Passenger pontification and pilot safety [Archive]

thomay

5th Apr 2006, 13:47

Nah, nah, would y’all please not respond in this heated manner to this agent provocateur? Who knows what kind of organization is behind him/her, or who else might be reading this thread and use it against aviation, now or later.

Not responding is not the right thing to do either, but when we respond, please just do it in the coolest possible manner (and references to IQ look/feel/sound, and are inappropriate) . He is only waiting for us to start fuming and then will continue to stoke the fire.

Some people just are afraid of flying. Period. To pilots, this is a fear we cannot bring ourselves to comprehend, but it is widespread in the public, in various degrees of severity. Of course, people like “the passenger” are not helping any with their irrational panicky ways of putting things, but that irrationality is a factor that we in the aviation industry have to cope with, no matter what.
Unfortunately, “we are professionals and we know what we are doing; and now let us do our job” (although true and the only way to do this and any business for that matter) is not helping those uncomfortable with flying. We have to take the those pax that are uncomfortable serious and make the best effort to put them at ease (which has nothing to do with sugarcoating/hiding facts), then go fly.

So please, as much as “the passenger” and others here get on your nerves, just keep a cool head and act/write accordingly. After all, that is what you do in the cockpit as well when the proverbial starts to hit the fan.

Dear “the passenger” (and this is a little bit off the original thread, but intended to broaden your horizon a bit): It is funny medical procedures came up on this thread. Let us compare the two fields of occupation for a bit.

Aviation: A long ago established principle (in a nut shell) says: The pilots voluntarily submit reports about incidents/observations/honest mistakes to a government body that is independent of the regulatory authorities. Purpose: Gathering of information that will help prevent further occurrences of the same nature and hence increasing safety. It is no accident that air travel in the western developed world is incredibly safe. Go look it up yourself, in the US this reporting system is called ASRS. Those reports are later published and talked about and hence increasing safety, once again.

Medicine: According to studies, there are anywhere from 40’000 to 80’000 deaths per year in US hospitals. What is happening here? Simple (and painted with a broad brush): Mistake is made, doctor gets sued, has to pay astronomical sums, is not going to submit a report from which everybody could learn (after all, if he admits an error his professional career is finished), mistake is made all over again, people die. Just about now the medical profession is looking for ways to fixing its appalling "safety" record and guess what, dear “the passenger“: an adaptation of our ASRS is one of the hot frontrunners for adoption by the health care system in the US.

Of course, dear “the passenger”, you also are a little bit irritated that I “diagnosed” your behavior as an irrational fear. But do a search on the number of “deaths by airline”, in the US and Europe (we know too that Africa is not the safest place to fly). Shockingly low, isn’t it? 80’000 deaths p/y in hospitals in the US alone, figures for Europe are not even available (maybe you can find them and give us the numbers). Yet a lot of people fear to go flying -- if that is not irrational, then what?

BTW, why don’t you please tell us whether you are affiliated with a news outlet/law firm/think tank/etc. Thanks. Another BTW: BA really is the most experienced and sophisticated operator of the B 742/3/4.

GearDown&Locked

5th Apr 2006, 13:51

well, I'll bite just once more.
Since when do you have to fly 747s to make statistical comparisons?
You're right, you don't. OTOH statistics are what they are, just numbers, and their meaning is completely different depending on who is viewing.

You can't question a 'profi' the way he's doing things; thats what they're trained to death for. Likewise you can't question a heart surgeon about the way he does his operations.

If you cannot understand this things your job must be really really really boring and does not involve any type of risk taking... sorry:bored:

GD&L

skiesfull

5th Apr 2006, 13:57

My observations for what it's worth as a 20 year "veteran" of the Boeing 747(all types) are as follows:-
The aircraft and crew were JAA licensed and BA operate within the USA as FAR compliant.
Given the same circumstances, I would also have continued to destination, unless my crew (inc. cabin crew) and passengers expressed serious concerns, having observed the effects of the engine surge. Indeed, I have on 2 occasions cotinued the flight in similar circumstances - legally and safely.
My criticism of the crew would be this:- they were either naive or inexperienced on this particular routing, to assume that they would achieve every optimum altitude for maximum fuel-efficiency as the flight would cross the Atlantic on a random track against the NA track system at that time of day, when a lower than desired flight level is more often than not,only available;-
and, their knowledge and management of the fuel system was deficient.
Other than that, the flight was completed safely, albeit to an alternate and I think that The Boeing Aircraft Co. may be seeking urgent clarification from the FAA regarding their new 4-engined B747-8 and it's operation following an in-flight engine shutdown. If the non-normal QRH is to have "land at nearest suitable airfield) added following completion of the engine shutdown checklist then Boeing and Airbus may as well abandon their 4-engine production lines!
P.s. one doesn't "loose" an engine, one "loses" an engine.
As for 2-engine go-arounds, it has been possible since the early days of the 747-100, just more exciting then!

the passenger

5th Apr 2006, 14:05

Of course, dear “the passenger”, you also are a little bit irritated that I “diagnosed” your behavior as an irrational fear. But do a search on the number of “deaths by airline”, in the US and Europe (we know too that Africa is not the safest place to fly). Shockingly low, isn’t it? 80’000 deaths p/y in hospitals in the US alone, figures for Europe are not even available (maybe you can find them and give us the numbers). Yet a lot of people fear to go flying -- if that is not irrational, then what?

Yes, it IS irrational. On the other hand you have hundreds of aircrash-victims every year. That is a VERY low figure, I know. But why not improve safety as much as possible? This is done anyway, you will say. Really? Why flying on 2 engines over the atlantic (economical reasons, I know). It is completely safe to do so, you will say. But didn´ t even the pilots themselves protest against EROPS/ETOPS in the beginning?

the passenger

5th Apr 2006, 14:16

well, I'll bite just once more.

You can't question a 'profi' the way he's doing things; thats what they're trained to death for. Likewise you can't question a heart surgeon about the way he does his operations.

GD&L
Well, if I remember correctly, it was the FAA that questioned the way this flight was done...
I think it is prudent to even question the way a surgeon does an operation (there are almost always different techniques to do a certain operation).
"Profis" almost killed several people a few weeks ago by "testing" a new medicine on them in England...so it is always good to be SCEPTICAL...and it is always good to question a 'profi' (even if he does not like this - which I can understand from his point of view :) ).

exvicar

5th Apr 2006, 14:25

What, hundreds of deaths related to aviation this year! Best I resign from my job & spend the rest of my life hiding under my bed. Of course just incase there is an earthquake, not that there ever has been where I live, I may well be better hiding under my desk.

Hundreds is obviously significant if you are one of those involved. However, statistically, given the number that fly every year, flying is by far the safest form of travel known to man. Maybe you should give up commuting in your car & fly to work. Did you know there were over 100,000 deaths on the roads in China over the last twelve months? Living incurs risk, get on with it!

Can't wait to read your scaremongering newspaper article.

GearDown&Locked

5th Apr 2006, 14:42

Well, if I remember correctly, it was the FAA that questioned the way this flight was done...

This sort of questioning is made amongst people of the same trade, they all speak the same language and are tuned to the same freqs and most of the times they are compelled to question things by their own set of rules, even if they know the answer already. It's only natural. I say, let them do their work, thats what they're paid for. It is always more than you'll ever get from e.g. the auto industry; have you ever questioned the guys at Mercedes or BMW for not having airbags for the back passengers in every model they make? they too are people like the one's in front you know? or why they only fit the top class cars with the latest safety systems available? I believe the auto industry is far more obscure than air transport.

Drive safe.:ok:
GD&L

the passenger

5th Apr 2006, 14:54

have you ever questioned the guys at Mercedes or BMW for not having airbags for the back passengers in every model they make? they too are people like the one's in front you know? or why they only fit the top class cars with the latest safety systems available? I believe the auto industry is far more obscure than air transport.

Drive safe.:ok:
GD&L
According to your logic, I am not authorized to question the auto industry, because I am not part of it ("I am not of the same trade").
In the end your argumentation means "shut up, don´ t ask any questions, let the "experts" do what THEY think is right to do! Maybe you know this "wise joke" by Peter Ustinov: "The last words you will hear when the earth explodes in a big fiery ball will be the voice of an expert, saying "this is technically impossible"...
But - between us - I will tell you that I think you are right: there are other fields which are far more obscure than airtransport. :)

Final 3 Greens

5th Apr 2006, 16:33

NigelOnDraft

5th Apr 2006, 16:52

'Passenger' If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight Please could you expand on your logic here?
And please could you expand on what you understand by "declare an emergency"? Do you know/understand the ICAO definitions of "Pan" and "Mayday"?
Finally, what decision, and at what point, do you think the crew should have made?
TIA
NoD

Rockhound

5th Apr 2006, 18:06

Hallo The Passenger,
Your understanding of the cause of the KLM-PAA accident in Tenerife in 1977 is at best incomplete and at worst faulty. Unfortunately, it is widely believed (viz. DozyWannabe's reply) that the KLM skipper (who was PF) knowingly started his takeoff run without TO clearance, allegedly because he was anxious to complete the flight before expiration of his duty time. This may[I] be so but is far from proven. As they were taxying to the TO point, the KLM FO pointed out to the captain that they had not yet received TO clearance. The captain agreed and asked the FO to obtain it from the tower. The tower issued a [I]route clearance, which began "You are cleared..." and was received by the KLM crew as they reached the runway threshold. The controller ended his clearance with the words "Stand by for takeoff" as he knew that the PAA 747 was still on the active runway, in fog and not visible to the KLM crew. Tragically, this last instruction was transmitted at the same time as a transmission from the PAA to the controller on the same frequency. The coincident transmissions came out in the KLM flight deck as a squeal. The KLM captain began his takeoff roll, apparently believing he had received TO clearance (very likely his belief was furthered by time constraints to complete the flight). Early in the TO roll, after hearing a further transmission between tower and PAA, the KLM flight engineer queried the Captain: "Is he not clear then, that PanAm?". The captain emphatically replied in the affirmative: "YES, he is clear". It is not known if the FO made any comment. It seems clear that the captain, who, as you know, was an experienced training captain at KLM, had no doubts he had TO clearance.
Of course, the possibility remains that the KLM captain did deliberately attempt takeoff without clearance but, from all the evidence, this seems most unlikely.
Unquestionably, it was pilot error but, as usual, not ascribable to a single cause or mistake (certainly not to "Spanish factors"). Once again, enough holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.
Rockhound

Nom De Guerre

5th Apr 2006, 18:23

Stan Woolley

5th Apr 2006, 19:54

despegue

5th Apr 2006, 21:00

Dear The Passenger,

As an airline pilot, I personally appreciate that you value yours and others safety as a priority when flying. This is a very good thing, and nomatter what other contributers have said, most of which is valid and true I must add, I value that.

However, it does seems to me that you don't know the meaning, the DEFINITION, of "safety".

Let me give the definition for you, which one learns on he first day of any Msc in Safety.
"Safety is a CONDITION of a relative absence of danger".

In my professional view as a Safety expert (in former life as Maritime officer) and current Boeing pilot, The condition was not compromised as there were still enough redundant systems. The condition was still so that there was no high chance of risk. So, in the beginning of the flight, and for most of the flight it seems, there was an absence of danger. The danger only came when fuel levels became too low for a safe landing at the planned airport.
Hence, the condition changed, as the relative absence of a danger changed into a relative RISK that a dangerous situation could occur should the pilots continue to the planned destination.

It should be clear from the earlier definition, that complete safety is an utopia.
It is not even wishful, as it is not human.
Risk management is a vital role in the safe operation of any flight.
This is what we are trained for. This is what the guys on that BA B744 did.

Despegue

thePassenger

5th Apr 2006, 22:15

Passenger:
It should be clear to you now that the professionals on this board do not agree with your "Sun", "Bild", " and other similar lowlife scandal mongerers.

You have been made welcome on an aviation BB for professionals. You may read, contribute, discuss. All for free. What you are doing is, as a non professional, tell the professionals how to do their job. Annoys the professionals that does.

A little advice: You are out of your depth here, so give it a rest, you are making a fool out of yourself. (Much to the amusement/annoyance of others reading your considered opinions).
:yuk:

You obviously did not understand what I was saying:
- I´m not an expert. Never claimed to be one.
- I don´t care about "Sun", "Bild" or other scandal mongerers.
- I don´ t tell professionals how to do their job. I only said that if they do it in a certain way - a way I do not like - I will not buy the "product". I will not buy the bread of a professional baker either, if I don´t like its taste. You seem to forget that your job is to fly me (and others) from A to B. If I do not like your (your airline´s) work, I will not fly with you.
- if that´ s "making a fool of myself" , I can live with that.

thePassenger

5th Apr 2006, 22:27

the passenger

I am a passenger too and I have a license to fly a small aeroplane (not a 747.)

I have this irrational sense that flying is very safe and that British Airways are particularly safe.

So there you go ;)

And Prof Ladkin's paper was very clever and amusing, but I still feel irrationally safe flying with British Airways, as they have not killed me yet in several hundred flights.

By the way, CG Jung defined "irrational" as the process of making sense of the world by non concrete experiences and the unconcious mind is good at doing that kind of stuff.

So maybe your whole line of argument is paradoxical and therefore unresolvable on this forum?

The more the professional pilots provide evidence, the more your brain will give you reasons why it cannot be so.

Happy flying.

I don´t think flying is unsafe but I hate tendencies to decrease the safety margins, even if it is only by a very small amount. Decreasing the safety margins by a very small amount might have been one of the reasons that led to the fall of Swissair. Flying such a long route over water with 3 instead of 4 engines may have been according to (European) authorities and may have been quite safe (though not as safe as on 4 engines) but as a passenger I would not like to cross an ocean in such a plane. This would certainly increase the risk of high blood pressure to say the least.

thePassenger

5th Apr 2006, 22:38

Hallo The Passenger,
The KLM captain began his takeoff roll, apparently believing he had received TO clearance (very likely his belief was furthered by time constraints to complete the flight).

It seems clear that the captain, who, as you know, was an experienced training captain at KLM, had no doubts he had TO clearance.

Obviously that was his mistake!

Of course, the possibility remains that the KLM captain did deliberately attempt takeoff without clearance but, from all the evidence, this seems most unlikely.
I don´t think he did this on purpose (but of course no one will ever know).

Unquestionably, it was pilot error but, as usual, not ascribable to a single cause or mistake (certainly not to "Spanish factors"). Once again, enough holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.
I can´t remember the details and have no way to look them up at the moment - but weren´t there some rumours that they watched a soccer-game in the tower?

thePassenger

5th Apr 2006, 22:43

Passenger

I'm a current airline Captain and I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. It appears that there are many more bold pilots around these days than maybe in the past.

Let's hope the old saying ' Better lucky than good.' holds true.;)

Thanks! You seem to be the kind of captain I would like to fly with - without hesitation or fear :)
Isn´ t there a saying "There are old pilots and bold pilots. But no old AND bold pilots" ? :)

Sky Wave

5th Apr 2006, 23:13

Flying such a long route over water with 3 instead of 4 engines may have been according to (European) authorities and may have been quite safe (though not as safe as on 4 engines) but as a passenger I would not like to cross an ocean in such a plane.

But would you do it on an A330, B767 or B777?

thePassenger

5th Apr 2006, 23:16

Dear The Passenger,

As an airline pilot, I personally appreciate that you value yours and others safety as a priority when flying. This is a very good thing, and nomatter what other contributers have said, most of which is valid and true I must add, I value that.

It´ s always good to hear such things from an airline pilot! Gives me back some of the confidence I once had in them (before I replied to this thread).

"Safety is a CONDITION of a relative absence of danger".

In my professional view as a Safety expert (in former life as Maritime officer) and current Boeing pilot, The condition was not compromised as there were still enough redundant systems. The condition was still so that there was no high chance of risk. So, in the beginning of the flight, and for most of the flight it seems, there was an absence of danger. The danger only came when fuel levels became too low for a safe landing at the planned airport.
Hence, the condition changed, as the relative absence of a danger changed into a relative RISK that a dangerous situation could occur should the pilots continue to the planned destination.

Well, what does "relative absence of danger mean"? This is a sentence that could be interpreted in many different ways! I believe you, when you say "there was no high chance of a risk". But certainly the "absence of danger" was a LITTLE nearer on the "danger" side than on the "absence" side as soon as there were only 3 engines left. I never said that the passengers were in direct danger of their life on that flight. Just that the line had been shifted a bit to the "danger side".

thePassenger

5th Apr 2006, 23:32

But would you do it on an A330, B767 or B777?
Not if I can avoid it!
(Of course you can always reply "but it is still much safer than driving a car". This will certainly also be true for the 747-3 engines-crossing...I guess). But this is not the point of my post. The point is, you should resist beginning to compromise safety. Twin jets crossing the atlantic for me is a (small) move in this direction, too (and I know that the statistics don´t show that...at the moment).
Don´t forget that the Concorde was one of the safest airplanes (statistically speaking) BEFORE the accident. AFTER this one accident it was by far the most "dangerous" airliner. Thats statistics...

thePassenger

5th Apr 2006, 23:41

'Passenger' Please could you expand on your logic here?
And please could you expand on what you understand by "declare an emergency"? Do you know/understand the ICAO definitions of "Pan" and "Mayday"?
Finally, what decision, and at what point, do you think the crew should have made?
TIA
NoD

I was citing the "International Herald Tribune".
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php
As they lost one engine immediately after take off - why not return to the departure airport?

overstress

6th Apr 2006, 00:08

As they lost one engine immediately after take off - why not return to the departure airport?

Don't you love it when Johnny-come-latelys butt into a conversation and regurgitate something that had been discusses aeons ago?

Passenger person, please go and research the facts of this incident elsewhere on the forum. Then go and get an ATPL. Then get type-rated on the 747-400. Then come back on here and continue to give us your opinions. I'm not going to hold my breath... :rolleyes:

notdavegorman

6th Apr 2006, 00:13

thePassenger is like an animal being treated by a vet, his best interest is being served, but doesn't necessarily comprehend it as such.

john_tullamarine

6th Apr 2006, 01:27

Amazing how a thread can go off the rails in only a few hours from the initial post ... and, invariably, when I am tucked up in bed and not keeping an eye on things ..

The discussion has the potential to be of value if we, as practitioners, maintain a rational environment ... the Passenger, in respect of his/her anxieties, is the tip of the iceberg in that many customers have an intrinsic (if often irrational) fear of flying ...

Points to note ..

(a) the views held by passengers (who are not expert) may vary enormously but are pertinent as they (the passengers) pay a significant part of the bill for running the aircraft which our flying folk operate. It is not unreasonable that we consider those concerns. This present thread is not much different in philosophy to the situation arising for any non-expert person dealing with matters which are conducive to anxiety ... how many of us (having little expertise in surgical practices) are really comfortable in hospital as the mask comes down over the face .. ? Same story, different scenario ...

(b) none of us has all the answers.

(c) if any poster (passenger or crew) puts a view which is considered to be "wrong" then, by all means, speak to the topic .. but keep in mind that, in this forum, we play the ball ... not the player.

(d) for the Passenger, neither the Industry nor the practitioners are faultless and this is equally valid in any area of human endeavour. However, the demonstrable risk is very low. With regard to your first post, competent published statistics make it clear that, generally (while acknowledging that one can tweak the numbers to support this case or that), one is at lower risk in the average airliner than the average car .. I, for one, am far more nervous on the road than in the air ...

(e) considering the mistakes made by an airline, crewmember ... whoever ... the frequency of a consequential incident is quite low (if you like, the incidence of detecting and correcting errors is high .. this is the underlying principle of the QA systems within which we operate) and the frequency of a resulting accident is extremely low. Overall, the risk level of airline flying for the customer is way down there in the weeds, regardless of whatever prejudice any individual customer may exhibit.

More importantly, this Industry directs a lot of effort toward learning from mistakes to reduce the incidence of similar mistakes in future ...

It is just unfortunate that some Industries (nuclear and aviation, in particular) attract an intrinsically high anxiety level in the general public ....

(f) it has been observed that the pilots are "the first to arrive at the scene of the crash" .. therefore it is quite reasonable to presume that the piloting fraternity has a very earnest and real vested interest in keeping the risks down and safety up ...

(g) in respect of fines .. it is likely that the Passenger is unaware of how the FAA often does business. Further, anyone who gives undue and uncritical credence to that which is reported in the popular press is likely to be mislead to a greater or lesser extent..

(h) the Passenger or anyone else, for that matter, is perfectly entitled to choose with which carrier he/she will/won't fly .. there ought to be no concern with such a view ... surely ?

The upshot is that, if the tone of this thread doesn't improve rapidly, I will either padlock it or move it to a forum where this sort of undisciplined banter is more appropriate.

Rockhound

6th Apr 2006, 03:16

Tarq57

6th Apr 2006, 04:00

The Passenger,
Non-airline pilot (also) here. Have worked as a controller for a few years. Have flown many times.
Things you might like to consider....
-If professional aircrew come across as impatient with non-expert opinions, it is often because some of those opinions are gestated from media reports, and, aviation, (particularly the regulatory side, which we spend a career learning) is complex, and the media spectacularly get it wrong, so often, again and again. (This can be true of less complex subjects too, of course. After all, the media's job these days is to give us what we want.As much drama and controversy as poss.)
-The flight crew are usually the first to arrive at the accident scene.
-The huge majority of flight crew do not want to die prematurely.
-Of those that do, the huge majority do not elect to take a load of pax with them.
I get to interact with quite a few flight crews day to day. Hardly ever have I encountered an attitude suggestive of non-professional approach. In fact, I can't remember even one.

Final 3 Greens

6th Apr 2006, 04:52

the passenger

I don´t think flying is unsafe but I hate tendencies to decrease the safety margins, even if it is only by a very small amount.

Have you considered the impact on safety margins of an airborne return?

Flying such a long route over water

If you read the comments by the professionals on the forum, the LAX-LHR is not a long over water route.

I have flown 100km over water in a single engined aeroplane (when I was younger) - that makes me nervous when I think of it now, but the 3 engined 747 does not in this incident, remember that it is certified for NORMAL operations on three engines, due to the high levels of redundant systems.

Ignition Override

6th Apr 2006, 06:01

The Passenger might benefit from a class for nervous flyers-if so, it is nothing to be ashamed of. These classes can enlighten and inform (our media often does a terrible job, well aware of its distortions and misrepresentations-they take a situation with a burned-out gear green light and finish by saying.."There were no fatalities!..." It is very rare to have injuries with these.).

A few months ago in a Michigan airport, I met an off-duty policeman who was taking his first flight in at least twelve years: he had been driving each year to Florida! After stating that we have procedures for everything and also use our experience, my suggestion was to go to the next gate and ask 'his' Airbus flightcrew a few questions. The guy also admitted to me that he needed to be in control. I told him that I might be uncomfortable in his uniform with the low life all over the city's streets.

If we are very concerned, or have phobias about medicine, we could all sit for hours in Borders, or Barnes & Noble bookstores, read the Merck's Manual on diseases (my mother-in-law has a copy...) and books about pharmaceuticals and then go on a doctor's or nurses' website and be able to instantly steer these highly-trained professionals in a new direction, possibly evaluate the success of certain surgical procedures.

No sweat-we all take part in the medical profession as we undergo various treatments, thereby allowing us all to judge, second-guess the decisions and the effectiveness.;) Being unconscious during surgery, or in a passenger seat (dreaming of the Microsoft computer game [it has changing weather, winds, odd, mysterious systems indications and many partially blocked radio calls after five hours sleep next door to self-centered yokels who always let their hotel door slam?]) is no obstacle.

The bumpkins in the back of the plane who assume that a flight is safe only because they have intermittent light turbulence and feel a soft landing will always be bumpkins because they never even attempt to stop by a c0ckp1t to ask questions, or ask us in the 'food court', and never take the initiative to begin to learn how to put a few things in their proper context.:8

Years ago, a flight attendant told me that her plane had suffered a partial loss of cabin pressure. The masks dropped down when the cabin altitude reached 14,000', but very little oxygen flow comes through the mask (and now the area near oxygen generators can smell like scorched cotton). An Air Force flightcrew who had been onboard, knowing nothing about FAA requrements, tried to create a problem at the arrival gate, because so little air came from the masks. Although proficient flying large 4-engine KC-135s or such, their ignorance led some of them to jump to conclusions. Airline aviation and its regulations are so different from anything else.

How often do the media consult actual pilot spokesman after an incident? Rarely are their so-called 'experts' trained and experienced on aircraft similar to those involved. Some have only a bit of experience in a very small (six-seat) Cessna 402 and are aviation professors (academia), but presume to judge and evaluate an event-not having access to more than a tiny bit of info-which took place in a CRJ, B-737, A-319 or a DC-10.

J. Tullamarine-I just read your excellent comments after mine were posted, and you beat me to those main points.

The media collects certain statistics on accidents involving pilots in their own, or rented, small, even experimental aircraft. There have been articles lumping general aviation incidents and airline incidents together, in the same categories, especially those involving those under the influence of something prohibited. Is any light finally illuminating a dark cave? The Dark Ages still exist.

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 10:09

Passenger person, please go and research the facts of this incident elsewhere on the forum. Then go and get an ATPL. Then get type-rated on the 747-400. Then come back on here and continue to give us your opinions. I'm not going to hold my breath... :rolleyes:
I see you are over-stressed. According to your logic, you must be a very quiet man. Apart from flying and (maybe) one or two other things you will be no expert in almost every other field and so you will have to be silent and have others determine many important things that influence your life without a chance to alter them...doesn´t sound much like living in a democracy.

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 10:15

Passenger,
Yes, unquestionably the KLM skipper in Tenerife erred in interpreting the route clearance as takeoff clearance but that's very different from deliberately taking off without permission from ATC.

I never said he did.

No, the tower staff were not watching a football match. The critical factors in this tragedy were spelled out in the official accident report, of which I have a copy. I find myself pulling it from my files at least once a year to try and correct someone or other's misimpression.
Rockhound
As far as I can see we do not disagree about anything concerning this accident. There were some rumours about the tower staff watching a match. But it was really only that: rumours, probably not true.

L337

6th Apr 2006, 10:17

thePassenger.

In your view, as an expert in aviation. I need to ask you a question.

Q: On a 4 engined aeroplane. When one engine fails. Must the pilot land at the nearest airport?

L337

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 10:24

These classes can enlighten and inform (our media often does a terrible job, well aware of its distortions and misrepresentations-they take a situation with a burned-out gear green light and finish by saying.."There were no fatalities!..." It is very rare to have injuries with these.).

You shouldn´t have mentioned a burned-out gear green light.:)
(Eastern Airlines, 1972, Everglades).

DozyWannabe

6th Apr 2006, 10:33

I can´t remember the details and have no way to look them up at the moment - but weren´t there some rumours that they watched a soccer-game in the tower?
It was a theory put forward by the Dutch (KLM) investigation team, who were understandably perturbed at the apparent actions of their training captain. They claimed they heard the Spanish word for "soccer" in the background on the ATC tapes, something that was not corroborated by either the American or Spanish teams. No evidence has ever been put forward to support the claim.

The sad fact about that accident it that it was the ultimate "Swiss-cheese"-type incident. *If* Los Rodeos was equipped properly for 747 operations, *if* they had more than one radio channel, *if* Van Zanten had decided to refuel at Las Palmasin instead, *if* he had parked his aircraft 12 feet to the left of where it was, *if* the PanAm crew had attempted the acute turn on to the third taxiway exit and finally *if* the Canary Island separatists had not bombed Las Palmas airport in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As for the other incidents, if you have an engine fire in flight, you shut the thing down. All the BM crew did was follow their training - the fact that the training was no longer relevent on the new aircraft was not their fault.

There are only 2 cockpit crew on a 757 - it was nearly midnight and the only reference they had was their instruments. If (as was the case) their instruments were giving erroneous readings then it's very easy to get the aircraft into an unrecoverable attitude, no matter how good you are.

The Staines incident led to a near-revolution in safety procedures, including mandatory CVRs and the advent of CRM. To pull that up as relevent to today's safety culture is erroneous to say the very least.

[EDIT : A lot of lessons were learned in the early '70s - a lot of systems design was re-evaluated in the light of Eastern 401 too. (In that case, the autopilot could show as engaged on one side of the cockpit when in fact the opposite column had disengaged it, and the audible warning for "leaving assigned altitude" was too quiet)]

Referring back to the original topic, the 744 has buckets of power in reserve compared to the 747 Classic even before you start comparing to ETOPS. The IHT was just engaging in a bit of old-fashioned muckracking and US exceptionalism.

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 10:35

thePassenger.

In your view, as an expert in aviation. I need to ask you a question.

Q: On a 4 engined aeroplane. When one engine fails. Must the pilot land at the nearest airport?

L337

May I repeat for the 100th time:

- I´m not an expert, I´m a passenger (you didn´t read my posts, did you?)
- I guess the answer to your question is: no
- but this was never the point of my posts. The point was: I really don´t like to be on an airplane which suffers an engine-failure shortly after take-off and the pilots choose to continue a rather long flight. The feeling would be different if this had happened somewhere along the route (even if returning to the departure airport would still have been nearer than continuing with the flight).
It´s strange for an airline like BA to do such a thing: it just doesn´t look right (= giving utmost priority to safety considerations) and certainly it does not FEEL right (for the passengers). I would rather have thought that this is something (maybe) an African airline would have done...but obviously this is just some kind of prejudice!

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 10:49

There are only 2 cockpit crew on a 757 - it was nearly midnight and the only reference they had was their instruments. If (as was the case) their instruments were giving erroneous readings then it's very easy to get the aircraft into an unrecoverable attitude, no matter how good you are.

There were three pilots in the cockpit of the Birgen Air 757:
Captain Ahmet Erdem, first officer Ayvkut Gergin and relief pilot Muhlis Evrenesoglu :
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/PuertoPlata/bericht.html
Probable cause was the inability of the flight-crew to recognize the activation of the stick-shaker as a direct warning of an imminent stall.
The flight-crew´s insufficient knowledge of aircraft-systems, autopilot etc.
They already noticed during take-off that they had a problem with the airspeed-indicators:
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/PuertoPlata/CVR-birgenair.html

DozyWannabe

6th Apr 2006, 10:57

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 11:06

Doesn't matter, only 2 were in control and only 2 could see the instruments. Outside was pitch black. They noticed one of the altimeters was misreading (in the case of a single failed altimeter, the book says you can continue with caution), but they didn't pick up that the airspeed indications were erroneous (they weren't significantly out until the aircraft was at altitude).

In that situation (pithc black outside, remember) you have a reading that says you're going too fast, so you slow down. They were not trained to spot the signs of covered pitot tubes (since added to all 757 training) and so followed their instruments. To attempt to blame them for the accident is a tad harsh. to say the least.

J.
O.K. I take note of your opinion (I´m not even saying that you are wrong), however the official accident report came to another result and I remember well the interview I read with a Lufthansa-pilot, who blamed the Birgen air-pilots, too, because they should have known that getting an overspeed-warning at such a high rate of climb was impossible.

DozyWannabe

6th Apr 2006, 11:17

O.K. I take note of your opinion (I´m not even saying that you are wrong), however the official accident report came to another result and I remember well the interview I read with a Lufthansa-pilot, who blamed the Birgen air-pilots, too, because they should have known that getting an overspeed-warning at such a high rate of climb was impossible.

At the risk of drawing this out beyond its already limited welcome, what if the climb indication was the erroneous one? In instrument conditions at night there is simply no way to tell.

The point is that if you're reliant on instruments and those instruments are giving conflicting readings, you're going to hve a hell of a time trying to put that aircraft safely back on the ground no matter how good you are.

L337

6th Apr 2006, 11:19

I really don´t like to be on an airplane which suffers an engine-failure shortly after take-off and the pilots choose to continue a rather long flight. The feeling would be different if this had happened somewhere along the route (even if returning to the departure airport would still have been nearer than continuing with the flight).
So where is OK for me to continue? One hour into the flight, 5 hours? 20 minutes? Why is it safer say 5 hours into a flight than say one hour? Does the weather at the departure point, and the weather en-roue play a part? Or do we land regardless just because you say "It does not feel right"?
It´s strange for an airline like BA to do such a thing
Do you think it is just BA that do such a thing? Do you think it is only BA that is behaving like an African airline.....your words, not mine.
it does not FEEL right (for the passengers).
No, it does not FEEL right for you. How do you know what all the other millions of passengers think? Plenty of passengers here have voiced there support for the Captain, and his decision.
is something (maybe) an African airline would have done...but obviously this is just some kind of prejudice!
Not only do you have the expertise to judge BA, but (maybe) all African airlines. Amazing.

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 11:30

At the risk of drawing this out beyond its already limited welcome, what if the climb indication was the erroneous one? In instrument conditions at night there is simply no way to tell.

The point is that if you're reliant on instruments and those instruments are giving conflicting readings, you're going to hve a hell of a time trying to put that aircraft safely back on the ground no matter how good you are.

Well, imagine your very unpopular passenger (=me :) ) sitting in the cockpit of that Birgen Air 757 as a captain that night (of course, after having gotten an ATPL, gotten type-rated on the 757 etc, as proposed by the very cool, overstressed "overstress"). I KNOW I would have been utterly confused, too, in that situation. That´s why I said I don´t disagree with you.
P.S.: You can relax: I have no intention whatsoever to become a pilot - I don´t even play MS Flight Simulator - a thing that seems to irritate many people here :) (awaiting sarcastic comments now...)

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 11:41

So where is OK for me to continue? One hour into the flight, 5 hours? 20 minutes? Why is it safer say 5 hours into a flight than say one hour? Does the weather at the departure point, and the weather en-roue play a part? Or do we land regardless just because you say "It does not feel right"?

Somewhere halfway between departure airport and destination, when over the open sea seems to be O.K. (from the passenger point-of-view).

Do you think it is just BA that do such a thing? Do you think it is only BA that is behaving like an African airline.....your words, not mine.

I can only hope so...
Maybe remember this (for continuing flying with gear down):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0095397/L/

No, it does not FEEL right for you. How do you know what all the other millions of passengers think? Plenty of passengers here have voiced there support for the Captain, and his decision.

From reading the forums of different newspapers, maybe?

Not only do you have the expertise to judge BA, but (maybe) all African airlines. Amazing.
It is a fact that they DID what they did and it is a fact that many people are concerned when hearing about this.

DozyWannabe

6th Apr 2006, 12:23

I can only hope so...
Maybe remember this (for continuing flying with gear down):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0095397/L/
Difference being that flying with gear down will cause a more significant increase in fuel consumption due to drag than flying with a donk out.

There's electing to continue and electing to continue - you can't claim one case is the same as another here.

From reading the forums of different newspapers, maybe?
And it's not like the press has an agenda of its own, is it? *sigh*

It is a fact that they DID what they did and it is a fact that many people are concerned when hearing about this.
The question is whether they need to be concerned, and the majority of received wisdom appears to be "not really".

overstress

6th Apr 2006, 12:32

I see you are over-stressed.

You see whatever you like. My 'handle' refers to the inadvertent bending of a military aeroplane in the distant past, not my psychological state :hmm:

According to your logic, you must be a very quiet man. Apart from flying and (maybe) one or two other things you will be no expert in almost every other field

Yes, Mr Passenger. That is my philosophy - 2 ears, one mouth, use them in that proportion. I've been on PPRuNe since it's first six months (despite what it says in my profile) yet look at the number of my postings. I restrict myself to commenting on areas in which I feel qualified.

Let me give you an example. I've been on a passenger ferry a few times, yet I don't feel it necessary to find a Master mariners' internet forum and make unqualified comments on matters of maritime operations, even though I hold an RYA Coastal Skipper amateur qualification.

Moderators: can we move this thread to J-B now, where it belongs? Then we can say what we really think of pontificators :hmm:

john_tullamarine

6th Apr 2006, 12:41

I make no specific comment in respect of several of the accidents referred to .. however, is this not why we train specifically for flight with unreliable pitot static instruments .. ie basic I/F attitude and thrust for configuration and required performance ?

There has been a number of accidents and incidents where a reversion to the basics may have provided a better outcome ...

Perhaps I'm just an old dinosaur .. but I was drilled attitude + thrust = performance ... it is always good fun to see the confidence level in pilots soar when they get a chance to do some serious basics in the box for training ...

overstress .. forum policy is that we are very tolerant with threads while the posters are reasonably polite and the posts reasonably pertinent to the thrust of the forum subject matter. The thread stays for the time being.

Reading between the lines, it is obvious that thePassenger is far better read that the great majority of passengers. While I might not go to the stage of lumping him/her in the esteemed class of Milt, he/she certainly has cranked up a discussion of great vigour and one, if I may be so bold as to suggest, canvasses important matters of interest to many ...

Empty Cruise

6th Apr 2006, 12:48

Most passengers in modern day aviation have yet to come to terms with the fact that when the doors close, you cease to be an agent and become a patient. The peebs of today hate not being able to influence what's happening to them - but flying is one such necessary evil. Hence, you see people jumping up when arriving at the gate, before the signs are off, thereby reclaiming their right to act as agents. They need this to assert their "rights", it's not a right they want to wait for to be givne to them.

Now, this kind of pax agrees to act the patient-role during the flight under the pre-text that a) I surrender part of my free will to you, the crew, provided b) you get me safely to my destination, more or less on time, and in return c) I will not interfere with how you do your job. This is not a carbon-copy of what is says on your IATA-format ticket, but that is what people expect.

When things don't go according to plan (tech fault, diversion, precautionary landinging etc.), these pax feel that we have violated the agreement - and they don't care about the small print in the terms-of-carriage. It doesn't matter that a rational analysis shows that, yes, ever so often a quad will have a run-down in departure. They feel that the terms of the "emotional contract" have been broken - and therefore, they now have a right to have their say.

Typically, "The Passenger" didn't just decide for himself that he was never to fly BA again, he had to vent his frustration of the broken contract at the "culprits", in this case the PPRuNe fraternity. It's about making us understand how disappointed he is and to make us suffer a bit in return. That is a very human - if also very irritating - response.

May I therefore humbly suggest that we accomodate "The Passenger"? He has now had a chance to vent his frustration - but unfortunately, some rose to the bait, thereby denying "The Passenger" his "right" to shove all his broken promises into our faces. I fear that "The Passenger" might have had other instances of people close to him letting him down, and therefore is prone to react visibly when he is (once again) let down - or senses that he might in the future be let down, e.g. when travelling on a BA quad.

Dear "The Passenger"! I am sorry that you do not feel happy about said crews decision to continue the flight. We recognise your sense of anger and frustration, and admit that, yes, under similar circumstances (in other areas of life) we'd be capable of feeling the same emotions that you're going through. We cannot change those emotions, only acknowledge that it is the way you feel.

We are sorry if some of us let our emotions get the better of us and did not acknowledge your emotions (I'm sure you remember which posts I refer to here). We are also humans, and sometime give in to an irrational sense to convey our skill, expertise and knowledge in order to solve the problem, when deep down, we know it is not the solution to your emotions and is unlikely to bring closure.

We are also sorry to hear that you will not fly BA in the future. It is a choice you make, and I'm sure all PPRuNers respect that choice.

We wish you the best of luck making transportation arrangements in the future that will hopefully be to your taste with regards to percieved security.

We also wish you the best of luck reconciling any emotional distress that said incident (or indeed similar incidents from time immortal) may have caused you. You seem like a capable individual who'll eventuall pull through.

From all at PPRuNe - the best of luck.
Empty :}

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 16:16

Difference being that flying with gear down will cause a more significant increase in fuel consumption due to drag than flying with a donk out.

There's electing to continue and electing to continue - you can't claim one case is the same as another here.

No, but both pilots will claim (maybe the Hapag-Lloyd-pilot not any longer) that they are professionals, that they know what they are doing and that they use some kind of risk management. Before the crash (or let´ s call it a "landing") the Hapag-Lloyd captain would have had similar arguments why it is safe to continue with this flight as many posters have given regarding the BA-flight...
Strangely things have still gone wrong in this case...

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 16:28

Empty cruise
Thanks! I already feel much better now. I´m still a little irritated that you wrote "staying out of the morgue" only on 3rd position in your profile but reading that you didn´t necessarily mean in that order, calmed me down again. And I didn´t even take my pills today...

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 16:35

...he/she certainly has cranked up a discussion of great vigour and one, if I may be so bold as to suggest, canvasses important matters of interest to many ...

I´m not sure I really succeeded in doing that - but at least this was the intention.

NigelOnDraft

6th Apr 2006, 16:43

Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft
'Passenger' Please could you expand on your logic here?
And please could you expand on what you understand by "declare an emergency"? Do you know/understand the ICAO definitions of "Pan" and "Mayday"?
Finally, what decision, and at what point, do you think the crew should have made?
TIA
NoD
I was citing the "International Herald Tribune".
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php
As they lost one engine immediately after take off - why not return to the departure airport?
Way over Maximum Permitted Landing Weight (possible, but hazardous, and only justified in "emergency" which they were not)
Much longer runway needed than normal landing weight - and maybe in excess of runway available
Very decreased margins in event of second engine failure. Not hazardous when clean, fast and high, very much so near MTOW dirty, slow and low
Enough for now?
The Fuel "Emergency" at the end is a completely different subject. There were lessons from this for all, from authors of QRH, to airline... As an industry, this aspect was not "ideal" IMHO. However, the crew, presented with a confusing situation not well covered by the manuals and their training, took the safest option. NB they were not "forced" to declare an Emergency - they chose to do so to obtain the maximum assistance from ATC...
PS And you still haven't answered the points about "emergency" calls etc.;)
NoD

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 17:12

PS And you still haven't answered the points about "emergency" calls etc.;)
NoD

Pan Pan is an expression, spoken three times in succession, used in the case of an urgency: a condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of some person on board or within sight, but that does not require immediate assistance (as defined by International Civil Aviation Organization AN10II, Chapter 5, paragraph 5.3.1.1).

Let me give you an example: (again accident-related, I fear :{)

At 0114:15, SR 111 made a Pan Pan radio transmission to Moncton ACC.
At 0124:42, both pilots almost simultaneously declared an emergency on frequency 119.2 MHz;

I wonder if you think SR 111 should have tried to make an overweight landing? May have been better than the alternative? I´m not saying that BA should have done this, but certainly the FAA must have some ideas what BA should have done (dump fuel)?

Hand Solo

6th Apr 2006, 18:31

Well at least you've demonstrated you know how to use Google. Now to your example:

At 0114:15, SR 111 made a Pan Pan radio transmission to Moncton ACC.
At 0124:42, both pilots almost simultaneously declared an emergency on frequency 119.2 MHz;

Do you know the difference, if there is one, between those two radio calls. You've shown you can cut and paste but do you understand what you are pasting?

Conan The Barber

6th Apr 2006, 18:45

A point, he said. Is there one, do we need one, or even a reason. Is the point of arguing, the point, is it the pet hang-ups that gets an airing to great satisfaction.

Oh, the jocularity of it all. Carry on.

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 18:59

Well at least you've demonstrated you know how to use Google. Now to your example:

Do you know the difference, if there is one, between those two radio calls. You've shown you can cut and paste but do you understand what you are pasting?

This is getting a little ridiculous. I´M the passenger YOU are the pilot! :confused:
By the way - this was not using google this was from the official accident report (Report Number A98H0003).

The distress call should be:
‘MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, this is Titanic, this is Titanic, this is Titanic"

Mayday is used in an emergency situation (you are sinking or the equivalent).

A PAN-PAN message is an urgent message that involves the security of one or several ships and/or persons. It might be someone that is ill or a ship that has lost control of steering.

Damn! I cut and pasted from the wrong site!

overstress

6th Apr 2006, 20:34

Ah! Good! So you're off to wind-up the mariners now, Passenger! bye-bye, thanks for (not) choosing to fly with us! :}

megto

6th Apr 2006, 20:57

according to statistics,
the odds of dying in a car crash is 1 in 5,000 and
the odds of dying in a plane crash is 1 in 25 million
therefore, one is more likely to die in a car crash than in a plane crash given that person does travel by air.
take a look at this http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
suppose there were 2,000 pilots currently employed and available for duty in BA,
and also suppose that certain long-haul flight had 4 crew on flight deck
assume all 4 pilots in the cockpit thought it was ok to carry on flying
then we are talking about 4 pilots in 2,000 BA pilots, that is 0.2% of the overall BA pilots,
and that is what we call "biased sampling" in statistics since 0.2% is not significant.
therefore we cannot judge BA by this little 0.2 figure.
there might be some over-confident pilots out there, but being self-confident is one of the most important criteria of being a professional pilot.
ok, say you have decided not to take a BA flight anymore, but if you travel by air with some other airline, how would you know if there are any ex-BA pilots on your next flight waiting for you at the gate ?
if you were on a flight about to ditch, the pilots would still try to be calm and save you life together with the other pax and cabin crew whether you like them or not.
:ok:

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 21:31

according to statistics,

You know the old saying "I only believe in statistics I faked myself"?!
This is also quite interesting (in case you have not read it already):
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/probability.html

Apart from that I have seen similar statistics but using quite different figures.

therefore we cannot judge BA by this little 0.2 figure.

I guess you can add a few from this forum here, too.

ok, say you have decided not to take a BA flight anymore, but if you travel by air with some other airline, how would you know if there are any ex-BA pilots on your next flight waiting for you at the gate ?

Oh no! What an atrocious thought! What have you done! I was cured only a few hours ago by "Empty Cruise" and now this setback! I will never be able to fly again!

if you were on a flight about to ditch, the pilots would still try to be calm and save you life together with the other pax and cabin crew whether you like them or not.
:ok:
What an appropriate example considering the slight fuel shortage of the BA-flight...

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 21:48

Ah! Good! So you're off to wind-up the mariners now, Passenger! bye-bye, thanks for (not) choosing to fly with us! :}

Bye-bye overstress! So you are practising the new BA announcements already? "Thanks for not choosing BA" or "Here is your captain speaking. On behalf of British Airways I welcome our troublesome passengers on board. Our flight-time will be until we run out of fuel or lose another engine".
There have been some interesting, intelligent replies in this thread and quite a number of silly ones. Now I´m leaving you (and I can almost see all the nasty comments coming). Take care!

john_tullamarine

6th Apr 2006, 21:48

thePassenger: I'm not sure I really ...

Either way, you have done extremely well ... are you sure that you are not, at least, related to our esteemed colleague, Milt ?

Avius

6th Apr 2006, 21:55

Moderator,

would you kindly consider closing this thread. Those of us who have been flying Jets for a LOOONG time and the B744 in particular are getting quite irritated by this kind of nonsense posted by the likes of thePassenger.

I have time for people who did their homework before opening their mouth. This website should show some dignity for the Professionals

thePassenger

6th Apr 2006, 22:01

thePassenger: I'm not sure I really ...

Either way, you have done extremely well ... are you sure that you are not, at least, related to our esteemed colleague, Milt ?
Yes, quite sure! :) I will have to search for Milt´s posts...
Many thanks for the warm welcome (at least from your side)! Not everything was meant to be completely serious (in case someone did not notice it) BUT the basic problem discussed in this thread IS serious, I think. This was an interesting discussion (sometimes a bit annoying) but it became too time-consuming for me to reply to all the posts attacking me (I´m not complaining, of course I provoked it)!

L337

6th Apr 2006, 23:15

thePassenger.

I hate to bring you this information, but plenty of other airlines, non USA of course, have a Flight Continuation Policy.

I assume you will now only fly with an American carrier? With the much safer two engines.

Give this some thought. A single engine approach into Sondestrom in the middle of winter, or a 3 engine continuation. Is one safer than the other?

Maybe stick to United?

L337

Kremmen

7th Apr 2006, 00:46

john_tullamarine

7th Apr 2006, 00:55

Avius:

No, we won't close the thread. Policy is highlighted in a previous post above.

With due respect, I think that you may be reading thePassenger's posts too literally ... now, I am only speculating here but I don't think for a moment that thePassenger is in any way who he/she suggests ... the level of knowledge and research demonstrates that quite clearly.

At the end of the day, if we can't handle a bit of rational, professional provocation designed to have us gaze at our navels a bit ... and respond in a measured and competent manner .. then that probably isn't a good advertisement ...

If the moderators endeavoured to sanitise things to the nth degree, no-one would waste their time reading PPRuNe ... all we ask on this forum is that threads proceed with a reasonable tone of dignity and relevance ... in a nutshell play the ball for all you're worth .. but maintain a bit of decorum with respect to the player ...

Snoopy

7th Apr 2006, 04:36

I don't think in my entire career that I have ever met so many arrogant, self-opinionated idiots in my entire life. Here was a chance to help someone, to give advice and may be reassurance too. Instead we have a whole load of over-blown egos competing to see who can be the most insulting. That goes for the moderator's re-iteration of Danny's post as well.
Perhaps next time rather than insulting immediately some of you might care to establish whether or not it's the most appropriate course of action and, rather than simply seeing The Passenger's post it as an attempt to flame, to reassure.
Wow. That would be a turn up for the books on Pprune these days.

Kremmen, I am not a (professional) pilot and I am not going to get involved in the technical argument here. However, I can speak English! For the OP to write such an inflammatory post and expect constructive answers is rather ironic. You don't kick someone in the teeth and then ask them to give you a smile, do you? His first (and some subsequent) post(s) contained insults and insinuations which I would also feel most bitter about were I a professional pilot. As the French quite correctly say "c'est le ton qui fait la musique". The OP could have put his message across in a less inflammatory fashion and would, I hope, have met with a little more understanding.

Ignition Override

7th Apr 2006, 06:33

It was quite contradictory of the FAA to create such a fuss over a three-engine plane continuing for a long flight. They assume that we are unaware of hundreds of planned two-engine ETOPS flights over oceans and vast, uninhabited frozen tundra (no, not just Minnesota and Manitoba).

An FAA which allows a cargo airline to push pilots to operate on Part 121 for duty periods of 16 hours plus, then, because there is no revenue and the plane needs to be repositioned, switch to Part 91, when the crew can be "pushed" to work for 24 hours without a rest (no mission-capable pilots, no job or succesful checkride next time: did we mention charges of insubordination?).

A former Evergreen DC-8 pilot (hired many years ago by a much better air freight company) told me that he took a plane down to about 500' over the water between Ethiopia and West Yemen, because the navigational chart stated (many years ago) "aircraft outside of corridor ### may/shall/will be fired upon without warning", or identical words. I also saw such a chart in the early 80s, but we had a very busy Navigator behind the Flight Engineer.

An FAA which allows a cargo airline to fire/terminate a Captain if he/she loses an engine at altitude and they declare an emergency (this was policy), or have an engine fire near an airport in a DC-6 and those pilots are afraid to declare an emergency, with no job protection for the pilots, well.....
. some minor changes made pending the poster's providing substantiation ..

Hey Boss: the company which had this unwritten policy regarding Learjets (he worked for XXX) probably never wrote it down, and the guy with the other company never wanted to tell me its name, except that he claimed that it was in North Carolina. Again, these companies most likely never wrote these policies down. That would have violated not only FARs, but also company (FAA-approved) abnormal procedure, COM or QRH manuals, i.e. "Engine Failure...one step always states "declare an emergency with ATC...". The first pilot lives in a suburb, not far from here, and the second is from another country. The many pilots who have worked for such operations would be most reluctant to state their name in a public forum, even if seven years ago, especially when they were forced to comply with clearly double standards, in order to save their jobs.:hmm:

not quite what I meant .. probably best left now .. site requirements are that, if adverse comments are desired to be posted, we need adequate substantiation to provide a defence against any reaction from the person/organisation who is the subject ..

Avius

7th Apr 2006, 10:18

John Tullamarine,

Your point is taken - but please also understand, that in today's world, the spreading of half truth's has become a very serious problem, particularly in aviation.

Whether it is lack of understanding, arrogance or possibly a mixture of both, any thesis build on those credentials is bound to create discontent on the pilot's end.

As pilots our knowledge and abilities are being tested more than in any other profession. We cannot afford to speculate - we know. When we identify a problem in flight, our knowledge and communication skills are the only resources which we have to make a qualified decision, sometimes under serious timepressure.

We cannot say "Let's meet in a couple of days/weeks to review the situation and make a decision then". That makes us very different from other decision makers. Do we make mistakes ? Of course we do, but we have learned to develop a way of cooperative thinking, that keeps those to a minimum. Small mistakes -by the way- do not cause accidents.

My point is, that many people out there are thinking, that just because they know how an Aircraft flies, that they have a license to "know it all".

Most of us pilots are more than happy to answer questions, but we are not reacting friendly to provocative statements, such as the ones of "thePassenger". He sounds like someone from the press wanting to get a story and possibly deliberately creating such a discussion environment. I'm not going to fall for that.

I few years ago I had a visitor in the cockpit, who believed that just because he can fly the Microsoft Flight Sim, he would have no problem landing a Passenger Jet. thePassengers statements fall in the same riduculous category.

GearDown&Locked

7th Apr 2006, 12:05

The passenger, imagine this scenario:

B747 takes off, 1 engine surges big-time, has to be shutdown, otherwise the vibration/fire/etc would not only damage what's left of it but could even cause structural damage to the wing or whatever... so you're on 3/4 of available thrust power (ah, and remember that even on 4/4 you are NOT all the time at 100% thrust - pilots will certainly give you a precise figure).

By that time, Capt. Fearless makes a PA announcement:

"Dear passengers, you included 'THE Passenger', we have 2 options here, either a) we continue over the sea on 3 engines and risk loosing another 2 and drop like a stone into the cold cold sea, or b) we go around and try to land this over heavy, completely filled up of fuel, on a runway that might be short for this config, and risk a runway overrun, plus a possible fire, plus all the panic of getting to the chutes if they haven't sustained any damage. Cabin crew will now take your vote, thank you"

What would you choose The Passenger?

GD&L

RoyHudd

7th Apr 2006, 14:15

Excellent response! As soon as The Passenger has given us the correct answer, I have a couple of other straightforward problems for him/her to ponder. Both were posed in practice, without warning during my recent 6-monthly sim check, and will doubtless be tackled by all my colleagues when their turn comes.

Ray D'Avecta

7th Apr 2006, 16:53

The passenger, imagine this scenario:
B747 takes off, 1 engine surges big-time, has to be shutdown, otherwise the vibration/fire/etc would not only damage what's left of it but .............."Dear passengers, you included 'THE Passenger', we have 2 options here, either a) we continue over the sea on 3 engines and risk loosing another 2 and drop like a stone into the cold cold sea, or b) we go around and try to land this over heavy, completely filled up of fuel, on a runway that might be short for this config, and risk a runway overrun, plus a possible fire, plus all the panic of getting to the chutes if they haven't sustained any damage. Cabin crew will now take your vote, thank you"
What would you choose The Passenger?
GD&L

I confess to having not the faintest idea what all the BA 747 fuss is about, but purely in relation to the scenario you describe above, I would imagine that a "take-off alternate" would have been briefed as part of the EFATO considerations, if coming back would have been as risky as you describe. If not, the option exists to dump fuel and divert to a more suitable airfield.

So, am not quite sure if that is a fair scenario to expect Mr Passenger to comment on. (Once again, no bearing on the BA case)

Avius

7th Apr 2006, 18:16

Ray,

I'm not sure you understood the point GD&L tried to make. Try again.

john_tullamarine

8th Apr 2006, 00:56

I think it is fairly obvious that thePassenger has been stirring the pot to provoke discussion ... a reasonable and standard debating technique. Further, I would bet a week's pay that he/she is firmly Industry (or some related Industry) and not SLF as suggested ..

It is acknowledged that some may take exception to his/her techniques but, if the offence relates to perceptions of insult to folk upon a pedestal ..... ?

Professional pilots are exposed to high standards of training etc., and, in general, demonstrate high skill and competence levels. This is shown by a relatively low serious incident and quite low accident history throughout the Industry when compared to other areas of human endeavour. However, it is facile to proffer as a lemma the thesis that pilots are omniscient .. the other side of the accident history coin (albeit at low incidence) proves such folly.

Surely it is a better advertisement for the non-technically competent reader to observe that the pilot fraternity recognises its human limitations and embraces the Industry focus on proactive QA processes designed to control and minimise the probability of mishap within an error subject environment ? Surely such is entirely in keeping with the thrust of this Forum ?

Is it not possible to conduct rational debate pertinent to the subject matter rather than worrying too much about the techniques used by one poster to provoke interest and discussion .. ?

If one is concerned about half truths, then, surely, here is an opportunity to engage in rational debate to debunk such .. ?

Ricky Whizz

8th Apr 2006, 07:29

John,

I take your point, but there is not much point in playing the ball if the opposition has a different game in mind!

I think that there has been sufficient rational debate on the original subject to satisfy the majority of reasonable people.

Cheers,

Ricky

john_tullamarine

8th Apr 2006, 10:36

Ricky Whizz ... in which case the thread will die a natural death in the very near future ...

thePassenger

8th Apr 2006, 18:09

Yes, Mr Passenger. That is my philosophy - 2 ears, one mouth, use them in that proportion. I restrict myself to commenting on areas in which I feel qualified.

Blindly believing in and following experts can be dangerous, too. Of course there are extremes on "both sides of the rope". A passenger who enters the cockpit telling the pilots he could land a 747 because he has played Flight Simulator definitely has crossed some line of reason.
On the other hand some "healthy" distrust of experts (regardless in which field) can be important, too.
One can speculate that the accident of G-OBME would not have happened if the passengers would NOT have been of the "I restrict myself to commenting on areas in which I feel qualified" - kind. Obviously they did not dare to question the captain´ s decision to switch off engine Nr. 2 and to inform the cabin crew that they thought engine Nr.1 was the culprit:

„In the cabin, the passengers and the cabin attendants heard an unusual noise accompanied by moderate to severe vibration. Some passengers were also aware of what they described as smoke, but none could describe its colour or density. They described the smell of burning as 'rubber', 'oil' and 'hot metal'. Many saw signs of fire from the left engine, which they described variously as 'fire', 'torching' or 'sparks'. Several of the cabin attendants described the noise as a low, repetitive thudding, 'like a car backfiring', and one described how the shuddering shook the walls of the forward galley. The three flight attendants in the rear of the cabin saw evidence of fire from the No1 engine, and two of them briefly saw light coloured smoke in the cabin. Soon after the No 2 engine was shut down the commander called the flight service manager (FSM) to the flight deck and asked him 'DID YOU GET SMOKE IN THE CABIN BACK THERE?', to which the FSM replied 'WE DID, YES.'. The commander then instructed theFSM to clear up the cabin and pack everything away. About one minute later the FSM returned to the flight deck and said 'SORRY TO TROUBLE YOU .THE PASSENGERS ARE VERY VERY PANICKY'.
The commander then broadcast to the passengers on the cabin address system that there was trouble with the right engine which had produced some smoke in the cabin, that the engine was now shutdown and that they could expect to land at East Midlands Airportin about 10 minutes.
The flight attendants who saw signs of fire on the left engine later stated that they had not heard the commander's reference to the right engine. However, many of the passengers who saw fire from the No 1 engine heard and were puzzled by the commander's reference to the right engine, but none brought the discrepancy to the attention of the cabin crew, even though several were aware of continuing vibration.“ (AAR 4/90).

Similar thing happened in 1988 (Aloha Airlines), when a passenger saw a crack in the fuselage when he/she boarded the plane but did not dare to mention this to anybody...

Conan The Barber

8th Apr 2006, 19:00

And it continued...So it was, the noble art of upmanship was the purpose, under the wings of the Oligarch. Reason?, oh yes, he said. Not an unknown, no doubt. A privilege extended, how reasonable, or not. Yawn.

.. sarcasm ill befits you ...

GearDown&Locked

10th Apr 2006, 13:52

@ThePassenger

I cannot believe a smart person that you seem to be trying to unleash chaos by intentionally comparing safety procedures with mistakes, unless you have other things in mind... I wonder what those should be. C'mon, it's so obvious that this thread risks loosing whats left of its credibility.

Would you please care to share them?
GD&L

thePassenger

10th Apr 2006, 14:33

@ThePassenger

I cannot believe a smart person that you seem to be trying to unleash chaos by intentionally comparing safety procedures with mistakes, unless you have other things in mind... GD&L
Could it be that safety procedures are all about not making mistakes?

DozyWannabe

10th Apr 2006, 17:33

Could it be that safety procedures are all about not making mistakes?
I thought it was about learning from the mistakes of the past and integrating them into training. Pulling up incidents from 20 yeas ago does nothing for the state of the art. There exists processes to deal with these things, and training for when situations out of the ordinary occur.

Any aviation literature you read will tell you that lessons were learned from pretty much any incident you name. As with almost any incident involving large-scale passenger transportation, these things are combed over, the way the holes lined up are examined and the causes small and large are found.

These findings are then released and filter down into training, recommendations and the like.

Vigilance is useful, paranoia is not.

thePassenger

10th Apr 2006, 20:22

I thought it was about learning from the mistakes of the past and integrating them into training.

I can´ t see any contradictions here. :confused:

Pulling up incidents from 20 yeas ago does nothing for the state of the art. There exists processes to deal with these things, and training for when situations out of the ordinary occur.

Any aviation literature you read will tell you that lessons were learned from pretty much any incident you name. As with almost any incident involving large-scale passenger transportation, these things are combed over, the way the holes lined up are examined and the causes small and large are found.

These findings are then released and filter down into training, recommendations and the like.

Ah this old stuff! Sorry about that. Lets move on to modern times, shall we? Is the year 2004 O.K. for you? But wait - what is this!? Still 56% of accidents caused by the flight crew?!
http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

Vigilance is useful, paranoia is not.
You are right. I, too, feel that this discussion serves no purpose any longer. I will leave you now and see my doctor to have my paranoia cured! :eek:

Avius

10th Apr 2006, 21:27

You are right. I, too, feel that this discussion serves no purpose any longer. I will leave you now and see my doctor to have my paranoia cured! :eek:

thePassenger,

That's the best thing you have said in the entire thread. Good Bye.:ok:

alf5071h

11th Apr 2006, 11:06

‘thePassenger’ introduced safety statistics (Boeing data) into an interesting discussion that commenced with his/her concerns about the reduction of safety margins.
despegue defined safety as ‘a condition of a relative absence of danger’.
The Boeing data shows that over the last 40 years the level of safety (accident rate) has improved and the occurrence of any one accident would not significantly change the ‘level of safety’ with respect to previous years. However, the BA event was not an accident, but accepting that incidents are the precursors to accidents (Heinrich ratio), then a serious safety incident is something that we should pay attention to. But likewise this event was not even a serious safety incident or a precursor incident.
From the definition of safety the ‘condition’ (situation) that the aircraft was in had been specified by both the aircraft certification and the operational rules, thus the event was bounded by the ‘relative absence of danger’ as judged by the overseeing authorities.

One open issue is the perception of the reduction of safety.
Why should ‘Peter Passenger’ believe that the event reduced the level of safety?
First, there was the unusual, public reporting of the event, which in isolation provides no perspective with respect to any number of similar events or their outcomes.
Second, as debated at length above, there are mixed understandings of the basis of certification. It is difficult enough for line pilots to come to terms with all regulatory aspects, but the bottom line usually resides in situation awareness and procedures.
Thirdly, and perhaps most pertinent, is that with continually increasing operations and a constant accident rate, the actual number of accidents (precursor incidents) will increase, but again this was not an incident and thus the problem lies in the definition of the event, primarily because it was in the public domain.

Thus it should not be surprising for the public to side with a more comprehendible ‘media’ representation of the event, but what is surprising is the apparent differing regulatory views, especially where the industry depends on a positive public view of safety and that the regulators have a major role to play in maintaining this.

Therefore I believe that is it incorrect to aim safety concerns such as this, valid or otherwise, at a particular airline. This issue is more of regulatory culture and public perception than that of one airline being different to any other airline, whether they serve Bielefeld or anywhere else

thePassenger

12th Apr 2006, 12:09

alf5071h,
as you are one of the few here who dealt with this topic in a serious way, I´ d like to respond (for the last time, I hope!) to a few of your points:
- I can´t really make much of the phrase "relative absence of danger". Defining exactely WHEN "danger" starts to be present seems to be the problem and the controversial topic with slightly differing answers from different authorities.
Obviously the FAA did not judge this "incident" the same way the British authorities did?
- "Normal people" (not aviation professionals) using some "common sense" - type of "perception of reduction of safety" would indeed feel that switching off one engine leads to a small reduction in safety margins. In fact safety margines will indeed be reduced, if only by a very small amount.
I remember D.P.Davies´ (then Chief Test Pilot of the UK Airworthiness Authority) comments on the stick pusher (which was a controversial subject with pilots at the time his book was written). He showed that the probability of the pusher failing to operate when required to operate so that the aeroplane possibly suffers a catastrophe was 1 in 10 million flights and concluded "however much you might object to this possiblity, it is an acceptable level (because it is extremly remote) and one on which is based a lot of the other risks which are run in civil airline operation."
The arguments for the 3-engines 747-flight would probably be very similar. Still this is an ADDITIONAL risk, the same way as the need for a stick-pusher was an ADDITIONAL risk.
Yes, it is an extremly small ADDITIONAL risk, one which seems to be well within the boundaries many (but not all) authorities obviously define as "relative absence of danger".
I am sure that the daily business of flying jets includes many similar actions of slightly reducing safety margins like taking off according to the MEL (otherwise the whole system would break down), only that in this case it had a rather negative impact on the public view and it is a good example that one should not overdo things.
However one question remains: would this flight have had the same fuel-problems if all 4 engines had been running all the time? If not, maybe the captain offered his passengers a first slice of Emmentaler after all by continuing with this flight?

Maybe you want to read what a US captain has to say about this "incident":
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-03-14-ask-the-captain_x.htm

The bottom line is that our FAA does not consider it safe to continue a flight with any fewer than all engines operative.

DozyWannabe

12th Apr 2006, 14:31

But as has been pointed out, the US FAA has a mandate to "promote the (US) aviation industry". If it can do it by cocking a snook at a foreign airline, it probably will.

The point is - were the passengers ever put in even an infinitessimal amount of danger by deciding to continue the flight over many alternate airports and a short leg over water? It sure doesn't look that way to me.

J.

thePassenger

12th Apr 2006, 17:15

The point is - were the passengers ever put in even an infinitessimal amount of danger by deciding to continue the flight over many alternate airports and a short leg over water?
J.

This question is so difficult to answer because it all depends on how you define "danger".
You could say passengers are ALWAYS put in an infinitesimal amount of danger as soon as the board an airplane (or bus, or train...) It is (to an infinitesimal degree) "dangerous" to cross a road. O.K. I am no "risk" - expert (I´m only the frightened passenger) but in my layman´ s view I would put it this way:
Flying in a new (but reliable, no "children´s diseases" etc) four-engined aircraft in perfect weather with a well-trained flight-crew, all systems working nicely, the pilots got a good night´ s sleep (not tired) and are not worried by personal problems, they are flying for a good, reliable airline with excellent maintenance etc etc - then I would say that this amounts to 100% of achievable safety.

Now if
- they have to land in less than optimal weather conditions
- they have to land at a "difficult" airport (e.g. LPMA???)
- some systems on the aircraft might not be working (MEL)
- the pilots have some private problems (the captain with his wife, the first officer perhaps with his bank account)
- both pilots may be tired, exhausted
- an engine failure may occur
- maybe even a drunken passenger has started some riot :E
etc etc
...then this 100% will not be achieved. Maybe only 80-90% depending on the situation (the case of landing a 767 at a difficult airport on only one engine has already been mentioned here).
I don´t know the numbers, but I would guess that hardly ever will a flight achieve this optimum of 100%. All other flights have a "reduced safety margin" compared to this optimal flight. So where does "danger" begin? I don´t know but one thing I do know: you cannot easily do anything about most of these factors (well, you could introduce higher landing minima for your airline and thereby give the competitors an advantage who do not adhere to your new landing-policy). You cannot prevent an engine-failure happening somewhere along the route, you cannot avoid flying/landing in bad weather, you cannot avoid being tired sometimes... BUT you can return to the departure-airport (or another more suitable airport nearby) if an engine-failure occurs shortly after take-off. This is the one thing you can influence! That´s the reason why it does not look right if you then decide to continue the flight.

Over and out. ;)

alf5071h

12th Apr 2006, 19:05

'thePassenger'; 'danger, where does danger begin'; life itself is continually challenged by danger. Perhaps in many ways this is why humans have evolved as we have. The survivors are those who could best judge danger.

Stick pushers are a good example of differing ‘cultural’ viewpoints, but a very poor example of ‘additional danger’. The significant danger of a deep-stall in ‘T’ tail aircraft had been clearly established both in theory and in practice with flight testing and unfortunately in accidents. Thus the danger of a deep stall was something that required regulatory action; the initial cultural differences for solutions ranged between training and engineered defences.
Whereas a single engine failure on a four engine aircraft in no remote way adds the same level of danger as would a deep-stall, even if you wish to consider a range of consequential situations. Capt Getline overstates these consequential situations and the danger of continued flight; it appears that the operator in this event had considered them either by procedural guidance or with technical advice.

I think that you miss the point in your last post in that all of the ‘what if’s’ with respect to increased danger are independent of engine failure, and progressing this or a similar argument of engine failure you should consider which aircraft you fly in – 2,3, or 4 engines, and not the operator. You also cite aspects of operations (weather etc) that can be avoided, but these operations continue with some danger that is judged acceptable by the regulators.

This thread is based on a report that an element of the FAA has not judged the event in the same way as perhaps the UK CAA would have done (or more appropriately the European agency who now ‘own’ the regulations).
There are differences in interpreting regulations on both sides of the Atlantic. In my experience the FAA has a wider gap between what an aircraft is certificated to do (FAR25) and what it is authorised to do (FAR121) than do the authorities in Europe, but even in Europe the gap is still wide.
Add to this the apparent differing views of what foreign aircraft are or are not allowed to do when over flying another country then a range of outcomes can be expected. I am not deeply conversant with FAR 121 etc or the regulations on foreign commercial operations in the US, but previous posts in this and other threads have identified several interpretations, but the weight of argument suggests, as to be expected, that a major international airline was operating within the intent of the regulations.

However, your main point was the perceived decrease in the level of safety (more danger). I use 'perceived' as some statisticians (even regulators) might show that there was no change in ‘relative’ safety (no additional danger; risk ~ consequence x exposure) and thus your view of ‘less safe’ is a human quirk of understanding, which we all can suffer from – we misjudge risk.

I think that we can agree that ‘ultimate’ safety was not in question, thus the resulting difference in views is in the degree of additional danger that could make an operation less safe. This is a point of judgment, and as I have posted elsewhere, judgment is a decision based on facts.
To be valid a judgment needs to be reasonable.
Many judgements are based on the same facts, but not all of them are valid i.e. not all decisions are reasonable – the human factor.

In order to avoid many of the human weaknesses in judgment, those making judgments should be best qualified to judge in that area; thus in law we use a judge, in flight a professional pilot, in regulation the regulators.
It is my judgment, as an ill qualified observer of the interpretations placed on regulations and aviation safety, that the respective elements of the FAA and the European authorities need to harmonize their positions and, as necessary, amend or add interpretive guidance to the regulations.

I do not believe that the issue in your ‘bottom line’ has been established; in particular I refer you to the discussions on ETOPS which would indicate FAA’s acceptance of an engine failure as being ‘safe’.

As a tail piece to this thread, see the following quote; I suggest that this is suitable guidance for most people in our industry. It is not intend to reflect on ‘the passenger’’s point of view or imply a level of understanding: … we should not dismiss the reaction as the fears of an ill-informed and untrained public, but rather see it as the normal response of a community that measures risks according to different criteria. David Shaw via Bielefeld ( http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Institution/Risks/COPY/17.71.html#subj1)

thePassenger

12th Apr 2006, 22:47

I think that you miss the point in your last post in that all of the ‘what if’s’ with respect to increased danger are independent of engine failure,

That was on purpose - to emphasize that the risk of flying is not a constant value anyway (even on a "normal" flight WITHOUT an engine failure).

You also cite aspects of operations (weather etc) that can be avoided, but these operations continue with some danger that is judged acceptable by the regulators.

That´s what I wanted to show: that some increase in the level of danger (some decrease in the safety margins) is judged acceptable (otherwise the system would break down --> many situations with "increased danger" cannot be avoided). My point was that the "3-engined experience" could have been avoided easier than many other situations on my list.

However, your main point was the perceived decrease in the level of safety (more danger). I use 'perceived' as some statisticians (even regulators) might show that there was no change in ‘relative’ safety (no additional danger; risk ~ consequence x exposure) and thus your view of ‘less safe’ is a human quirk of understanding, which we all can suffer from – we misjudge risk.

Well, I would guess that according to the equation "risk is the magnitude of the danger multiplied by the probability of exposure" (Bielefeld (http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Institution/Risks/COPY/17.71.html#subj1)), one would calculate a slightly increased risk in this case (the probability of exposure will increase ever so slightly).
Regarding EMR in this article, the funny thing is that even the experts do not know much about the danger/risks of it. Some claim that very low levels of EMR can even be more dangerous than higher levels of radiation, which means the experts cannot calculate the risk either (but this is completely off-topic: http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/emr_expert1_revised.html).

In order to avoid many of the human weaknesses in judgment, those making judgments should be best qualified to judge in that area; thus in law we use a judge
Of course there are also the members of the jury! :)

I do not believe that the issue in your ‘bottom line’ has been established; in particular I refer you to the discussions on ETOPS which would indicate FAA’s acceptance of an engine failure as being ‘safe’.
Well, the "bottom line" is from Captain Getline´ s article.
I think we can end this discussion the way every discussion ends: all participants agree to disagree :)

Final 3 Greens

13th Apr 2006, 02:39

I think we can end this discussion the way every discussion ends: all participants agree to disagree

Perhaps there is a simpler way.

Would you answer the following:

1) if an aircraft is operated in accordance with its normal operating procedures, does this result in more danger?

2) if an aircraft is certified for normal operations, were the manufacturer, regulator (JAA) and airline too optimistic in certifying it?

3) if you believe the answers to the above are yes, should you really be flying as a passenger?

Please, no quotes from Bielefeld or American captains who do not apparently consider JAR Ops rules, just your own opinion.

thePassenger

13th Apr 2006, 08:38

3) if you believe the answers to the above are yes, should you really be flying as a passenger?

Probably not but as I am a very adventurous, daring person I would take the risk and fly nevertheless. :)
The problem is, that 1) + 2) can also be said about the "Titanic" (according to the authorities and laws at that time, the number of lifeboats was sufficient. It is often forgotten that the Board of Trade Regulations were such that a ship of the size of 'Olympic' or 'Titanic' was not intended to need as many lifeboats as she carried. At 20 lifeboats (16 rigid, 4 collapsible), she was 10% above the requirements! They did test the lifeboats and davits on 25th March as was required by law. The ship then went through tests of her equipment, including wireless. The speed and handling trials included various turning and stop-start manoeuvers.)
Oh...now I haven fallen back to VERY old stories...I really have to take my pills now...:ouch:

old,not bold

13th Apr 2006, 08:57

I've been reading this thread with increasing disbelief at the arrogance one one side, and ignorance on both.

I once had a safety awareness course consisting of helping to pick up the bits of 111 passengers and crew after a pilot took a short cut against a strong warning on the approach plate (about relying on weather radar for positional guidance at this airport) and hit the side of a hill doing, at a guess, 400 Kts.

My phone has rung twice because a twin engine transport aircraft, with passengers, has suffered a double engine failure while operating properly under the precursor to JAR Ops 1/EASA Ops 1, and I was required to sort out the aftermath. The cause on both occasions was unpredictable and therefore not predicted, other than the general prediction called Murphy's law. Statistically, both accidents were impossible.

So don't lecture me, the passenger who pays your wages, about how I don't understand statistics, living in the past etc etc. I don't buy it.

Statisitics by definition predict the predictable. The unpredictable kills people.

The BA B744 operating on 3 engines from LAX to LHR (or MAN as it turned out) was in a condition that was less safe than if 4 were operating. Anyone who seeks to argue with that statement is a fool.

I am aware that the staistical probability of failure of another engine was so low as to be within the normal range of acceptable risk. Or was it? Who actually calculated the total risk, for that flight at that time. before the flight was attempted, and who asked the passengers if they accepted that level of risk?

No-one, obviously. It was a rhetorical question. And that's my point. I and other passengers accept the normal risks of a flight when we board. We know that things can go wrong. Those of us who have some aviation knowledge also knew (now it's only a hope) that when they do the ONLY consideration in the crew's mind is to MINIMISE the danger of the new situation.

And that does not mean deciding to undertake an unplanned 3-engine ferry over the Pole. Unplanned? of course it was. I once spent a lot of time flight planning BA aircraft operating through the Gulf; BA aircrew were far too grand to do it themselves, in those days. This included several 3-engine ferries , without passengers.

They were planned with as much, or more care, covering every eventuality including factors which would increase fuel consumption such as operating at a lower than planned level.

The BA flight was, obviously, not properly planned. If it had been it would not have had a fuel emergency in UK airspace. It could not have been in the time available.

Accidents result from a series of random and very unlikely events, more often than not. It is the 3rd event that often kills. The engine failure was the first, the higher than expected fuel burn was the second. What might the third have been? Overhoot and diversion from MAN? It happens.

So put away your computers, chaps, and think for a change. Which was the safer action for that BA flight at LAX; land as soon as practicable and accept the financial consequences, or continue over the Pole to London. It's a no-brainer, if you step back and look.

Murphy isn't dead, you know. He's just waiting to catch you out. And when he does, all the statistical probabilities in the world won't save you. Murphy was on that BMI flight at EMI, and Murphy killed the 111 people I helped put into small baskets.

And pilots don't always get it right. We, your SLF, rely on your skills and the knowledge that you instinctively select the safest option when things go pear-shaped, and that's the best we can hope for. We do not want to be carried along while you experiment with unquantified risks, and that's what the BA crew did. If they were operating in accordance with the Book, then, God help us, the Book is wrong. The Captains of old may have worn white gloves, had their flight plans done for them, and bullied their crews. But they knew how to tell right from wrong and make their own decisions.

End of rant.

Ricky Whizz

13th Apr 2006, 09:44

That's it, I'm off to fly freight.

I wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone by leaving small bits of SLF all over the countryside due to my arrogance, ignorance, inability to think for myself.

Best you guys that are left start taking surveys of your pax as to what risks they are prepared to accept before you go to work.

Enjoy.

Now where are those white gloves?

keel beam

13th Apr 2006, 10:27

Just for info:
ETOPs for 2 engine aircraft
EROPs for aircraft with 3 or more engines

GearDown&Locked

13th Apr 2006, 11:30

The crew of that BA flight, specially its Captain, surely knew the rules by which they can operate, or not, that aircraft at the given circumstances. If those rules allow the Capt. to make the decision to carry on the flight, dump fuel and return to LAX or any other suitable airport, it is his call, and no one can say a single word about it. The rules suck? though luck, either change them or live by them. An airplane (or a boat for that matter) is not a democracy. If this Capt. elected to proceed as planned I would assume he did not made that decision on a ill informed way, and he knew the risks involved and came to the conclusion that the safety of this airplane would not be compromised. I’m almost certain of this because I know for a fact that no crew likes to die.

GD&L

50west

13th Apr 2006, 11:34

I am a B747-400 Captain with some 18,000hrs flying. I am frankly amazed at the content of some of the posts in this thread. BA is,I believe,the operator of the largest single fleet of 747-400s. The procedures they use are well understood by both the manufacturer and regulator.

I understand that the agitation surrounding this event has been started by several US aviation interested parties, mainly by monday morning quaterbackers in the popular press.

To say that the atlantic crossing part of the flight was not planned is just not true. The crew had complete accces to all of BA's resources during the time it took to cross the landmass of north america.

The FAA's own procedures allow the captains of quads to use their discression to continue in the event of the failure of one power unit. I suspect that there is a great deal of effort being applied to make the US courts apply the pressure that the FAA just cannnot.

On a personal note, as a captain I will fly my aircraft in such a manner that provides the highest level of safety and service to everyone on board. I am not constrained by the company that employes me nor will I be bullied by the ill informed.

thePassenger

13th Apr 2006, 11:57

The FAA's own procedures allow the captains of quads to use their discression to continue in the event of the failure of one power unit.

Seems this becomes a controversy captain versus captain:

"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."
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.
...

I can tell you one thing: Whether taking off from the United States or anywhere else, I can think of no situation where the "nearest suitable airport" would be across an ocean.
...

Was it unsafe to continue on three engines? The B-747 is quite capable of flying on three engines — even two — but that is not the point. When you're down to three engines, you can't fly as high as normal. You have less thrust on three engines. Flying at a lower altitude consumes more fuel. Flying lower may involve a stronger headwind. It could also result in less of a headwind or even a tailwind, but it's another factor that must be considered.
Another issue is that with two engines on one side and one on the other, the airplane won't fly straight without using the rudder. This will burn more fuel because of the extra drag caused by the rudder and because the aircraft is no longer streamlined. Many other factors must be considered as well, such as electrical and hydraulic issues.
If a second engine is lost, the airplane will still fly, but the problem of increased fuel burn is multiplied. In fact, to maintain flight on just two engines, the cruising altitude could be as low as a few thousand feet. Now the fuel burn is so high the situation has become critical.
The bottom line is that our FAA does not consider it safe to continue a flight with any fewer than all engines operative. "
(Captain Meryl Getline, United Airlines)
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/getline/2005-03-14-ask-the-captain_x.htm

50west

13th Apr 2006, 11:58

I am a B747-400 Captain with some 18,000hrs flying. I am frankly amazed at the content of some of the posts in this thread. BA is,I believe,the operator of the largest single fleet of 747-400s. The procedures they use are well understood by both the manufacturer and regulator.

I understand that this event has been started by several US aviation interested parties, mainly by monday morning quaterbackers in the popular press.

To say that the atlantic crossing part of the flight was not planned is just not true. The crew had complete accces to all of BA's resources during the time it took to cross the landmass of north america.

The FAA's own procedures allow the captains of quads to use their discression to continue in the event of the failure of one power unit. I suspect that there is a great deal of effort being applied to make the US courts apply the pressure that the FAA just cannnot.

On a personal note, as a captain I will fly my aircraft in such a manner that provides the highest level of safety and service to everyone on board. I am not constrained by the company that employes me nor will I be bullied by the ill informed.

Hand Solo

13th Apr 2006, 12:06

Old, not Bold - allow me the pleasure of banging my head against the wall once more to save you the effort of actually reading what knowledgable people have already posted.

I and other passengers accept the normal risks of a flight when we board

but only in the loosest sense. You have no knowledge of the acual technical state of the aircraft you board. Can you tell if you're 747 has modified fuel pumps fitted to prevent a TWA800 style explosion? Would you get off the aircraft if it didn't? Do you know if your 747 has 400 outstanding ADDs like one operators did recently? Do you know if your Airbus has half the AC packs u/s? Of course you don't.

And that does not mean deciding to undertake an unplanned 3-engine ferry over the Pole

Get your map out. Or perhaps you meant the magnetic pole? I hope your flight planning was more accurate when you were at BA, would hate to be 700nm off track like you are!

They were planned with as much, or more care, covering every eventuality including factors which would increase fuel consumption such as operating at a lower than planned level.

These things were factored into the BA plan, as proven by the fact they reached the UK with plenty of fuel.

The BA flight was, obviously, not properly planned. If it had been it would not have had a fuel emergency in UK airspace. It could not have been in the time available

Please make at least a cursory attempt to understand the technicalites of why the emergeny was declared. For the 1000th time, they were not short of fuel. And don't say "but they declared an emergency...". Go back, read the posts, realise why you are wrong (yes it is you thats wrong, not us) then come back.

Accidents result from a series of random and very unlikely events, more often than not. It is the 3rd event that often kills. The engine failure was the first, the higher than expected fuel burn was the second. What might the third have been? Overhoot and diversion from MAN? It happens.
There was no second event here. Higher than expected fuel burn is a feature of flight on however many engines you care to fly on. Higher winds, lower than optimum levels, they are a fact of life, a routine occurence. These things did not sneak up on the crew. The only thing that might be categorised as a second event was the error in understanding the fuel situation, and even that wasn't a real event in that there was no fuel shortage. Overshoot from MAN? Plenty of fuelleft for a go-around and second approach. No fuel to divert? No different to a dozen other aircraft on any day at LHR with holding exceeding 30 minutes.

We, your SLF, rely on your skills and the knowledge that you instinctively select the safest option when things go pear-shaped, and that's the best we can hope for. We do not want to be carried along while you experiment with unquantified risks, and that's what the BA crew did

Well you have placed your trust in the wrong things. The only things anyone should be doing instinctively are avoiding mountains, CBs and flying into the ground. Everything should be well planned and subject to continuous review, as the flight in question was.

The Captains of old may have worn white gloves, had their flight plans done for them, and bullied their crews. But they knew how to tell right from wrong and make their own decisions.

I belive this statement dates your most recent experience in the airline industry. The Captains of old may have taken what you consider to be the 'right' decision by landing ASAP but today that would be considered the 'easy' decision, which is not necessarily the 'best' or indeed the 'safest' decision. Captains today are perfectly capable of telling right from wrong and making their own decisions too.

Final 3 Greens

13th Apr 2006, 12:09

The Passenger

I note your answers.

So, are you prepared to pay a lot more for the cost of your ticket, so that airlines and regulators can engineer in a relatively higher level of safety? (note that absolute safety is unattainable.)

Sir Francis

As a frequent flier on BA airlines, I have faith in your judgement and that of your colleagues. Please keep on making the calls that you training and your experience qualifies you to make and I'll sit quietly in the back, knowing that I am in the hands of some of the best in the business.

thrustucantrust

13th Apr 2006, 12:56

The passenger does have one valid point. That is that professional pilots are a condescending bunch. They are on a pedestal in society due to the general ignorance of their trade by the masses and not as a result of superior evolution. A situation that in many cases gets muddled, and surfaces as superiority, arrogance and condescension for the ignorance of said masses. A bit more tolerance and humility , or normalness goes a long way when dealing with the punters. Ask any working type (and even many cabin crew)what their impression of a pilot is and invariably the stuffy bossy posh talking bloke is the norm. The less secure in our trade develop that stereo old raf or Ba type image to extreme to keep the masses from seeing thru the mist and seing a normal bloke or blokess with a couple of o levels and in many cases endowed with average ability and social skills. If it was any other way we wouldnt need CRM to get on efficiently and safely together now would we.Just look at any board on this site and the arrogance runs so freely that most topics descend into slagging off in seconds because the anonymity removes the constraint and the rest of the posters are subconciously allocated the equivalent status of an ignorant cyber passenger who dare to disagree.

Apart from that point he is talkin sh1te and in the days of cockpit vists would have treated politely and filed under "What a tw@ t":E

thePassenger

13th Apr 2006, 13:13

For the 1000th time, they were not short of fuel.
There was no second event here.
The only thing that might be categorised as a second event was the error in understanding the fuel situation, and even that wasn't a real event in that there was no fuel shortage.

There was no second event there, there was a second event there?
So you seem to acknowledge that a SECOND slice of Emmentaler was served to the passengers on this flight!
They actually had about 10000lbs of fuel aboard when they landed. The issue was the handling of the fuel pumps and crossfeeds that left most of it inside a tank.
What´s the difference (for assessing the situation) if there was a "real fuel shortage" or if they were unable to use all the remaining fuel (which sounds rather embarrassing too and does not really support your claim of a safe and professionally conducted flight)?
What would have happened if another hole in the cheese – for whatever reasons – had suddenly appeared?

thePassenger

13th Apr 2006, 13:20

The Passenger

I note your answers.

So, are you prepared to pay a lot more for the cost of your ticket, so that airlines and regulators can engineer in a relatively higher level of safety? (note that absolute safety is unattainable.)

Yes!!!!!!! (7 exclamation marks only because otherwise the reply would be too short to be accepted by the forum software)

thePassenger

13th Apr 2006, 13:26

Apart from that point he is talkin sh1te and in the days of cockpit vists would have treated politely and filed under "What a tw@ t":E

Excellent argument! Now I see that all I said (and Captain Getline and the FAA) was complete rubbish! I am defeated! :ok:

Final 3 Greens

13th Apr 2006, 14:40

Yes!!!!!!!

Well, sadly, most of your fellow pax will not, so the days of 8 engined airliners are still some timr away.

50west

13th Apr 2006, 14:55

I think the problem is that people are just plucking the bits they want to read from the regs

The FAA regulation applicable is:-

§ 121.627 Continuing flight in unsafe conditions.

(a) No pilot in command may allow a flight to continue toward any airport to which it has been dispatched or released if, in the opinion of the pilot in command or dispatcher (domestic and flag operations only), the flight cannot be completed safely; unless, in the opinion of the pilot in command, there is no safer procedure. In that event, continuation toward that airport is an emergency situation as set forth in §121.557.

(b) If any instrument or item of equipment required under this chapter for the particular operation becomes inoperative en route, the pilot in command shall comply with the approved procedures for such an occurrence as specified in the certificate holder's manual.

Part (b) is particularly relavent as BA is a FAR part 129 airline and as such has to lodge it's flying manual to the FAA for approval. This it has done in accordance with the requirements.

It is also worth noting that the crew were flying a British registered A/C on a British AOC to CAA ops standards which are compliant with FAA regs and in accordance with ICAO protocols. The USA is a high signatory to ICAO and as yet has to file a difference to the conventions.

The wording of reg 121 places the onus, quite correctly, firmly on the shoulders of the pilot in command and, in this case, no one else, to decide if the flight should continue or not.

IMHO unless you happen to be that pilot then your opinions, though interesting, are not all that compelling.

old,not bold

13th Apr 2006, 15:39

Hand Solo

Your reply to my post is exactly the kind of condescending, pompous c**p that makes me wonder what they put in the tea for the flight deck.

Moreover, in your haste to try and rubbish what was said, and failing, you have missed, or chosen to ignore, the main points made.

My last experience in this industry is today, not last week or last year. I just happen to have been around it for a long time and met people who cannot grasp the basic principles of safe operation, a lot of them sitting up in the front. Unfortunately, a licence does not always confer good judgement.

I worked for a period in the Middle East about 5 years ago, with a rather down-at-heel small airline which was required to raise its game rapidly to JAR Ops 1 equivalent standards. They had no written procedures whatsoever, the aircraft were old and rattled more than they should. They had a consultation between the pilots and the engineers about the state of the airplane before each departure from base rather than filling in a tech log, and they carried a lot of spares and an engineer round the route.

Things had to change and they did. And yet they were more aware of the meaning of really safe operation, in many ways, than someone who parrots the Book as a substitute for their own judgement. Many services were cancelled because the pilots and/or the engineers were not happy.

Either an aircraft is fit to fly or it isn't. Either a deficiency is in the MEL or it isn't. So don't try to bamboozle us with all that stuff about we don't know what's wrong with the aircraft we board. Of course we don't, but we trust you not to fly if there's something missing that shouldn't be, like an engine.

At the risk of repetition, we, your customers, accept a level of risk. But we don't accept someone increasing that when he or she does not have to.

I just love the bit about "a little fuel management error" or words to that effect. That more or less proved my point that people screw up in unpredictable ways. I could have added that they are more likely to do so when under more pressure than normal.

And so the the question you didn't answer; is a B744 with 3 engines running precisely as safe as a B744 with 4? It's a yes or no question.

Answers on a postcard, or just a post.

thePassenger

13th Apr 2006, 15:44

I think the problem is that people are just plucking the bits they want to read from the regs

The FAA regulation applicable is:-

§ 121.627 Continuing flight in unsafe conditions.

After you started this paragraph-citing, I thought I would look up the FAR myself. I must admit that it sounds a little different to what Captain Getline said, but continuing an 11 hours flight still seems like "stretching" those regulations very much (and why did the FAA propose the maximum possible fine on the airline then?)...apart from the fact that they encountered difficulties at the end of the flight, they would not have had otherwise. Certainly NOT the ideal solution for the poor passengers who, in the end (though as long as they are on board of the airplane can only "shut up"), pay the pilot´ s salary:

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.
(c) The pilot in command shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and shall keep that station fully informed of the progress of the flight. (d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the certificate-holding district office.

Human Factor

13th Apr 2006, 18:16

...he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport...

I was under the impression that this was what the Captain did. As far as the paperwork referred to in (c) is concerned, that will almost certainly have been covered by the ASR/MOR of the incident.

Hand Solo

13th Apr 2006, 18:38

And so the the question you didn't answer; is a B744 with 3 engines running precisely as safe as a B744 with 4? It's a yes or no question.

If you are such an expert on safety ONB then you would know that is a meaningless loaded question. Nothing is safe in aviation, there are just acceptable levels of risk. Is the level of risk in a 3 engined 747, given the highly improbable chance of a second engine failure, higher than that in a 4 engined 747. Of course. Is the level of risk in a twin engined aircraft, given the relatively higher probability of a single engine failure, higher than the level of risk in a 3 engined 747? Possibly. Is a 3 engined 747 safe? Absolutely.

Whilst you like to polarise the debate into whats in the MEL or what isn't, could you clarify whether you were actually ever put your neck on the line by flying an aircraft with MEL deficiencies or did you simply wave it off from the safety of the ground? It's the licence holders who have most to lose from operating a deficient aircraft and yes, even in BA, pilots and engineers refuse to accept/release into service aircraft which may meet the requirements of the MEL but may not be a good idea to dispatch. Whilst you may trust the pilots not to fly you if there's something missing I don't recall the engine on this particular aircraft being missing on departure. Perhaps you'd be very surprised what the MEL allows you to dispatch with. A/C pack u/s on a twin pack aircraft routing over high terrain? It's in the MEL so it must be OK, right?

"A little fuel management error"? I wrote no such thing. I said "an error in understanding the fuel situation" which is entirely different. The fuel was managed impeccably with the right amount in the right tanks at the time intended. The fact that they goofed up when the fuel didn't appear to be coming out as they expected does not make the situation dangerous. It's like calling the fire brigade out because you smelt toast burning in your kitchen. Dialling 999 doesn't transform the problem into a dangerous one, just an embarrasing one, and having made the error they handled the subsequent events in what could even be considered an overcautious manner.

You can level all the accusations of pomposity you wish. I would merely point out that you are the one claiming that you are correct and thus by definition most UK 747 pilots, BAs flight planners and engineers, the CAA and the UK Flight Safety Committee, who as a group have considerably more breadth and depth of experience than you, are wrong.

Avius

13th Apr 2006, 21:35

Jeeez, I thought this thread was finished. It seems, that Everyone and his brother is suddenly an expert on flying the B747-400.

To top it off, we -who actually fly the B747-400 for a living are being called ignorant & arrogant. There is a fine line between arrogance and self-confidence. Most competent pilots have a healthy level of self-confidence, they simply have to. I suspect, most Passengers like it that way.

Most professional pilots, however, know the boundary between confidence and arrogance and do not cross it. Certainly, there are exceptions, but they are rare and far less common than in most other professions.

One thing pilots do have a major problem with is - incompetence. We are being constantly checked & tested by people who know what they are doing (ie. Psychiatrists, Doctors, experienced Check Airmen, etc), yet we are still second-guessed by those who pretend to know it all (thePassenger, etc.).

Being unprepared is a cardinal sin in our profession. That is why we do not react very friendly to statements like the ones from 'thePassenger'. They are mostly unsubstantiated and his thesis outlined here is based on very limited out of context knowledge.

He throws out statistics about past accidents, thinking he has discovered someting new, while most of the professional pilots are discussing these incidents / accidents and their cause in depth in almost every annual CRM course of the past 15 years. In fact we have dedicated professionals, who have specialized in accident analysis attending or even moderating these annual courses....and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

If 'thePassengers' statements would have any substance, there would be no pilots apart from those who have a death wish (...and there are easier ways.....hey why go through all the trouble of flight training :} )

Bottom line is that we have a healthy desire for self-preservation. We too, have loved ones, who count on us to come home safely.

Equally, we do have a hard time to reply to provocative or incompetent comments which are based on either speculation or ignorance. Both of these attributes are deadly in our profession.

The likes of British Airways, Lufthansa, etc. are known to have very good training departments, very good engineering and support. The decision to continue the flight on a B747-400 after an engine has been shut down is made -and has been made- by people, who dedicated their professional lives to safety (pilots, engineers, etc.), who have discussed various scenarios before comitting to continue the flight and who themselves have a desire to get home safely and who are constantly training for scenarios like these.

And if anyone thinks (obviously thePasseger does) that the complexity of professional flying can be covered in a forum like this - is completely naiive, in which case I apologize for any offending statements I've made in my posts. (...and tell your mom not to let you stay up so late, because at 7:00pm it's bedtime....) ;)

thePassenger

13th Apr 2006, 23:17

One thing pilots do have a major problem with is - incompetence. We are being constantly checked & tested by people who know what they are doing.

In an ideal world - yes. In the real world - not always (O.K. just ONE short example again from the REAL world):
In 1993, Chinese pilots flying an MD-80 were attempting to land in northwest China. The pilots were baffled by an audio alarm from the plane's ground proximity warning system. A cockpit recorder picked up the pilot's last words: "What does 'pull up' mean?"

Being unprepared is a cardinal sin in our profession. That is why we do not react very friendly to statements like the ones from 'thePassenger'. They are mostly unsubstantiated and his thesis outlined here is based on very limited out of context knowledge.

Can you prove what is wrong with my thesis (apart from the usual "shut up, you are not a pilot" or the ominous "what you said is wrong"). In fact I did not say anything that had not been said long before by others (e.g. the FAA or other airline pilots) or is a simple "fact of life" (3 engines are not as safe as 4 engines although "safe enough" according to British authorities).

He throws out statistics about past accidents, thinking he has discovered someting new,

Don´ t tell me what I was thinking - I certainly did not think that I had discovered "something new" - that is ridiculous (especially as these were mostly old accidents).
But show me statistics about future accidents and I will believe you that YOU have discovered something new! :E

while most of the professional pilots are discussing these incidents / accidents and their cause in depth in almost every annual CRM course of the past 15 years. In fact we have dedicated professionals, who have specialized in accident analysis attending or even moderating these annual courses....and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now you are thinking that you are telling me something new...???

If 'thePassengers' statements would have any substance, there would be no pilots apart from those who have a death wish (...and there are easier ways.....hey why go through all the trouble of flight training :} )

I hope you have less difficulties finding the runway than finding good arguments! Saying 3 engines (or two engines of a twin-jet) are not as safe as 4 engines does not mean that every flight will end in disaster.

thePassenger

13th Apr 2006, 23:58

Nothing is safe in aviation, there are just acceptable levels of risk.

That is what the whole discussion is about. People simply have different opinions of what might be an "accetable level of risk". That does not mean that one point of view is "right" and the other "wrong". They are just different. Nobody can say that he knows the ONE AND ONLY THRUTH about what this "accetable level of risk" should be.
Imagine we would live in the year 2100 and there would be 100 times more aircrafts flying around than today while the airplanes would not have improved in safety, so accident rates would be like today. Surely with today´ s "acceptable levels of risk" there would be too many accidents by far, because every few days a plane would crash.
In other words: safety HAS to improve if the number of flights increases by a large number.

Avius

14th Apr 2006, 00:08

thePassenger,

you just don't give up, do you ? Well, ok, one last attempt from my side.

Firstly, you are constantly "quoting" snippets in your posts, so you are obviously missing the point as a whole, or you just like to play with words. That makes it very difficult, if not impossible to have a constructive discussion.

Also, if you had any knowledge of professional aviation, then you would know, that there is a very little probability, that there are any Chinese pilots in this Forum (ever been to China ????). Therefore your referring to accidents or Training standards in China doesn't help much in your arguments. We are talking here about British Airways B747-400 LAX-LHR.

For your information: Most Far East Airlines have an involuntary requirement set by their insurances to have a certrain quota of western pilots working for them. They don't like it, but they have to.

I'm sure you mean Accident Forecasts when you refer to "Statisctics of the Future", but I fail to see how that is relevant in this context. Forecasts are someting for insurance companies. As pilots we have to learn from past mistakes and use our experience & common sense to avoid mistakes in the future. We also know the difference between mistakes and errors, which most passengers don't.

I will not critique any points the FAA and the British CAA can't agree upon. After all, they DO know what they talk about (although, some might disagree with me :O ). Hey, they are the specialists.

However, Boeing, who build these aircraft had 1000's of highly competent engineers working on how to prepare for contingencies and has designed certain systems to be fail/safe & others to be fail/operational.

Both, the FAA and the CAA has certified the Aircraft, which means they were satisfied with all aspects of the operational procedures and also the contingency procedures. The B747-400 has been in service for almost 17 years and has had a very good safety record.

I could go on and on about this, but bottom line is that 1000's of highly qualified people -more qualified than you or I will ever be- have determined that it is safe to operate the B747-400 on 3 engines as a part of the contingency procedures.

Whether you like it or not, the CAA approved Checklist does not mention anything about "landing at the nearest suitable airport" if one engine fails.

Moreover, if I'm not mistaken all of the pilots on this forum, who fly the B747-400 agree unanimously, that -depending on circumstances- it is ok to continue on 3 engines, provided safety is not further compromised.

At some point you just have to accept the opinions of the 1000's of people who are insiders on this, or you could chose to continue to waste your time.

I'm not going to waste mine. Over & Out. :ok:

mfaff

14th Apr 2006, 06:50

Forgive an injection from an SLF...but thePassenger is really missing a fundamental point.

In the aircraft there are only two types of people...those paying to be there and those being paid to be there.

As a payer I have, by paying, purchased a whole set of professional services as offered by the company...not by the CAA or FAA. I have also purchased a part of the abilty of a crew to do the job correctly.

I have not purchased the right to agree or disagree with parts of that offer as and when it develops...in fact I have renounced the right to change my mind the instant I set foot on the aircraft, I have admitted that the crew is in charge of my life and that it is competent to do so....

That competence includes the ability to deal with emergencies as and when they develop in a way that 'they' deceide is the 'best'..for the aims of company in carrying passengers to the required destination.

Now I may or may not agree that the course of action they have selected is the one I am most comfratable with or which I feel is the 'safest' however my only ability to change that is to chose to not fly with that airline in the future....

So whether or not the decision made is the safest is moot.....the reality is that if that decsion remains legal and in accordance with established and accepted proceedures it is acceptable. It may not be, by subsequent events have been 'right' or the 'best' but it is acceptable..

At this stage of the game the only discussion should be is the FAA/CAA view sufficently co-ordinated, or does it need adjusting to ensure that this type of disagreement does not happen again... The basic disagreement is one which does have very profound implications for operators and passengers.

Skunkie

14th Apr 2006, 07:45

After some days reading this thread, I can put myself in the category of passengers as long as I don't fly the plane, but serve coffee on board or make the ck in and boarding......I don't understand why The Passenger continues to declare himself a non-expert of aviation, yet he quotes both accidents and technical arguments (maybe just copied and pasted as someone said in a post)....so, instead of getting angry about his posts and try to explain (take care it could be dangerous to explain too much to someone who does not know the matter.....) or ignoring him as a fool one....ask something to him. In my opinion the scoop he is writing for his newspaper about both low-cost and big companies is almost completed. At the beginning he got informed on the matter reading incidents reports (some so old that is quite ridicolous), then deepened his knowledge on the technical aspects of flying and now is testing reaction of pilots (many pilots when "feel touched" immediatly feel so emotional affected that gives too many explanations that, I think, are not suitable answers for a "normal" passenger who usually wants to get reassured).
This leads me to think that mr The Passenger is just indagating the last of his three points....he could be pro boeing or pro airbus, pro 4-engines or pro 2-engines, but is trying to get the most information possible from you all not to feel ease when he will fly again, but to get some prize when is article will be completed and published on some newspaper -4 pages in the centre- or more or less less "technical" magazine.
I'm graduated in journalism and it looks like a strategy to obtain informations, maybe I'm wrong in that case he's just a paranoid flying phobic -better BA flying phobic- anyway I wouldn't give him so many hints and explanations until he openly says: "I'm doing researches on pilot's reaction or point of view". I wouldn't like to be interviewed without knowing it, cos what you say could be write down misinterpreted (and it all depens on his boss unless he could be a freelance).
The Passenger, is there any truth in this? if so at least when you finish your work send us a complimentary copy.....at the end so many people helped you that the thankings could take an entire page!

thePassenger

14th Apr 2006, 09:01

thePassenger,
Also, if you had any knowledge of professional aviation, then you would know, that there is a very little probability, that there are any Chinese pilots in this Forum (ever been to China ????). Therefore your referring to accidents or Training standards in China doesn't help much in your arguments. We are talking here about British Airways B747-400 LAX-LHR.

Yes, I knew that reply would be coming.
That was just an example. I could give you dozens of similar examples regarding British or European pilots but did not do so in order not to hurt your feelings too much. Also the discussion has to come to an end ( you can also re-read my very first post).

I'm sure you mean Accident Forecasts when you refer to "Statisctics of the Future", but I fail to see how that is relevant in this context. Forecasts are someting for insurance companies. As pilots we have to learn from past mistakes and use our experience & common sense to avoid mistakes in the future. We also know the difference between mistakes and errors, which most passengers don't.

NO! I meant to show that your sentence "He throws out statistics about past accidents, thinking he has discovered someting new" does not make much sense, because - of course - you can only have statistics about accidents that have already happened, you CANNOT make statistics about future accidents! :E (as opposed to "Accident Forecasts" !)

Moreover, if I'm not mistaken all of the pilots on this forum, who fly the B747-400 agree unanimously, that -depending on circumstances- it is ok to continue on 3 engines, provided safety is not further compromised.

Yes. FAR Sec 121.565. The question is, whether the safety really was not further compromised. FAA and (some?) US pilots seem not to be of this opinion (--> fuel problems etc). I will not repeat all arguments again because that´s Sisyphus´ work here (starting all over again and again and again). Some people here may be right that the FAA MIGHT have "special" reasons to do what they have done but of course British pilots also have reasons to deny that continuing the flight was anything less than optimal.

I wonder if anyone here ever bothered to think ONE MINUTE about the passengers on this flight (apart from citing paragraphs, regulations, safety procedures etc). Probably some old people on board, maybe some not really that healthy, maybe some even suffering from a heart condition. And then the adventure started:

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

After this rather shocking experience they would have to sit and hope nothing else would happen for another few hours just to be surprised by an "emergency landing" (as it was called by the "International Herald Tribune, Europe").

"BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the flight. But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only 100ft above the ground.
But David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, said: “It was a very odd decision to continue to London. Even if the pilot didn’t want to dump so much fuel, he could have diverted to Chicago.
Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Balpa’s chairman, said: “The EU regulation is poorly drafted and increases the pressure on pilots to consider commercial issues when making judgments in marginal safety situations.”"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html

"Publicity over the incident last year was an embarrassment to British Airways, and may have cost it some business, industry sources said.
At the time of the incident, British Airways and British authorities insisted that the flight was operating under British rules, which would allow the three- engine flight. The FAA disputed that assertion.
The FAA complaint noted that the flight operated "with only three (3) operating engines, bypassing numerous suitable alternative airfields in the United States and Canada before proceeding across the North Atlantic Ocean.
"By reason of the above, British Airways operated an aircraft in the United States in an unairworthy condition. Additionally, British Airways failed to comply with its operations specifications because of the above-mentioned circumstances."
The complaint noted that the maximum allowed penalty for each infraction is $25,000, and "under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $25,000 is appropriate."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php

"The point of the tone in which I presented the story is not that it was not the first time, nor whether or not the aircraft was capable of making the flight. The point is that just because something _can_ be done doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Almost 100% of the feedback we have received on this story is unanimous in the assessment that the pilot needlessly took risks by continuing the flight.

Regards,

Juan Jimenez
Associate Editor
Aero-News Network
http://www.aero-news.net/Community/DiscussTopic.cfm?TopicID=1652&Refresh=1

I'm not going to waste mine. Over & Out. :ok:
We have finally found something to agree. I will hack my fingers off if I ever again yield to the temptation to post another reply to this thread! :bored: Over & Out :ok:

Tarq57

14th Apr 2006, 09:57

Well, OK, if you must. It's probably for the best if some good comes out of all this.

old,not bold

14th Apr 2006, 11:25

[quote=Hand Solo] Is the level of risk in a 3 engined 747, given the highly improbable chance of a second engine failure, higher than that in a 4 engined 747. Of course. Is the level of risk in a twin engined aircraft, given the relatively higher probability of a single engine failure, higher than the level of risk in a 3 engined 747? Possibly. Is a 3 engined 747 safe? Absolutely.

Thank you Hand Solo. There you have it. As soon as the engine failed on that BA744 the aircraft became less safe than it had been with 4.

And the reason it is less safe is not that the flight cannot be completed on 3 which, as many have pointed out, the airplane is designed, loaded and fuelled to do. It is because even a B744 Captain would find it challenging, at least, to complete the flight safely, even to a diversion, in the highly unlikely event of a second failure (on the same side?) at certain points along that route.

Incidentally, the probability of a first engine failure, according to most people, is the same regardless of whether it is on a twin, tri or quad (other things being equal). The probability of a second failure is exactly the same, ie each failure is a random event. So that the probability of two failures is very very low, until you introduce factors such as stress (on the remaining engines, airframe and crew), the possibility that the first failure was due to something like contaminated fuel or fuel mismanagement, or that debris, say from an uncontained explosion, hit an adjacent engine, and good ole Murphy.

Faced with a choice of a very safe option (reduce weight and land asap) and a less safe option (continue on 3) I, as a passenger, expect the crew to take the safest option available. The degree by which the less safe option is less safe is immaterial. I am seriously not interested in continuing on three because the statistics say, and the Captian believes, that this course is safe enough. People die when the statistics are wrong and Murphy steps in.

Your use of the word "absolute", is wrong. It bothers me that you either really believe that, or you do not understand why it is not "absolutely" safe. The only "absolutely safe" B744 is one parked on the ramp. Put it in the air and a risk is created. Then kill one engine and the risk increases. Kill a second and it becomes a potential accident.

As you have agreed.

You'll be glad to hear that this is my final post on this thread! I am preaching to deaf ears, I suspect. I hope no-one ever has to put your body parts into a small basket, as I have had to do when a pilot became over-confident that he knew best (see first post on this thread by Old, not bold).

The only piece of abuse I cannot bear is the suggestion that I ever worked for BA in the past. No, Sir. We were contracted to do their flight plans because the crew had more important things to do like stripping their hotel rooms of fixtures (mirrors, lamps etc) and calculating their allowance claims. And we got paid very handsomely for it by BA, as the hotel did for their property.

And to answer another cheap jibe; if I knew that a pilot was planning to depart with an unairworthy aircraft (it happens, as you imply it does, for all the wrong reasons) I would not "wave it off from the safety of the ground" as I think you put it. (Where did that come from? WWII?) I would ground the aircraft and suspend the pilot before he even managed to start up. And I have done just that, twice, on both occasions fully supported by the subsequent enquiry.

Have I got a licence? You'll have to work that one out. What I have not got is a B744 type-rating, but I don't need that to see through some of the BS on this thread, as well as to recognise the few gems of actual fact.

Clandestino

14th Apr 2006, 12:13

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/DoNotFeedTroll.png

Read about internet trolling here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)

Hand Solo, I fail to understand your statement: "whether you were actually ever put your neck on the line by flying an aircraft with MEL deficiencies " but then perhaps that's because whenever I flew MELed aircraft my neck was not on the line, nor my captn's. Aircraft dispatched according to MEL doesn't have the same capabilities as normally dispatched one. So if we go with no autofeather, we'll take 15 pax but not 40. If we go with no ice detector we'll be flying daylight VMC only - if our CTOT gets us into night, better give us new one when the dawn breaks. Therefor I can see no risk increase with MELed a/c. One more amusing thing is that your MEL allows dispatch with one bleed inop over mountains. My MEL prescribes maximum MEAs with one bleed or pack off and that is on ATR and my country, company and CAA could hardly be called civilized.

old,not bold

14th Apr 2006, 12:28

This really is the Last Post...

What would have the Captain decided if, instead of having an engine fail while taking off at LAX for LHR, he had an engine fail while taking off at LHR for LAX?

If the answer is NOT "continue to the planned destination on 3 engines 'cos that's what the Ops manual says we're allowed to do", why not sit down in a dark room and ask yourself why?

And if, after due consideration, the word "expense" features anywhere in the reasoning, ask yourself why that makes what's safe in one direction unsafe in the other.

(Remember, please, that the failed engine could be fixed in LAX just as quickly as at LHR; that applies whatever the problem and cure turns out to be. The Americans are very good at that. Any programme disruption would only be delayed and possibly reduced.)

Hand Solo

14th Apr 2006, 13:09

Another rather daft question ONB. Clearly had the engine failed departing LHR the aircraft would have returned to LHR due to the higher level of engineering support at base plus the possibility of providing a spare aircraft for the passengers. Expense will certainly feature in the justification. It does not make it unsafe it to continue to LAX on three any more than it was unsafe to fly from LAX to LHR no three. It just makes good business sense. The engine could not be fixed in LAX just as quickly as could be at LHR as we don't have spare engines and a team of engineers littered around the network. Do you have any idea how long it takes to change an engine on a 747?

I think your post before last rather belies your own personal prejudices in this matter. You seem to live in a world of charicatures, particularly when it comes to BA, which suggests to me you wholly fail to grasp the calibre of individuals employed in any European major airline or the level of training they are exposed to. If that makes you feel comfortable in your assertions then so be it. You also demonstrably do not understand the difference between over-confidence and a well thought out and frequently reviewed plan. You seem to think in this particular scenarion the crew thought "We can do this, we're aces!" and off they went without consideration to what could and might go wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Your use of the statistics relating to the probability of engine failures also indicates to me a lack of understanding. So the probability of a single engine failure is exactly the same on a twin, tri or quad, and the probability of a second unrelated engine failure is exactly the same? Well I trust if this is truly your opinion that you never fly on twins because the 747 will fly much better on two than a 767 will fly on none! You keep mentioning how Murphys law will mess things up, but unfortunately for you Murphys law cannot be quantified and is hard to factor. The designers do there best by designing in margins over and above those stated in the manuals. If you want to factor in your own comfort zone on top of that then thats your business, but excuse us if the airline industry don't follow your lead or we could factor in so much Murphy we never get off the ground. By the way, my use of the word absolutely was meant to be figurative, not to imply 100% safety, which you won't even find in an parked aircraft on the ramp. I seem to recall an AF A340 burning out at CDG a few years ago when someone left a hydraulic pump running.

What bothers me most about your post is that you don't really seem to have any idea of what goes on in the cockpit in a decent airline. In your mind its all about a gung-ho attitude, egos, face and profit before safety. Fortunately its only in your mind that such a mindset exists. You still haven't explained why you think most UK 747 pilots, BAs staff, the CAA and the UK Flight Safety Committee are wrong and you are right. I might also add that Boeing would have to be wrong too as they built the machine for continued flight on three in the first place, a practice Airbus continue to this day so they must be wrong too.

Avius

14th Apr 2006, 14:27

Hand Solo,

I agree with your posts completely. I got to the conclusion, however,that at some point it just doesn't make any sense to explain things anymore, because one simply can't convince self-proclaimed "experts" who already made up their minds.

Fine with me. It is just the world we live in. Everybody and his brother wants to tell us what we couldashouldawoulda. If you think, that this is bad...I once stood in an observation deck at a major aiport, litening how spectator - "experts" knew "everything" about flying.....very entertaining.

I guess it comes with the territory. Those who can't "DO" try to teach, those who cant' "TEACH", try to become aviation experts.

I'll go and close that cockpit door and keep enjoying what I love to do - flying.

Happy flying
:ok:

old,not bold

14th Apr 2006, 15:16

Oh dear, Hand Solo, let me try one last time..

Each engine failure is a random event, if you insist on talking about statistical probabilities, unless there is a causal relationship between the failures.

To keep it very simple; let's say that the probability of any of the engines in a multi-engine aircraft failing during a flight is 1 in 100. That does not alter when one fails.

That being so, the probability of two failing during the same flight is 1 in (100X100) = 1 in 10,000. That's why I said that the probability of a second failure is very, very low.

To avoid you pointing out from your pedestal that the real life probability is a tiny fraction of 1 in 100, I already know that. It's an illustration, damn it.

The point is that the probability of a second failure is not zero. Now factor in the possibilities of a causal relationship, and it increases slightly. That's why the safest course is to land as soon as possible after the first failure.

The two double engine failures on twin-engine transport aircraft (being operated with passengers iaw all the applicable regulations etc) that I have direct knowledge of were linked to a common cause in both cases, and caused by human error on the ground before the flight in one case and in the air in the other. The trouble with your thinking is that it assumes that we should only take mechanical failure into account when assessing risk.

Having said that, there are two other cases I have direct knowledge of in which a mechanical failure of one engine resulted, because of the explosive nature of the failure, in the crew's inability to maintain anything other than a controlled and fairly rapid descent with the other engine at reduced power. And that wasn't predicted by the manufacturer, or the CAA or the FAA, either. (It was, as it turned out, predicted by some members of the engine manufacturer's staff, but they kept their concerns quiet.)

On both those occasions the aircrew concerned saved the lives of all on board through training, experience, skill, determination and luck. So don't you dare lecture me on the calibre of aircrew. I know all about that, from superb, through excellent, good, average, mediocre, bad, and pissawful to alcoholic. You are a bit prone to leaping to hasty and incorrect conclusions.

And that IS the Last Post! Ask not for whom it sounds...................

Hand Solo

14th Apr 2006, 16:02

Well thanks you for elementary statistics 101. My point is that, given the first failure, you are already into the 1 in 10000 case, which for arguments sake then gives you a 1 in 100 chance of losing a second engine. The point is, given the first failure, do you look at your current state in isolation and say there is a 1 in 100 chance of a second failure now, or do you look at the system as a whole and say there is only 1 in 10000 chance of us going to a second engine failure state? You clearly think the former, but unfortunately for you the vast majority of the aerospace industry works along the lines of the latter. It is the recognised, tested and accepted practice. The probability of a second failure is never zero, nor is the probability of a third or fourth failure, or the probability of the ship being snatched by aliens. The issue is you must factor the probability of the event by the severity of the consequences. Lose a second engine in a twin and you are gliding. Lose a second engine in a quad and you are diverting. Very, very, very different circumstances.

Why don't you share with us which experiences you have of total engine failure in twin aircraft and we'll see how relevant they are to this particular debate, because I think it's fairly easy to analyse whether you've scuppered another engine on out 744s pretty quickly. Monitor all the engine parameters is a first step. Look out the window in the cabin and inspect the engine is the second step. Monitor fuel flow and oil levels for leaks is a third. The fourth is to datalink the info to the engineers and have them scrutinise it closely. This isn't one man and his dog here, this is a whole team of specialists determining if there is any common cause for multiple engine failures. And yes, thanks to the joys of satcom, you can even ring back to LAX and see if any common maintenance was done on any engines on the ground.

You are trying to make this issue into something far more complex than it is. You are postulating theories which are right at the very boundaries of probabilty and which can also be easily discounted with a small amount of technical knowledge of the aircraft and some in-flight checking. You are suggesting we throw the aircraft at the ground at the first hint of a technical problem in case it is the first sign of a highly implausible chain of events which might lead to catastrophe. Just how many related double engine failures have you known of in your career? And how many commercial flights have there been in that time? We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this one, but as I am coming from the same standpoint as the CAA I wouldn't hold your breath if you are expecting any change in the continuation policy of monst non-US quad flyers.

old,not bold

14th Apr 2006, 19:34

Hand Solo, why do I keep being sucked in...

Please read the post again, quote

That being so, the probability of two failing during the same flight is 1 in (100X100) = 1 in 10,000. That's why I said that the probability of a second failure is very, very low.

That seems to me to say that the probability of a second failure on the same flight is 1 in 10000 (using the illustrative numbers), not 1 in 100. Does it not say that to you too?

The two double failures were fuel related. That's as far as I go.

I am not complicating things. All I have said, throughout this thread, is that the safer option for that BA flight was to land asap and reduce weight if necessary to do so. The continuation option is less safe than that, by how much is immaterial, and that's enought for me. I am perfectly well aware of the monitoring and advice available these days to an aircraft in flight.

I am equally well aware that all that isn't worth a row of beans when another engine stops, whether or not someone has just told you that's what's going to happen because they are monitoring real-time on a datalink, and you are an hour or two, or more, away from a usable runway.

You won't agree, I know. So let's drop it there. I will never ever fly BA, quad or twin, because I do not trust BA's corporate approach to safety, no matter how good individuals are. But that dates from before last year.

Hand Solo

14th Apr 2006, 22:54

I will never ever fly BA, quad or twin, because I do not trust BA's corporate approach to safety, no matter how good individuals are. But that dates from before last year.

Well that pretty much illustrates to the rest of us where you're coming from in your argument. Not from a position of neutral objectivity but from a position of having an axe to grind against BA, like so many other posters here. The truth will out as they say. Good to see you have a well honed distrust of BA even though you've never actually worked for them and your experience is limited to writing flight plans for them.

At least we seem to be on the same wavelength regarding the statistical likelihood of failure of two engines. As we both agree that the chances of a double failure are, using your illustrative figures, 1 in 10000, then why do you have an issue with BA flying on three engines when the likelihood of a second failure is equal to the likelihood of one of their twins having a total engine failure? I'm afraid to say there is no logic whatsoever in your argument. I'd be interested to here who you would be prepared to fly with. I'd hazard a guess they've either all got the same continuation policy as us or have left a lot more smoking holes in the ground than us.

Golf Charlie Charlie

15th Apr 2006, 01:54

You won't agree, I know. So let's drop it there. I will never ever fly BA, quad or twin, because I do not trust BA's corporate approach to safety, no matter how good individuals are. But that dates from before last year.

The thing is, how you can say that, when BA has some claim to being among the very safest airlines in the world statistically ? Remember they haven't dropped one since 1985 (and that was Airtours), and then you have to go back to 1976 (and that wasn't their fault at all). Even if they lost a 747 tomorrow with all hands, they'd still be among the world's very safest carriers in a statistical sense. And if you don't trust statistics at least to some degree, what do you base an opinion on ?

old,not bold

15th Apr 2006, 12:32

Golf Charlie Charlie

Why can't I walk away from this thread?)

If you step out of your BA flightdeck cocoon, you would discover that there are many airlines in the world, going back decades in some cases, that have as good as or better accident records than BA, but which I and probably you could write a 1,000 page report on their safety management deficiencies in operations and maintenance. I have worked with some of them. In other words, accident records aren't everything. If a BA 747 is lost tomorrow it would probably (not certainly)be due to errors made somewhere in the BA system, just as if any other airline's 747 were lost tomorrow it would probably (not certainly) be due to errors made somewhere in that airline's system.

If you ever visit one of your own company's several maintenance bases, if you know where they are, you would find that in fairly recent or very recent times some at least have come under severe criticism for faulty safety management. There bit for the grace of God go most of us, of course, but don't tell me that BA is perfect. It isn't; it just thinks it is.

The main problem with BA is that its top management is divorced physically and mentally from its daily operations, and that's why its corporate safety culture is worrying. A fleet, or a maintenance establishment, may well generate a good culture within itself. But that does not extend across the company. I do not believe that there are many in the senior management of the company who understand that it is their task to instil this culture and make it happen, and that safety is not something that can be left to operational management at a lower level, because only at that lower level do people understand why aeroplanes work or don't work. Until BA sweeps away the huge overload of unnecessary, unproductive, costly non-operational administrators, accountants, economists, secretaries etc etc and establishes a short communication span from the Chairman to the bottom of the pile, with senior managers who understand what airlines are really about, things will not change.

It was a BA crew that once managed to shut down all 4 engines on a VC10 in the cruise, "land" short of the runway in Nairobi etc. There were sevral similar incidents, some reported, some not. All in the very distant past, probably before some present-day Captains were born, you will rightly say. Why drag that up now; we've got CRM to put all that right. Because some of the posts here remind me frighteningly of the attitude that led to those incidents, that's why. A culture of complacency and arrogance existed across the airline, then. Has it come back? Did it ever go away? You tell me.

What do I believe in if I don't trust statistics? I do trust statistics as far as they go. They are a useful tool which I use a great deal. They show trends, identify problem areas, and permit an educated guess about what might happen in the future. But they do not predict what will happen, and they should not replace judgement and an awareness of Murphy's law. The way a Captain beats Murphy's law is to always select the safest option available when an event occurs that is not planned, eg engine failure, no matter how over-cautious that might be, and no matter what the company manual, the statistics, or the management says. Any other approach is fine for a military pilot, or any pilot flying for fun, or even a demo pilot. But not an air transport pilot flying passengers.

(I have, in the last 5 years, written (plagiarised might be more honest) a JAR Ops 1 compliant PPM for a small non-EU airline; I hereby authorise any departure from it whatsoever, in the air, if a Captain's judgement says that's the safest course of action).

On the check flight with the CFI immediately before my first solo, the engine stopped at 350 feet or so on take-off in an Auster (Cirrus engine). I got the nose down, but it took the CFI about 0.5 seconds to take control, execute a diving 180 and rollout just in time to land hard and downwind on the airfield. (The Impossible Turn) If I/we had followed the Book he had spent the previous month teaching me, I/we would have "landed" straight ahead into a wood, and gone home in a box. Off in the distant past again! Of course, but it's a lesson I never forgot.

It's not only BA's twins I won't fly in across the ocean, it's anyone's. I do not want my life ever to depend on a single engine, unless I am flying the airplane and have made that choice. I know the probability of a second failure is so small you can hardly see it. But I choose a 4-engine aircraft, because if two or even three fail we still have a fighting chance of a controlled and prolonged descent and landing somewhere, possibly even on a runway if we're lucky. What I do not accept is that a Captain then makes a choice for me to travel in a 3-engine aircraft, for one second longer than he is forced to while losing weight if he has to and finding a runway to get down on.

Neither have I any desire to be on board for a repeat of that famous 70-mile glide (was it that long? Canadian airline? Azores?) and no-power landing, no matter how skilled the pilot is, and boy, wasn't that guy skilled. (I recall that the cause in that case was fuel shortage, I think, not a double failure for some other reason; is that right? If so, I know, before you lecture me again, that a quad will have similar problems if it just runs out of fuel, and possibly a worse glide ratio.)

I mention it only to illustrate, once more, that things can go wrong in the most unexpected ways, perhaps because we don't learn from our mistakes. Another event from the distant past involving a huge fuel cock-up recovered by exceptional handling skills was when a Viscount ran out of fuel on the approach to Exeter. Ah, history again. But when will the next huge fuel cock-up happen? Murphy is just biding his time.

Double engine failures, not fuel shortage related, can and do happen. Cross-feeding by mistake? That's one that forced a perfectly serviceable aircraft to ditch, sorry, land on water, with half the fuel still on board, because both engines suddenly went quiet. Good piece of work by the crew, if you forget why it happened. Everyone survived, and we were able to keep it out of the papers.

I like to go gliding for fun now, from time to time, in an aircraft built for the job; never as a passenger in a airliner which started out with two engines.

BTW; I use a moniker on this site that more or less describes me. Does Hand Solo do the same?

Golf Charlie Charlie

15th Apr 2006, 13:13

o,nb

Fair comments there, for sure. I am not BA at all but a bit of an interloper as the dreaded SLF, frequent traveller and aviation enthusiast, the sort of person people here sometimes love to hate. Anyway, I am not a slave to BA, but overall - and (as Sir Humphrey Appleby once said) it can only be a judgment on balance, taking one thing with another, by and large, more or less, looking at the situation from above and below - I do believe BA is a highly safe and professional operation. That's not to be complacent or to imagine that there couldn't be a huge corporate failure tomorrow.

Of course, there are many other airlines with a clean record. On the other hand, I tend to look at departures per day or per year as a starting point. If you look at it on this basis, even the much admired Qantas (which people often put on a pedestal as being ultra-safe) is no more than average. I'd say that in the past 30 years Qantas has carried out only a quarter of the departures that BA has. Does that make BA 4 times as safe ? Not at all - but it's something to consider. Your crash-free airline with a mere 40-ship fleet which does 200 departures a day just needs to be put in the context of BA's 1000 or so daily departures. American Airlines does over 2000 daily departures - it has had a few fatal events in the past 10 years (excluding 9/11) but on a departures carried out basis AA is still among the world's safest carriers.

A good measure of a 'safe' airline starts at one fatal event per million departures. BA is well past that. BA does a million departures every 3 years. There are plenty of newer highly regarded airlines that are barely past a million departures in aggregate. I still fly them myself without hesitation, but it's a context against which to set BA's superlative safety record. Not definitive, but something to consider.

I am sorry to come in at the end of this thread and apologise if the regulars thing I am unnecessarily prolonging it.

old,not bold

15th Apr 2006, 13:43

I am not BA at all but a bit of an interloper as the dreaded SLF,

I do apologise! Is it paranoia setting in? I try and avoid slurs like that.

The point about accident records is that they concern the past; it is arguable (and argued, frequently) that the safest airline around is the one that just had a bad accident.

There are a lot of airlines in the world relying on luck and the fact that Boeings (and F27s and a few others) are incredibly robust, can absorb a huge amount of maintenance incompetence and still remain airborne (usually, sometimes the incompetence is overwhelming, eg Aloha), and are relatively easy to fly (nowadays anyway; an early 707 pilot might disagree).

One or more of these will have an accident, sooner or later. So you should look beyond the records.

Good Luck!

old,not bold

15th Apr 2006, 13:53

Before we are lectured again from the flight deck, I'd better say that the Aloha B737 did stay airborne and land safely, of course, which kind of illustrated how robust they are.

The Alaska MD80 (or whatever the model actually was) did not, and illustrated how an unpredicted maintenance error, on the face of it not very important, can have terrible consequences, even in an airline with an excellent record.

JW411

15th Apr 2006, 15:05

old,notbold:

I really must congratulate you on your erudite dissertation. I agree with everything that you say which probably means that we are of an age!

I have mentioned my worries about corporate arrogance on previous threads and I am of the opinion that this phenomenon has the potential to be a big flight safety hazard. All large organisations are at risk.

The problem is that everyone in the organisation is told that they are better than anyone else and no one else is worth listening to.

Because the organisation is so large it is impossible for the pilot to have personal knowledge of the despatcher, the ops officer, the tug driver, the engineer, the cabin staff etc. etc.

They therefore have to rely on the company propaganda and the managers telling them that all departments are functioning better than anything in the universe.

Do pilots really believe this? If pprune is a good source of information then we are left in no doubt by BA pilots that they hate the management, have a less than symbiotic relationship with the CC, total disdain for checkin staff and crew bus drivers and don't have a lot to say in support for their engineers.

However, as soon as someone questions their modus operenda we are assured that they have the best team in the world!

This phenomenon is most certainly not unique to BA. All large organisations have the same problem. I have, for example, seen at first hand exactly the same corporate arrogance exhibited by AA and UA.

I do not pretend to know what the answer is apart from getting the entire workforce to stand in front of the largest mirror in the world and look each other in the eye.

This will not happen.

In conclusion, I can't quite decide whether it is a case of "The Emperor Isn't Wearing Any Clothes" or whether it is an extension of the "Three Monkeys".

DOVES

15th Apr 2006, 17:05

To sum it up:
To those of you opinionated that a 3 engined 747 is absolutely safe I'm asking: "Why don't you request to certify the procedure to shut down an engine during cruise phase?!
-It has been officialy tested that it can be flown (almost), fuelwise, to the destination in a very Long Range flight!
-It is safer than the Feb. 19, 2005 British Airways Flight 268 LAX-LHR.
-It could be restarted whenever needed, and it would be utmost beneficial for the engine life.
I just want to recall that a Captain (or should I say: a crew!) can claim a better efficiency than that's prescribed by the MEL. And not 'viceversa'
Safe Flights
DOVE

wiggy

15th Apr 2006, 17:18

Please, Mods will you please kill this thread, then the ponificators can move over to the new BA10 thread and second guess that crew's actions

Doves - I don't recall anyone saying it's "absolutely safe"...if you want to be absolutely safe dont fly, don't drive, don't take a breath, but then as someone with 10000hrs on the beast what the heck would I know? As for the MEL....what has that got to do with this case?

DOVES

15th Apr 2006, 18:15

WIGGY:
Keep your hair down and your nerves under your skin.
-Assertion: 'I don't recall anyone saying it's "absolutely safe"...'
-Answer: On 13th April 2006at 18:38#129 of this same thread, Hand Solo wrote:... Is a 3 engined 747 safe? Absolutely....
-Assertion: if you want to be absolutely safe dont fly, don't drive, don't take a breath, but then as someone with 10000hrs on the beast what the heck would I know?
-Answer: perhaps thanks to God and to the Prudence I'm talking about that I'm celebrating today 40 years and more than 20000 flying hours.
-Question: As for the MEL....what has that got to do with this case?
-Answer: Perhaps nothing. It's only a Manifest on the way I want to give my passengers the best of SAFETY.
Safe flight
DOVE

john_tullamarine

16th Apr 2006, 12:50

Again (and unless the site owners dictate otherwise) the thread will be permitted to continue as it serves the useful purpose of challenging a number of suspect fond beliefs amongst our group. This presumes that its tone observes previously stated constraints .. I can only suggest that those who find it too uncomfortable might consider absenting themselves from its challenges ...

I think that it is appropriate to note that one airline (BA) is receiving some apparent criticism. However, I suggest that readers be aware that this is due to the original thrust of the thread's relating to a particular incident involving one of that airline's aircraft and the subsequent operational management of that aircraft on that particular flight. The discussion could equally have involved any one of a number of competing airlines.

A number of pertinent observations has been made, including perhaps two useful items ....

(a) safety is not absolute .. it is the result of risk assessment and risk management techniques and protocols overlaid on a certification basis for the aircraft's Type Certificate and the operator's AOC. A reasonable consequence is that we necessarily may end up dealing in shades of grey rather than black and white on occasion. It is facile to think that commercial considerations do not and should not come into the operational decisions which Commanders make .. such are, of course, a very real problem if they become a principal driver to the decision making process rather than just one of a range of considerations which the Commander considers in reaching his/her operational decision

(b) SLF pays the bulk of the bill in many cases .. while not diminishing the Commander's authority and responsibility, ought not the reasonable (whether based on fact, prejudice or, even, irrational anxieties) concerns of these good folk be one of the considerations taken into account by the Commander ?

Lest folk think that I may hold a view and that such is influencing my management of this thread's progress, let it be known that, while I might choose not to travel on this airline or that (and I shall keep such specifics to myself in this forum) I have no difficulty flying on BA ...

Interestingly, I just ran a search which suggests that this is the longest thread in the archives for this forum .. whatever the rights and wrongs may be the original thesis has generated a whole bunch of interest amongst the sandpit readership ...

GearDown&Locked

17th Apr 2006, 09:56

From a practical point of view, what this specific flight lost in hardware (engine) gained in extra monitoring. When the engine had to be shutdown, the first question in the crew head is "can we take her home?" logical answer is "yes, she can hold it pretty good, but we must keep an eye on things all the time, just in case she can't" so I'm afraid this crew never took the FHM or the Guardian out of the suitcase the all flight, being very busy calculating every possible option, including landing in the nearest airport if they felt unconfy. So there you go, the law of compensation.

GD&L

thePassenger

19th Apr 2006, 23:17

Without any comment (and typing with the remaining fingers of my left hand):

Howard Ramsdale, 47, a passenger on the flight, said: “I was absolutely astounded that we didn’t return to LA. There wasn’t a single person that I spoke to on that plane who wanted to carry on.
“As far as I’m concerned my life was put at risk. It was a very stressful flight and I’m not really sure that I’d get on an aircraft again, let alone a BA one.” Ramsdale, a science teacher from Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, has written to the airline, demanding compensation for the trauma he suffered.

An FAA official said: “The prudent operating procedure if a pilot has an engine out is to land at the nearest available airport.”
David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International magazine, said: “Every American pilot I’ve spoken to said there is no way our airlines would sanction a policy (of flying on three engines). NI_MPU('middle');“In my mind, it was simply not best practice. Were the passengers endangered by this? No. Did they have the same level of safety that they’d have had with four engines? Obviously not.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592652_2,00.html

The veteran controller who was handling the 747 as it departed from LAX said he has never seen a plane continue on to its destination after blowing an engine on takeoff. Every other time, the aircraft has returned to LAX, he said.

The 351 passengers aboard Flight 268 could have been due a total of more than $280,000 -- based on the maximum $800-per-person payout -- and the airplane would have had to jettison tens of thousands of dollars of jet fuel to make an emergency landing at LAX.

Although a Boeing 747 can fly on three engines, the decision to continue the flight has been roundly criticized by pilots, air traffic controllers, passengers and aviation experts.

The plane made an emergency landing in Manchester, about 160 miles from London, after the aircraft ran low on fuel. A 747 burns more fuel if three engines have to do the work of four, experts say.

...

Air traffic controllers at LAX described the Feb. 19 incident in terms that are much more dramatic than the version offered by British Airways officials, who said that sparks flew from the crippled engine on the plane's left wing.

Elliot Brann, the LAX controller who was handling the plane as it roared down the runway at 8:45 p.m., said flames began shooting from the engine when the aircraft was about three-quarters of the way into its takeoff roll. When it was just past the shoreline, a huge ball of bright orange flame erupted from the engine.

"I thought it blew up, I really did," said Brann, who is the regional runway safety representative for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "It was pretty frightening."

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

"We were saying, you've got to be kidding," Brann said. "How they continued on, I don't know."

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

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

http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2478&comm=0

Running low on fuel near the end of the flight, the captain put out a Mayday distress call and diverted to Manchester airport because the aircraft could not make it to Heathrow. The plane landed safely and was met by several firetrucks and emergency response teams, the airline said.

...
"It is certainly not commonplace to have a four-engine airplane go intercontinental on three engines," said John Cox, former chief of safety for the Air Line Pilots Association

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61698-2005Feb28.html

Flight 268 was, for all intents and purposes, a disabled plane from the moment it left the runway, and the judgment of all involved parties -- company and crew -- was flawed. Not reckless or crazy, but needlessly unsound. You don't take a disabled plane on an 11-hour haul to England. You just don't.
That's the Pilot talking, not the statistician, FAA lawyer, oddsmaker or devil's advocate. And in calling out this seat-of-the-pants verdict, he's reminded of that old bit about how to define pornography: you know it when you see it.

http://www.bootsnall.com/guides/05-06/flying-with-a-disabled-engine.html

AN2 Driver

20th Apr 2006, 16:29

So, the Passenger, what we are looking at here is "trial by press" or by just about anyone who thinks he has a say in this matter.

In the end, by the looks of it, I would not be surprised if the rules got changed as a consequence of this incident. Not out of necessity or urgent change of mind of the regulators but by the simple fact that it appears that the current rules set for this kind of ops by the CAA and BA do seem out of sync with public perception. Certainly BA can do without such adverse publicity as quoted above, so while the rules might make sense to them, they can't afford to loose farepayers over "interpretion" of such incidents.

Granted, I have heard and seen several equal cases, where at some stage of the flight an engine in a 3+ plane got shut down and in which the plane continued to it's destination, often for more than half the sector with OEI. In many such cases, the SLF in the rear is not even aware of it, if the engine does not surge or otherwise make it's malfunction known. If, on the other hand, the engine surges or makes those impressive displays of fireworks, the punters are bound to notice. And yes, to most of them, such incidents are scary. Very scary.

The question in my mind after this is wether in such an event, the factor of how the incident has been/is experienced by the SLF might be a last string in the decision process, after everything else has been verified and checked. Is it acceptable to continue the flight if you have 360 white knuckled farepayers in the back? Does it make sense to continue with what is by all knowledge and regulations a "non standard operation", nevertheless covered in the ops manual and by the regulations, if the likely result is going to be the one we are experiencing now?

Form that viewpoint, while yes, it is the goal of any flight crew and ops to get everyone safely and economically to their destination, the fallout, both economically and perceptionwise of a continued ops after such an event might be far worse than after a timely diversion and subsequent cancellation.

Some of the quotes above show, that the perception of such an incident by the flying public can be a sight different from what aviation professionals and let alone flight crew might feel appropriate. On top of that, even within the regulatory bodies there seems to be no clear policy concerning SOP in such cases as the FAA vs CAA differences here show. With such hindsight I am quite sure that many a crew in a given situation will probably think again before taking decisions in such an event.

Nobody ever said the world has to make sense.

Best regards

AN2 Driver

As a post script, I posted this here, even tough I rekon some people in the "other" thread might be interested. Howver, I don't qualify as I am not a 747 pilot, nor will I ever be. However. I must admit that not unlike other posters here I felt a bit irritated on the vehemence with which anyone NOT 747 type rated was shown the door, some of them even accused of utter foolishness just to express their opinion. Not what I am used to in these forums. I have learnt in my own career that however much I might think I know about my own special little branch of knowledge, there's always folks out there who can contribute to my knowledge or rise a point which I have not thought about. If I were to show all those people the door and accuse them of heaven knows what, I'd do myself a real disservice.

Maybe some of you might want to consider this before showing me the door.

AN2

thePassenger

20th Apr 2006, 17:08

So, the Passenger, what we are looking at here is "trial by press" or by just about anyone who thinks he has a say in this matter.

Certainly passengers SHOULD have a say in such a matter (after all, they are the ones - apart from freight - a flight is all about)! While they cannot do so on board an aircraft, they certainly can say what they think AFTER they are back (hopefully) on "terra firma"!

In the end, by the looks of it, I would not be surprised if the rules got changed as a consequence of this incident. Not out of necessity or urgent change of mind of the regulators but by the simple fact that it appears that the current rules set for this kind of ops by the CAA and BA do seem out of sync with public perception.

In that case something GOOD might come out of that incident.

Granted, I have heard and seen several equal cases, where at some stage of the flight an engine in a 3+ plane got shut down and in which the plane continued to it's destination, often for more than half the sector with OEI.

What makes this case such a special case IMHO is, that they lost an engine seconds after take off! I wonder if anybody even thought of such a scenario when FAR § 121.565 was written. It is almost as if this flight used kind of "loophole in the law" to continue...
Shutting down an engine in a 3+ plane at "a slightly more reasonable stage of the flight" and continue to its destination would probably not have caused such an uproar!

The question in my mind after this is wether in such an event, the factor of how the incident has been/is experienced by the SLF might be a last string in the decision process, after everything else has been verified and checked. Is it acceptable to continue the flight if you have 360 white knuckled farepayers in the back? Does it make sense to continue with what is by all knowledge and regulations a "non standard operation", nevertheless covered in the ops manual and by the regulations, if the likely result is going to be the one we are experiencing now?

In my "silly and fearful" passenger - opinion: no! Not only do passengers not understand such an extreme case of flying on 3 engines but many pilots do not, either.

I must admit that not unlike other posters here I felt a bit irritated on the vehemence with which anyone NOT 747 type rated was shown the door, some of them even accused of utter foolishness just to express their opinion. Not what I am used to in these forums.

Yes, there was a strange "shut up, you are only the passenger, we will do with you whatever WE consider to be right and you have to put up with it" mentality here. While this necessarily might be O.K. on board an airplane, it is counterproductive in such a forum...

AN2 Driver

20th Apr 2006, 17:49

Yes, there was a strange "shut up, you are only the passenger, we will do with you whatever WE consider to be right and you have to put up with it" mentality here. While this necessarily might be O.K. on board an airplane, it is counterproductive in such a forum...

I did not necessarily mean passenger comments, but people who are within the industry, just not at the sharp end of the correct plane at the time if you get my meaning.

Passengers can, by their very nature, only argument wether they are comfortable with something or not, but not really see behind the SOP's that allow it or not. Therefore discussion on that level can be a tad difficult if one part of the people discuss from a technical/operational view whereas the other part go "It went bang and I was scared, so ban it!"

For what it's worth, I have no real problem with neither 2/3/4 engined Long Haul ops, I have been sitting on both variants many times without any concern. I am no 747 driver, just a former dispatcher, and from my technical point of view, there was not a lot of fault I can find in the decision of this flight to continue as long as SOP's were followed, which apparently they were. So if you are looking for someone to support those who bash this crew and BA, you've got the wrong guy. I respect their decision, which undoubtedly was based on their SOP, with support of their ops people. If, at a given moment, I would have decided differently, had this been my ops to run, I don't want to speculate.

All I am trying to convey here is that such situations, while perfectly legal and even sensible according to SOP might backfire badly if the experience for those involved passively does not match the perception of those who are doing the work. So maybe the final question in that decision chain might be something along the line of "ok, yes, we can do it, but should we?"

The newspaper clips you have quoted show that this is very easily possible.

Best regards

AN2 Driver.

manintheback

20th Apr 2006, 18:28

The question in my mind after this is wether in such an event, the factor of how the incident has been/is experienced by the SLF might be a last string in the decision process, after everything else has been verified and checked. Is it acceptable to continue the flight if you have 360 white knuckled farepayers in the back? Does it make sense to continue with what is by all knowledge and regulations a "non standard operation", nevertheless covered in the ops manual and by the regulations, if the likely result is going to be the one we are experiencing now? AN2

Non Pilot here.

I've been following this with great interest and that is a key question. Every time you step on a BA flight, Passenger Safety and Comfort is stated as primary concerns of the airline. Whilst I am unaware if the entire plane load was scared witless, given the widespread comments made , there appear to be substantial numbers who were very unhappy - surely we have here an economic consideration that overrode passenger comfort?

Avius

20th Apr 2006, 19:03

manintheback,

you may agree, that the spectrum on how to define passenger comfort is very wide. The frequent flyer might see things differently, than someone, who flies for the first time.

I remember my first flight as passenger. I felt uncomfortable, when the flaps or the gear was operated and paid attention to the slightest noise, which appeared to be out of the ordinary (..which was pretty much everything). I was concerned and wondered, if the pilots upfront are doing the right thing.

Today I'm flying the B747-400 as a pilot and -obviously- see things completely differently.

While I have sympathy for those who are concerned or "uncomfortable" with a decision a pilot makes, I also know that those concerns are based on limited knowledge. I would say with a high degree of certainty, that I would not make any conclusions about the crew actions, even if I sat in the role of a passenger in the back (bearing in mind that I am typerated on the B747-400).

It is only the operating crew, who know ALL the facts during the flight and I would without hesitation trust their judgement.

I hope this might put you at ease somewhat and answer your question :)

thePassenger

21st Apr 2006, 09:52

manintheback,
you may agree, that the spectrum on how to define passenger comfort is very wide. The frequent flyer might see things differently, than someone, who flies for the first time.

Agreed. But some passengers on that BA flight obviously have seen "things" that were a little bit out of the ordinary. Therefore it is hardly surprising that they did not enjoy very much the rest of the flight.

While I have sympathy for those who are concerned or "uncomfortable" with a decision a pilot makes, I also know that those concerns are based on limited knowledge. I would say with a high degree of certainty, that I would not make any conclusions about the crew actions, even if I sat in the role of a passenger in the back (bearing in mind that I am typerated on the B747-400).

It is only the operating crew, who know ALL the facts during the flight and I would without hesitation trust their judgement.

That´s really a question of trust. I will risk being told again that I cite old accidents that have no relation to today´ s aviation (???) but here is another little example: Fokker F-28, Dryden, Ontario, March 10th, 1989 (24 fatalities). There was a pilot as a passenger on board who noticed ice on the wings before take-off but did not say anything to the pilots of that plane.
Also, I have often heard that the most nervous passengers on a plane are dead-heading pilots :)

thePassenger

21st Apr 2006, 10:10

So if you are looking for someone to support those who bash this crew and BA, you've got the wrong guy. I respect their decision, which undoubtedly was based on their SOP, with support of their ops people. If, at a given moment, I would have decided differently, had this been my ops to run, I don't want to speculate.

You misunderstood the intention of my posts. It is not about "bashing this crew" (even, if it may sometimes sound a bit like that)! It is also not about bashing BA (even, if it may sometimes sound a bit like that). It is about the general question, if it would not be better to improve safety instead of doing "what can be done" or as someone has put it "just because something _can_ be done doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it".
Certainly flying a 747 on 3 engines will not improve safety (I hope everybody will agree on that, at least)!

Alogan

21st Apr 2006, 10:38

If pilots are such heroes and have no problems with "unusual situations" why do they switch off the wrong engine (British Midland, 1989), begin a takeoff without having the permission to do it (KLM, Tenerife, 1977), stall airplanes (Birgenair, 1996/ Northwest Orient, 1974/BEA, 1972), fly until they run out of fuel (Avianca, 1990/Antillian Airlines, 1970), land with retracted landing gear(Contintental Airlines, 1996), forget to configure flaps for departure (Northwest Airlines, 1987), land at the wrong airport or do other crazy things. The list is endless. Often an accident is initiated by a seemingly irrelevant incident.

They make those mistakes because they're human - just because they have a very important and responsible job doesn't make them immune from the same intrinsic characteristics that all humans share (one of which is the ability to make seemingly simple mistakes). Bearing that fact in mind, pilots actually do extremely well to make so few mistakes - unfortunately however it just takes one inevitable human error for pilots to be maligned. Also, often when a pilot makes a mistake it is due to pressures placed upon him (or errors made) by management or other factors - very rarely does a pilot solely cause an accident by himself. It is just that the management always refuse to take responsibility and make the pilots the scapegoats.

Regarding the examples that you posted, not all of those accidents were "pilot error" (or more accurately, "human error"), and those that were had other contributing factors that led to the pilots making human mistakes or further worsened the situation (e.g. bad training practices, poor engineering/maintenance standards, etc.). I don't think that it's fair for you to criticise the pilots who made those mistakes, because unless you are immune from human mistakes (and therefore not human), you have been guilty of exactly the same sort of errors that you are blaming them for.

thePassenger

21st Apr 2006, 11:30

Also, often when a pilot makes a mistake it is due to pressures placed upon him (or errors made) by management or other factors
...pressures such as having to fly a 747 on 3 engines and then encounter difficulties with fuel management, for example...

Regarding the examples that you posted, not all of those accidents were "pilot error" (or more accurately, "human error"), and those that were had other contributing factors that led to the pilots making human mistakes

All were pilot (and therefore human) errors but of course there are (always, I guess) contributing factors.

I don't think that it's fair for you to criticise the pilots who made those mistakes, because unless you are immune from human mistakes (and therefore not human), you have been guilty of exactly the same sort of errors that you are blaming them for.
Well, in those (and many other) accidents, people have been killed. Can every human being make such mistakes? Of course. Can they be criticized for making mistakes? Unfortunately in this world this happens all the time! But this was not the reason why I cited those accidents and errors! It was because I wanted to say: "don´t place unnecessary pressure upon pilots (like unnecessarily flying on 3 engines almost from take-off until landing)! They are mere human beings! They make mistakes/errors!" Many pressures, many situations of reduced safety margins CANNOT be prevented! In this case it would have been possible! And, as we have seen, the passengers would have loved to land "at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made", too! In spite of pilots claiming that this was safe (and at a SLIGHTLY reduced safety margin, well within the boundaries of other risks connected with flying, it theoretically was) and this was "no big deal" in any way, SOME additional pressure must have been there and in the end a "surprise landing" had to be executed...

AN2 Driver

21st Apr 2006, 13:25

...pressures such as having to fly a 747 on 3 engines and then encounter difficulties with fuel management, for example...

It was because I wanted to say: "don´t place unnecessary pressure upon pilots (like unnecessarily flying on 3 engines almost from take-off until landing)!

This is YOUR assumtion and nothing else. I have seen nothing to support this conspiracy theory that this crew or the dispatch or both were under pressure from the company to continue this flight.

All you are achieving with your insistence is what was said in the now deleted posts -> all non pilots get the heck out of here and leave us to it. You certainly are not making a good case why pilots should tolerate non aviation people in this forum. So if you let it rest, you'd do not only yourself but everyone else a favour. I think your message has come across as clear as you could formulate it.

studentpilotmcuk

21st Apr 2006, 13:31

An airline pilot is always there FIRST person to arrive at a scene of any air accident. I do not believe that a pilot would deleiberately put his own life at risk and the risk of others.
Around the world there are (pure guess) hudreds of thousands of air movements every day out of those there are bound to be just the odd one or two hiccups with a couple of aircraft.
The pilots are trained to a very high standard and are educated people, when I fly on a passenger aircraft I am a bit fatalistic what ever will happen will happen. My first flight was when I was 6 years old, 24 yrs later I am still here, and still enjoying aviation. To all the captains and all the first officers out there, keep doing what your doing as I am sure my safety has not been compromised.
Regards
SPMCUK :ok:

john_tullamarine

22nd Apr 2006, 01:59

I think that I need to restate a few things which I would have thought should be fairly obvious ..

(a) we will not tolerate abusive or blatantly non-pertinent posts and they will be either amended or deleted at the discretion of the moderators .. no "if"s, "but"s, or "maybe"s. If anyone be upset by this, by all means drop a note to admin and put your concerns to the folk at the top of the totem pole. If they choose to give us a specific direction, then we will amend our management of the thread.

(b) in this forum, we have no problem with folk playing the ball (i.e., you can put any reasonably rational view pertaining to the topic) hard .. but we will not tolerate abuse directed toward any poster .. regardless of which side of whatever argument that poster may be .. we do not want any potential poster to feel any threat of intimidation in this forum.

(c) some of the posters hold to the view that non-pilots may not post to PPRuNe. This is not the case. Provided that such posts are pertinent to pilot related matters, they are welcome... and, lest you think that this is a parochial view, let me confirm that such policy has been stated by the site owners.

(d) I have no idea exactly who thePassenger is but, earlier in this thread's life, I corresponded with him to check on the thrust of his gameplan. He is a person who has a long interest in aviation safety ... if you will, a very well-read bystander .. sufficiently so that I was convinced of his having an Industry involvement.

My reading of this thread suggests that the only lack of discipline displayed has been on the part of some of the pilot fraternity.

If the views put upset you, then you have two choices ..

(i) put countering, rational views and debate the topic in an adult manner .. and, I suggest, the underlying thrust of the thread is a relevant and important consideration for both Commanders and Operators.

(ii) choose not to participate ...

your choice.

thePassenger

22nd Apr 2006, 06:18

This is YOUR assumtion and nothing else. I have seen nothing to support this conspiracy theory that this crew or the dispatch or both were under pressure from the company to continue this flight.

No, it is the assumption of the controller handling that 747, not mine:

But the controller handling the Boeing 747 after it took off from LAX said that the pilot told him that airline officials instructed him to continue on to London's Heathrow International Airport or as far as he could get on three engines, according to Anthony Vella, National Air Traffic Controllers Association representative at a radar facility north of San Diego that handles low altitude airplanes near airports.

The controller inferred from the pilot's demeanor and tone of voice that he disagreed with the decision, Vella said.

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

The veteran controller who was handling the 747 as it departed from LAX said he has never seen a plane continue on to its destination after blowing an engine on takeoff. Every other time, the aircraft has returned to LAX, he said.

http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2478&comm=0

AN2 Driver

22nd Apr 2006, 08:23

Hi John,

thanks for the clarification. I thought something like that might be in order.

...we do not want any potential poster to feel any threat of intimidation in this forum.
...
(c) some of the posters hold to the view that non-pilots may not post to PPRuNe. This is not the case. Provided that such posts are pertinent to pilot related matters, they are welcome... and, lest you think that this is a parochial view, let me confirm that such policy has been stated by the site owners.

Yes, I have been wondering about that particular bit. It appears to me that this view is quite prominent here. One reason I posted in this thread was exactly that, I did not feel qualified to voice my input in the original thread as some people reacted pretty violently on inputs from anyone NOT currently flying the 747-400, which narrows things even more than just "non pilots leave us alone". Particularly as some people got shown the door by moderators themselves who I thought were bringing across good points per se but were accused of anything between foolishness or being a user of Microsoft Flight Sim (btw, I never understood what's wrong with that, even some AAIB's are using it these days properly configured and expanded... I've been involved in some work on this since a few years and I have an impression that it is here where some people don't know what they are talking about....).

I've valued Pprune as a place of mutual learning for many aviation related professions. While I am no longer in the front row for the moment, I still work in the aviation field as ground staff and I think I can take home a lot of what's being said here to improve on what I am doing. Therefore your comment is very welcome.

Best regards
AN2 Driver

thePassenger

23rd Apr 2006, 12:57

All you are achieving with your insistence is what was said in the now deleted posts -> all non pilots get the heck out of here and leave us to it. You certainly are not making a good case why pilots should tolerate non aviation people in this forum.
Having finally found some time now to read parts of old threads on this topic, here are some opinions from the "real experts" (though it seems non-747-pilots, retired 747-pilots, US-pilots get bashed, too, if they do not conform to the "everything was pefect on that flight" - mentality):

Interestingly, I was discussing this incident with 3 extremely experienced ex-ba 744 captains on Tuesday. All agreed upon the course of action they would have taken - a diversion to New York.

Not one of them would have risked crossing the pond on 3.

But let's wait for the FAA v CAA outcome. (BEagle)

I know I'm not qualified to make statements on this subject because the aircraft I fly is not a 747-400 but I did read an article in the June Aviation International News by John Goglia, a former member of the board of the NTSB. I can't find the article on the net but I'll put a couple of quotes here. I hope it hasnt already been posted here.
"....soon after, the crew was notified that debris had been found on the departure runway."
"There are just too many possible failures caused by the high speed ejection of engine parts to contonue past a suitable landing location. Let's not forget that even if the crew went back into the cabin to look at the engine, not all of the powerplant is visible and the potential for hidden damage is real."
"my concern is that the corporate culture of the airlines has allowed increased risk to become the norm"
"Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is safe."
I don't think the fact that twins cross the ocean is relevant to his arguments.
............................................................ ............................................................ .

I am from the continent that makes quads, living in the country that makes twins, and flying a tri motor.

There is no way I will continue on with one shut down. I have read enough accident reports to know that you need three events to crash an airplane. Having one engine go out is the first event. Running low on fuel is number two. The call to land should have been made long before you get to Manchester.

Lets do our profession a favor and take the most conservative approach. We would look a lot better in the public eyes if we don't gamble with their lives. (DA50driver)

This is a very contentious issue so I will keep my posting short. I work for a company that also flies quads and I have been discussing this incident with my colleagues. To a man (and woman) they have ALL said: dump fuel, land and let the company sort it out. I am NOT saying the BA Captain made a bad decision but my completely unofficial straw poll would suggest a more cautious approach - no pun intended! (BBK)

Well, in my professional opinion (which spans over 30 years in Command in heavy jets) BA is tweeking the tail of the tiger, and sooner or later, will get bitten.

Badly....

They should positively absolutely know better.
Flight safety...horsefeathers. (411A)

FiftyFour,

Sadly I am afraid that you are incorrect. The ICAO convention is purely an agreement to standardise national law, which different countries implement and enforce to varying degrees. All aircraft within the airspace of a country are subject to that country's laws, as well as the law of the country of registration. So effectively whichever is more restrictive applies. An everyday case in point is the planning weather minima in the US as opposed to Europe which can be a headache on transatlantic flights.

BJJ

I can think offhand of two, 20driver.

1. B747SP ex-JED (2 engines failed on same side) at 800agl, aircraft dumped (ASAP) and returned.

2. B747 ex-BAH enroute ATH
Over Saudi, one engine flamed out, another on final at ATH, and just prior to parking on stand, a third wound down.
Severe fuel contamination...ex-BAH, altho the airport folks there would never admit to same (why are we not surprised?).

Now, I have spent over thirty years in command in 3 and 4 engine heavy jets (same rules for both...ie: continue on, diversion not necessary with an engine failure), but I have to wonder...at what point do you continue to stretch your luck, before Murphys law takes affect.

BA ex-LAX, where the failure occured just after takeoff, for a planned ten hour flight to LHR would seem to me to be stretching your luck to the extreme.
An engine failure over well up over Canada, yes, continue might be prudent.
But, just after takeoff?
Well, not for me, certainly, regardless of aircraft type.

There are those here who think I might be too cautious, after all these aircraft are designed for flight on three.
Yes they certainly are.

BUT, there has to be a point where enough is enough, no matter how reliable the 4 engine aeroplane is.

And, an engine failure/shutdown just after departure seems to me to call for a diversion...or return.

Certainly prudent, in my view. (411A)

My own view is that it was a really bad judgment call by the whole crew.
Engine shutdown/failure at the beginning of a long leg such as this should have been a return.
If this failure happened after several hours into the flight then yes continue after all other possible problems have been considered.
I have been reading the post for quite some time and even had discussions with the managment of my present company.
I was told that any pilot that did this here would be terminated immediately.
This is stretching the regs too far.
Maybe BA has a different view. (Earl)

Whilst it’s difficult to judge the event when one wasn’t actually there to weigh all of the factors, my biggest concern with the decision to continue is that it sets a questionable precedent within the pilot group. Engine shutdowns on that fleet may now be considered an amber event, as opposed to a red one, to be treated much the same way as, say, the loss of one hydraulic system. The decision to return now stands to be quietly viewed as ‘inexperienced’ or ‘incompetent’, the importance stressed, by high-profile example, that V1 should be equal to destination.

It is a development fraught with the gravest of safety concerns.

Although I can’t help admiring the commander for his really big cohones, in view of the impending oceanic crossing and associated lack of diversion airfields, personally, I would have returned. (bugg smasher)

However, from my perspective (a very long time in heavy 3/4 engine jet transports), the idea of continuing a very long intercontinental flight with one engine shut down/failed, when that shut down/failure had occured very close to the departure airport is, in my opinion, unwise.
Even though the regulations under which I was operating might allow me to continue in the above scenario, I would decline to do so in the interests of passenger safety.

Also, if I then decided to continue anyway, and a further situation should develop enroute, which necessitated an off-route diversion, and I stuffed it up and bent the bird, I would find it really hard to justify my decision to 'press on'.
And, so too would the investigation commitee that would surely follow.:} (411A)

With the exception of the takeoff, BA 268 may be considered a three engine ferry in all of its operational aspects, to suggest otherwise is a puerile attempt at deception.

The FAA defines the three engine ferry as;

“a ferry flight of a four-engine airplane or a turbine-engine-powered airplane equipped with three engines, with one engine inoperative, to a base for the purpose of repairing that engine subject to the following”

The regs go on to list the various conditions, stipulations and limitations under which said flight may be operated. Relevant to this discussion are;

(i) Limiting the operating weight on any ferry flight to the minimum necessary for the flight plus the necessary reserve fuel load;
(ii) Inspection procedures for determining the operating condition of the operative engines.
(iii) Persons other than required flight crewmembers shall not be carried during the flight.

The question that begs to be asked here is, when the rules are so restrictive (with good reason) for a planned three engine operation, why would they then be completely disregarded for an unplanned one. The easy answer is, of course, for the purpose of saving the company money. V1 is a magically productive airspeed.

The 744 is a very capable aeroplane. In this case, however, BA268 has clearly illustrated the extent to which the limits of those capabilities are being exploited by those charged with the financial health of the company, to the detriment of previously established safety margins. This flight represents a quantum leap in that trend, the exclamatory demonstrated by the well-developed error chain, the resultant Mayday call and coasting into Manchester on fumes, short of destination.

The practice of carrying dead engines and live passengers over long distances is, in my opinion, a most unwise one. (bugg smasher)

Now, le's examine just a bit more closely.

As all 4-engine jet transports are certificated to the same set of regulations (as indeed are 3-engine jets as well), just what makes the B744 so much better with regards to continuing on three, better than the Classic (as you mentioned) or other 3/4 engine types?

In addition, the SIN-LHR flight you mentioned had far more diversion airports available, so to compare the two referenced operations is apples to oranges, in my opinion.

Thirdly, the original intent of the regulations regarding continued flight (3/4 engine types) with an engine shut down/failed, was the cruise altitude/enroute case...not a shut down/failute on (or just after) departure.

Seems to this old hand that Murphy's law will find a place to strike one day...and the results might well not be pretty.

...

The FAA's position is rather clear...IE: continued flight with an engine shutdown/failed (on 3/4 engine types) is perfectly OK provided that is at least as safe as a diversion, or return.

Now, while it is quite true that I do not operate for a US carrier, I have spent a rather long time with an overseas carrier that operates to 14CFR121 standards...by the book.
In so doing, I have had two inflight shutdowns with three engine types.
One was enroute, about two hours to destination, and the flight was indeed continued to destination.
The other was 10 minutes after takeoff, and altho I had sufficient fuel to destination (in spades, as we were tankering due to cost considerations), a return was carried out, without further discussion. Altho in this case I would have been quite within my authority to continue, it would not make all that much sense...indeed, I would have considered it quite imprudent.

So, there you have it.
Both aviation regulatory authorties concerned here generally agree with regards to flight continuation, however some Commanders (and perhaps differing company policies) offer a clue as to their thinking.
The Commander concerned makes the call, and provided it is within company and regulatory guidelines, should not be called on the carpet to explain himself.

Others however, with a lot of experience under their belt, might respectfully have different views.
(411A)

There is a 9% fuel penalty on 3 and without pretending to know all the details it is almost certain the flight would have had inadequate fuel to make it to its final destination. This means a landing in MAN, PIK, or SNN.

The other factors of the top of my head are that you are beginning the flight in a degraded condition, and there may be unexpected problems such as adverse winds, weather, or unfavourable altitudes or further inflight defects. There is also a paucity of alternates between the west coast and the UK. The ones available are not the kind of places you would want to be and any further complications might mean a diversion to one of these airfields and prohibitive cost. (And a visit to the office).
Depending on the actual route the depressurised case would be an interesting calculation.
There is also the matter of fatigue. Unless these guys were like Gordon Cooper who fell asleep while waiting for the launch of his rocket into orbit it's a good bet they never got any adequate rest on the flight.

Another part of the manuals I have says "For a four engined a/c the failure of one engine, particularly during cruise and with no additional complications, should not be considered an emergency which requires a landing as soon as possible".

Correct me if I am wrong but the way I understand it the engine failed at the commencement of the flight before the a/c was in the cruise.

From a company perspective an engine change in LAX would have been a lot cheaper than one of the'suitable alternates'., and the a/c would have been returned to service a lot quicker. (skol)

...and finally:

This whole thread comes down to, and can be summed up as....

"You have no right to question the actions of a BA pilot because.....it's a BA pilot's action!".

Nothing more...

...and no amount of experience (including in the same type and along those routes) and objectivity put forth in even the most cogent terms will sway those holding this god-complex/hero-worship streak if it's used to support an opinion to the contrary.

Given the same set of circumstances, a U.S. crew making the same decision would be labeled "cowboys", and a third-world airline crew "incompetent", by those defending it now because their assumptions and pre-conceived notions regarding professionalism, conduct, and training would still apply. There is NO doubt...none... that this would be their opinion.

It's not based on objectivity...it's deeply emotional and ingrained, notwithstanding the psuedo-logical facade and feeble attempts at justification....ingrained that contrarian views shan't be considered because there is no right to even air them in the first place. Doing so is exceeding one's Station (if you believe in that sort of thing), so silencing them is a matter of honor and duty, not aviation.

The aeronautical trappings of numbers-swapping and comparing procedural differences doesn't disguise the fact that this whole thread reeks of it.

A BA crew making an inferior choice?.....sorry, but you have about as much chance of persuading them that the queen sucks. (AMF)

"atse" about "411A":

... you may not have come across 411A before. The posts you see here are typically modest, un-opinionated and reflective of a deep thinker who has learned a lot from his years in aviation. Such is his authority that most of us mere mortals do not bother getting into a debate with him as it seems to be a waste of our time. 411A is lucky to be able to join any thread and pronounce with certainty on virtually any subject.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173143

P.S. all the quotes are from professionals.

P.P.S.: Of course there are a lot of different opinions among the "professionals", too. You can read about it for hours in at least three threads apart from this one. But it is only when a non-747, non-BA or non-pilot speaks, that it is automatically categorized as nonsense.

Bye-bye :ok:

mckrll

23rd Apr 2006, 14:45

Surely all that can be said on the topic of this thread has now been said and all opinions - rational and irrational - aired.

What point in continuing the back-and-forth with thePassenger who has, on more than one occasion, declared that s/he will not be participating further in the thread (and then promptly continued to do so)?

Let's all just accept that thePassenger is right and then move on.

Andrew

GGV

23rd Apr 2006, 16:02

thePassenger selective quotations, demonstrating a lack of grasp of context and references to the"everything was pefect on that flight" - mentality do nothing to convince that engaging with you is likely to be productive.

I undoubtedly can find physicians who will support some strange medical theories or perpetuate peculiar notions about disease. Quoting them does not prove mainstream medicine wrong. Even in areas of medical uncertainty there is a professional consensus and, while it may shift with changes in knowledge, this cannot justify attaching oneself to uninformed points of view on the basis that "all opinions are equal". All opinions are not equal. A patient might have strong opinions and disagree with the doctor - this entitlement is a different issue from how one assess their opinions and those of the doctor. Likewise, the fact that the opinions of junior hospital doctors do not carry the same weight as those of consultants is not to say that consultants cannot be wrong. It says something else.

To take another example, when Flight International refers to "Woolly Thinking" and lays out the issues in respect of this flight, it does us all a great service. As an authoritative publication its opinion counts for a lot more that comments in the general media (to put it mildly). Experienced B747 captains have opinions on this matter which suggest that the isssues are nothing like as big a deal to them as it appears to be to some pilots who only have twin engined experience. Some B747 pilots disagree, but that leads to a lot of other questions which would need to be clarified before you could say that they are comparing like with like. (I also note that there have been about three posts in different threads in which people who were passengers on B747's - at least one of them U.S. registered - testified directly of long periods on three engines. None of the U.S. contributors seems to have found this questionable; in fact such testimony is invariably ignored. And then we have people who think it is O.K. to go from LAX to NYC on three, but not to go the same distance over the sea).

Even were this desision on this flight to have been a poor one - which I do not think is the case - the level of risk involved would still be quite low.

Two and three engined aircraft have regularly made the trip from LAX to Europe. The number of engines is not the key issue. Neither is the opinion of a controller in LAX and any one of a number of other red herrings.

Here is another way of looking at this matter. What is it that so motivates you to engage in this polemic and why can't you let it go?

Avius

23rd Apr 2006, 17:10

John,

thanks for checking on the background of thePassenger. My impression was, that he might be someone from the press, looking to "get" a story as his posts show a basic element of interest mixed with his/her own quite accusative and uneducated views.

I have no problem to discuss matters when the other side asks questions and then responds to the answers in a rational way. Shooting first and ask questions later does not contribute to a particularly frutiful discussion. I ask myself why it took me 3 posts to figure that out.

Further, it is no coincidence, that it is the Pilots -some of whom fly the B747-400 -who get upset with some of the posts by thePassenger and I think that fact alone sends a clear message to everyone reading this thread. This is why I personally chose not to respond to any of his posts anymore and let the audience decide for themselves.:ok:

thePassenger

24th Apr 2006, 21:11

thePassenger selective quotations, demonstrating a lack of grasp of context and references
Any proof for this assertion or do you just throw around ominous, clever sounding remarks as many people seem to do here?

I undoubtedly can find physicians who will support some strange medical theories or perpetuate peculiar notions about disease. Quoting them does not prove mainstream medicine wrong. Even in areas of medical uncertainty there is a professional consensus and, while it may shift with changes in knowledge, this cannot justify attaching oneself to uninformed points of view on the basis that "all opinions are equal".
Well, if you compare the FAA, United Airlines-(747/777)-captains, a captain with over 30 years in Command in 3 and 4 engine heavy jets, TWA-pilots etc etc to a physician who supports strange medical theories and think that they all have "uninformed points of view"...

Experienced B747 captains have opinions on this matter which suggest that the isssues are nothing like as big a deal to them as it appears to be to some pilots who only have twin engined experience. Some B747 pilots disagree, but that leads to a lot of other questions which would need to be clarified before you could say that they are comparing like with like.

Don´t always stop when it gets interesting! Which questions do you mean?

Here is another way of looking at this matter. What is it that so motivates you to engage in this polemic and why can't you let it go?
I thought this should be self-explanatory! Why do you think I chose the name "thePassenger"???

thePassenger

24th Apr 2006, 21:17

I have no problem to discuss matters when the other side asks questions and then responds to the answers in a rational way. Shooting first and ask questions later does not contribute to a particularly frutiful discussion.

I can´t remember that I have ever asked you a question. And no, you don´t have to answer this post, either.

This is why I personally chose not to respond to any of his posts anymore and let the audience decide for themselves.:ok:
Fair enough.

thePassenger

24th Apr 2006, 21:46

What point in continuing the back-and-forth with thePassenger who has, on more than one occasion, declared that s/he will not be participating further in the thread (and then promptly continued to do so)?

I confess, I am guilty. I have probably seen too many politicians who said that they would resign and then didn´t :)
Again, I think/hope this will be my last post (I probably shouldn´t read this thread anymore at all to spare you my provoking posts).

Let's all just accept that thePassenger is right and then move on.

Andrew
Well, lets see what will come out of the legal dispute between the FAA and BA. Obviously BA crew training on fuel management in non-standard situations has been modified, too. I wonder, why?
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/11/205869/British+Airways+appeals+FAA+fine+over+2005+Boeing+747+engine +shutdown+'safety.html

BBT

25th Apr 2006, 19:48

Obviously BA crew training on fuel management in non-standard situations has been modified, too. I wonder, why? If you have the interest and impartiality to inquire you can find that out. It has nothing to do with the immediate issues under discussion - it is a separate matter that arose during the same flight. The fact that you would cite that out of context - in other words the safety context is relevant regardless of other issues during this flight - suggests you really don't get the point of how "safety is done". In fact you are probably even going to argue that it is not out of context.

GGV

26th Apr 2006, 08:06

Any proof for this assertion or do you just throw around ominous, clever sounding remarks as many people seem to do here? thePassenger, quips like that are good for rhetorical purposes but, as with your other comments in reply to my post above, they suggest that engaging with the issues may be of less interest to you than polemics. Your reply to my question What is it that so motivates you to engage in this polemic and why can't you let it go? is very interesting. Either you have missed the point of the question, or you don't stop to think. The latter seems consistent with your style here.

On the other thread on this matter I have just posted a reply to the kind of "expert" pilot statement that you seem to like, namely this one from post #331:but sometimes the impossible and improbable become the possible and inevitable. Stuff happens.I think you like such statements. Sounds good. Sounds safe. Sounds like your kind of pilot. Really good for "proving" your concerns to be well placed. My reply is at post #333 at the following link: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2542821#post2542821

You might care to re-consider what I said above, and your reply, in the light of that post. It might help you understand the difference between unsupported generalised opinion and the significance to an argument of the real, or implied, operational context in which opinions are offered.

thePassenger

26th Apr 2006, 08:53

If you have the interest and impartiality to inquire you can find that out. It has nothing to do with the immediate issues under discussion - it is a separate matter that arose during the same flight. The fact that you would cite that out of context - in other words the safety context is relevant regardless of other issues during this flight - suggests you really don't get the point of how "safety is done". In fact you are probably even going to argue that it is not out of context.

Well, it was only a rhetorical question. Of course I have found out what happened (provided the information offered on different sites is true):

For example:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_10_19/ai_n12941248
(and doesn´t that mean that "BA crew training on fuel management in non-standard situations" should have been modified PRIOR to an "incident"?)

But still even their summary was:

"That said, and with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the BA jet could have landed at O'Hare or John F. Kennedy International and spent the time en route getting the passengers set up for onward connections"

thePassenger

26th Apr 2006, 09:41

thePassenger, quips like that are good for rhetorical purposes but, as with your other comments in reply to my post above, they suggest that engaging with the issues may be of less interest to you than polemics. Your reply to my question is very interesting. Either you have missed the point of the question, or you don't stop to think. The latter seems consistent with your style here.

On the other thread on this matter I have just posted a reply to the kind of "expert" pilot statement that you seem to like, namely this one from post #331:I think you like such statements. Sounds good. Sounds safe. Sounds like your kind of pilot. Really good for "proving" your concerns to be well placed. My reply is at post #333 at the following link: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2542821#post2542821

You might care to re-consider what I said above, and your reply, in the light of that post. It might help you understand the difference between unsupported generalised opinion and the significance to an argument of the real, or implied, operational context in which opinions are offered.
I read your post at the link you provided. You are right, it is an argument for caution (and I also think that twin-engined operations were a step in the wrong direction, though Boeing tries to prove on their website that the 777 is more reliable (not necessarily safer) than the A340).
When you speak of "quantifiable in terms of risk, redundancy" you must draw a line somewhere - what is acceptable (safe) and what is not. I just think that you should move that line a LITTLE BIT more towards the "safe" - side. Unfortunately the line seems to have been moved a LITTLE BIT towards the "unsafe" - side. In the end it is an economical consideration: if using 6 engines on an aircraft were for free (in all respects) then we would see 6-engined jets...
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf95/383880_web.pdf

GGV

26th Apr 2006, 13:54

I just think that you should move that line a LITTLE BIT more towards the "safe" - side. On what criterion? Why just a little bit? Why not a lot? This thread is one of at least three in which opinions are expressed in absolutes in which "a little bit" of anything is not the issue, but rather sweeping statements about bad, reckless, self-serving, commercially-driven, stupid, ill-informed, etc. decisions. I disagree with such assessments of the decisions made by this crew.

Skunkie

26th Apr 2006, 18:41

I think the whole matter (reg also GGV posts on this and other thread mentioned) -if the real concern is safety of two engines jets overseas and safety in general- should be switched to a "builders of such a/cs-boeing or airbus doesn't matter- forum"....they probably will reassure people like The Passenger much more than pilots themselves. They can only deal, as better as they can, with machines they didn' t built. They can be the best pilots, safety rules followers and decision makers of the world, but if they got an "unlikely" aircraft they themselves cannot give you 100% of certainty.

skunkie

wotsyors

27th Apr 2006, 01:26

Having only scanned the contents here may l ask "thePassenger" why "The passenger" sometimes gets on the wrong aircraft?

tournesol

27th Apr 2006, 18:12

The passenger,
I am not a BA pilot, but a pilot nevertheless. I do have a certain proffessional similarity with the BA pilots that you are criticizing. I don't think you have a clou on what you are talking about.
Pilots all over the world (the only profession that I am aware of) have to undergo a number of rigourous checks, bi-annually and anually for some of the checks. With the support of our colleagues such as engineers, cabin crew, air traffic controllers, etc... we have produced the safest means of tranportaion, ever.
If you don't fly BA, that is your prerogative, but trust me the airlines you choose to fly with won't be much different than BA.
Now why don't you leave us pilots enjoying our discussions in our own pilot's language? :D

Stoic

29th Apr 2006, 22:46

Dear The Passenger

As a long-retired BA Captain, may I cordially suggest that you change your soubriquet from "The Passenger" to "A Passenger", and shut up.

I have total confidence, as do all my friends and acquaintances, in my former colleagues, especially those who are fortunate, or wise enough, to fly four-engined aeroplanes across the inhospitable regions of our wonderful planet.

Kind regards

Stoic

Pilot PW

30th Apr 2006, 08:57

I am only a student pilot so forgive me if you feel it inapropriate for me to comment but when you say you don't like pilots playing with your life please just remember that its our lives too. We go through vast amounts of training so that we dont put anyone at risk. Please trust me you can not half-arse the training if you dont understand then you dont qualify!

The list of accidents/incidents that you shared on your initial post reminds me of the importance of my training and i'm sure, as you said, the list could go on however i imagine the list of successful flights thanks to pilots doing their jobs is far longer.

Thorny

3rd May 2006, 14:49

In response to ‘The Passenger’ I would just like to say how grateful I am to the professionalism and dedication of pilots.

The comments by this person were out of all proportion and out of order.

If the media were to cover every successful flight, not just accidents there would not be enough hours in the day to fit them all in!

This person lists about ten or so accidents or pilot errors. Well, what about the thousands upon thousands of successful flights every day?

Yes, plane crashes are always a tragedy but you have to put it in a wider context. Some 3,000 people died on British roads last year alone yet in the ENTIRE WORLD only around 1,000 people died in plane crashes. If that does not highlight air safety nothing will.

Next time I step aboard an airliner I know that I will have some of the most highly skilled and dedicated people at the flight controls. Pilots, put our safety first and I congratulate them (you) for their work.

thePassenger

6th May 2006, 09:28

On what criterion? Why just a little bit? Why not a lot?
"A lot" would be even better, of course. But the answer to your question is: economical reasons. "If it is cheaper to kill a few people, then we kill them"! No, this is not something I say or even would like to say but something an NTSB-inspector said on TV (I think it was in connection with the TWA-800-accident, if I remember correctly)...

thePassenger

6th May 2006, 09:32

The list of accidents/incidents that you shared on your initial post reminds me of the importance of my training and i'm sure, as you said, the list could go on however i imagine the list of successful flights thanks to pilots doing their jobs is far longer.
...and I think with your attitude you will probably be (become) a GOOD pilot!

Tigs2

7th May 2006, 11:48

A quick question for the MODS

Why have my posts to passenger been eradicated, and indeed his replies to me. They would have been post numbers 190 or so. Normally if a post is taken off there is a reason and at least a pm is sent.

My posts was not out of order, can anyone explain.
I further reiterate my last post,
Why is it that all of The passengers posts for the last 6 pages read number of posts 52?? Is this a wind up, is he a hacker? Since i posted this question my posts have dissappeared from this thread. I will send this through to a MOD for an answer please. Something fishy going on here me thinks.:confused:

mckrll

7th May 2006, 12:23

Mine too Tigs.

In fact it looks like all posts between 30th April and yesterday (6th May) have been deleted.

Any reason?

Andrew

john_tullamarine

7th May 2006, 13:04

Tigs2 and mckrll,

Reasons are given in the deletions but note that the posts are "hidden" in the background ... if the powers that be should so dictate, said posts can be restored.

My posts was [sic] not out of order, can anyone explain

With respect, I took a contrary view.

Basic concern is that we don't really want threads in this forum degenerating into slanging matches. While I would never want to see the forum become a stilted and staid place, it is not the appropriate avenue for fire and brimstone .. There are other places where such banter is welcome ..

As I read it thePassenger has not resorted to other than polite and pertinent posts .. you may not agree with his views (or indeed my assessment of his posts) ... and my opinion of/agreement with his posts' content is not relevant. My discussions with him off line have satisfied me that he is neither a hacker nor any other sort of nefarious character whom we ought to preclude from the site ..

Provided that

(i) the topic is relevant to flying and the forum's thrust, and

(ii) posts are polite and pertinent to the topic

then they stay. Otherwise, they may be subject to mod edit or removal at mod discretion. In my view, your recent posts (which I deleted) added little, if anything, to the topic and are in the nature of the sort of posts we would prefer not to see in this forum .. ergo deleted .. You are, of course, free to put your case to those at the top of the totem pole and we mods will abide by any direction filtering down therefrom.

So far as the number of posts is concerned, that number remains constant within a thread .. as would be evident if you checked on any other poster's stats within this thread. Like you, I found that a bit confusing when I first realised that that was the way the stats worked.

In spite of the feelings of some of the posters regarding his posts' content, while posts are within the bounds of this forum's social mores, he (and anyone else) is welcome to put his views to the readership. It is, of course, an available option for those who disagree with his thoughts to choose not to post or, indeed, not the read the thread at all. Alternatively, if you disagree, the preferred option is to put a rational argument against the views .. but not rant and cant.

Sorry, buddy, but that's the way this site works .. and it is NOT a democracy .. although we err that way in this forum ... JT

Tigs2

7th May 2006, 18:30

Whatever John

I am afraid that Passengers original post :

As a passenger, I had to register on this forum because I know understand why so many people have a fear of flying and prefer to take trains or drive cars. Some of the real world pilots here have such a condescending, impertinent way of speaking and such an over-self-confidence that I would not like to have them as pilots on a flight I am on. I simply would not trust them to be safe pilots and I would not like to be a passenger on a British Airways flight ever again, that´ s for sure!

If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight and I only would have hoped that BA would have been fined a much larger sum!

If pilots are such heroes and have no problems with "unusual situations" why do they switch off the wrong engine (British Midland, 1989), begin a takeoff without having the permission to do it (KLM, Tenerife, 1977), stall airplanes (Birgenair, 1996/ Northwest Orient, 1974/BEA, 1972), fly until they run out of fuel (Avianca, 1990/Antillian Airlines, 1970), land with retracted landing gear(Contintental Airlines, 1996), forget to configure flaps for departure (Northwest Airlines, 1987), land at the wrong airport or do other crazy things. The list is endless. Often an accident is initiated by a seemingly irrelevant incident.

In short: a little bit more caution and modesty would be much appreciated by the poor passengers. I don´t like pilots to play with MY life! I like cautious pilots who would rather return to the depature airport than try to save their company some money!

As far as i am concerned this post is neither polite nor pertinent to this forum. If your criteria for 'polite' is that someone does not use expletives then that is fine, however i find this post, coming from someone who self confesses to know nothing of the aviation industry, both sweepingly judgemental and rude. If you also consider that it is pertinent for someone with no knowledge of aviation accidents or CRM/Human Factors to state that in the incidents he mentions that pilots did 'crazy things' then i throw the towel in. This person has come onto a pilots forum with sweeping statements about an industry he knows nothing about, and judging all and sundry on 'backseat knowledge'. If you consider that fair John then that is fine, however i consider it fair that he should be aware of the anger he has induced in many many professional aviators. Frankly, considering the purpose of this entire site, i am a little dissappointed.

G-AVIN

7th May 2006, 20:06

As another "passenger" forgive me for posting on this thread but please professional avaitors do not tar all SLF with the same brush !
Some of us do respect your skills and attitudes and would not dream of "lecturing" about something which we only see from the outside.
:ok:

john_tullamarine

7th May 2006, 22:27

Tigs2,

Your view is respected but we must continue to disagree.

Had you read the entire thread you would be aware that part of thePassenger's agenda has been to provoke a stimulated discussion on the subject which is his interest. Note I am not suggesting whether or not I agree with his theses, merely that his posts have not been out of order and, indeed, have provoked considerable discussion.

His thoughts are not as Industry folk might think but is that a failing or merely a reflection of a different personal background ? In any case, is it not a sad reflection on those posters who claim an inside knowledge of how things work in the Industry if they are not able to refute other (and perceived erroneous) views in a rational and logical manner .. without resorting to rant and cant ?

I suggest that your views may be a tad insular ..

By polite, I mean only that a post is acceptable in terms of

(a) those matters which figure in discrimination considerations

(b) no overt sarcasm, general anti-social commentary, etc.

.. that is to say posts are expected to adhere to a presumed standard which would not cause any of our grey-haired grandmothers to think undue ill of us .. certainly polite does not mean a post cannot contain thoughts which will stir up a vigorous discussion.

By pertinent, I mean only that the

(a) subject material is relevant to the forum, ie safety, CRM, or QA

(b) post contains no overtly time-wasting digression, repetition, or drivel.

As always, with these forums, I invite you to put your dissatisfaction to those further up the food chain for review .. after all, like you, I am but a guest here.

threegreenlights

7th May 2006, 22:42

We often hear about the muppets, wind-up merchants and suchlike laying waste to our PPrune site, but The Passenger has seemingly genuine queries and worries that he wants to articulate and find some answers to. Since he is a fare-paying passenger and entitled to his opinion, whether one likes it or not, we should be trying to allay his fears about the industry with reasoned argument.

We may not like him criticising but surely (as Mr Tullamarine has intimated) he should be answered politely, professionally and not with a pompous attitude that is, sadly, often too prevalent on these threads from people old, experienced and educated enough to know better.

Conan The Barber

7th May 2006, 23:04

As I was saying.....

(Cue Irving Berlin) Anything you can do, I can do better...........

Is that the point, is there a point? Absolutes there are not, pontiffs there are plenty, even. So it goes, by means of the master pontiff, and companion. As was said, known, to be sure. The contrarian roaming free. Hand in hand, beautiful, is it, not.

Cramped those Canadairs are too, no?

paco

8th May 2006, 01:47

I must confess that, as far as the original post goes, I am with The Passenger. However, being an insider and a CRMI, I also know that in the incidents mentioned of which I have any knowledge, the pilots were at the end of a chain and had to sort out things to the best of their abilities. The root cause of the Air Transat running out of fuel started with engineers ignoring the maintenance manual and putting the wrong pipe on the engine, allthough, I grant you, the Captain also didn't use the checklists properly.

The Kegworth? Company procedures, according to one poster above, including the company culture that ensured that hosties didn't feel able to speak to the flight deck because the girls that started off with the company were slowly being removed and replaces with those who would behave in just that way. I know that because I was working out of EMA before it happened and knew a lot of Orion girls who came from there and knew what was going on - it was common knowledge at the time.

Tenerife? The KLM captain was normally engaged on training duties and had not done line flying for a while. He should not have been there without proper company briefing procedures.

I could go on, but for the remainder of cases, the big issue that people seem to have ignored that there are stupid pilots out there, just as there are stupid doctors and solicitors (and politicians!). Having a certificate doesn't mean that you make good decisions as a matter of course.

The Passenger has a right to be concerned, and as I am a frequent passenger I could easily find myself asking the same questions, especially when I know the background. And it will only get worse as most of the newcomers are frantically trying to take short cuts by learning answers to exam questions instead of learning the material. I find that a seriious CRM issue, as it indicates a certain attitude. However, that is off thread.

Phil

john_tullamarine

8th May 2006, 02:04

Phil, that is precisely one of the main reasons why I have encouraged the thread ... I would go so far as to suggest that you are spot on the thread's importance ... the methodology behind and philosophy of decision making (in this case for continuation of flight following a systems failure) .... the specific story of the 747 is just the vehicle for the thread's concern.

My thoughts ..

(a) the crew is (should be ?) well trained, competent, etc., but, potentially, is always fallable .. which is why we need checks and balances to protect us from our own human failings

(b) the crew is part of a system which, in the ideal world, ought to be stronger and better than the sum of the parts

(c) the system is never perfect as evidenced by our constant tinkering with it to iron out the bugs

(d) commercial pressures are getting harder and harder for the technocrats to fight and many of us have a great concern at the dumbing down of the technical crew base worldwide .. not saying that we are right in that concern .. but we have a concern nonetheless

(e) the passengers pay the rent .. so, whether we like it or not .. they have a right to question the system .. albeit often without detailed insider knowledge of just what goes on in here .. a bit like the medical patient's right to make an informed decision .. regardless of just how technically informed that decision really may be. As much as some of us might aspire to the paternalistic views of Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen (".. don't you worry about that ...") life just doesn't run that way any more ....

paco

8th May 2006, 13:13

John - Taking your last point, I would not normally tell the taxi driver how to get around London, unless it is obvious that he is either dangerous or incompetent, at which point I reserve the right to step in with some wall-to-wall counselling.

Contrary to popular belief, your licence does not cover you for every situation you might encounter - rather, it gives you enough training to be able to make your own decisions, hopefully good ones, hence the importance of training.

I, too am concerned about technical training - I'm a helicopter TRE and it frightens me how many people are flying around having been taught on myth and legend.

phil

thePassenger

10th May 2006, 16:29

@ John Tullamarine
Strangely you are one of the very few here who understood the reasons for my postings. Probably some of my posts were too provoking (my fault) for many pilots here, so most people did not concentrate on rational arguments when replying but instead felt personally attacked and reacted in an irrational way (I hope their employers will never appoint them to participate in a TV-discussion dealing with aviation safety - strangling their discussion participants will not make a very good impression :rolleyes: ).

@Tigs2
I would not say that I have no knowledge of aviation accidents or CRM/Human Factors. I may have exaggerated my ignorance just a little bit. I guess, I have also exaggerated my fears a little bit...probably I have exaggerated EVERYTHING a little bit to provoke discussion. Unfortunately the result was not "discussion" (as I had intended) but calling names, losing one´s cool head etc

@many here:
I repeatedly asked pilots here to prove that I was wrong. Nobody cared to answer those questions in a rational way or nobody could prove that I was wrong. Regarding the 3-engines-747, which started this whole topic there have been at least some (rational) attempts to prove that this flight was O.K. (though one still can have a different opinion, which I have: as a passenger I definitely would have preferred to land in "New York" instead of having to risk a landing in "New Gimli"...). Of course in all the accidents, I cited, their have been contributing factors and it was never "pilot error" alone. But as in this example from the Kegworth-report:

The cause of the accident was that the operating crew shut down the No.2 engine after a fan blade had fractured in the No.1 engine. This engine subsequently suffered major thrust loss due to secondary fan damage as power was increased during the final approach to land.

The following factors contributed to the incorrect response of the flight crew:

(http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_502831.pdf)
...pilot error was the primary cause of all those accidents (and many others, like the Cali-accident: http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/calirep.html)

I don´t say this to "bash the pilots" but because it is so easy to become a victim of "contributing factors" (like being "low on fuel", maybe?):

Contributing to the cause of the accident were: 1. The flightcrew's ongoing efforts to expedite their approach and landing in order to avoid potential delays.

There would still be interesting things to discuss concerning safety but I know this will not happen here (at least not as long as my name shows up here).
Therefore, please feel free to bash me now, this time I PROMISE, I will not return and I will not read this thread any longer! Good times are coming!
thePassenger (a.k.a. "idiot")

GGV

10th May 2006, 18:28

My problem with thePassenger was not that he may have an interest in Air Safety, but that his arguments, statements and responses had a certain irresolvable and circular quality to them. This looked, to me at least, like he had not chosen to do much learning, and was obscuring the fact that he actually has a number of well-formed opinions which he wished to exercise here (for whatever reason). In other words, in addition to his undoubted air safety interest he may have had an additional interest. Whether or not I am right is irrelevant – but I thought it best to start by being honest about my approach to somebody who simply did not seem to learn and who adopted a particular tone here on pprune. I think, in fact, that this has really been a bit of a time-wasting exercise.

However, it is only reasonable to at least try to justify what I have said. Clearly the main clue to how badly “calibrated” his judgments are can be seen from the pejorative characterisation of a number of accidents which he offers, the language he uses and the judgments he expresses. There are several authoritative sources he could use to inform himself about these events, if he wished. In this regard his opinions were of no substance and that seems to have been forgotten by some who wished to engage with him. The fact that he could dip into an accident report and quote bits does not necessarily make for a persuasive argument. He was fearless in deriding the opinion of experienced B744 pilots, which was at least courageous.

When I asked him about his apparent willingness – even compulsion – to return to this thread, he either misunderstood or dodged my query. He talked in generalities and his arguments were thus difficult to assess. When I tried to tackle him about his generalised arguments, I said:

It [a particular post] might help you understand the difference between unsupported generalised opinion and the significance [of arguments/opinions rooted in an operational context]. When I pointed out that safety is quantifiable, so as to ensure that you are at least trying to measure or compare like with like, he replied:
When you speak of "quantifiable in terms of risk, redundancy" you must draw a line somewhere - what is acceptable (safe) and what is not. I just think that you should move that line a LITTLE BIT more towards the "safe" - side. Then I pointed out that this – “a LITTLE BIT” – needs some measurable dimension by which one could assess the need for movement and asked how much would be required; I said “On what criterion? Why just a little bit? Why not a lot?”

He replied: "A lot" would be even better, of course.” He then provided an ostensible answer to why movement does not occur:
“But the answer to your question is: economical reasons.” To my mind this exchange is a demonstration of why thePassenger did not merit any more attention. He was simply throwing out generalities (and some unjustified attacks on pilots), but these were presented in such a way that there could never be an end or resolution to any “discussion” with him. He claimed he wanted proof that he was wrong, but never seemed to see or hear the argument.

He is right about the fact that a loss of cool on the part of some here (and personal attacks) are not of much use to anybody, but seems oblivious of his role in creating “contributing factors” to such attacks. It was all too easy, in my opinion, to share the frustration of the poster who invited him “to change your soubriquet … and shut up”.

An excellent example of how to create such frustration is the claim in his final post above: I repeatedly asked pilots here to prove that I was wrong. Nobody cared to answer those questions in a rational way or nobody could prove that I was wrong. (Errr… “nobody” ... not a single contributor?). I think all parties will now be happy. He is happy that we failed to “prove” him wrong in a “rational” way. Some of us might just be happy because he is gone.

Gufo

10th May 2006, 19:47

Certainly passengers SHOULD have a say in such a matter

Sure, that's lovely and appreciated. Just don't pretend to be right when professionals (humans, but professionals) keep on telling you that you're not. You obviously have problems with flying, or the psychological fallback of it.

There is nothing we could reasonably tell you to ease this on this pages, except "OK, You are right, BA is a branch of b****hit", which we could easily do all together, but would have very little resonance with reality.

Now, my humble advice is, let alone this BA issue, it's only an apparent problem for you; your Lee Harvey Oswald.
If you really want to face your flight phobias, face them directly. SPEAK to the pilots, face to face, don't just poison your brain with the press (no pun intended, oh well..). Visit a flight school, maybe start training for a PPL. I can tell you, flying an aircraft (whatever) isn't tough, it's just COMPLICATED. Lots of things, from different fields, gathering together. There is little you could understand objectively, if you had no chance to "smell the flavour". And no way if you're heavily disturbed by your irrationality (great thing, I love mine, but it's an obstacle, here).

I'll be pleased to discuss these issues with you again. I would be one of those who would sign up to talk to you, if this could help. And it would, trust me.

Take care :ok:

klink

10th May 2006, 20:35

Thank you!:ok:

Tigs2

11th May 2006, 16:03

Pasenger
What is your experience in Human Factors?? You once again quote Kegworth, you prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Passenger, do you know why the fan blade cracked??
Do you know why the pilots shut down the wrong engine??
Do you know why the pilots were staisfied they had shut down in their minds the correct engine??
Are you aware of the lack of training on type the pilots had recieved??
Are you aware of the unreliability of instrumentation (vibration gauges) on the previous model of aircraft??
Are you aware of the distractions from ATC that contributed to the pilots not completeing a full review of the situation??

I think the answer is NO! Therefore as i said in my original post which the MOD seemed not to like, You profess to know much, but you know nothing, and even when faced with advice and information from professionals, you refuse to accept it.

The cause of any crash can always be put down to the pilots as they are the last ones with their hands on the controls, however, if you read reports which were later discredited, and then do no further research their is not much i can do. I do not think you exaggerated your ignorance of Human Error, i really believe you know nothing of the subject.

flyingbug

12th May 2006, 17:15

Thanks Thorny,

your post was appreciated.

FB

Tigs2

12th May 2006, 17:22

Thanks Thorny

What a nice thing to say, Cheers:ok: :ok:

flyingbug

12th May 2006, 17:32

God, I must be sad.

I've just had the misfortune to read this thread almost in its entirety. Boring, psuedo-intelectual posts by "the passenger", with no listed credentials to back up pseudo-theories.
In the interests of good manners, may I say thank you to "the passenger" for taking the time to enlighten me so eliquently.

FB

SLFguy

12th May 2006, 17:41

God, I must be sad. FB

Well I'll leave you to be the judge of that...:}

Actually I think that it has been a well conducted argument/debate, call it what you will, on the side of 'thepassenger' - no vitriol - no tantrums.

Some other posts have been informative and have addressed points he has raised - which I guess it what these fora are all about.

Your post however, served no purpose at all.

It would a shame if this thread died because 'thepassenger' got fed up to the back teeth with some of the 'toys out of the pram' mentality that has been manifest on these pages.

flyingbug

12th May 2006, 18:03

Actually, the toys aren't out of the pram, however, as the passenger stated himself, some of his threads/arguments were intentionally provocative. As that was his intention, there can be no surprises that many people felt upset.

Tigs2

12th May 2006, 18:04

Flyingbug
you are absolutely correct.

SLFguy, i disagree with you completely. As your profile states you are a beancounter, if that is the case and your handle SLF is Self Loading Freight then there is a forum where you and the Passenger can pontificate on our professionalism as much as you like, please go there.

Flyingbug
my theory is that the passenger must be a psychiatrist. His purpose is to drive us insane with his pseudo-theories. His next post will be to advertise counselling services to pilots who are feeling anger towards unqualified passengers who make unqualified posts.

Redgoblin

12th May 2006, 21:14

I have decided to register so I can voice my opinion on this thread.

To start with a have to mention that I’m not a pilot, however I have an interest in Aviation…

The Passenger started off on a particular bad footing with you ‘pilots’ here which I think is particularly not such a wise idea considering the fact that it’s a pilots forum.

However,

Just because someone happens to drive a plane, or has technical skills in this area it doesn’t give them the right to be aloof and up his/her butt when in discussion in an open forum, especially in regard of safety unless you happen to be talking about the technical aspect of a plane, or piloting in general…

The same can be said about the other thread with the journo who wants to write something about a particular accident (Helios)…

It would seem that the condescending attitudes that some ‘pilots’ have towards other human beings lead me to believe that some are a just a bunch of gung-ho cowboys.

You see technical as some people tend to be, the only difference that separates us from the monkeys is the car keys, or in this case it’s maybe the pilots licence. Now I’m not saying this to all pilots here, but to some that need to know that every now and again they are just like the rest of us.

For starters a pilot although skilful in the art of flying a metal box around the sky, is not the most qualified person to speak about issues of safety. Yes he/she may be knowledgeable in a particular craft type he/she happens to be flying, and also about airfields and the like but it does not necessarily make him an expert as it does the PAX, or anyone else for that matter. For example an engineer might have more knowledge in this area as he/she works with materials.

Now then, we all know that statistically a plane is much safer than a ride in an automobile and that to a lot of people (pilots or non pilots) have no issue with flying. However to some people the fear of flying in very real. I myself have no fear about flying although I do have issues about dying. And no I don’t think this fear is irrational although some PAX behaviour might be considered so in this regard, especially when they worry the flight crew with their bizarre antics.

I think the real crux of the matter is not really about flying itself, but control.

In an automobile you generally get to see the person who is controlling it, if there is an accident and the driver dies, and the other people in the vehicle are safe it can be assumed (so long as they are not hurt) that they could walk away, or be rescued. In an airplane if the pilots and the crew are killed, the PAX have no chance at 35,000ft unless the plane is so god damn good it can land itself (Airbus anyone?) :P

In which case why use pilots in the first place, if not an issue with safety or the presumption that just because a person is up front that the computer is not as good as a human. Airbus pilots have mentioned not only on this forum but on countless others that the computer is quicker then they are. I myself would have no problem flying in a wire only system that was foolproof with no human pilots at all so long as statistically they were better than their human counterparts, which raises another question of mine. A hell of a lot of airplane incidents are caused by pilot error. So should airlines remove humans altogether from flying them.

Also flying isn’t as genetically ‘natural’ as ground based otherwise god or whoever would have given us wings…
The irrational fear of flying is a culmination of these various fear aspects combined. Some people has issues of depressurisation, or being sucked out of a plane, some have fears of landing in water, terrorists… the list is endless, however I really doubt that my car is going to be targeted on land by terrorists or hit a large body of water at speed…etc.
Statistics might say one thing, but gut feelings and common sense should also be a factor when considering just how ‘irrational’ the non pilot person is.

So my ten penny worth is aimed squarely at you pilots who now and again need to know how to treat others and stop being so aloof guys. Yes it’s amazing you can pilots those birds but you are monkeys like the rest of us..

Go eat Banana!

:ugh:

Bealzebub

13th May 2006, 00:48

Redgoblin,

In replying to your question I think it is taking this thread a little off base, however after 200 plus posts there is a certain inevitability in that I suppose.

However to try and address your points :

The Passenger started off on a particular bad footing with you ‘pilots’ here which I think is particularly not such a wise idea considering the fact that it’s a pilots forum.

However,

Just because someone happens to drive a plane, or has technical skills in this area it doesn’t give them the right to be aloof and up his/her butt when in discussion in an open forum, especially in regard of safety unless you happen to be talking about the technical aspect of a plane, or piloting in general…

This is the nature of the beast I am afraid. As you say this is primarily a pilots forum but it is open to other groups. In fact be it a pilot a passenger or anyone else they can be as aloof as they like. In fact as long as the forum rules are generally complied with, they can adopt any stance they want. Being a non visual medium in the face to face sense, forums such as these are frequently open to misinterpretation and are very often misused by design or accident. Sometimes people are not what they claim to be in either corner, and those that are, are often loathe to waste too much time constructing a reasoned arguement that is in competition with the nonsense merchants.

It would seem that the condescending attitudes that some ‘pilots’ have towards other human beings lead me to believe that some are a just a bunch of gung-ho cowboys.

Not only pilots but most of those other human beings as well. Outsiders wandering into a tribe, be it a pilots forum, your local pub, an office or a group of mountain gorillas are frequently treated with suspicion, mistrust and inate hostility until a credential has been established. Again the nature of the internet and forums such as these is that there is little need to apply all the protocols that an invividual would normally do in a real life discusion or meeting. A normally meek and mild individual can come on here and be a complete extrovert, just as anybody else can adopt a posture that may be far removed from their true character.

Most pilots are definetaly not "gung ho cowboys" in their daily jobs they wouldn't last long if they were. your perception is erroneous because you are making the assumption that usernames on a open forum are indicitive of the true persona of the person behind them and that is not always the case.

You see technical as some people tend to be, the only difference that separates us from the monkeys is the car keys, or in this case it’s maybe the pilots licence. Now I’m not saying this to all pilots here, but to some that need to know that every now and again they are just like the rest of us

A bad anology in my opinion. I think putting the keys in the ignition often brings us much closer to our simian cousins than we would like to admit. A lot of ordinarily sensible individuals turn into rage fuelled overcompetitive survivalists once they get behind the wheel. Probably to some extent most of us do because we are locked in our own private environment and feel enhanced in our performance and protected from reprisal. In fact much like participating on the forums.

For starters a pilot although skilful in the art of flying a metal box around the sky, is not the most qualified person to speak about issues of safety. Yes he/she may be knowledgeable in a particular craft type he/she happens to be flying, and also about airfields and the like but it does not necessarily make him an expert as it does the PAX, or anyone else for that matter. For example an engineer might have more knowledge in this area as he/she works with materials.

Well I am afraid often it does. Particularly in matters of flying that metal box around the sky. whether it makes him an "expert" or not, it is likely the individual has a very high concern for such matters and with experience a likely wealth of knowledge, opinion and comment on safety related issues in this regard. An engineer would very likely have a better knowledge of specialist related issues and this is undisputed, however the operation of those systems is the day to day raison d'etre for the pilot.

I think the real crux of the matter is not really about flying itself, but control.

In an automobile you generally get to see the person who is controlling it, if there is an accident and the driver dies, and the other people in the vehicle are safe it can be assumed (so long as they are not hurt) that they could walk away, or be rescued. In an airplane if the pilots and the crew are killed, the PAX have no chance at 35,000ft unless the plane is so god damn good it can land itself (Airbus anyone?) :P

In which case why use pilots in the first place, if not an issue with safety or the presumption that just because a person is up front that the computer is not as good as a human. Airbus pilots have mentioned not only on this forum but on countless others that the computer is quicker then they are. I myself would have no problem flying in a wire only system that was foolproof with no human pilots at all so long as statistically they were better than their human counterparts, which raises another question of mine. A hell of a lot of airplane incidents are caused by pilot error. So should airlines remove humans altogether from flying them.

Fear is often born out of a lack of understanding and inability to contol. Hopefully understanding can be sought out to alleviate the former aspect which should help mitigate the perception or reality of lack of control.

Computers are quicker than humans that is why we use them in aircraft, cars, offices and nuclear power stations etc. However just like the humans who design them they are prone to failure. Unlike humans who can adapt to failure, computers and their programes are often very poor at adapting to any sort of complex failure. To revert back to the last paragraph that emotion of "fear" is not something a computer has, and it is a great motivator for the human being as it is one of the survival basics.
Maybe one day in the future computers will be so reliable that they can perform these functions without pilots, but in public transport that day is unlikely to be anytime soon and unlikely to affect me or you. when you talk of wire systems, you are in fact referring to a flying control toolbox that doesnt substitute for the pilot, it substitutes for hydraulic pipes and metal cables and uses a few computer enhancements to provide some other stability functions. Again a case of better understanding.

So my ten penny worth is aimed squarely at you pilots who now and again need to know how to treat others and stop being so aloof guys. Yes it’s amazing you can pilots those birds but you are monkeys like the rest of us..

Go eat Banana!

Ok but my reply is aimed squarely at you, who as you have admitted are wandering into an arena populated by professional pilots and others to proffer opinion and comment. You are entitled to do this and I hope you are treated with respect for the most part. However the pilots in these forums can likewise be "aloof" if they wish or seem to be, you are a visitor in their playground. "Piloting these birds" ( first time I have ever said that !) is what brings our egos, alter egos,and personas to these forums. The fascination of the subject matter is presumably what brings you. In reality we know what what we are, and our strengths and shortcomings are as individual to us within a professional collective as they are to any other section of the community. We do receive a lot of formal training in interpersonal and safety issues, these we often speak of as CRM but it is a very wide subject with a common goal.

If you want to join us go ahead. If you want to criticize go ahead. But while you are enjoying that banana remember not to confuse everything you read on these forums with either real life or real personas. People are becoming frightened of the word "discrimination" these days because of the negative associations. In fact it is the basis of common sense and judgement. If you use it well in the real world then use it here to sift the fact from the fiction and the diamonds from the spoil.

Yours aloofly. ;)

LuckyStrike

13th May 2006, 01:39

After reading much of what is written here, I see communication as the only problem. The professional side did their best to explain too technical things to the not-so-professionals. They could have just shrugged and walked away or say it is total rubbish but they didn't, so at the least this shows their professionalism and their good intentions.

Now, what people fear is mostly the things they do not know basically. That fear still stays with you though, even you know what's going on and you have gone over it lots of times. It should be there to make you cautious; maybe a pilot's fears are different than a passanger's but all in the end it comes down to a safe operation anyway. So I wouldn't agree with the term that has been used for pilots here, no I don't think they are gung-ho cowboys...

Thinking about driving a car and flying a plane, I don't see much difference at all; you should always practice extreme caution and the slightest mistake can cost lives. However aircrafts are much more complicated pieces of machinery and one expects this as they use 3 dimensions in space rather than 2 dimensions in the case of ground vehicles.

I will try to simplify the case by giving this example (let me know if I get anything wrong please):

Say you have a car (for the sake of discussion and comparison to a 4-engine aircraft) with an engine that has 4 cylinders. Now you will have 4 spark plugs. Let's say one developed a problem and won't fire, meaning now you have only 3 cylinders out of 4, working OK. Does that mean that the car won't go or climb any hills? Of course not, it just means you have up to 25% less power, more fuel consumption... Will you be able to pin-point the problem right away? Most probably not so you will take it to a mechanic.

Now consider a 4 engine aircraft which losses one of the engines. Will the plane drop out of the sky? If there are no other problems that is simply not possible. Will you know the problem right away? Yes because you have an access to monitoring every essential part of an airplane. Do you have the luxury to talk to maintenance right away? Oh yes and it is such a nice thing (wish we had the same things for cars too)...

The obvious part, to me, is how good can you monitor a thing let it be any piece of machinery. If you have a good monitoring of what's going on most probably you will be able to take the necessary steps to prevent an unfortunate event.

Lastly I would like to say the safe flight of an aircraft is accomplished by a team of people. If there is something wrong at any place the whole thing can go down; so it is not always who is behind the "wheel".

Avius

13th May 2006, 05:27

Bealzebub:

nice post and very accurate as well. Nice to see someone with such a patience after some 200 posts. I must admit, that I gave up writing extensive explanations, but I would surely endorse what you said (I certainly couldn't do it as well as you did).:D

Redgoblin:

As Bealzebub correctly described, it is bad analogy to compare driving a car and flying an aiplane.:= Not surprisingly, that mistake is exclusively made by non-pilots.

I guess it would be as similar to riding a bike with training wheels (which my 2 year old can do) and driving a heavy loaded multi axle truck. Both are a means of transportation from A to B, but that's where the similarities end.

Moving heavy equipment with large payload (i.e. Freight, Passengers) in a 3 dimensional environment at high speeds through all sorts of weather and across multiple cultural/lingual areas while relying in part on verbal communication (Air Traffic Control) to build situational awareness has an entirely different flavor than driving a car around town.

Anyone who disagrees with that has either never flown an airplane or has tried to fly one and failed miserably in his/her first flying lessons.

The latter breed tends to be very noisy about how simple the whole flying thing is and while they never lose interest in aviation itself, they just might use any aviation related discussion to restore their dented egos. (Now that's a little of topic, but some of the posts on this thread just remind me again and again)

Luckystrike:

Luckily, in most modern airplanes we have quite advanced warning systems which will inform us quite accurately what went wrong. However, we still go through a protocol of diagnostics to double check. If time is no factor, we might consult with engineering via satelite phone for any suggestions they might have. They have the ability to look into the aircraft systems from the ground while the aircraft is in flight.

Then we review what Options we have under the given circumstances. Then we decide what option we feel is the best and assign tasks to the people involved.

Before we take any action at all we review the diagnosis again to reassure that the actions we are about to take are the ones which will solve the problem as we intended. For the rest of the flight we keep monitoring the situation and if necessary, take corrective action according to the same process as described above.

Now this might sound like a long process but in reality, it could be minutes or sometimes even seconds. The reason it can be that fast is, that we already decided before the flight as to who will fly and navigate and who will work on the problem while keeping the rest of the crew in the loop.

And you are absolutely right. It is a team effort to make flying as safe as it is today. I mean...putting 500 people in a narrow body of aluminium on the ground is reason enough to be concerned for safety.. now surround that body with 120tons of fuel, put 4 igniters (=engines) on it and send it with 600miles/hour through the air....:hmm: Safety is a big task and needs a lot of good people.

Redgoblin

13th May 2006, 12:10

That’s for the response:
First of all let me say thanks to all that have responded so far, I seriously thought that I would get some nasty responses, especially from the Banana comments that I made. :oh:
However, I got to respect Beelzebub for his well thought out reply. Seriously:D
Getting back to the topic of computers or diagnostics in aircraft does having a computer on board overcomplicate things when flying especially in aspect to safety or emergency situations and do you pilots think sometimes you could do with out them, or do they help. Are they a blessing?

Luckily, in most modern airplanes we have quite advanced warning systems which will inform us quite accurately what went wrong. However, we still go through a protocol of diagnostics to double check. If time is no factor, we might consult with engineering via satelite phone for any suggestions they might have. They have the ability to look into the aircraft systems from the ground while the aircraft is in flight

This must take time, during which the aircraft could be plummeting out of the sky. I’ve seen a documentary on a Canadian airline which dropped out of the sky (Fire on the Netherrealm) and the captain did everything by the book, so much so that he might have prevented disaster if he didn’t go by the book.
I understand that the accident was due to the wiring in the entertainment computer/ and the use of the foil in the wiring ducts, and also they never shut the server off, but even so was the pilot to blame… I would say no quite frankly he followed protocol.
However…
As commercial airline pilots how much say do you get over protocol, and what should and shouldn’t be done by the book? –
I know it’s a difficult question to ask because some emergency situations must be very different. Do you have hypothetical situation training and if so how often is it enforced, and what do you do, have meetings or is it all Sim based. I know some airlines must have different procedures. Do they expect you to train so many Sim hours, or is it just left up to you as a pilot to be ‘aware’.

Thanks

Clandestino

15th May 2006, 21:50

Computers and other sorts of automation make life in cockpit easier but they can and they do fail. So do we think that we can do without them? It's not enough to merely think so - ability to safely fly airplane with automatics disabled must be demonstrated to apropriate aviation authority to get type rated. In layspeak: if you can't fly it without computer, you will not be allowed to fly it at all. And you won't get TR if you don't know how to work your airplane's computers either.

This must take time, during which the aircraft could be plummeting out of the sky.
Well if there's threat of "plummeting out of the sky" one deals with it immediately but guess what - 99.99% of unusal occurences during flight do not include even remote threat of "plummeting". I just had a complete autopilot failure the other day and as you haven't heard of me on CNN you can guess the outcome. But to spoil the guessing game for you - neither cabincrew nor passengers noticed anything unusual despite the airplane being (gosh:rolleyes: ) handflown for almost half an hour. And I'm just your average first-officer, not some highly skilled clone of Chuck Yeager.

Regarding your "Canadian aircraft that dropped of the sky" - that tells everything one needs to know about the credibility of the movie you're refering to. It was certainly not Canadian, it was Swissair flight 111 in 1998. And either you or moviemakers got it wrong; even if the crew turned towards the nearest airport at the first trace of smoke it would be too late. Also there was no way of identifying source of fire and no way to switch off the server from the cockpit even if the crew knew it was the culprit. The cockpit burnt out even before plane hit the water. To say that this made following "protocols" difficult would be severe understatement.

Everything in commercial air transport should be done by the book but then every book has a caveat that says something like: "Nothing presented in this manual should prevent pilot in comand from exercising his/her best judgment and authority in assuring the safe conduct of flight". I'm thankful that situations requiring deviating from the checklist are so rare that I have never met in person any pilot who had to deviate from laid procedures to save the day. And we're not expected to "train so many sim hours", we're required by law to train for emergencies in sim at least twice a year.

Just my 1 fils (0.001 BHD) worth.

AN2 Driver

16th May 2006, 07:40

This must take time, during which the aircraft could be plummeting out of the sky. I’ve seen a documentary on a Canadian airline which dropped out of the sky (Fire on the Netherrealm) and the captain did everything by the book, so much so that he might have prevented disaster if he didn’t go by the book.
I understand that the accident was due to the wiring in the entertainment computer/ and the use of the foil in the wiring ducts, and also they never shut the server off, but even so was the pilot to blame… I would say no quite frankly he followed protocol.

I wonder which documentation you have seen. There was an excellent one by a Canadian and a Swiss aviation reporter, one of the best pieces of aviation journalism made documentation I have ever seen, there was another one by the BBC I think which was also not bad but missed the points I am making below. However, you have gotten several things wrong.

The flight in question was an MD11 operated by Swissair. They developed a "smell" in the cockpit while cruising at 33000 ft after departure from New York Kennedy. That smell came and went, was very difficult to determine. So they decided to land at Halifax. During the descent, they went through the checklists for "Smoke of unknown origin" when the situation very rapidly and seriously deteriorated. At the end, they lost ALL their instrumentation and finally lost control of the aircraft which then crashed into the sea.

The subsequent inquiry brought forth a sequence of events that is, by its very nature, not covered by any book or checklist. The account I do here is by memory so I might simplyfy things a bit, but it brings forth the essence of the accident. An electric wire had produced a short circuit in such a way that the circuit breakers involved did not trip. A small fire developed behind the cockpit bulkhead, which was the "smell" they felt when they made their decision to descend and land. The smoke/smell then disappeared again, making them believe that whatever the situation was, it had either stopped or at least subsided. Reason for that was a silicon cap over an air conditioning duct which usually blocks this tube (which is not used in the passenger version of the MD11) and which melted during the initial fire. Once that cap had gone, smoke and heat was sucked backwards into this duct, thereby diminishing the effects in the cockpit and preventing damage to happen there. The suction in this duct came from recirculation fans in the cabin.
In the course of the "Smoke of unknown origin" procedure, electrics should (understandably so) be reduced to a bare minimum in order to stop the ignition source of any possible electrical fire. This involved switching the cabin bus off, which powers amongst other things the "server" you refer to and also the recirculation fans. The result of this was catastrophic: Rather than being drawn away from the electronics within the cockpit, the fire (which had become self sustained at the time) now spread rapidly into the cockpit area (overhead and rear bulkhead), destroying most of the electrical system, thereby blanking out the screens, causing all sorts of warnings e.t.c. In the end, the fire damage was so great that the plane became uncontrollable (as it was night and they were in IMC), so they lost control and crashed.

Could they have made it, if they had simply planted it down without any checklists done and overweight? The experts are fighting about that one, I personally think speed was not even the primary issue. The moment the cabin bus was switched off, the crash was no longer avoidable. Clearly, leaving them on would have at the very best bought them time, but in the end time is what they ran out of. But that crew had absolutely NO WAY of knowing this, had nothing to go by, because nobody had ever contemplated such a succession of events. If ever a crash resulted out of a "loose - loose" situation, this is the one I know about.

Even the report did not put that much emphasis on that sequence of events, which is why some books and docus about this accident missed it altogether. Of course, for the prevention of future accidents, the ignition source and the fact that the insulation blankets were flammable under certain conditions were much more important and therefore were naturally put at the top of the list, maybe also because the exact sequence of these events is very hard to prevent once the fire is started. What has come out clearly tough is the necessity to get a fire on the ground ASAP, even on suspicion.

Best regards
AN2 Driver