would respect their decisions too.

As for 'the final report on what caused the engine problem'... it doesn't matter. The crew carried out the QRH, talked with Maintrol who are able to read all the engine parameters and give any advice as necessary and nowhere was it written that they had to land at the nearest suitable airport because the B744 has so much redundancy with its systems.

On this side of the pond there is no such thing as 'a low fuel emergency'. If you ever had experience of long rage ops over here and you called a 'low fuel emergency' you would be told that unless you declared a mayday nothing would happen. All you need is the magic word 'mayday' and you get full attention and priority. If you need a sterile runway, for whatever reason, call a mayday and you can get it. There may be some extra paperwork later but it is the best way to handle the situation if you are unsure about the amount of useable fuel available.

At the end of the day, the pilot didn't make a mistake in judgement. In your opinion he did but then we all know how knowledgeable you are on B744 systems and long haul ops. The pilot made a decision based on all known factors, including the regulations, the limitations and performance of his a/c, the commercial problems and many other things. His decision to continue was based on his knowledge and experience of safe commercial operations for one of the biggest B744 operators in the world.

Each one of us would have reached a decision based on many factors, some which those with no B744 or long haul experience would not have considered, and whatever decision we reached would have been based on safety and commercial requirements, in that order.

As far as ego is concerned, try reading between the lines. We all know you think the pilot made a bad judgement call because of your 'experience' flying the B744 and your experience of long haul heavy jet ops. Those of us with less experience than you of the B744 keep pointing out why your argument is flawed and you keep coming back on here raising points on such diverse topics such as Al Capone and the Vulcan Bomber to mention a few, in some apparent attempt to persuade us that you are correct in your belief that the pilot made a bad error of judgement in deciding to continue the flight.

I think I'd better stop here or I'll be breaching my own rules of debate by letting this keep on going around in circles. Heck, I'll even let you have the last word but I've no doubt that others will not let it rest. Here's my opinion of your opinion:

Your opinion that the pilot made a bad judgement call is based on ignorance of the facts and appears to be solely based on the fact that you feel the need to voice an opinion because you have had a pilots licence at some time or other.

My opinion, however, is that the pilot did what he believed was best for everyone and that he made his decision based on all the facts that were available at the time. In addition, he did not endanger anyone or break any rules. It was neither the right or the wrong decision.

I base my opinion on the fact that I am current on the B744 and long haul ops and the fact that I have a copy of the ASR and the CMC Engine Exceedance Report. I don't base it on the fact that I have flown some obscure aircraft type that in no way resembles a B744 or that I have an artistic streak that makes me feel as though I am an expert commentator for Chicken Noodle News. :hmm:

Over to you (if you must!)

[Rainboe]

oooo he won't be able to resist that!

[GGV]

Danny great summary, but it will be wasted on him. He will miss the point and start off again. I admire your patience.

[BusyB]

Thanks Danny,
I'm obviously not as fluent with words as you but the sentiments are identical.

[Jumbo Driver]

Well said, Danny , my sentiments too.

Its gone awfully quiet ...

[411A]

Five will get you ten that BA will not do this same episode once again, if they get the chance.
Was it a good idea?
Depends on your perspective, but for myself, as a long time long haul guy (12 hours+), a tad misplaced.
Was it in conformity with the CAA regulations?
Yes, apparently.
Was it in conformity with BA procedures at the time of the occurance?
Quite likey, it seems.
The FAA?
Barking up the wrong tree.
BA has to follow the CAA (and BA) laid down procedures, and regulations.
So then, FULL STOP.
Apparently the crew concerned did so, now full stop again.
End of discussion.

[overstress]

Not quite, 411A. Off-thread, but on the topic of our currently-silent jondc9. Does anyone else on here see an uncanny likeness between him and one of the characters described in 'Fate is the Hunter'?

The author described a pilot who didn't quite ring true with his comments or actions and was ultimately exposed as being a fraud.

We've had one or two of those on PPRuNe before over the years!

As I have an LAX next week, 411A, I'll give you a thought if we have a surge on departure and decide to implement the in-flight continuation policy!

[Rainboe]

Here we go again!
Five will get you ten that BA will not do this same episode once again, if they get the chance.Oh yes they will, because it is the right procedure
Was it a good idea? Yes
Depends on your perspective, but for myself, as a long time long haul guy (12 hours+), a tad misplaced. Your experience was Tristar (3 eng- not such a good idea) and 707 (not in the same league as a modern 747-400)
Was it in conformity with BA procedures at the time of the occurance? Yes
Quite likey, it seems. Yes, and they are STILL BA Procedures
The FAA? Who cares? They are more interested in getting the 747 to conform to 777 restrictions
Barking up the wrong tree. Who brought trees into this?
BA has to follow the CAA (and BA) laid down procedures, and regulations.
So then, FULL STOP.No- carry on as before, no change. The FAA does not rule aviation.

[Bumblebee]

It's now quite clear to me that jondc9 might be a descendant of Big-Chief Talking-Bollocks :E

[20driver]

411a
Sorry you are wrong on the odds. More like 5 will get you several thousand BA will not do this again. Simply not worth the aggro and the press. Next time it will be a pit stop at JFK. They might do it on another (read no FAA involved) route but not over the land of the free. I have no problem what so ever with the crews call but no way will BA get themselves into this cesspool again.
20driver
PS - I'll bet all those BA troopers who got to see scenic whateverstan last week wish they'd had an engine surge versus a bogus warning light.
PPS - Bet the next BA QRH says no diversion to MAN unless one wing leaves the vicinity.

[Zeke]

And as to airworthiness. Was the 747 in question airworthy on landing at MAN? Of course not, the engine was out! It needed repairs to return to standard airworthiness, didn't it?

Few comments, a defect is normally only legally a defect once its written in the aircraft log. When are they written in the log in your company ?

From memory the crew had almost real time diagnostics from BA operations on the status of the aircraft systems, the results of the diagnostics (which was a healthy aircraft) would have influenced the commanders decision.

I am not aware if the crew felt they could not restart the engine again later in flight if required. Unlike Danny I don’t have the full details of the problem with the powerplant. Some powerplant problems where crews decide to do a precautionary shutdown can be returned to service without replacement of the powerplant, an engineering inspection is all that was required.

From memory the 744 FCOM has charts for flights up to 14 hrs OEI.

Flight on 3 engines is not unairworthy, the 747 is actually FAA approved for takeoff and flight on 3 engines, and flight with 5 engines (one engine bolted to the wing and blanked off if it has the required internal structure on the wing). BA recently flew a 744 empty from SIN-DXB-LHR on three engines, two long flights, and two takeoffs on three engines.

At no time did the BA crew deviate from any FAA (and UK CAA) approved flight manual limitations, or FCOM procedures, or company SOPs.

Please note, under FAR 91.7, which BA are being fined under, only the PIC has the say if the aircraft is airworthy.

The FAA’s rules state: “If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines [fails or is shut down] the pilot in command may proceed to an airport he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport.”

Not applicable in this case, this was a Part 129 flight, that rule is Part 121 (i.e. applies to US flagged Part 121 carriers)

Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.

OEI flight is authorised by the FAA, UK CAA, and BA SOPs. The FAA point is "how much" OEI flight is acceptable.

Numerous US flagged aircraft have made either north pacific or atlantic crossings OEI, the perception now is that since most US carriers are not operating quads, the operation on quads long haul with OEI provides a unfair advantage to foreign carriers.

In this case the BA flight is dammed if they do, and dammed if they don’t. If they wanted to return to LAX, they would have to dump fuel. To dump fuel you need to be in a state of urgency or distress. To land overweight they would need to be in a state of urgency or distress. An engine shutdown on the 744 does not render the aircraft into a state of urgency or distress, no emergency exists.

I am of the view that BA could not have landed the aircraft in a reasonable time whilst in US airspace without breaking another rule.

I am very puzzled why in the FAA they mention Canadian airports. The Canadians have not said any rules was broken in their airspace, the FAA seems like they are trying to dictate how non-US carriers not only carry out their operations in US airspace, but airspace of other ICAO contracting states.

[innuendo]

Zeke,
"Flight on 3 engines is not unairworthy, the 747 is actually FAA approved for takeoff and flight on 3 engines, "

Are we not being a little bit cute here? I presume you are referring to a three engine ferry. The fare paying public would not be on board.
In fact, at my company, by contract, the line pilot is not required to do three engine ferries. Those are done by management pilots.

[AIMS by IBM]

It's not because you can do it that you use the possibility.

It's clear that there are other perspectives then only the technical ones, but those too are part of the reality and perception.

The benefit of a statement like: "we could do it but we didn't" has a bigger impact then what happens now.

A bit of the line of this tread but in the same context of public perception would be: " We went into IRAK to go and get back the WMD that we sold to him" it would make the issue more publicaly acceptable.

Sorry to make this step on the side, no political intention, just a note on how things may be percieved.

[bermondseya]

Just a few points.
1) To suggest the loss of engine at LAX and the MAYDAY at MAN due fuel are unrelated is incorrect. Had they not lost the engine, they would have made LHR.
2) When talking about 747-400 operational safety, I agree that pilots with little experience of 747-400 operations should defer to those that have this experience. Should those 747-400 pilots who are (sometimes rudely) demanding this of others, keep quiet about the operational safety of Pacific ETOPS? - as to my knowledge, BA or any other UK airline doesn't fly that way :)
As an aside, I have no doubt that if BA was able to get permission to operate LAX-SYD, and they wanted to do it in a 777, the CAA would rubber stamp their application without much ado :) After all, politics works on both sides of the pond.
3) Looks like the FAA are exercising jurisdiction over what happens in their airspace after all.
4) It's not only about the engines, it's about the fuel. In my opinion, mainly about the fuel. How much exactly did they have departing LAX?
5) All this bluster about the FARS about continuing on three is shown to be missing the point. It's about operating an aircraft in an unairworthy condition.
How does the FAA define unairworthy?
http://tinyurl.com/8a4l3 may help, 9. INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “AIRWORTHY” FOR U.S. TYPE-CERTIFICATED
AIRCRAFT. The term “airworthy” is not defined in Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.), or in
14 CFR; however, a clear understanding of its meaning is essential for use in the agency’s airworthiness
certification program. Below is a summary of the conditions necessary for the issuance of an
airworthiness certificate. A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that must
be met for an aircraft to be considered “airworthy.” 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c) and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b),
and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an airworthiness certificate:
a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is considered attained when the
aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications,
and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type certificate (STC) and
field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.
b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the
aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing,
fluid leaks, and tire wear.
NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would be
considered unairworthy. Aircraft that have not been issued a TC must meet the
requirements of paragraph 9b above.
It is noted that this mentions "U.S. TYPE CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT", but the FAA are going to be using this as a guide to what they allow in their airspace. Part b makes reference to 'fluid leaks', the conclusion I draw is that there has to be sufficient "fluid" for the plane to be airworthy. Was there sufficient fuel on board to make LHR while it was in US airspace? When did they decide to head for MAN? Was this in US airspace?
Just ideas to be thrown out, just trying to work out how the FAA are thinking, I could easily be wrong, but it's far more interesting than the hamster wheel this thread has become.
As for this thread, I am most impressed by what skiesfull has to say, I tell you there was a lot of trash to wade through to find it.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2501188&postcount=114
It's the fuel management, not the engine management, stupid.
Perhaps all our nonsense discussion on this site is moot. A reasonably recent court decision says the FAA can make it up as they go along, see Garvey, FAA vs. NTSB and Richard Lee Merrill. Perhaps some lawyer can comment on this case? Personally, I'd like to see the FAA get a bloody nose re the Merrill case. If BA can take this to the highest courts and get Merrill overturned it will be a good thing. That's not the same as saying BA deserve to win.
Posted in the spirit of good debate

[AIMS by IBM]

I stand by you but I was not very sure and still am not.

You leave with a minimum amount of fuel as per dispatch release regulations.

This contains a certain amount of contingency that in my opinion is not intended also to be used to cover the one engine out case.

Now once airborne I am not too sure if this still stands.


For me it may have been a factor of uncertenty that may balance the scale in favour of an early landing.

Not ASAP but in accordance of proper time management , burn off etc...


ETOPS fuel planning covers this....so maybe we need some regs that do the same for the non twins in civil ops.

[overstress]

Bermondseya

I saw the bit about the spirit of good debate, but your points have already been covered many times elsewhere.

The crew always had enough fuel for LHR. They diverted to MAN for another reason - they thought that at a late stage some fuel which was useable, was in fact unuseable.

This point has been made by BA insiders ad infinitum

[Jumbo Driver]

You leave with a minimum amount of fuel as per dispatch release regulations.

This contains a certain amount of contingency that in my opinion is not intended also to be used to cover the one engine out case.

Now once airborne I am not too sure if this still stands.


AIMS by IBM

First point, UK registered aircraft do not operate using the dispatch release system you have in the USA, although I have no doubt that pre-flight fuel planning considerations are very similar.

Second point, contingency fuel is just that - it is there to cover any airborne contingency, i.e. not limited to certain events only. This event (engine shut-down) would have necessitated in-flight re-planning by the crew to ensure they had sufficient fuel for continuation with safe reserves (which they had and they did).

Third point, see point two - contingency fuel is there to be used if needed when airborne.

[maxy101]

I believe that some JAA operators can reduce to less than 5% of the Trip Fuel if their flight planning systems are so authorised by the relevant aviation authority. i.e Statistical Contigency fuel programmes.

[notdavegorman]

3% contingency if en route alternative is specified.

[lomapaseo]

In my dreams I do wish this whole thread could be summarized down to only a pagefull of discussion points rather than wandering back and forth over the same ground.

I'm still trying to be a friend of the court in my own mind and just offering technical opinion of a few points that crop up.

Here's a couple of coments on what I have read today.

The engine would likely be considered restartable (by the crew and tech ops on the ground) based on the symptoms when it was shut down. From what I have read these were nothing more than engine surges at a localized flight condition.

The application of the word airworthy or unairworthy to my knowledge has its basis only in the decision basis to take (initiate) flight (taxi out). Once it's in flight the combinations of all likely varriables enter into an airworthy judgement chain of decision making involving the pilot.

From only a personal point of view, I'm bored with the endless arguments (nobody is going to change their mind) about the decisions of the pilot. I am however interested in what possible statuatory fault may apply here and as such be upheld by a court, including the appeal process. Typically the courts uphold the right of the administrator to administrate their regulations as the administrator interpretes them. There is possibly some argument about whether these regulations apply (court may decide) And some argument about whether any regulations were broken (administrator through the appeal process may decide this).

I'm still guessing that if this goes to the appeal process (back to the FAA) the administrator will give BA a pass and reenergize a process never to get into this pissing contest with the CAA again..

[wiggy]

FWIW the 3% minimum contigency fuel figure doesn't always apply if using a Statistical Contingency Fuel policy (as in BA's case) - the mininimum amount depends on the policy agreed between the operator and the CAA.

[jondc9]

dear danny:

how very civilized of you to chat with me.

first off, I have never indicated I flew the B747. Please find the passage in which I mention "I FLY B747".

I have never done long haul flying.

I did mention doing a 3 engine ferry on the BAE146 to indicate how flying on a 4 engine plane with ony 3 running should (imho) be done...that is without passengers.


I have certainly flown jet aircraft dispatched with one engine generator inop, to be replaced by the apu generator.

I also know how mad mechanics (you call them engineers I think, just like an adjustable spanner there is a monkey wrench here) get when you come back to the gate to have them do the paperwork and how frustrating it is when a company does not keep proper spare parts nearby.

I also never said that flying a B747 with 3 gens was unsafe...I just said I would go back to the gate and have the mechanics look at it. (meaning fix or defer)


And perhaps the wink and the nod came from your mechanics, sorry engineers, and not your fellow pilots.

You all seem to think I am blaming pilots on your side of the pond for doing things I might not have done. Perhaps you don't understand that I am trying to point out the pressure that money brings on pilots to make some decisions.

AND for the record, while we have dispatchers in the USA and our flights leave with concurrence of both pilot and dispatcher, the PILOT IN COMMAND still gets the final word while airborne.

And yes I have flown for one large and one tiny airline that have both been in bankruptcy.

Raising the question about another engine problem 3 weeks later is certainly relevent. Perhaps it is a trend of poor mx,inherent problems with that type of plane or engine, or perhaps just a coincidence?

And to the low fuel emergency. We are obviously seperated by a common language. We don't have that in our lexicon either, we can advise "minimum fuel". Slang terms sometimes don't carry across the pond...I for one still can't understand your side's reference to women as BIRDS, yet I understand our own reference to CHICKS.

(do you know what the phrase "I am popeye" means?)

Fine, then a MAYDAY should be declared and the reason was low fuel? does that make more sense to you?

Sadly a 707 going into JFK many years ago got the lexicon wrong and ended up crashed, but that is another thread.


And reading between the lines I get this from you and your side of the pond. You believe all of us love 2 engine planes ( an economic decision I am sure which you all seem to place so high in the equation). You very much believe that we are sales people for Boeing 777's and the like. And that we are trying to get the FAA to take action just to increase B777 sales.

Please.

For the record I really don't care for Boeings. I prefer single digit douglas and I guess Boeing liked them enough to buy them.

I base all of my opinions NOT ON BEING A 747 pilot, but having flown for 3 small airlines and one big one; having seen the pressure on pilots to save money even moving into the world of calculated risk; having watched what happens when pilots don't write up problems in "tech logs" only to have the next pilot have to deal with it, sometimes unexpectedly.

Certainly 30 years in aviation does allow me to post on this site however!

My opinions are also based on teaching people to fly as a CFIIMEI/ATP and how judgement differs from person to person, background to background.

My opinions are also based on trying to get improvements in safety for pilots and having a deaf ear turned to such topics as: enhanced security training (prior to 9/11), installation of EMAS systems at airports (way prior to Chicago Midway Southwest) and better real time wx information for pilots (prior to a tragic crash in KCLT in 1994).

The deaf ear was turned towards me by the FAA and elected governement officials. The answer was always money related.


I have already said before that flying on 3 engines in your 747 was just fine, but that other options which would have (imho) enhanced safety and were easily available existed.

Sometimes I think pilots (ourselves) are our own worst enemy. We can be a bit too heroic in trying to get the mission done. Perhaps I think the BA pilots were being a bit too heroic to get the mission done. I have also indicated that money is too often part of the equation (IMHO)>

We must ask ourselves this question:

IF the B747 in question had dumped fuel/burned fuel down to landing weight and landed safely at any of half a dozen airports on the west coast of the USA, would the FAA had made such a big stink?

Long ago I learned that besides the passengers, the company and myself as a pilot, I also had to please the lawyers ( or at least stay away from them!).

regards

jon

PS. I have not yet made reference to a popular TV network in your country...lots of things can be made up about BBC.

"i am popeye" means the aircraft is IMC and can't find the traffic mentioned...I had been flying 17 years before I heard that one...a US navy term.

[Joetom]

Would BA do the same today, or have they changed the way they operate.??

[Rainboe]

My head aches! Now we have 20driver telling us from afar how BA will operate from now on! (see bottom previous page):
Sorry you are wrong on the odds. More like 5 will get you several thousand BA will not do this again. Simply not worth the aggro and the press. Next time it will be a pit stop at JFK. They might do it on another (read no FAA involved) route but not over the land of the free. I have no problem what so ever with the crews call but no way will BA get themselves into this cesspool again.
20driver
PS - I'll bet all those BA troopers who got to see scenic whateverstan last week wish they'd had an engine surge versus a bogus warning light.
PPS - Bet the next BA QRH says no diversion to MAN unless one wing leaves the vicinity.

One simply doesn't know where to start. I think he deserves a prize for every sentence being totally wrong! Can't be easy screwing up one posting like that.

[JumpAhead]

Currently there is no change in BA policy and why should there be? the flight continues if it's safe to do so according to all the experts/manufacturers/regulators rules and performance calculations. If at any time you think it may become unsafe then you divert i.e. continue to LHR until you think (rightly or wrongly) you're not happy then go to an en-route. I'd like to stress the bit which says 'think'. This crew knew all the rules and probably spent most of the flight doing 'howgozit' fuel calculations, collecting alternate wx etc. There are rules to which you must abide but at the end of the day someone has to decide. Who better than the highly trained flight crew on the flight?

What if they had carried on to LHR, had a delay and landed below reserve fuel?

The FAA fine is political because there is no current regulation which prevents the crew doing exactly what they did. As usual it's all about interpretation of semantics which the lawyers get paid zillions to thrash out in a court.


And no, I'm not suggesting the lives of pax should ever be resolved by lawyers. An example is the BA diversion to Uralsk. No question, land at the nearest bit of concrete regardless of the cost implications for getting pax/luggage out. The Pilots are the best and only people to decide there and then what is best.

If you disagree then roll on the day when Pilots are no more and the flight is operated by a commitee of accounts with a remote control box.

[RobertS975]

Sure BA may have 'lost your respect'. That's because you don't understand the problem and how to handle it in a plane like the Jumbo. Avoid them. They will not miss you. You still haven't answered the question- a 747 LAX-LHR on three, or a 777 across the Pacific on one for 3 hours 8 minutes.....which one cowboy? Is the second really acceptable? Ask the FAA why they are creating so much bluster on the first when they authorise the second.

Rainboe, I am but a mere private pilot, but I am a frequent airline pasenger. The 777 that loses one three hours away from the nearest "suitable" diversion point has an "urgent" situation that demands the skill and judgement of the flight crew. But the 747 that loses one of its four engines at the beginning of a 5000 mile 12 hour flight has to be considered to have suffered a significant anomaly. As a frequent passenger, I am surprised that the BA crew decided to continue onward.

I certainly think that the subject merits debate. But I personally believe that continuation of the flight on three engines was not a wise decision.

[20driver]

Rainboe - probably your head aches because you don't seem to be able to read.

I said - "I have no problem what so ever with the crews call" - which part of this you have a problem with? When this originally came up I provided a post that there was a very sound argument that continuing on was safer that returning to LA and risking a van ride and night in an LA Airport hotel.

This has being nothing but bad publicity for BA. Or did we miss something and you think this publicity is good for the BA image. There is no upside for BA in this no matter how it finishes.
From earlier posts it seems it only got into the new because of some anoraks in MAN. Someone even created an anorak index showing MAN at the top of the "spotter" list. Hence the tongue in check remark of no futher diversions to MAN unless the wings are coming off.

This was never a safety issue - it has always being a chest thumping PR issue. If the crew had diverted to Prestwick this might never have become the little tempest in the teapot it is. I'll bet the FAA wishes they had never heard of this.

As for next time, well it will probably be a very long time before this exact set of circumstances happens but if they stars align this way again do you think BA management really wants to deal with this? If you do, stick to flying, hopefully you are better at flying than managing.

You sure you and Joncd aren't related - you show remarkably similar behavior.

20driver

[Globaliser]

You very much believe that we are sales people for Boeing 777's and the like. And that we are trying to get the FAA to take action just to increase B777 sales.

Please.I take the following from the Flight editorial already linked to, which was the most illuminating thing I've read this time around about this episode:-Although the argument about extended twin engine operations (ETOPS) has gone quiet for a couple of years, it is still out there – unresolved. At last reading, the FAA and its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) wanted either the commander’s discretion about indefinite continued flight with one engine out to be extended to twins, or the captains of quads to lose their discretion about when and if to divert. The rest of the world’s NAAs signalled that neither would be acceptable, because if a twin loses an engine it has no power unit redundancy, whereas a quad can lose three more before it has no power at all. But the FAA’s thinking in the BA case is consistent with FAA/ARAC objectives. It could “win” whichever way the court rules.So you see why many of us smell a rat?

[bermondseya]

Bermondseya
I saw the bit about the spirit of good debate, but your points have already been covered many times elsewhere.
The crew always had enough fuel for LHR. They diverted to MAN for another reason - they thought that at a late stage some fuel which was useable, was in fact unuseable.
This point has been made by BA insiders ad infinitumIf that is an invitation to find that information by crawling through the many threads, I am not sure I could face that :) But joking aside, I don't think the sequence of events has been properly documented on here or anywhere. Isn't that why we have independent bodies like the AAIB and NTSB - independant of the regulators even, as the suspicion that the regulators are in the pockets of the airlines is just too strong, on both sides of the pond. So with due respect to the BA insiders, I will wait until the independent reports come out before I know whether they "always had enough fuel for LHR". The only factual piece of information we have is that they didn't make it.

I am really wondering out loud why the FAA are going after BA for operating an "unairworthy airplane"? Perhaps they consider a 3 engined 747 airworthy for a PAX trip to JFK, but not across the N Atlantic in winter. In their complaint they said BA bypassed many suitable airfields, they must think that is relevant. They also mentioned the MAYDAY in their complaint, they must feel it relevent, and perhaps they do actually know how much fuel was on board. Perhaps they do consider amount of fuel on board for the filed destination an airworthyness issue. BA does appear to have a fuel policy which might not pass muster with the FARs. When did they decide to head for Manchester, seems from the FAA complaint that it was quite a hurried decision, not the sort of behavior to expect from an airline that 'BA insiders' are telling us is the most experienced and safest in the world :) That's not a nice thing to say to those of us who have never had to divert with a MAYDAY because we haven't a clue how much usable fuel we have.

I still think it's the fuel and the management of the same, but as there is no real evidence to suggest what the FAA are thinking, this is just a WAG. But plenty of other new ideas in my original post, this fuel/engine discussion is indeed becoming stale. What about the FAA vs NTSB and Merrill case? The FAA can now change how they interpret the FARs and the NTSB judge is bound to accept any new FAA intepretation. In US law, it appears to me that you can no longer win against the FAA if they don't want you to, that should be of real concern to BA (and the rest of us)

[overstress]

Sorry Bermondseya but you're mistaken that this hasn't been covered elsewhere. You are of course entitled to join the 'debate' - everyone else has- but may I suggest that you do 'trawl' as you will discover the answers you seek. As a BA 747 pilot I am aware of the sequence of events. BA pilots are not debating this on the BA BALPA forum as it is simply a non-issue. An event took place and the crew acted as they are paid to do. There have been another couple of long threads where my 747 colleagues have politely tried to explain to the pilot/spotter community at large. This has turned into another such thread.

Off to LAX now, & noting that our procedures still haven't changed ;)

[bermondseya]

Off to LAX now, & noting that our procedures still haven't changed ;)But they wouldn't have changed, as that could be used by the FAA as evidence that BA accepted the original procedures were wrong. I wouldn't change the procedures either, but that proves nothing.

Have a good trip!

[Jumbo Driver]

But they wouldn't have changed, as that could be used by the FAA as evidence that BA accepted the original procedures were wrong. I wouldn't change the procedures either, but that proves nothing.
Have a good trip!

Equally likely, bermondseya, and certainly much nearer the truth, they haven't changed because they don't need to !
;)



Have a good trip, overstress !

[bermondseya]

Equally likely, bermondseya, and certainly much nearer the truth, they haven't changed because they don't need to !I thought BA had changed the QRH. As for engine out procedures, as I said, I wouldn't change them either. My point is that there is more than one reason for not changing the engine out procedures. Telling us that the procedures have not changed proves nothing.

[Jumbo Driver]

I thought BA had changed the QRH. As for engine out procedures, as I said, I wouldn't change them either. My point is that there is more than one reason for not changing the engine out procedures. Telling us that the procedures have not changed proves nothing.

Okay, bermondseya, I understand this may prove nothing to the cynical - however the fact remains, as overstress says, the procedures haven't changed!

[DA50driver]

How would you feel about this if you considered this from the point of view? You are at home in London. You hear that the flight your wife and two little children are on had an engine failure shortly after take-off. Would you want the airplane to come to London or maybe make a precautionary landing at a suitable destination? (No, Manchester was not a suitable airport for the sake of discussion.)
I know how I would feel if my entire genepool was onboard.

[Jumbo Driver]

How would you feel about this if you considered this from the point of view? You are at home in London. You hear that the flight your wife and two little children are on had an engine failure shortly after take-off. Would you want the airplane to come to London or maybe make a precautionary landing at a suitable destination? (No, Manchester was not a suitable airport for the sake of discussion.)
I know how I would feel if my entire genepool was onboard.


I understand the instinctive reaction of many in such a case is probably to "land, check and sort it out". This view is inevitably encouraged by the tabloid images created by headlines such as "Pilot Grapples with Stricken Jet" and "Hero Pilot Avoids School" that we see so often, which are designed simply to sell newspapers.

However a considered and more informed reaction is not quite the same. I realise I will be expressing a minority view in that I have considerable experience of 747 operation in BA, in both LHS and RHS and from Training and Route Check perspectives (NOT Management, by the way!). From first-hand experience, therefore, I know both the aircraft and the operating standards within the fleet and also know enough to realise that an "engine failure" on the 747-400 is generally not a big deal. Thus, I would not be over-anxious in the circumstances described because I am familiar with both the aircraft and the environment in which the decision whether or not to continue would have been made. I would of course be concerned and interested to learn full details after the event but I have sufficient confidence in the Command and crew standards within BA to let them get on with the job that they are professionally qualified to do.

That's how I would feel.

:ok:

[SLFguy]

How would you feel about this if you considered this from the point of view? You are at home in London. You hear that the flight your wife and two little children are on had an engine failure shortly after take-off. Would you want the airplane to come to London or maybe make a precautionary landing at a suitable destination? (No, Manchester was not a suitable airport for the sake of discussion.)
I know how I would feel if my entire genepool was onboard.


*dons hat*

Yes DA50 I would feel concerned about my family being on board. But my HONEST opinion is that my concern would have been borne of my ignorance of aviation - I think we all knee jerk when something in any field out of our knowledge happens unexpectedly.


edit to say that is quite possibly the worst constructed sentence I've ever see...

[SLFguy]

[QUOTE=SLFguy]
I think we all knee jerk when something in any field out of our knowledge happens unexpectedly.
QUOTE]

Soz Mike - was directed at my own sentence... :)

[rodthesod]

As one who's 4-jet experience extends only to Vulcan B2s and BAe 146s, I'm not particularly qualified to comment on the pros and cons of extended flight OEI. However, having once flown a Pitts S2A from Jahore Baru to Pontianac (3:45hrs), I can say that I would feel very happy about flying as a pax in a 3-eng 744 for 10 hours and equally unhappy about 3 hours in a single engined twin jet.
My query is this: If the crew were able (through satellite telemetry or whatever) to contact their base engineering to ascertain the aircraft's 'airworthiness' after their shut-down, why couldn't they use the same modern magic to ascertain that the fuel they 'guessed' was unusable was, in fact, usable. Seems to me it could have saved a Mayday and much embarrassment.:\
rts

[stilton]

In other words 'AIMS' a very long winded way of saying that, no you do not have the necessary experience or operating knowledge to make an educated
comment on this situation.

[rodthesod]

Just asked a 'reasonable' question, cheesy.

[bubbers44]

My airline flies across the Atlantic on two engines all the time. Why can't a 747 cross with three? I know you have to confirm no other damage but what is the big deal? When I flew the 727 we were allowed to continue if it was as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport. With the 757 we had to land at the nearest suitable airport.

[bubbers44]

For example one of our 727's lost an engine over El Paso and flew another hour and a half to LAX to find the engine had seized and fallen off the airplane. Since the crew didn't know the engine was missing they continued to LAX. Sometimes just flying normal is the best procedure.

[RobertS975]

For example one of our 727's lost an engine over El Paso and flew another hour and a half to LAX to find the engine had seized and fallen off the airplane. Since the crew didn't know the engine was missing they continued to LAX. Sometimes just flying normal is the best procedure.

You can lose an engine or you can REALLY lose an engine! Heck, less dead weight and maybe even less drag...

[Rugerdog]

This article was written for USA Today by an Amercian B777 captain, currently flying for United Airlines. The author, Meryl Getline, has over 30 years aviation experience, including having been a DC-10 captain for several years as well. She is also married to a United Airlines B747-400 captain.

Basically, Ms. Getline agrees in full with the FAA's initial ruling for a variety or reasons. Makes an interesting read and no doubt will spark more debate here, but oh well. :rolleyes: If nothing else, this article illustrates a different perspective on B747 capability and performance.

Here is the link for the article:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-03-14-ask-the-captain_x.htm

[bubbers44]

First of all no American 777 captain would be stupid enough to go to bankrupt United and my neighbor just resigned from United after 8 years realizing he could only fly reserve 737 FO in Chicago. Somebody made this story up.

[Rugerdog]

Bubbers,

I meant American as in nationality, not carrrier. This is a predominantly British populated forum, so I was trying to make a distinction. The pilot that authored this article has never flown for American Airlines to my knowledge.

The article is authentic, posted on the USAToday.com server as you can reference for yourself.

Have a nice day. :ok:

[bubbers44]

We also have an AA captain female who talks about the industry. Unless they changed the rules since I flew the 727 we can continue the flight if it as safe as going to the nearest suitable airport. Going across the atlantic might have more restrictions.

[bubbers44]

Can't think of any American airlines that have had 777 captains leave to work for United in the last decade. Maybe you should check your resources. When was the first 777 put into service?

[bubbers44]

Why does the FAA get involved anyway? I took off from Las Vegas one day in a 4 engine jet and the gear would not retract so I stayed below 20,000 ft and watched my speed to Burbank. Much simpler than returning to Las Vegas and causing a major delay. I think the crew thought it over and decided it was safe. Let the Brits figure it out.

[Jumbo Driver]

This article was written for USA Today by an Amercian B777 captain, currently flying for United Airlines. The author, Meryl Getline, has over 30 years aviation experience, including having been a DC-10 captain for several years as well. She is also married to a United Airlines B747-400 captain.

Basically, Ms. Getline agrees in full with the FAA's initial ruling for a variety or reasons. Makes an interesting read and no doubt will spark more debate here, but oh well. :rolleyes: If nothing else, this article illustrates a different perspective on B747 capability and performance.

Here is the link for the article:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-03-14-ask-the-captain_x.htm

An interesting article, Rugerdog - thanks for the link.

In this article, Captain Meryl talks specifically about the BA 747-400 LAX-LHR event and says:

It is my opinion that had a U.S.-based airline pilot taken off from LAX and lost an engine, the logical airport to land at was, in fact, LAX. Why? Because, the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's) state that in the event of an engine failure, the airplane will land at the "nearest suitable airport."

and she goes on to say:

The number of engines an airplane has — two, three or four — is immaterial to the FAR. The regulation exists to address an engine failure, clearly requiring that the pilot choose an airport to land at. In this case, LAX was probably the best bet. The inclusion of the word "suitable," however, gives the pilot some latitude.


However, in saying this, she appears not to be taking into account the actual wording of FARs (para (b) below being the most relevant), which say:


Sec. 121.565 - Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:

(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.
(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.
(4) The air traffic congestion.
(5) The kind of terrain.
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.


I hope the two quotes speak for themselves. It seems to me that Captain Meryl is wrong.

[Globaliser]

It seems to me that Captain Meryl is wrong.Donning lawyer hat, it looks like Captain Meryl is applying the twin-engined rule to the 744 to criticise the decision taken on the BA flight.

I have this strong sense of deja vu ...

[Jumbo Driver]

I have this strong sense of deja vu ...

Yes, I have the feeling I've had that before ....

[BBT]

The bottom line is that our FAA does not consider it safe to continue a flight with any fewer than all engines operative. So says our expert captain. But many B747 on the U.S. register have flown on three engines for substantial distances and time. Why is this point repeatedly ignored?

[bubbers44]

I think the expert was flying a two engine aircraft so didn't read 121.565 b which says you do not have to land at the nearest suitable airport if you have more than two engines with one shut down if it is as safe as landing at nearest suitable airport.

[Stoic]

"Getline knew that to be hired as an airline pilot she would need to show a lot of hours on her flight record. At that time, the military did not allow women to fly. But by joining the Army, Getline was able to get herself on different types of aircraft as a passenger. She would tell the pilots she had a commercial license, and they would let her fly. Soon she had an impressive number of flying hours." Quote from website.

Wow, US Army pilots let Ms Getline record "an impressive number of flying hours". Is this lady genuine?

Stoic

[Zeke]

An interesting article, Rugerdog- thanks for the link.
In this article, Captain Meryl talks specifically about the BA 747-400 LAX-LHR event and says:
It is my opinion that had a U.S.-based airline pilot taken off from LAX and lost an engine, the logical airport to land at was, in fact, LAX. Why? Because, the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's) state that in the event of an engine failure, the airplane will land at the "nearest suitable airport."

I agree that a FAR Part 121 operator would divert to a "home port" where company facilities are available, I do not agree that it would be the nearest suitable. At the same time I do not think a BA flight departing LHR would continue across the pond to the USA with OEI.

What she would need to address is a 744 departing NRT or LHR OEI to the USA, what would a FAR Part 121 crews do ? We all know the answer, its been done before in three and four engine aircraft.

For the FAA to be consistent, will QF now be receiving a fine ....

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/AAIR/aair200404214.aspx

[Rugerdog]

Getline's article did bring up an interesting point though. At or near gross takeoff weights, the BA747 in question would have had dismal performance on only two engines, should another have also failed in flight. Due to the 747's lower thrust to weight ratio than that of ETOP twins, at higher weights with the loss of two engines, does the 747 actually match the performance of a far less heavy twin operating on one engine?

Would the BA747 have been able to have cleared the Rocky Mountains on only two engines should the worse case scenario have developed? What about if another engine had failed over the mid-atlantic? Would the aircraft have been able to descend to max E/O altitude and still have the range to divert? What if weather at lower altitudes mitigated the divert to the nearest suitable landing airport as well?

One can certainly argue the remoteness of a double-engine failure ever have occuring at all of course, but sometimes the impossible and improbable become the possible and inevitable. Stuff happens.

[Cerberus]

"IF" is a mighty big word Mr Dog!!! So let me get this straight, the Captain was in compliance with FARs and the flight turned out just fine!

The reason quads have 4 engines is to improve safety if one stops. 747ER weighs 910k and has 252k thrust, a 330 weighs 510k and has 160k thrust.
He was in a slightly worse position thrustwise but in a much better position in terms of redundancy than the average twin embarking on a 180 minute ETOPS sector at high AUW. If you lose another, your Thrust to Weight on 2 differs from the twin on 1 by <10% at MUW.

Maybe all twins shoul be converted to Tris or maybe we should get all the B52s out of Davis so that we can debate 5 engines failing on an 8 engined aircraft. Following the so called experts logic above, reversion to 7 engines would require an immediate diversion

[GGV]

but sometimes the impossible and improbable become the possible and inevitable. Stuff happens. This is a brilliant encapsulation of the entire "dialogue of the deaf" that takes place on this and other threads concerning this flight.

What Rugerdog says above is absolutely correct (and I am only using his words to make my point, not attack him as an individual). These words make the argument for caution - but it is a generic argument, more like a safety admonition than an absolute. It really does not help, because, if you apply the argument in the following context, the get to a logical outcome that even our B777 experts would not like :

Situation: B777 on one engine over pacific has to fly for three hours to get to an airport.

Safety rule: "but sometimes the impossible and improbable become the possible and inevitable. Stuff happens."

Conclusion: twin-engined operations are unacceptable because to end up on one engine is too risky (in case improbable "stuff might happen" and the remaining one engine might fail - then you don't need to come up with mountain scenarios ... ).

On this basis the exchange of opinion and the ensuing nonsense in postings here can continue forever.

What is involved in this matter is quantifiable in terms of risk, redundancy, etc. However, it seems preferable to some to just use the matter to throw back unsupported opinions and contrived scenarios to try to "prove" their point. The threads on this matter are mainly a testimony to a "dialogue of the deaf" in which prejudices and unsupported opinion can continue for ever (and a day).

[bubbers44]

Reminds me of the poor Navy fighter pilot with an ailing engine on his single engine fighter being told that he had to delay his landing because a B 52 was going to have to land first because he had an engine out. He said, Oh the dreaded seven engine approach.

[Dream Land]

Sorry to hijack the thread, what kind of drift down do you have on the 74 with three turning and the gear out, just curious. :confused:

[AIMS by IBM]

Maybe all twins shoul be converted to Tris or maybe we should get all the B52s out of Davis so that we can debate 5 engines failing on an 8 engined aircraft. Following the so called experts logic above, reversion to 7 engines would require an immediate diversion

Just keep Military ops out of this, safety isssues are very different.

I am not so sure if the twins have that much less backup then the B 747.

[bubbers44]

I don't know exactly why they decided to land at Manchester or what ever airport but from what I have been able to pick up they had an issue getting fuel out of one tank so did it as a precaution. Someone said they had 16,000 pounds on landing. I have made decisions in my career I am sure others would find fault with but I still would do the same again. One situation usually has about three solutions, all of which would work just fine. I just don't like second guessing another pilot's actions when they were there and had over 12 hours to talk with their people and come out with a solution that worked just fine. By the time they left Gander airspace they should have been at a weight that another engine loss would not be that critical. We obviously don't worry about losing the second engine on our two engine aircraft or we wouldn't have 180 minute ETOPS

[GGV]

I am not so sure if the twins have that much less backup then the B 747. Aims if you had not already shown us enough of your ignorance you have now. It is about time you informed yourself before commenting.

[AIMS by IBM]

The rules are what they are, but I can not believe that they were written with the intention to be used this way.

If one sets the number of engines aside, I do believe the redundancy is very similar given the fact of the APU and RAT etc....it has to be, because the probability of a failure within any of the subsystems is not very different.

[GGV]

If one sets the number of engines aside .... Aims: Q.E.D.

[stagger]

Regarding the comparison between a 747 on 3 engines and an ETOPS aircraft being made by Rugerdog and Cerberus.

An additional factor to consider is that, all else being equal, a 747 on 3 engines is 50% more likely to have an engine failure than an twin (since it has 50% more engines operating - 3 vs 2).

Consequently while the performance of a 747 on 2 may not be a lot worse than an twin on 1 - the 747 is 50% more likely to end up on 2 (when it is starting with 3) than the twin aircraft is to end up on 1.

[VP TAA]

If it is unsafe to continue flight on three engines because of the likelyhood of another engine failing,then,by the same logic a twin should never be allowed to get airborn.It will in no time be a glider.So lets go back to where we should be.Twins should not be allowed to fly beyond the glide distance to a suitable airport and maybe then quads should land ASAP when one engine fails
VP TAA

[bubbers44]

Stagger, using your logic then, a single engine jet is subjected to half the risk of an engine failure of a twin and 25 % the risk of an engine failure of a 747 so we should go back to the barnstorming era?

[stagger]

Please note that nowhere in my post did I advocate a safe number of engines.

I simply pointed out that a factor to consider is that the more engines you have the more likely you are to experience an IFSD. It is, of course, not the only factor to consider. In addition to the probability of an IFSD, you obviously need to consider the consequences of an IFSD.

The fact is, that all else being equal, a quad (that's flying on 3) is 50% more likely to experience an engine failure than a twin (on 2).

But if a quad can divert on 2 as safely as a twin on 1, then this increased probability of diversion may not be a significant issue.

The probability of an IFSD is factored into the calculations behind ETOPS. The probability of an IFSD should similarly be factored into the calculations behind a quad (that's flying on 3) continuing its flight. The fact that a tri-jet might routinely travel the route is not necessarily relevant since the consequences of an IFSD are different for a tri-jet on 3 than for a quad that's flying on 3.

[GGV]

Stagger a factor to consider is that the more engines you have the more likely you are to experience an IFSD. Is this not just a red herring? You will no doubt claim it misleading to suggest that this means the safest aircraft will necessarily have one engine. However, when you work out why such a deduction is wrong will that not also suggest why your claim, as quoted above, is completely misleading and a distraction from the issues at hand?

[Jumbo Driver]

An additional factor to consider is that, all else being equal, a 747 on 3 engines is 50% more likely to have an engine failure than an twin (since it has 50% more engines operating - 3 vs 2).
Consequently while the performance of a 747 on 2 may not be a lot worse than an twin on 1 - the 747 is 50% more likely to end up on 2 (when it is starting with 3) than the twin aircraft is to end up on 1.

This is getting rather silly.

Firstly, Stagger, a 747 does not start with 3 engines.

Secondly, if what you seem to be trying to argue were to be correct, then a 747 would be more likely to experience two engine failures on a flight than a twin jet would be to experience one. Are you really saying that?

In other words, statistics would need to show more double-engine failures on 4-engined aircraft than single-engine failures on twins.

Not so, I think !

;)

[GGV]

Stagger, more of the same: the 747 is 50% more likely to end up on 2 (when it is starting with 3) than the twin aircraft is to end up on 1. Do you really mean this? Think about it.

[stagger]

No a 747 does not start on 3 engines. But we are comparing a 747 starting on 3 with a twin. The fact that the quad originally had 4 is not really relevant when it comes to calculating the probability of a future failure.

Even though the thread title is "BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR" some of you seem to have missed that I was considering a 747 on 3, not a 747 on 4, and this has led to some misunderstandings.


Secondly, if what you seem to be trying to argue were to be correct, then a 747 would be more likely to experience two engine failures on a flight than a twin jet would be to experience one. Are you really saying that?

No I did not argue that.

I wrote that, all else being equal, a quad (that's flying on 3) is 50% more likely to experience 1 engine failure than a twin (on 2).

It's quite straightforward - but whether this difference is important depends entirely on the consequences of an engine failure in each case.


GGV - I suggest you think about it.

3 engines vs 2 engines

3 engines that can fail vs 2 engines that can fail

An analogy...

3 lottery tickets vs 2 lottery tickets = 50% more lottery tickets

This an extremely basic probability issue - I don't see why people have such trouble grasping it.

All I am suggesting is that before embarking on an extended flight over the North Atlantic it needs to be considered that the quad (on 3 engines) is 50% more likely to experience an IFSD than a twin on 2. This is just one factor to be considered - there are of course many others.

[M.Mouse]

stagger, you are not perchance an accountant working on the BA team trying to steal our pensions are you?

Your mathematics seems very similar to those used in the BA spreadsheets.

[stagger]

No - I'm a scientist.

But you don't need to be a scientist to grasp the very simple point I'm trying to make. It's not fancy mathematics and I'm a bit embarassed that my posting has led to thread getting diverted onto a tangent.

I was just trying to point out one factor that needs to be considered.

Perhaps we should just forget about it and go back to relying on our intuitions instead of maths :ugh:

[Jumbo Driver]

Secondly, if what you seem to be trying to argue were to be correct, then a 747 would be more likely to experience two engine failures on a flight than a twin jet would be to experience one. Are you really saying that?


No I did not argue that.
I wrote that, all else being equal, a quad (that's flying on 3) is 50% more likely to experience 1 engine failure than a twin (on 2).

Stagger, I think you are actually arguing what I said above.

The 747 will have started the sector on 4-engines (as around 99.99% of 747s do!).

So, if you are suggesting that, having already had one engine failure (i.e. flying on 3 engines) it is then still more likely to have a second failure than a twin on 2 engines (i.e. no failures - yet), then my suggestion above is indeed correct.


;)

[GGV]

Stagger ... But we are comparing a 747 starting on 3 with a twin. So a tri-jet compared with a twin ..... ?

So a twin compared with a single-engine ..... ?

This logic suggests that a gilder would be best (statistically speaking) at avoiding having an engine failure, even against the most reliable engine available. And so it would. But where does that get us?

Of course it is all in how you composed your argument: but you are doing statistics here, not flight safety - which uses statistics to assess flight safety outcomes. By setting it up to "compare a 747 on 3 with a twin" you neatly manage to avoid dealing with the probability of having two such failures on one flight. In fact your approach ensures that like is not being compared with like. This may be fun, but it is misleading for an operational audience.

When you say “This is just one factor to be considered....” you imply to the unwary that the risk of a second event increases as a result of the first failure. But of course you are not claiming that, are you? (What then of ETOPs?).

Whatever this is doing, it adds nothing to assessing the decisions made by the crew of this particular flight who, correctly, would not have taken such an argument into account.

[Danny]

I think it is time to close this thread as there are far too many 'opinions' based on complete and utter ignorance of the aircraft, the rules, the type of flying involved etc. etc.

It is fairly obvious that once we get into the 'logic' being bandied about on here in relation to the odds of having a second or third engine failure together with the ramblings of armchair experts, the time has come to put this one to bed. As and when the case goes to court we can reopen it.

In the meantime, those of us who do actually fly the B744 can sleep well at night knowing that we have plenty of redundancy and don't have to "land at the nearest suitable airport" unless the QRH sais so or we decide we have to. :rolleyes:

[onanairbus]

Good move Danny

Perhaps now we can have a thread on BA's ridiculous fuel policy, fuel league tables, and pressure on Captain's to take minimum fuel.........and the affect it has when you divert, as a recent example showed.

[stagger]

Sorry for sending the thread off on a tangent - I just wanted to point out an issue that I thought should be considered. Not the only, or most important issue.

I honestly didn't think my comments would cause such a fuss. I thought people would just say "sure - there might be an increased risk of an IFSD relative to a twin but this isn't important because diversion on 2 engines isn't a big deal in a 747".

Anyway, if anyone wants to discuss the IFSD probability issue further please send me a PM.

[RobertS975]

Reminds me of the poor Navy fighter pilot with an ailing engine on his single engine fighter being told that he had to delay his landing because a B 52 was going to have to land first because he had an engine out. He said, Oh the dreaded seven engine approach.

The variation of this story that I have heard was when an F4 Phantom fighter pilot was asked to defer to a B52 because the bomber was down to a critical 30 minute fuel level. The fighter pilot agreed, of course, even though he had about 10 minutes of fuel left.

[20driver]

Stagger raises a very valid point, one which intuitively most people miss.
If an engine failure is a random event, i.e has no connection to the plane itself or the crew operating than he is correct. With 3 engines you have 50% more opportunity of an engine failure than with two.
Think of the coin toss problem. You toss a coin 49 times and it comes up heads every time. What are the odds of heads on the 50th toss? Actually they remain 1 out 2. The coin does not "know" what happened before.
Likewise Donk 3 has no clue Donk 1 has packed it in. If Donk 3 figures it is time, it is time, Donk 1 does not enter the equation.
What the real issue is what is the probablity of two engines going at once. Very remote and considerably less than your getting murdered in a LA hotel room. People get murdered in LA hotels every year but multiple engine failures seem to be pretty scarce.
On the previous thread I asked if anyone could give a case of two or more modern jet engines failing on a single flight and the only ones offered were from bad fuel or bad maintenance. In either case 2 engines or 10 it makes no difference, bad fuel and you are going down. I understand that is why different mechanics work on different engines on the same ship. Makes perfect sense.

20driver

[Rainboe]

So let me get this straight. Your B52 is in higher peril of suffering another engine failure if it loses one engine out of its eight than say a 747 which has lost one out of its four, and far, far more risk of losing another one than your 777 that has already lost one out of its two? I see. Have you considered the additional degree of danger a further engine failure poses? I think not.

I think Danny, who owns this website, will be mightily peeved when he reads these shenannigans. I think logic has departed this place. We are stuck in a First World War type stalemate, neither side willing to give way or leave the other side to have the last word. Why don't we just leave it to the legislators to sort out? What is incontrovertible is that the crew did nothing wrong according to the rules of the FAA or CAA! Like it or not, that is it, PERIOD!

[stagger]

There are two different questions here (that I think people have been trying to address - not that I'm suggesting people should address)

1) Did the crew in this particular case make the correct decision according to current regulations and policies?

2) What should the regulations and policies be?

The "stalemate" that Rainboe alludes to is partly due to the fact that people are trying to answer different questions.

The issue I raised is not really relevant to question 1 - and it appears that question 1 is what is most important to people in this thread. So I'm sorry for raising the probabilities issue - and I don't think it needs to be discussed further here.

[Jumbo Driver]

So I'm sorry for raising the probabilities issue - and I don't think it needs to be discussed further here.

I agree - I really think the time has come to stop this thread creep, which I believe is becoming as irrelevant as it is stagnant. The topic is the BA LAX-LHR flight on 3-engines - and not two, one or four!

IMHO, those who wish to pursue the theory of probabilities as it applies (or doesn't) to engine failures, need to do so in another thread.

[Rainboe]

There are two different questions here....

1) Did the crew in this particular case make the correct decision according to current regulations and policies?

2) What should the regulations and policies be?

Stagger, are you actually reading this thread? The crew did not contravene the regulations of the FAA or the CAA! Can you read English? They did exactly as 4 engine long haul crews, American, British, Australian and worldwide have been doing for years.

Where on Earth has question 2 come from now? We are not discussing what the regulations should be, for goodness sake, shall we stick to the question in hand- it appears hard enough for some of you to understand that let alone going hypothetical! You are some sort of scientist who has chosen to apply his non-aviation scientific principles to a subject you know nothing about, other than the feeling that the little you do actually know offends your sensibilities. It would be far better if this discussion was limited to those that know something about aviation and balancing risks, because quite frankly, some of you do not know what you are talking about. The glib 'they should have landed back at LAX' ignores a lot of additional dangers and risks they didn't need. Landing en-route would not have solved any problems and created more. They did the right thing, exactly as I would have done and almost all 4 engine long range pilots would have. You are achieving nothing with your daft theories of failure probabilities. Why don't you just give it a rest?

[stagger]

Rainboe

I wasn't really trying to pose those questions! I was simply trying to describe the questions that people have been trying to answer in this thread. I've edited my last post to make this clear. I believe, that perhaps without stating it explicitly, some people have been addressing the second issue.

And I apologised for previously trying to discuss question 2 myself. Moreover, with respect to the issue I raised I specifically asked people "to give it a rest" myself.

Please give me some credit for what I actually wrote!

Also I never made any suggestions about where anybody should have landed in any of my posts - glib or otherwise. None!

Nowhere did I claim the crew in this case contravened any rules. You must be thinking of another poster.

Does anyone here ever read what people have actually written?

[XL5]

The crew did not contravene the regulations of the FAA or the CAA! Can you read English? They did exactly as 4 engine long haul crews, American, British, Australian and worldwide have been doing for years


Actually Rainboe, what the FAA for years did allow is no longer the case. The interpretation, not the rule, has changed. On five occasions I've shut down one out of four and happily, paying due deference to proper contingency enroute planning, continued to destination.

Six years ago when I last played the game nobody wearing a suit with the matching management mask accessory said 'thank you'; instead a finger of admonishment was waggled in front of my face. I was told not to do it again and the reasoning given actually made sense having to do with compliance with the spirit of the regs rather than safety - a new FAA interpretation for a brave new world of improved safety. It was made perfectly clear that I would be placing my certificate in jeopardy with possible action to be taken against me should subsequent events additionally go awry (such as landing at MAN rather than LHR due to a flap over the FOB) if I was to press on after shutting down an engine.

The case that the feds are going to bring is one based upon prudence and judgment rather than safety. For what it's worth, in my book, 3 out of 4 always beats 2 out of 2, but my book counts for little as I'm not the one interpreting and enforcing the rules. Nothing theoretical about this, operating in US airspace (under the FARs) with one out of four shut down no longer means carry on regardless.

[20driver]

Stagger, every thing you said is true and makes perfect sense. Problem is you are talking to the back of the class so to speak. This discussion belongs on another thread where they don't tread.
However, to those in the front of the house, I put it another way.
Where would you rather be, a long way from the nearest strip in a ETOPS twin with one turning or same spot in a 4 burner with two out. Don't worry about the legalities, you are there and how you got there really does not matter, just which pickle would you rather be in?

20driver

PS - Don't worry about Rainboe, someone is trying to poison his food.

[sky9]

XL5
The case that the feds are going to bring is one based upon prudence and judgment rather than safety.
So on the basis of a full and detailed risk analysis they will be withdrawing ETOPS certification for twin engined aircraft and certainly not allowing single engined aircraft to operate at night. I think not.

[Rainboe]

a new FAA interpretation for a brave new world of improved safety............

The case that the feds are going to bring is one based upon prudence and judgment rather than safety. For what it's worth, in my book, 3 out of 4 always beats 2 out of 2, but my book counts for little as I'm not the one interpreting and enforcing the rules.

Did you mean 3 out of 4 beats 1 out of 2? 2 out of 4 certainly beats 0 out of 2, doesn't it?

Sky9 puts it nicely. Is the FAA going to ban ETOPs operations, or is that mysteriously 'acceptable' these days when Boeing wants to sell 777s that are not disadvantaged against the rest of the world's 747s? **Incorrect information on number of US 747s edited out**

The FAA can make what regulations it likes. The US must learn to accept that the US is no longer the centre of the world's aviation. Wake up and smell the roses- the rest of the world has grown hugely. It no longer sets the rules of the game. It can wag its finger all it likes at American pilots, the rest will laugh in its face.

[M.Mouse]

XL5

That is a very illuminating post.

It does rather explain the current hullabaloo.

[Globaliser]

XL5

That is a very illuminating post.

It does rather explain the current hullabaloo.My thoughts exactly! Rats smell.

[bubbers44]

The FAA is not considering restricting two engine ETOPS. I don't know why it is even being brought up here. They may question a specific flight that shuts down one engine of a three or four engine plane and continues on to destination as to if it was as save as diverting.

[M.Mouse]

No kidding Sherlock?

[RobertS975]

Sky9 puts it nicely. Is the FAA going to ban ETOPs operations, or is that mysteriously 'acceptable' these days when Boeing wants to sell 777s that are not disadvantaged against the rest of the world's 747s? I was told recently there are only 12 747s on the US register with US majors- I don't know if it is true, but it certainly seems it!


At last count, UA had 30 active 747s and 33 in flyable storage. NW has 34 active 747s and 25 in storage.

[sky9]

Bubbers, it was brought up in the context of risk analysis. If it unsafe or even unwise to operate a 4 engined (overpowered) aircraft on 3 engines to destination how unsafe or unwise is certifying a 2 engined aircraft for a 3 hr ETOPS. Or to put it another way, would you prefer to be on a twin on 1 for 3 hrs, or a 4 on 3 for 12?

[AIMS by IBM]

All I am suggesting is that before embarking on an extended flight over the North Atlantic it needs to be considered that the quad (on 3 engines) is 50% more likely to experience an IFSD than a twin on 2. This is just one factor to be considered - there are of course many others.

That´s what I mean by setting aside the fact of the number of engines.

The discussion you guys are having, about 4 versus 2 engines is interesting but has nothing to do with why the FAA got involved.

Shooting in my owbn foot ... I do not think so.

Its a fact of life that the 4, 3 and 2 engine powered jet are there for sale... if you want one then pick one out. There are pro´s and con´s arguments for each type and are are all regulated in a differant way.

As I said before it will not be easy for BA to show that the rules that govern their ops were intended to cover this case and that´s the whole point.

Redundancy NOT to be used for strickly commercial reasons is not within the spirit of the regulations. That ´s the point I made earlier on and that´s where this tread stands right now.

That is the step foreward from endless debate about 4 versus 2 and may very well be the outcome of this conflict.

[bubbers44]

Sky9, I agree with you, always have. The 2 engine ETOPS has to do with economy. It has proven to be safe so the 4 engine planes are going away because of competition. When they built the B52 they needed 8 engines to make it fly, now they only need 2. I think the FAA should look at their own regulations and realize that BA didn't violate them by continuing because they had more than two engines.

[RatherBeFlying]

Lies, Damned Lies and StatisticsMark Twain

Twins are taking over the oceanic and arctic routes -- however it will take one single ditching of a twin due to mechanical failure to occasion a change in regulatory philosophy and passenger demand.

Not to say that a twin ditching is inevitable; in fact, it's highly unlikely, but could happen tomorrow.

[sky9]

The only reason that a twin hasn't already ditched is because there was an airfield in the Azores within glider range. (OK it wasn't a double engine failure but the result was the same).

[bubbers44]

Fuel exhaustion or an on board fire like a couple months ago are a lot more threatening to overwater flights than number of engines operating.

[M.Mouse]

............however it will take one single ditching of a twin due to mechanical failure to occasion a change in regulatory philosophy and passenger demand.

Will they make it illegal to fly over the GAF or the Bay of Biscay or The Sahara or the middle of Africa or the Andes for the same reason? Losing both engines on a twin would be equally as disastrous in those and many other places.

Most passengers do not even know what aircraft they are flying on let alone how many engines it has.

Good thing too when Mr. Branson starts ETOPS and has to remove his opportunist slogans as well.

[AIMS by IBM]

Fuel exhaustion or an on board fire like a couple months ago are a lot more threatening to overwater flights than number of engines operating.


Or not being able to make a correct interpretation of a weather radar return by a highly qualified BA B 777 crew.

[barit1]

The only reason that a twin hasn't already ditched is because there was an airfield in the Azores within glider range. (OK it wasn't a double engine failure but the result was the same).

There HAS been a ditching of a twin - the 767 off Madagascar?? Of course it was fuel exhaustion precipitated by hijacking. But it could have just as well have been 3 or 4 donks quitting for the same cause.

As I've pointed out before, the incidence of a second engine failure for an UNRELATED cause is measured in decades.

The folks seeking to eliminate all risk from air travel should focus their efforts on more productive pursuits--like the risk of driving from home to the airport. :rolleyes:

[jondc9]

I think another "twin" ,though not etops, ditched also due to fuel exhaustion, a DC9 quite awhile ago.

I seem to recall a 4 engine plane landed in the water in the bay of San Francisco. a JAL DC8 back in the late 60's or early 70's... the plane was recovered and lived to fly again...though not a true ditching I suppose.


Until there is a regulation for everything, keeping the passengers, crew, and innocents on the ground safe and the reputation of your airline clear might be good advice regardless of the number of engines installed.

j

[Rainboe]

....which is far easier to achieve if you have four engines as opposed to two on long over-water flights, but the FAA seems mysteriously happy to ignore that aspect of long-range ops and focus strangely on looking minutely at aeroplanes with great redundancy instead of those that aren't that redundant and risk everybody on one engine over water for excessive periods.

Shall we call it a day?

[AN2 Driver]

I think another "twin" ,though not etops, ditched also due to fuel exhaustion, a DC9 quite awhile ago.
I seem to recall a 4 engine plane landed in the water in the bay of San Francisco. a JAL DC8 back in the late 60's or early 70's... the plane was recovered and lived to fly again...though not a true ditching I suppose.
Until there is a regulation for everything, keeping the passengers, crew, and innocents on the ground safe and the reputation of your airline clear might be good advice regardless of the number of engines installed.
j

jon,

the DC9 ditched because of fuel exhaustion while diverting after missing several approaches on the destination.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700502-0&lang=en

And the JAL DC8 "landed" short of the runway at SFO in full landing config during a CAT II approach which went haywire with all 4 running until they hit.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19681122-0&lang=en

Best regards

AN2 Driver

[jondc9]

an2

yes, I was living in San Francisco at the time and recall driving out to see the JAL...autopilot booboo or really a misunderstanding by the crew of the way autopilot was to be used, coupled with the so called, "black hole" effect of landing over water into SF's runway at night.

Somehow I think the concept of 2 engine vs 4 engine over water ops is the main point of the thread. Just to clarify, I think a good 4 engine plane is better at over water ops than a good 2 engine plane.

I think the reasons to deploy 2 engine over water planes are economic. I still recall the first TWA flight on two engines across the atlantic. Everyone shook their head and said: why?

And that if a malfunction happens, the remaining engines or engine should be used to get the plane to the best and nearest airport.

A quick question for the 747 guys: can the 747 fly on one engine? I thought I read it can, provided the operating engine is an inboard engine (ie: 2 or 3) and the weight/ altitude/ temps are all ok.


j

[Karma-Air]

I'm quite amazed at the hoo-haa about this.

Not a lot to do with twin vs. 4 eng issue. More a bizarre and 'somehow listened-to call from BA OPS'.

1/4 of power function/design of a/c has been lost on t/o.

Dump fuel and land asap. Overweight landing considered if other residual failures.

In my view, a rather bizarre attempt (knowing BA OPS LHR) of trying to get an a/c home. Quite extraordinary and nonsensical.

This HAS happened before (aka Penta Hotel LHR incident etc etc). Better to Land Now when first major problem has arisen before the third fatal one does later on in the flt. I mean it's not as if LAX can't sort out an engine change.

k

[GGV]

While there have been some peculiar posts on this subject my vote for the most biased, misinformed and distorted interpretation of the events in question goes to Karma-Air. A highly questionable judgment or statement in virtually every sentence. Who would be bothered?

[Karma-Air]

an2


A quick question for the 747 guys: can the 747 fly on one engine? I thought I read it can, provided the operating engine is an inboard engine (ie: 2 or 3) and the weight/ altitude/ temps are all ok.


j

jondc9.....

Methinks the question may be more apt to say can a 747 fly on 2 engines....as demostrated in real life cases like the Cargo ElAl classic at AMS. It all depends on residual damage/systems/airframe condition.

747 2 engine loss on one side = catastrophic if linked with flap/wing residual damage. 747 on one engine in a scenario similar to the Air Transat Azores incident (or on zero engines) is more about glide angle/ratio and no other airframe damage (residual factors) to complicate matters. (Wx/rudder hold factors et al, etc, etc).

k

[Karma-Air]

While there have been some peculiar posts on this subject my vote for the most biased, misinformed and distorted interpretation of the events in question goes to Karma-Air. A highly questionable judgment or statement in virtually every sentence. Who would be bothered?

GGV....if you could give some empirical evidence otherwise....I'd appreciate hearing about it.

The 747 LAX incident is about wisdom of operation and is highly judgemental. To continue on with e/o on t/o for a 10hr+ op is a 'no go' in my considered book.

Not sure what backup/evidence you have to make your point.

K

[Danny]

...is a 'no go' in my considered book.
Not sure what backup/evidence you have to make your point.

Well, all us B744 drivers are really sorry that 'you' didn't write the book.

Unfortunately, it would appear that we have yet another 'expert' B744 driver giving the rest of us his considered wisdom based on unrelated incidents.

Sadly, this thread has run its course and the fact that yet another 'opinion' based on nothing more than a knowledge that man has mastered powered flight has been aired, to the detriment of the debate, it's time to give this one a rest, at least until the case goes to court.

:rolleyes:

Too many Muppets.

Closed!