Wall Street Journal reports on BA 747 3 engine LAX-MAN flight

[J-Class]

Front page of the US edition of today's Wall St. Journal. Sorry but I couldn't find the original thread to append this to!

After Engine Blew,
Deciding to Fly On
'As Far as We Can'

Pilot-Tower Tapes Flesh Out
747 Incident That Triggered
A Controversy Over Safety
September 23, 2006; Page A1

A few seconds after a fully loaded British Airways 747 took off from Los Angeles on its way to London last year, one of its four engines erupted in a spectacular nighttime burst of flame.

The fire burned out quickly, but the controversy has continued to smolder.

An air-traffic controller watching the runways radioed a warning to British Airways Flight 268 and assumed the plane would quickly turn around. To controllers' surprise, the pilots checked with their company and then flew on, hoping to "get as far as we can," as the captain told the control tower. The jumbo jet ultimately traveled more than 5,000 miles with a dead engine before making an emergency landing in Manchester, England, as the crew worried about running out of fuel.

The Los Angeles air-traffic-control tapes, obtained by The Wall Street Journal under the Freedom of Information Act, show that controllers who saw the fiery engine failure with the jet just 296 feet in the air were immediately concerned about the flight and ready to guide it back to the airport. But the decision to return or keep flying rested with the captain and the airline. Ever since, pilots and aviation regulators have debated the decision of the pilots and British Airways. Their questions: Even if the plane was capable of reaching its destination, and perhaps legal to fly, was it smart to try? And was it safe?

HEAR HOW IT HAPPENED



"It appears you have flames" (0:55)
Windows Media: LISTEN1
RealPlayer: LISTEN2
* * *
"We're just doing the checks" (0:21)
Windows Media: LISTEN3
RealPlayer: LISTEN4
* * *
"We are going to consult our company" (0:17)
Windows Media: LISTEN5
RealPlayer: LISTEN6
* * *
"Is he going?" "He's going" (2:22)
Windows Media: LISTEN7
RealPlayer: LISTEN8
WALL STREET JOURNAL VIDEO


• Scott McCartney talks about the controversy9

The incident also focused renewed attention on an age-old issue in aviation -- safety versus economics. An emergency landing would have required dumping $30,000 of fuel, and the airline might have owed $275,000 in compensation to passengers under European Union rules if the flight was more than five hours late. The British Airways pilots' union questioned whether the EU compensation rules, only days old at the time, pressured airlines into pushing flights into risky situations. And in online discussions, pilots wondered if the three pilots might have been pressured into a risky flight to save the airline money.

British Airways says dollars played no role whatever in the decision to keep flying. It points out that the decision was legal under British regulations. A British inquiry ultimately said "no evidence was found to show that the flight continuation posed a significant increase in risk."

Flight 268 also set off a feud between U.S. and United Kingdom regulators over which nation's rules would apply. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, taking a different view of the incident than British regulators, opened its own investigation and then an enforcement action, charging British Airways with flying the jet in an "unairworthy condition." The FAA proposed a $25,000 fine. But last month, the FAA quietly dropped the matter rather than fight in court with British Airways and possibly U.K. regulators as well.

While 747s are certified to fly on three engines, doing so leaves much less room for error. They fly a bit slower and can't reach the highest altitudes, where thin air creates less drag, so fuel use increases by about 8%. The real risk is that if the plane should lose a second engine it would have more difficulty flying, especially if two engines on the same side failed -- leaving the thrust all coming from one angle and forcing extensive rudder use to keep flying straight. The plane would then have to fly even lower. Greater fuel consumption might mean the plane would have difficulty reaching an airport if it was over the ocean.

Flight 268's decision clearly surprised Los Angeles air-traffic controllers. The flight took off at about 9:24 p.m. on Feb. 20, 2005. Trouble was soon visible, as evident in radio discussions of "Speedbird 268 heavy." ("Speedbird" is aviation's call sign for British Airways; 268 was the flight number; "heavy" refers to jumbo jets.)

"Speedbird 268 heavy, it appears you have flames coming out of either your No. 1 or No. 2 engine," the tower controller radioed.

"We're shutting it down," replied the captain, already aware of a problem. British investigators later said passengers heard a bang when the engine failed, and some, like the tower, saw flames.

The tower controller alerted a colleague known as a departure controller, whose job was to take over responsibility for the flight as it left the airport.

"Speedbird 268 has got an engine shutdown. He had flames coming out of it. He's coming to you now. We don't know what he wants to do. We know he wants to come back, probably." The departure controller told the crew to climb to 5,000 feet and advise him of their intentions.

Pilot: "Roger standby. Climb and maintain 5,000. We are able. We will advise. We had a surge on takeoff and we're just doing the checks."

Departure controller: "Speedbird 268 heavy roger. Tower said you had flames coming out of the engine and it was shut down. Is that accurate?"

Pilot: "We haven't shut it down. We've throttled it back and we are doing our checklist."

The departure controller asked for the number of people on board -- standard procedure in an emergency in case there is a crash. It was 351 passengers plus 18 crew members, the pilot reported.

He next told the controller, "We have now shut down the No. 2 engine. We are going to consult our company and see what they require us to do."

After making four more 90-degree turns, and sending a co-pilot back in the cabin to look out the window at the engine, the captain said: "We just decided we want to set off on our flight-plan route and get as far as we can. So we'd like clearance to, ah, continue our flight plan."

The controller gave the captain clearance to a higher altitude. But when he called other controllers to make arrangements down the line on an internal intercom system, surprise was evident.

"Remember that Speedbird I told you about?" the controller asked a colleague.

"Yeah."

"He's engine-out -- No. 2 engine out. He's going to continue to his destination or as far as he can get," the departure controller said.

"OK. I have no flight plan on him." The tapes show the controllers had assumed the pilot wasn't going to London, so they deleted the flight plan from the computer. To reconstruct it, the departure controller called the tower.

"Is he going?" the tower controller who had seen the engine flames asked.

"He's going," was the answer.

"If you would have saw what we saw out the window, you'd be amazed at that," said the tower controller.

As the flight moved east, the departure controller passed the pilot on to another controller. "Thanks for your help. Cheers," the captain said. "Good luck," said the departure controller.

The plane flew across the U.S. at a lower-than-usual 27,000 feet and a speed about 12% slower than normal, according to the British investigation. Hours later, the captain made a final decision about crossing the Atlantic. "Having reached the East Coast of the U.S.A. with no indications of further abnormality and with adequate predicted arrival fuel, the crew decided to continue to the U.K.," said the U.K.'s Air Accident Investigation Branch in a June 2006 report. The AAIB said the casing of a component within the Rolls-Royce engine had worn out, causing a power surge, and high temperatures did severe damage.

Winds were less favorable than anticipated across the Atlantic, causing the jet to burn more fuel than predicted. In addition, the crew became alarmed that they might not be able to access the fuel in one of the four wing tanks. The captain declared an emergency and landed in Manchester. The British investigation later found he would have had enough fuel to make it to London.

After the landing -- uneventful but for fire trucks on hand -- controversy arose among pilots. U.K. and U.S. agencies both opened investigations. Britain's learned that British Airways had flown 747s to distant destinations on three engines 15 times since April 2001.

Indeed, the same plane, with a different No. 2 engine, lost the use of that replacement in flight two weeks later. This time it was at cruising altitude, en route from Singapore to London. Pilots saw an oil-pressure warning light and shut down the engine, flying for 11 more hours safely.

The U.K.'s AAIB polled seven other airlines that fly 747s. It found that two required pilots to land at the nearest suitable airport if an engine failed before the jet reached cruising altitude; one left it up to the captain; one had no policy; and three had policies similar to that of British Airways. The agency described that policy as telling pilots to fly to their destination or another airport served by British Airways "once certain considerations have been satisfied," such as determining the bad engine was stable and the plane was safe.

British Airways says the practice is safe and prevents disruption for passengers. The AAIB agreed, considering the possibility of a second engine failure extremely remote. The AAIB did recommend that the airline review its three-engine 747 policy, as well as its training for pilots in how to manage fuel supplies in a case where an engine is out. Another British agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, which had approved the "engine-out" policy in British Airways' flight manuals, concluded the airline's decision hadn't violated safety regulations.

British Airways and the CAA both argued that the rules the carrier had to meet were Britain's, not those of the U.S. agency that was accusing the carrier of flying an "unairworthy" plane. "There's a slightly gray area," says Sir Roy McNulty, chairman of the CAA. "It's rare for an issue like this to come up. By and large, the FAA and we are perfectly aligned."

British Airways said even if U.S. rules applied, they were ambiguous. The U.S. rules require pilots who lose an engine to land at the nearest suitable airport, but, British Airways noted, they make an exception for four-engine aircraft if the pilot decides flying onward is "just as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport." The FAA, however, didn't consider flying across the Atlantic with an engine out to be "just as safe."

In the end, the nations avoided a fight over jurisdiction with a compromise. The U.S. acknowledged that international law gave Britain's CAA oversight of British Airways, and the CAA told the U.S. the airline had agreed to change its procedures for when an engine was out, at least while flying in U.S. air space.

British Airways said it hasn't formally changed procedures but has agreed to take into account "issues that arose from this incident" if a 747 engine fails again. "We have always maintained that we operated this aircraft in strict accordance with the CAA's regulations," it said.

Last month, the FAA told British Airways it was dropping the case based on assurances that airline changes will "preclude the type of extended operation that was the subject of this enforcement action." Says the FAA: "Our goal was to get them to change their procedures, and when we found out they were changing in the U.S., we settled the case."

Write to Scott McCartney at [email protected]

Links to the R/T in Windows Media or Real Player formats:

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird1/speedbird1.asx
(2) http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/rm/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird1/speedbird1.rm
(3) http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird2/speedbird2.asx
(4) http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/rm/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird2/speedbird2.rm
(5) http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird3/speedbird3.asx
(6) http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/rm/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird3/speedbird3.rm
(7) http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird4/speedbird4.asx
(8) http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/rm/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird4/speedbird4.rm

[NigelOnDraft]

Wow - a reasonably balanced discussion of the events and issues :D

[Bumblebee]

What I find interesting are the assumptions made by ATC about the crew's intentions.....and automatically cancelling their flightplan! I wouldn't have expected that myself.

[rotornut]

747-1 = 777+1

[rmac]

Rotornut, does that kind of logic mean that 747-2 = 777 ?

[Fropilot]

What good for the goose is good for the gander? This incindent illustrates the paradox of proponents of extending the current ETOPS limits. Here we have one group who favor two engines over three or more saying it is not safe to fly on one less engine but at the same time singing praises of the benefits of two engines. Unless it is fact that a B747 is less safe than a B777. By the way I have nothing against ETOPs except when used to further profits at the expense of safety.

[Flying Mech]

Dejavu,Dejavu as the old song goes!. Hasn't this already been beaten to death on another thread about 12 months ago. Surely you are not going to go over all that again J Class?
Btw the easiest simplest way to reduce risk in aviation is to cancel flying! Point is everything carries some element of risk. Thats a fact

[lomapaseo]

Dejavu,Dejavu as the old song goes!. Hasn't this already been beaten to death on another thread about 12 months ago. Surely you are not going to go over all that again J Class?
Btw the easiest simplest way to reduce risk in aviation is to cancel flying! Point is everything carries some element of risk. Thats a fact

While I value the posting of the latest news story on this, I like yourself am sick and tired of discussing this ad infinitum. I can only hope that havings started yet another thread on this now boring subject that we don't resurect the same old opinions and postulations in this thread.

I didn't see any new revelations of facts in the latest article worthy of tehnical discussion. I do however feel that it does show a lack of understanding by the controllers in this incident and as such they could possibly compound a situation by assuming what a crew
will decide.

[jondc9]

To tie into the comair thread, that controller did his job with issuing a clearance and turning his back

the LAX tower controller did much more. warning in some detail of something that all pilots should concern themselves with...FLAME. And then assuming a return to LAX would be the next thing...this controller was thinking ahead.

yet both are employed and trained by the same FAA.


and somehow we can complain about both's actions.

to any controllers out there...it is easier to cancel the crash wagons than to not have them out when you need them.

more help is probably better than not enough.



and I guess I would prefer to fly in and out of LAX than LEX...what a difference an "A" makes. (sung to the tune of , "what a difference a day makes".


j

[bullshot]

I agree with NigelonDraft - a fair and, it would seem, accurate report from the WSJ - it is rare that we read such quality reports on the subject of aviation in the press.

In my view the Controllers acted with total professionalism and are to be congratulated.

We did argue this one to death some time ago with many experienced pilots coming out on different sides. I respect those that held views that did not agree with my own and on the whole, enjoyed the debate. The 2 engine vs 4engine & ETOPS question is not in my view relevant to this incident.

BS

[overstress]

something that all pilots should concern themselves with...FLAME

You are quite correct. This serves as a useful reminder that when a jet engine surges, you get to see outside the engine something that there is inside it all the time it's running - a FLAME!

Surges are spectacular, especially in low light conditions, but non-aviation people should be reminded that they (surges) look more newsworthy from outside the flight deck.

Hey ho.

[rotornut]

Rotornut, does that kind of logic mean that 747-2 = 777 ?

Well, almost. I think that's what Boeing more or less had in mind with
the 777. But in the present situation it's certainly better to have 3 engines rather than 1.

[Preppy]

It's well worth having a look at the CAA's response to the AAIB recommendations:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200623.pdf#search=%22caa%20follow%20up%20action%20G-BNLG%22

[Brian Abraham]

From the CAA response

In the latter stages of the flight the crew encountered difficulties in balancing the fuel quantities in the four main tanks. They became concerned that the contents of one tank might be unusable and declared an emergency in accordance with the operator’s procedures.

Reading all the threads its not clear (to me) why the crew thought they may have difficulties feeding from one tank. Anyone able to enlighten?

[Captain Airclues]

Brian

This was covered in great detail in the original thread over a year ago, including diagrams of the fuel system.

Because the failure of an inboard engine on a 747 is fairly innocuous, crews have always been tested on the simulator by the failure of an outboard engine. They are therefore used to dealing with the subsequent imbalance between tanks 1 and 4. However, on this occasion the failure of No 2 engine meant that the crew had to use the Override/Jettison pumps to utilise the fuel from tank 2. When the crew diverted to Manchester, they were planning to arrive with more than the required reserve fuel. However, on the final approach a FUEL OVRD 2 FWD EICAS message appeared, and in the mistaken belief that all of the fuel in tank 2 might be unusable they took the prudent step of declaring a 'Mayday' to ensure that the runway was clear.
As all of us who have have had time to analyse this at their leisure will of course know, the Override/Jettison pumps have a stackpipe which prevents them pumping any more fuel when the tank quantity is 3,200kgs. This is to prevent the inadvertent dumping of all of the fuel. The normal fuel pumps would however have continued to pump the remaining 3,200kgs of fuel in this tank via the crossfeed valves. The aircraft actually landed with more than the required reserve fuel, all of which, with the benefit of hindsight, was usable.
One of the nice things about aviation is that we always learn from previous errors and mistakes. On our present recurrent simulator check we cover all of the fuel system problems in detail. As part of this training we replicate the exact situation the the BA crew found themself in.
I hope that this answers your question.

Airclues

[exvicar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5377304.stm

It would appear the BBC are broadcasting to the public that the 'BA jet continued despite engine fire'. I have just emailed the BBC commenting on their inaccurate reporting. I do not work for BA, indeed I work for one of their competitors, but please!

[Brian Abraham]

Many thanks Captain for your informative reply. I searched for the original thread for review/refresh but kept getting a "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms" message and the memory could'nt remember any explanation. Once again many thanks.

[TheKabaka]

AAIB report here

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Boeing%20747-436,%20G-BNLG%2006-06.pdf

[Carnage Matey!]

Fair play to the Beeb, their report on this incident has now been updated and now refers to an engine surge and not an engine fire.

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect, I have to ask the question; "If the identical event reoccurred at LAX tomorrow, would BA respond exactly the same way?" All other things being equal of course.

[Carnage Matey!]

Of course not. We've all been into the simulator to study fuel management in an engine out situation so if it happened again tomorrow we'd go into Manchester without feeling the need to declare an emergency. Apart from that, no change.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Just to be utterly clear.
Apart from the journos, was there any indication of FIRE (which in my simple world entails being on the surface whether dry or wet ASAP) or was it just an engine FAILURE (which given 3 more is a bit of a non-event other than the timing) with no suggestion of collateral damage?
Sven
Driving 2 rotors & 2 engines

[barit1]

It would seem to me (retired flt ops guy) that the crew would be getting some long-distance engineering help about the fuel management issue, long before the MAN diversion was decided. Wouldn't the best minds in the industry be following this OEI marathon, in real time?

I have NO criticism of the initial decision to carry on, because there are several precedents going back decades. But why did fuel management become such a black eye so late in the game?

[Carnage Matey!]

Barit - because it didn't manifest itself until after top of descent, at which point they thought they'd lost 25% of their useable fuel. In that situation there was not time to speak to the engineers on the satphone, the priority was to get on the deck.

Sven - There was no engine FIRE, and no FIRE warning on the flight deck. It was an engine surge. The subsequent examination showed no evidence of an engine FIRE.

[Kengineer-130]

still sounds very dubious to me :bored: in my humble opinion, any signs of fire should be treated with the upmost of urgency and respect- Just because there is no flight-deck indication of fire does NOT mean there is no fire- its not unheard of for a fire indication to flash briefly then dissapear almost instantly as the detecting system is destroyed :( ... Sorry but in my eyes it was a downright irresponsible decision to "press on", had they lost another engine, especially on the same wing,(again, not unheard of...) halfway across the atlantic then they would have been in big, big trouble :ugh: have we not learnt from years of bitter experience and thousands of deaths, that aviation accidents happen due to a "chain of events"? All I can see is a crew failing to break that chain due to pressure to complete the flight, which ultimatly ended up in a Mayday situation, which in its self tells you all you need to know about the event..

suspected fire?? get it on the floor and argue about it afterwards :ok:

[NigelOnDraft]

K130... I do trust you understand the difference between flames due a surge (from the intake or jetpipe(s)) and an engine fire - outside the core. The former is to be expected in many engine failure scenarios, and it could be dangerous to get overly excited about it.

As far as Airline Pilot training goes, if a fire is extinquished - as far as the indicatons go - it is extinquished. Emergency probably downgraded from Mayday to a Pan, and sense of priorities altered. I am sure you (and I) could find counter arguments / incidents, but you will have a very strong uphill battle if you want to change this.

In the LAX incident, you can be sure that with any indication a "fire" was present (a call from ATC re flames from an enigne is NOT an "enigne fire"), the aircraft would have been on the deck in minutes, very overweight. Once a fire was judged extinquished, it would be very poor airmanship to land overweight - indeed, a 4 engine aircraft 1 engine out without further complications is not generally held to warrant even a Pan (this all assumes one understands the definitons of Pan and Mayday).

NoD

[Rainboe]

K130- you evidently haven't read the previous thread on this incident before making your pronouncement from a basis of not really understanding what went on at any stage of this flight. I would advise it is only fair to the readers here that you and any other potential opinion giver here brief yourselves thoroughly on those 50 pages of discussions before publicly announcing your ill-informed opinion? It is a bit of an insult to people who have followed this to have shoot-from-the-hip judgements from people who do not know what was going on.

[FullWings]

...in my humble opinion, any signs of fire should be treated with the upmost of urgency and respect...
I like to have fires burning pretty much all of the time in all of my engines. I get quite upset if any of them go out!

What I don't wish to happen is for hot gases to make their way out of the engine core containment into the more delicate structures surrounding it - this is what fire detection/suppression facilities are for. As I understand it, the flight in question did not receive any overheat/fire warnings so the crew did not need to carry out the associated drills.

An engine surge can (as in this case) be quite spectacular to an observer but a 10m flame coming out of the back for a short period only signifies that the fuel/air mix inside is temporarily wrong - not that any damage has actually occurred. That is for Engineering to decide when they downlink the recording of the surge and examine it.

[BahrainLad]

I think if you end up "out in the middle of the Atlantic" on LAX-LHR you've got bigger problems than fuel management......:rolleyes:

[Rainboe]

If anybody wants to make uninformed opinions on the routing, in this case, they really should have educated themselves from that previous thread to realise at no point does the LAX-LHR routing put you 'out in the middle of the Atlantic'. The route takes you well to the North bypassing YYZ, YYL, Gander/Goose, emergency diversion airfields in north-eastern Canada, Greenland, Iceland and northern Scotland. Even with a second engine failure, at any stage, even on the same side, you would then be in a situation not dissimilar to a 777 with an engine out.
I would have no doubt about which aeroplane I would rather be in!

[jondc9]

I noticed rainboe indicated which aeroplane he would prefer.

I will say that I would PREFER to land at LAX rather than risk the need for a diversion to the other airfields he mentioned.

An etops twin that is operating normally is superior to a 747 that is in a reduced capacity...the etops twin can go higher for example. A fully and normally functioning 747 is certainly another story.

That BA has agreed to a different set of protocols should this happen again in US Airspace is a tacit admission of a FU#$up. And that should be that on the subject. If they were smelling like a rose instead of fertilizer, there would have been NO CHANGE to procedures.

And as to the great "fire / flame" controversy. It is likely that there was no FIRE warning per se in the cockpit, there could have been other indications of less than desirable engine performance...and that alone is sufficient to stay close to a first class aerodrome rather than PRESS ON.

[DozyWannabe]

It's unlikely I'll eve be in your exalted position Jon, but I think you're being a little unfair to my countrymen there. Change in procedure for US airspace is not a 'tacit admission of a FU#$up' as much as they didn't know that US procedures differ from theirs, they now know that and are prepared to deal with it.

Speaking as a wannabe with very limited experience but a fair amount of enthusiasm I'd say that there's a considerable difference between a 747 Classic with one engine out and a 744 in the same situation, especially one with RB211s. Also, for all its facilities, I'd consider hanging around LAX with all that traffic in the area constitutes more risk than pushing forward, especially if you have Maintrol on the line telling you it's OK to do so. From MAN it's just a short hop to BA maintenance (and by extension Rolls-Royce) to fix the engine, something that would be trickier in LAX, especially given the compatively rare engine/airframe matchup that BA uses on its 744s.

[cargo boy]

Dozy, please don't worry yourself about Jondc9. What you consider to be an exalted position is actually only a pedestal of his own making! :rolleyes:

Jondc9's experience of flying four engined jets is limited to the BAe146 (probably still known as the HS146 in his day). If you think his experience of that aircraft can be compared with that of the B744 and all its systems and system redundancies then you would be sadly mistaken. Jon was very quick to criticise the BA crew on the original thread when he exposed his lack of knowledge about B744 systems and what it actually says in the AFM about continued flight with an engine shut down.

Yes, we know he would "prefer" to return to LAX and no doubt that is one option available to the crew but for him to then claim that the decision to carry on was a "FU#$up" only serves to ignite this old debate once more. The fact that the dear old FAA were actually cornered into their announcement about their intent to 'fine' BA has somehow been conveniently forgotten by the famous talking head, Mr jondc9. It was only thanks to some lowly light aircraft examiner from a local FSDO office blabbing to the media with his uninformed tripe about all aircraft supposedly having to land at the nearest airport that the FAA had to be seen to be defending one of their own and they announced that there would be a prosecution.

How convenient that Jondc9 didn't mention in his post that after BA announced that they would defend such an action that the FAA realised they didn't have a leg to stand on, never mind the pedestal that our famous Jondc9 has elevated himself to, that they dropped the charges.

So Dozy, you still have a chance to achieve the exalted position of B744 pilot, something that Jondc9 isn't. What he fails to realise that on this website he is preaching to the converted whereas on CNN he is, in his own eyes, the god-pilot that is able to talk over live shots of something that he has little experience of but thinks he does! :hmm:

[Strepsils]

An etops twin that is operating normally is superior to a 747 that is in a reduced capacity

And it took 30 years flying experience to figure that out?! :}

[jondc9]

cargo boy

tell me, is it easier to fly boxes or people?

I so enjoy hearing you misquote me.

Tell us all about the 747-400 will you? For example, can this wonderbird do a 3 engine ferry? I am sure it can.

Landing in the USA, discharging passengers and doing a ferry to a mx base might have been another option...key words: MIGHT & OPTION. I also mentioned bringing another engine (podded) to LAX.

And while I don't have a 747-400 manual handy, at least I never said it HAD to land at the nearest airport... I did say it should have. Perhaps you will chat up an old english professor and ask the difference between these words.


post your phone number and I will give it to CNN if you would like to comment on aviation matters. chances are you couldn't handle it. prove me wrong if you like.

Maybe you will learn what its like to chat up a few million people at a time.


Be sure your boxes are loaded properly.

By the way, the BAE 146 was called just that when I flew it. Not the HS 146.


I've flown 2 british planes that I think were very well built. How many have you flown that you think are well built?


How come the Queen of England used a BAE 146 as Queen's Flight and not a B747-400 (unless leased from BA).


regards from the homeland of the 747-400. and I do wish AF1 had RB211's and not GE 's.

j

[Globaliser]

That BA has agreed to a different set of protocols should this happen again in US Airspace is a tacit admission of a FU#$up. And that should be that on the subject. If they were smelling like a rose instead of fertilizer, there would have been NO CHANGE to procedures.On the contrary, as I understand it there has been NO CHANGE to procedures anywhere, excepting only where the FAA might go hysterical were this to happen again.

And, as the AAIB report shows, the UNCHANGED procedures were based on the very same FAA's certification, continue to be approved by the CAA, and are shared by other airlines elsewhere in the world.

Where is the "FU#$up"? I don't see one. I see only recognition that one body needs to be pandered to.

[H.Finn]

Moderators, please stop this "dejavu all over again". We have been through this once (maybe twice?), and I don' t want to see all the wannabees plus pilots who don't have a clue about long range multi engine ops stating their uninformed opinions once (twice) more. Please, everybody, read through the original thread, and the AAIB stuff, and let this be, OK. And thank you, Rainoboe...

[jondc9]

dear globe

from the article in the WSJ:

<Last month, the FAA told British Airways it was dropping the case based on assurances that airline changes will "preclude the type of extended operation that was the subject of this enforcement action." Says the FAA: "Our goal was to get them to change their procedures, and when we found out they were changing in the U.S., we settled the case.">


That is quite clear to me, isn't it to you?


And to H. Finn.


If you wish to remove non long range pilots from this forum topic, do you agree to remove long range pilots from any topic not involving long range ops?

For example, should a 747-400 pilot comment on the comair crash in Kentucky?

Should a short haul pilot of a two engine plane NOT comment on the Air France over-run at CYYZ? Did 4 engines cause the plane to go off the end, or was it a bit of wind, a bit of wet and a bit of?

I think it is a wonderful fact that BA has operated in this fashion 15 times since 2001. If this is not a fact ( or has increased ) please dispute the article's information now.


regards

jon

[Piltdown Man]

Sunfish - this isn't necessarily a company decision. That's why we have pilots. If the company says "You choose" then it might happen all over again. If they say, please land ASAP, that may happen as well. This sort of thing is a judgement call. The outcome proves the validity of the judgement call made several hours earlier. Now, if were BA, maybe I would be putting the hard word on Boeing for a failure in the fuel system. But no matter what, I'd be spending my political penny making sure that through government channels that the Feds were told to "Go Away".

PM

[cargo boy]

...I never said it HAD to land at the nearest airport... I did say it should have.
The QRH doesn't say that the aircraft HAS to land at the nearest suitable airport but jondc9, great orator to the masses on matters aviation, said it SHOULD have. Well, there we go. Perhaps Boeing will get you to write the manuals for them as you appear to do what you want when flying without consideration to the certification process of an aircraft.

The point being made here, obviously to no avail, is that the crew on that aircraft did nothing wrong. They broke no rules and made decisions based on safe conduct of the flight at all stages. Please spare us all from further pontification. Your rush to judgement is apparent in all the threads you participate in. That plus the incessant reminders that you are gods gift to instant news in all matters aviation makes one want to reach for the barf bag.

Feel free to pontificate to the general public all you like but here you are taking part on a professional pilots website. With your style and lack of substance, your credibility is shot and all you manage to do is infuriate those of us who do have enough understanding of matters aviation to see through your feeble attempts to balance on top of yet another pedestal even more precariously perched on top of the one you came in with in the first place. :hmm:

[blueloo]

Maybe British Airways should use the slogan "Schedule before Safety"!



:uhoh:

[jondc9]

cargo boy

<but here you are taking part on a professional pilots website. With your style and lack of substance, your credibility is shot and all you manage to do is infuriate those of us who do have enough understanding of matters aviation>

perhaps with you, and those who agree that flying passengers on a 747-400 from one continent to an island on 3 engines is the right thing to do, I have lost credibility.

to the rest of the piloting profession, perhaps I have not.

It is simply not up to YOU to speak for the entire piloting profession.

You constantly bring up me speaking out on TV.

Why not bring up my piloting experience?


See, I have done both. Talked on TV and flown people around in a Boeing.

From your name and lack of response to my previous question, I will assume you have done neither.


And discourse often infuriates those who cannot look at all sides of a topic.

[Carnage Matey!]

Shall we all agree to add jondc9 to our personal 'ignore' lists? I was going to post a reasonable and technicallt accurate response to why he was utterly wrong about this flight in so many ways but , to be frank, I simply can't bothered at this time of the morning. So lets leave the debate to those who know the aircraft and understand the reasoning and leave CNNs favourite talking head to pontificate from a position of complete ignorance.

[Carnage Matey!]

<Last month, the FAA told British Airways it was dropping the case based on assurances that airline changes will "preclude the type of extended operation that was the subject of this enforcement action." Says the FAA: "Our goal was to get them to change their procedures, and when we found out they were changing in the U.S., we settled the case.">
That is quite clear to me, isn't it to you?


Thought I'd add that whilst you might have read this in the papers (because I do not believe that you have any worthwhile contacts in the FAA) the procedures have not changed and the FAA dropped the case because they had neither a legal nor technical basis on which to persue BA for prosecution.

[jondc9]

carnage


I would be quite happy if you select IGNORE concerning my posts. I will not ignore yours. It is good to have the other side of the argument to compare and contrast in order to understand.

And you, cargo boy and the rest are defending the choice as well as Condi Rice defends the invasion of Iraq.

I understand the technical basis for the crew's choice. I quote the WSJ article as it is the basis for this thread.

From your post, I shall assume that if this happens again in US Airspace, a BA 747-400 will continue on.

And then the press will get a hold of it and NOT just CNN.

They will explain the technical aspects of the choice to continue. That indeed regulations were not broken . It will sound like a Philadelphia lawyer.

And then the traveling public will scratch their collective head and decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. They will vote in their unique way.

And I hope every 747 pilot in the world reads this post and adds this to the equation of decision making.


Happy Landings,

jon

[overstress]

And I hope every 747 pilot in the world reads this post and adds this to the equation of decision making.


Well I'm one of them and I'm sorry to say that I'll be listening to what my Training Captains say, not you. Your comments will be disregarded by everyone who operates the 747 in accordance with their company procedures.

Unless you get a job writing for pilots, not commenting to the layman, that is. Both require different skills and I think you commit an error of judgement if you think you have the respect of your audience here. Especially the 1000 or so BA 747 pilots.

Cheers.

[jondc9]

over stress

I hope you do listen to your training captains.

I also hope when you fly to America you ask some pilots here what they think of the incident.

Should I lose the respect of all 1000 BA 747 pilots and gain even 10 percent of the some 60,000 ATP's in America, I will stand in good company.

regards

jon

[overstress]

Ah, I see. USA=good, UK(BA)=bad. I can see we're never going to agree, so in the meantime I'll fly the -400 as my employer dictates.

PS you do know that Boeing designed it to be flown as we flew it in this case, don't you?

[bubbers44]

I still don't think BA violated any FAA regs. With more than two engines you can continue on if it does not compromise safety.

[blueloo]

i think boeing designed it, so it was to continue to a nearest suitable airport, so you can land safely asap. different story maybe if in cruise, but at a couple of hundred feet off the ground......and you continue.....your a brave man.

get it safely on the ground asap, let someone else worry about the costs. its not worth the gamble, no matter how many redundacy systems there are. yes it can do it, but what are you proving by continuing?


how does the expression go, there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there aint old and bold pilots.

[Stan Woolley]

I am aware of at least one BA 747-400 Training Captain who did not think it was a good decision,reading the relevant threads one may get the impression that everyone (in BA anyway) thinks it was.

Not so.

[Final 3 Greens]

As a pax, I'd rather be on a 744 on three than a big twin on one, if land is any distance away. I wouldn't enjoy either experience, but pragmatism kicks in.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter and depsite my lack of understanding of the technical aspects, I'm actually representative of the people who keep the airlines in business by buying the tickets.

So if I have a choice of 744 or someone else on a big twin, I'll take the 74 anyday and frankly I don't give a monkey's what jondc or 600,000 US ATPLs think (if infact they all agree with jon.)

You are welcome to tell me that I don't understand what I am talking about, but in return I will tell you that I understand very well where I spend 6 figures a year on air tickets.

As an aside, I am not surprised that the WSJ produced a balanced article.

I know a couple of their journalists and they are thorough, careful and non sensationalist in outlook.

[Danny]

There are a lot of B744 pilots who do not necessarily think it was a good decision to continue but none will argue that they endangered anyone or even broke any rules. The point being made here against jondc9 is that he
has made a claim that the crew did wrong based solely on the fact that he is a pilot who also happens to provide background to CNN on aviation matters.

He has NO experience on the B744 or its systems and therefore should qualify his claims by stating that they are the equivalent of those of a layman. Assuming that you have the respect of your colleagues just because you talk on TV obviously leads to a tone that irritates many of us on here. Comment on the event is fine but when someone like jondc9 adds a verdict that in effect criticises the crew without him having a full understanding of the aircraft and its systems thyn it leads, as has been seen here, to ridicule and irritation.

As a B744 pilot myself, I have discussed this incident with many colleagues and we all have different opinions on what we would have done under similar circumstances. Some say they would probably have continued, refining their decision as the flight progressed, just as the BA crew did. Others say that they would have continued to the US east coast instead of dumping fuel and then landing normally at a base where the pax could be accomodated on other flights and maintenance could be performed on the engine. A few even said they would probably just dump fuel and go back. However, not one of them could criticise the BA crew because we all know that the B744 flies perfectly well on 3 engines with only a small penalty in performance.

The fact that they had an engine surge after getting airborne and subsequently decided to shut the engine down should not be equated to a 3 engined ferry flight and those putting that argument forward only show their lack of experience or knowledge of 3 or 4 engined a/c ops. The previous thread on this topic hashed the subject to death yet we once again have jondc9 actually turning this into a song and dance with his lack of credibility due to his judge, jury and executioner approach to the BA crew.

As a B744 pilot I will say that they didn't "FU#$up" as jondc9 like to claim. They didn't break any rules either which is why the FAA had to drop the charges. Their spin is irrelevant as nothing has changed over here.

So, let's try and put this one to bed without any more plugs for CNN shall we? :rolleyes:

[Globaliser]

from the article in the WSJ:

<Last month, the FAA told British Airways it was dropping the case based on assurances that airline changes will "preclude the type of extended operation that was the subject of this enforcement action." Says the FAA: "Our goal was to get them to change their procedures, and when we found out they were changing in the U.S., we settled the case.">

That is quite clear to me, isn't it to you?What is absolutely clear to me is the number of postings, from people who are in a position to know, that there has been NO CHANGE to BA procedures.

There is only one exception - the details of which others know better than I - which is for locations where the FAA might get hysterical.

You can put whatever interpretation you like on that. But to me, it suggests that the exception is a response to possible FAA hysteria, not an acknowledgement that anything's wrong with the procedures.

[punkalouver]

A question for the big engined drivers. Is there any chance after an engine problem like this, that metal from the engine was ejected and caused secondary damage to the aircraft? Remember what happened to the British Airtours 737.

[Carnage Matey!]

I'm not aware of any incidents with this type of surge in which metal has been ejected from the engine, and this particular type of surge is a fairly common and well understood phenomena. Remember the aircraft has the capability to datalink a multitude of engine parameters to the powerplant specialists who can judge an engines state of health. I'd be extremely surprised if there hadn't also been a visual inspection of the engine from the aircraft to check for signs of exterior damage.

[BusyB]

The B/Airtours was a totally different type of engine and a totally different problem.

[barit1]

Any penetration of the engine casings would result in very hot air escaping into the nacelle, which will cause an engine fire warning.

In the absence of a fire warning, and no other indication of systems distress, there is no emergency - it's a simple OEI.

[Globaliser]

A question for the big engined drivers. Is there any chance after an engine problem like this, that metal from the engine was ejected and caused secondary damage to the aircraft?In a sense, one answer to this is "so what if there was a chance of that?" The decision made to continue from LAX wasn't a decision that "we will now fly over the ocean". The crew watched the aircraft - anxiously, I expect - for hours in case something happened to suggest that more damage had been done that first thought, before the decision was made to proceed beyond the east coast and on to the oceanic sector. And all through those hours, the aircraft was close to many diversion airfields. The aircraft had hours to demonstrate that it was safe, and so it proved to have been.

[overstress]

beyond the east coast and on to the oceanic sector

The east coast of what, exactly?

On many LAXs I've never gone 'Oceanic'. VHF all the way. Check out a globe, dudes ;) ;)

PS I've lost track of the number of times I've made this point, but it doesn't seem to sink in.....

[jondc9]

danny:

early on in this discussion I indicated I had not flown 747 of any type, that is on record on this site. I also indicted I had flown another 4 engine piece of equipment so I had an idea about the requirments for landing vs. a 2 engine plane.

My opinions are my own and don't represent CNN, ALPA, or anyone else.

Danny, you seem to think that I am using any appearances ON CNN as something which should inflate my position on this forum. That is not the intent, it is a statement which might influence how someone replies on the forum to a question that I ask. YOU HAVE A DISCLAIMER on this forum warning about media types who might use what is posted.

MY MENTION OF CNN and my appearances on it were a statement of courtesy, like a lawyer, or constable might make before someone incriminates themself.


I think you have taken it the wrong way. Will you at least consider the possibility?

To the poster who would rather fly on a 747-400 than a twin jet over the ocean , I agree with you, so would I.

My comment on voting is if BA continues to fly from LAX to England after losing one engine.

To overstress, USA=good , UK = not good, is simply not the way I feel. Elsewhere on this forum I have praised the 2 UK built planes that I flew, the contribution of people from the UK of such things as RADAR and the gas turbine engine.

I also praised the "few" who saved the world from the Nazis.


I still stand by my opinion as a NON 747 pilot that flying from LAX to England in this situation was wrong.


to the poster who indicted that all BA pilots might not have continued, thank you. my intent was not to chastise the pilots, but a system or company that might encourage the $ or Pound as a higher priority than others.


Rule Brittania, God Bless America, and will George W. Bush please leave the White house as soon as possible!?

[overstress]

To overstress, USA=good , UK = not good, is simply not the way I feel. Elsewhere on this forum I have praised the 2 UK built planes that I flew, the contribution of people from the UK of such things as RADAR and the gas turbine engine.

Thanks for your clarification, but may I be forgiven for that interpretation after your gain even 10 percent of the some 60,000 ATP's in America quote.

I have worked with pilots from the USA and we're fundamentally exactly the same.

What we pilots in the UK react badly to is any unnecessary (in our eyes) self-promotion. We demur. We apologise over the R/T to ATC when we have an engine surge or fire.

However, we raise our collective eyebrows when those we deem unqualified see fit to comment on the way we do things. This is not because we think we're superior, it's because we know we are, but we just don't want or like to tell you ;) ;) ;)

So that is why you're getting the reaction you are, especially from BA 747 pilots. To us, your opinions hold little or no relevance, but when you make comments we perceive to be attacking our position, especially in the public battleground of PPRuNe, we splutter into our mugs of tea and say "I say, that's not on". Then we will tenaciously defend ourselves to the hilt.

I hope this helps!

PS: We are given little commercial guidance in BA. Flight continuation policy is there because we have 747s and they are built to do it, if you have a commercial capability, why not use it? The whole point of a 747 is that it has 4 engines, not 3, not 2, not 1. 4. Any idea of the built-in redundancy? It's fabulous. If you haven't done a conversion I can recommend a very good chap in LAX who can help you! Then you will understand how frustrated some of us feel about these criticisms. Does a transaltantic sailor worry if he loses the spinnaker? No, he just unfurls the headsail and carries on a little slower. He can always get the kite repaired when he gets to his home port, but it would take longer to stop at the nearest port and get it fixed than to sail on without it. Is the headsail going to let him down as well? Probably not. Is his decision unsafe? No. Is dumping 60T of gas if you don't have to good for the wine crop in the Napa Valley? No.

All the above is TIC and IMHO

[Rananim]

Very emotive issue.Its worth a revisit.The intent of the specific regulation,indeed any reg,is contained in the main paragraph and not any sub-clause and I think that was the point.Yes,thats right,in essence the FAA does not distinguish between aircraft type when mandating a diversion following an engine failure.The privileges granted in any sub-clause never obviate the need to comply with the general instruction contained within the main paragraph.Rather it is designed to afford greater flexibility to the pilot-in-command based on any perceived advantage,in this case greater redundancy.In this example,the sub-clause would relieve the pilot from an immediate return and allow him to continue toward his destination,landing at a preferred engineering base without the need for fuel-dumping.And that is all.If he was already mid-Atlantic when the engine failure occurred,it would probably,but not necessarily,entitle him to continue to destination.
But no regulation can address the real issue here;how did it look to the passengers?

[blueloo]

Overstress eh...stiff upper lip chaps, press on!!


:uhoh:

[Carnage Matey!]

But no regulation can address the real issue here;how did it look to the passengers?

We're still full out of LAX most days so obviously not that bad.

[bubbers44]

Since no 747 has ever had to ditch because of engine problems in almost 40 years I would say they operated safely by their op specs and the FAA should let them continue on with their excellent safety record since the FAA condones continuing as long as the captain considers it as safe as diverting. Here in the US we tend to think in twin engine logic and landing at the nearest suitable airport mode. I am impressed with BA standing up to the FAA and not letting them run their airline.

[JW411]

jondc9:

"Rule Brittania"

If you are going to grovel to us Brits please learn to spell Britannia correctly.

God bless Ammerica!

[jondc9]

JW411


1. I am not groveling, I am expressing a feeling held even prior to my purchase of a computer.

2. spelling on the internet has long been thought of as NOT an area for criticism.

if it becomes one on this forum, we will spend alot of time on color/colour and taxy/taxi

Make like the R100 and lighten up.

[JW411]

Sorry old son, the spelling of Britannia is as important to me just as I am sure the spelling of America is to you.

If you are really going to be a serious journalist and expect the rest of us to take you seriously then you need to get a grip.

[barit1]

...2. spelling on the internet has long been thought of as NOT an area for criticism.
if it becomes one on this forum, we will spend alot of time on color/colour and taxy/taxi
Make like the R100 and lighten up.

Spelling, and its cousin word choice (hanger/hangar, lose/loose, etc.) is underappreciated among many internetters.

If I'm writing for an audience of hundreds or thousands online I try to be pretty careful about such "trivia". I believe it affects how I am perceived.

(OTOH - a great pun is its own reword!) :ok:

[punkalouver]

Any penetration of the engine casings would result in very hot air escaping into the nacelle, which will cause an engine fire warning.
In the absence of a fire warning, and no other indication of systems distress, there is no emergency - it's a simple OEI.


Are you sure you should be making statements like that. About a year prior to the BA737 accident PWA 501 burned in Calgary after a similar uncontained engine failure. A 1 second fire bell did ring 51 seconds after the failure which ejected metal and punctured a fuel tank. I suppose this was a different sort of malfunction.

http://www.avsaf.org/reports/CANADA/1984.03.22_PacificWesternAirlines_Boeing737-200.pdf

I am not saying I would have done differently than the crew perhaps continueing on to at least JFK, but someone elses comment about a visual inspection, if it was daylight does not cover the fuselage or underside of the wing.
Many mention the 777 in their argument, that it only has two engines and of the redundancy of the 747-400 but would you rather go across the Atlantic in a fully serviceable 777 or a damaged 747-400 and for those who would continue including perhaps myself, how can we guarantee that there is no secondary damage in this situation? Just play the odds?

[BahrainLad]

if it becomes one on this forum, we will spend alot of time on color/colour and taxy/taxi

Hang on - color/colour and taxy/taxi are both recognised correct spellings in English, whereas 'brittania' is wrong wherever you are.

It's amazing what passes for quality journalism these days.

[jondc9]

bahrain lad

last time I checked, this was a pilot's forum and not a journalistic enterprise.

Add more helium and lighten up.

j

[Danny]

OK ladies and gentlemen, can we get back to the topic. Overstress obviously has charm and diplomacy by the bucketload and I thank him for stressing my points to jondc9 in a way that I could never do and I thank jondc9 for taking it in the manner it was intended to be delivered. :ooh:

Punkalouver, I think that in the absence of a fire warning the crew will take the time to look at all the engine parameters in a situation like the one being discussed. An engine surge which was handled as we are trained to do, 'Thrust Lever - Retard' until the surging stops is not a catastrophic failure of the engine. We have the 'Engine Severe Damage or Separation' checklist for that scenario. We also have the 'Engine Shut Down' checklist for non catastrophic failures or situations as in this one where there was an EGT exceedence.

Signs of N1 and N2 rotation (GE engines) are good indicators that there is something far more serious even if there is no fire warning. Also, if any blades of the engine had been shed then the vibration monitors are useful indicators. If any accessories had gone then there would be other indications. Also, it is possible to get much more detailed information about the condition of the engine than just the basic instrumentation we get on the EFIS and an operator like BA will have the ability to get a lot of information remotely.

So, I don't think that any crew would just shut down an engine after a surge and then continue without a lot more analysis of what actually happened even if some posters on here would like us to believe that that is what happened. Those of us that fly the B744 are aware of what goes on and those that make wild assumptions without a foundation knowledge of the B744 and its systems continue to make comments that disrupt the flow of the debate and feed the sensationalism of the journalists that like to use this site as their source for pilots views.

[barit1]

Thanks for the link, punkalouver.

While the Calgary report mentions several times the failure of the Tower to alert the crew of the fire, it also chides the crew for excessive reliance on cockpit indications of a fire.

I find it strange indeed the failure of the fire warning system is not highlighted. An uncontained failure in the engine cold section should have been immediately indicated in the cockpit; that's a "given" for transport category aircraft. Without such a warning, the crew were working on ambiguous data - no clear emergency at that point.

I've never been in a 737 cockpit, but I doubt one can see the engines - maybe not even the wingtips. Without a working fire warning system, I cannot fault the crew in this case.

[Khaosai]

Hi jondc9,

rather than say what the crew did was wrong, perhaps you should have used you 4 engined ops experience to state to the listening layman that this was a perfectly acceptable option for the crew once all factors and resources had been considered.

You, as someone who works on behalf of a large news organisation have to choose your words a little more carefully than the rest of us. The large listening audience hanging onto your every word, could be, potentially damaging to an airline.

On that particular day, the crew, having used all of the resources available to them, chose to continue, perfectly acceptable and legal too.

Rgds.

[jondc9]

Hi Khaosai


I didn't cover this live at all. To make it clear again, I am not employed by CNN, but I help them out especially on live events and background information.

To be sure, I have considered how I might have handled it on live TV.

I certainly would have mentioned that 4 engine planes are allowed to continue to destination with one shut down...I would even point out that takeoff alternates are different for 4 engine planes than 2 engine planes.

I would have asked the following, to help the viewer put things into perspective.

Would it be better for British Airways public relations to have a small article on page 17 of the Los Angeles Times saying:

yesterday, after a minor engine malfunction on one of 4 engines, a BA 747-400 made an uneventful return to LAX. The crew was praised by the passengers who were accomadated on a later flight.


or would it be better to have the story told so many times and finally make the FRONT PAGE of the Wall Street Journal?


I would try to put it in some form for a ground person to understand the world of flight. I would indicate that the following was an imperfect analogy, but all I could think of at the time...

imagine driving a car across the loneliest road in America, US 50 between ELY NEVADA and Fallon, Nevada. You start your journey in ELY with a properly serviced car...2 miles out of ELY the car appears to only be working at 75% of its potential, do you turn around and drive back to ELY and get it fixed, even though you will be late, and you may have to wait for parts, or do you push on across the Nevada desert for some 300 miles, knowing you will make it somehow to the next town. And do you call the people who serviced the car and ask their opinion. (I've driven this road)

Now again, I have stated this is an imperfect analogy, but trying to speak in aeronautical terms to ground laypersons can be tough.

I have never said what they did was illegal, though the catchall in some parts of regulations might go against them depending on the judge, the jury and the day.

[Carnage Matey!]

It only made the front page of the WSJ because some muppets at the FAA dropped the ball and it took them six months to dig themselves out of the big hole they'd gotten themselves into. You cannot run an airline if you constantly refuse to fly out of fear that a regulatory agency will start spouting off to the press that what you have done is dangerous, even though they themselves approved it. We could equally appear on the front pages next month if the FAA decided they suddenly didn't like the aircraft dispatching under a Boeing approved MEL alleviation. Once again, BA were following approved procedures throughout the flight and the FAA have dropped all charges. Next time it happens it won't make the front pages because the FAA have learnt that if they open their mouths without thinking first then they just embarass themselves.

[Globaliser]

imagine driving a car across the loneliest road in America, US 50 between ELY NEVADA and Fallon, Nevada. You start your journey in ELY with a properly serviced car...2 miles out of ELY the car appears to only be working at 75% of its potential, do you turn around and drive back to ELY and get it fixed, even though you will be late, and you may have to wait for parts, or do you push on across the Nevada desert for some 300 miles, knowing you will make it somehow to the next town.An "imperfect" analogy? It's absolutely laden with the conclusion that you so want your listeners to reach.

A better analogy would have started: "Imagine driving from New Haven to New York on the Post Road ..."

[L337]

Would it be better for British Airways public relations to have a small article on page 17 of the Los Angeles Times saying:
yesterday, after a minor engine malfunction on one of 4 engines, a BA 747-400 made an uneventful return to LAX. The crew was praised by the passengers who were accomadated on a later flight.
or would it be better to have the story told so many times and finally make the FRONT PAGE of the Wall Street Journal?
So now we must run our operation according to what the press might or might not say?
Let me see. Tomorrow as I get airborne in my 747-400. I have a problem. any problem will do. I now discard company procedure, bin the Boeing QRH. Ignore my common law duty of care. Ignore my responsibilities granted to my by my license. Discard company procedure. And invent an action according to how it may or may not be perceived by the press?
A press that shows little or no understanding of aviation. Shoots from the hip and sensationalizes everything. Reduces all to the lowest common denominator. And would sell its own proverbial granny to sell more copy.
The interview with the Chief Pilot would be short and too the point.

[jondc9]

L337

so, for the record, your chief pilot would be mad at you for returning to land with an engine shut down, that the Boeing manual would forbid you from doing the same and that you common law duty of care would somehow be violated by landing at LAX?


again, is that for the record?

jon

[L337]

returning to land with an engine shut down, that the Boeing manual would forbid you from doing the same and that you common law duty of care would somehow be violated by landing at LAX?

I honestly do not wish to be stupid. But I confess that I have no idea what you are talking about.

[jondc9]

dear L337

by no means do I wish to convey the idea that you are stupid, nor any of the members of this forum

what I am trying to do is to get pilots to think beyond the world of the rule book, of piloting the aircraft and remember this:

not only are you the "driver of the aeroplane" but you and what you do every day reflects on you, your airline, and the whole aviation community.

if you are in a desperate situation, of course be the pilot and get down safely and the hell with what others think...I MEAN THAT, cut off AIR FORCE ONE if you need to and flip them the finger if that helps you land safely!

but if you have time to think, to weigh all the choices you have, then be sure to remember how it might reflect upon you , your airline and the whole aviation community.


in your post, you are trying to get at the idea that you and the way you fly should not be dictated by how the press sees and reports it. and in the desperate situation, more power to you.

but, there is more to flying now, the pilot in, addition to being superb at flying the plane, must also be lawyer, corporate executive, nurse maid, flying instructor, public relations expert, and a myriad of other things.



If time permits, consider everything, if time doesn't, fly like a tiger!

j

[Carnage Matey!]

L337
so, for the record, your chief pilot would be mad at you for returning to land with an engine shut down, that the Boeing manual would forbid you from doing the same and that you common law duty of care would somehow be violated by landing at LAX?
again, is that for the record?
jon

He might be interested to know why you chose to return to land when you could have continued, given that they are both equally acceptable options and the latter is the companys policy. When given a choice between two equally safe options and one chooses the lesser commercially acceptable option you need to be able to support your decision. I couldn't be bothered/I was worried what jondc9 might say would not, to my mind, seem like sensible reasons. Were paid good money to make big decisions, nobody said it was going to be easy.

PS We really don't need you to get us to think beyond the rule book, we do that every day thank you, and we are fully aware of the consequences of our decisions in the publics eyes. As I stated previously, we are still fulll out of LAX most days and the FAA have dropped all the charges, so it would appear to me that despite the 'storm in a teacup' of the FAAs misinformed rant the public are still more than willing to put their money where our mouths are.

[L337]

jondc9:

As I am sure you know a pilot has three legal obligations.

1. Duty of Care. That is a common law obligation.
2. CAA Licence.
3. Contractual

That is the legal framework in which I as a Captain discharge my responsibilities. No number four marked CNN/BBC.

I fundamentaly disagree with your assertion that a pilot a must also be "public relations expert". BA pay me a wage to fly their aeroplanes their way. So long as I take care of 1, and 2 above, then I will do as 3 asks. If that gets BA into hot water with the press, that is BA's problem.

If a situation exists outside the "book" then I will do my best. Do what I believe to be firstly safe, and secondly commercial. In that order. No thirdly "What will look good in the press".

BA will defend any Captain to the hilt, and have done so, so long as they have complied with 1,2 and 3 above. To invent a fourth will have you hung out to dry.

[Danny]

Jon, your analogy, as has already been pointed out, is precisely why you have lost your credibility on here amongst your peers. You are not only trying to teach us how to suck eggs but you do it with such a patronising tone. :rolleyes:

I, for one, am beginning to have serious doubts that you have ever been a professional pilot. We have had impostors on here in the past. They try to talk the talk but invariably they get hoisted by their own petards. Most of us would refrain from making judgements without knowing all the facts. You however are obviously prepared to put foot in mouth whilst ignoring advice by others who obviously not only know better but have the experience to back it up too. :oh:

I am seriously considering having a ranking system on here where posters will have the content of their posts assessed and readers can immediately see who is considered worthwhile reading and who should be avoided or at least taken with a pinch of salt. I certainly know that if I'm getting angry reading some of the patronising tripe on here then many other are too. I prefer for readers who may not have an understanding of professional pilot issues to at least know what is real and what is fantasy. :ugh:

[Rananim]

Most of us would refrain from making judgements without knowing all the facts.
With all due respect,the facts quite clearly support a contrary opinion to the one that most posters appear to have on this forum.He should have diverted.The EGT exceedance prevented a relight and the failure occurred on takeoff on an 11 hr flight.
BA have a good reputation and the FAA dont have the cooperation of the CAA.They have the promise that such a decision will not be taken again in their airspace so they've dropped it.

I am seriously considering having a ranking system
Unfortunately,people would generally give a lower ranking to those people they disagree with.Its human nature.

[jondc9]

Dear Danny:


I have noticed that on internet forums that people who feel there is a patronizing tone usually add that tone from their own backgrounds.


Danny, you and I have been 'round and 'round on my credentials as a pilot and I even invited you and your staff to check out my credentials on the FAA WEB site. Have you done so? I will suppose not.

That YOU get angry at my posts means I am moving a debate forward. Indeed it is the open views freely expressed on this forum that makes it worthwhile. Change it if you will, give the DANNY stamp of approval, and you will lose your credibility.

In one breath you say my peers, in another you question if I have flown as a pro pilot.


RIGHT HERE AND NOW, prove me not to be who I say I am, or retract your statement! Do the 5 minutes of investigation to prove my credentials via the FAA & say you are sorry, or prove my lack of ATPMELCFIIMEI.

By the way, any of you who read "Air Line Pilot" magazine, ( the official journal of ALPA/USA & Canada ) can find my full name in the october issue on page 4 under the longest letter to the editor on that page. That should prove something to Capt. Danny about my credentials.

I await a statement from DANNY.



To L377

you have given me all I needed to know, that you fly BA's plane, BA's way and do what you are told to do. That would explain all of this bit about commercial viability of decisions. I wonder who told the pilots to take it as far as they could...I mean what position that person held or still holds. Director of operations, Chief pilot, president of company?

In America, I think you would be called a "company man".



happy landings!

jon

[L337]

I wonder who told the pilots to take it as far as they could...I mean what position that person held or still holds. Director of operations, Chief pilot, president of company?

After all that has been written you come up with that ridiculous statement. Not only that you demonstrate no understanding of how a commercial airline works. I fly BA's way because that is the BA SOP. And they pay my salary. I cannot make up my own Standard Operating Procedures. It would be unsafe and unprofessional.

I invite you to prove that the LAX-LHR flight was told to continue by the Director of operations, Chief pilot, or President of company. And if u can you can have my salary for a year.

The truth is that they were not. In no way at all. They flew the operation as per BA SOPs.

In Europe you would be called a "Journalist"

[jondc9]

Dear L337


I offer this quote from the first post on this thread...what do YOU MAKE OF THIS QUOTE:?


< He next told the controller, "We have now shut down the No. 2 engine. We are going to consult our company and see what they require us to do.">

There is even a LINK to allow YOU to hear the actual pilots speaking on the radio to ATC.


I am asking you; who did the pilots consult with at their company?

Did you ever read the article that this POST is based upon?


It is a simple question and you should be able to answer it. I don't want your wages.


Woodward and Bernstein are journalists too! thanks for the heartfelt compliment!

[L337]

Oh dear. Dear jondc9

You think that they had an engine failure. Spoke to the "Company" and the Director of operations, Chief pilot, or President of company. Or his gofer said. "Continue to London."

The actual line of events is the "company" will be a bunch of engineers, in London, who will be pouring over a whole pile of engine data that will have been spat instantly via satellite down the data link. Who will then look at the data and give advice to the Captain as to the state of the engine and, the likely cause of the failure.

Three button pushes gets you talking to LHR Operations. 30 seconds at most.

The Captain will then make his own decision as to what to do. He is the man in the frame. That is what he is paid to do. He carries the can. He decides. On the day he continued.

Did you ever read the article that this POST is based upon?

Spare me. Please.

[jondc9]

L337

are you afraid to read the article first up on this thread? afraid to listen to the ATC tapes?

please yourself.

j of r

[L337]

L337

are you afraid to read the article first up on this thread? afraid to listen to the ATC tapes?

please yourself.

j of r

I am happy to debate this issue with you. But your post is just barking.

What is your point?

I have read the article. I have followed the hundreds of posts. I have listened to the ATC tapes. What more do you require?

Finally, I do the job.

[jondc9]

< He next told the controller, "We have now shut down the No. 2 engine. We are going to consult our company and see what they require us to do.">

L337...

the quote says: SEE WHAT THEY REQUIRE US TO DO

not something like: we will check with engineering to find out how our engine is


finally, I READ THE QUOTE.

[fyrefli]

the quote says: SEE WHAT THEY REQUIRE US TO DO
not something like: we will check with engineering to find out how our engine is

Given the opprobrium evidently likely to be forthcoming from some quarters if one were to come straight out with the decision they eventually made, one could easily argue that the above is actually a rather clever use of language :)

Toodlepip!

Rich.

[L337]

So he used the word REQUIRE. No doubt made in the heat of battle. And you definitely are giving it too much importance.

However, no matter the phrase he chose to use, on the day the company will only provide him with information so as to help him in the decision making process. It is called "Using all available resources".

I get the strong impression you see a conspiracy theory here. You are looking for "Deep Throat". The truth is that there is none. If you think that everytime a BA flight has a problem he phones home and asks what to do, you are living in an alternate universe. Captains are paid to make informed decisions. That is what he did.

Over and over gain.

The Captain is paid to make decisions. He makes them. The company can require you fly inverted. Naked. to the South Pole. It is always the Captians decision to do so, or not.

In this instance he would say no. Because he has a duty of care to his passengers, and he values his licence.

[L337]

I would also like to add. That if you had been a professional pilot, you would not need me to explain this to you.

That you clearly do not understand the decsion making process on a flight deck concerns me. It is not rocket science. That is just the way it is. Not only in BA, but in every airline, and outfit I have ever flown with.

When all the information is in. It is the aeroplane that is strapped to his rear end. Not some bloke in ops.

The buck stops with the Captain.

[Human Factor]

The buck stops with the Captain. Every time.

He would most likely have consulted Operations Control and presented them with what had happened and the options that were available to him (ie. I can continue to LHR, I can continue to the East Coast, I can hang about for a couple of hours and dump fuel). What would you like me to do?

If he had said to Ops Control, "I am continuing", or "I am diverting", they would have had to accept it. It's all in accordance with SOPs.

Had it been a "catastrophic" engine failure such as "Fire" or "Severe Damage/Separation", something which degraded safety, I would venture that BA Ops Control would not have found out about the situation until the aeroplane was back on the ground at LAX.

[Nice flaps]

jondc9

In America, I think you would be called a "company man".

It follows then that this would be your opinion of the gentlemen up front that day. In most corners of the planet earth, the flight crew under scrutiny here would be called 'experienced pilots making balanced judgements based on all the information available to them.'
Other true professionals would be loath to criticise them without having an in-depth knowledge of the circumstances, which includes a sound appreciation of the aircraft's capabilities and procedures.

You, on the other hand, may be referred to as a 'misguided, supercilious commentator, applying twin logic to 4 engine operations.'
It does not matter what information or logic was presented to you, I am sure that you would not change your opinion in this instance. There is a rather disturbing God-like tone in the vast majority of your posts. For that reason I would feel very uneasy about flying with you. If we believe that we have stopped learning, that is the point at which we become a liability in my very humble European opinion.

You would be well served to take L337's wages and put yourself through a 747-400 course. Hell, we could all chip in. It might open your eyes, but then again probably not. Your vision is distorted not because your eyes are closed but because you wear the blinkers of arrogance and a closed mind. Your unsubstantiated, egotistical drivel is a disservice to the rightly respected pilot community in America. I am sure that they view you with a similar level of contempt as we do.

And I promised myself I wouldn't bother.....:ugh:

[jondc9]

nice flaps

<If we believe that we have stopped learning, that is the point at which we become a liability in my very humble European opinion.>


and that appears to have happened on your side of the pond


we are fortunate to live in countries which allow freedom of speech. your perceptions of my posts are just that , your perceptions.

you should hear what pilots on this side of the pond think of the choices made on that day...including 2 friends who are on the mighty 747-400

[sky9]

johc9. OK we are waiting for their views, PPRuNe is an open forum available to American 747-400 let them put their views rather than through the CNN expert (we have the same "experts" in the UK - generally they managed to come to a conclusion before the main evening news).

As a matter of interest have you read the CAA report on the incident?

[bullshot]

I would imagine that the Captain of the BA flight, competent Airman that he clearly is, would be feeling somewhat embarrassed if he read the offensive and personal attacks made by some in trying to 'defend' him. Surely he has no need for friends like these! The nature of some replies to Jonc9 are so rude and illogical that an observer might reasonably come to the conclusion that the writers are only resorting to such abuse because they have lost the argument - if indeed there needs to be an argument at all.

That Captain made a number of decisions during that flight. The flight landed safely so his decisions were fundementally sound. Because we are pilots and professionals though, we accept that our decisions are bound to be analyzed over and over again by our peers. They will do this from the comfort of their armchairs and with no time constraints! There is nothing wrong with this - it is one of the reasons why flying has become so safe.

There are often no 'right' or 'wrong' decisions. Some are just, with hindsight, better than others. We go to great lengths in training to get people to understand this.

By all accounts that crew, on the day, behaved impeccably. Were all of the Captain's decisions the best options? With the benefit of hindsight possibly not, but that is no critisism and aviation safety has been improved by this event. For example, 747 pilots understand their fuel system better now than they did previously...

What to do after an engine surge (and after the engine has been shut down and secured) is an interesting debate. I have had a GE (CF6) surge and, on engineering inspection it was found that the engine was considerably damaged. Naturally, we did not know the extent of the damage until after landing... There are though, ex RR Conway operators for whom an engine surge was a regular event! Nowadays though, these happenings are so rare that, having shut the engine down, I would probably acknowledge the possibility of damage and remain close to suitable and commercial alternates. For that reason, my 'armchair' course of action would have been to land at a BA destination somewhere on the east coast, hopefully without the need to dump some of the world's precious fuel. I think there are lots of us out here who would have made such a decision - we are not so vociferous on PPrune but the personal attack on Jonc9 is ridiculous and demeaning to the profession.

It is unfortunate that BA's standards have been questioned. I know that BA have the highest standards (I would say that though, I was a Training Captain with them). There are many very dodgy operators on both sides of the pond let alone elsewhere in the world who would never stand up to even superficial investigation. Such an incident would probably never have been reported.

BS

[bullshot]

Just to anticipate the usual question - no I am not 744 type rated. I do have some experience though on 1,2,3,and 4 engined aircraft. But to borrow the line from someone else - "airmanship is not type specific".

If any of us are unlucky enough to make a really bad decision one day - and end up in court - the prosecutor won't be type rated either. Neither will the judge be who sends you down...

BS

[Carnage Matey!]

I offer this quote from the first post on this thread...what do YOU MAKE OF THIS QUOTE:?


< He next told the controller, "We have now shut down the No. 2 engine. We are going to consult our company and see what they require us to do.">


Well what I make of that quite is he spoke to the engineers (who will be your first port of call) to see if they were required to return to LAX. Having been given the all clear to continue he then elected to do so off his own bat.

With all due respect,the facts quite clearly support a contrary opinion to the one that most posters appear to have on this forum.He should have diverted.

Clearly they don't. The CAA don't think so. The AAIB don't think so. BA don't think so. Most of the posters here don't think so. Most of the trainers in BA don't think so. I don't think so. I'm surprised you can dismiss such a wealth of expertise on this subject and come to a conclusion which is clearly contrary to the evidence.


BA have a good reputation and the FAA dont have the cooperation of the CAA.They have the promise that such a decision will not be taken again in their airspace so they've dropped it.

They have had no such promise - that is nothing more than media spin. The reality is that the FAA have been told to 'butt out', not just by the CAA but also by their own technical experts and have skulked away with their tail between their legs.

[Nice flaps]

You are missing the point, jondc9, and you are also assuming that I endorse all the decisions made that day.
People here are not condemning you for having a critical view of the flight crew, but for that opinion having absolutely no foundation. You have provided no credible data to back up your conclusion, which appears to be based on nothing other than your own ego.

Freedom of speech is wholeheartedly encouraged on 'our side of the pond' as it is here on Pprune. We are open and receptive to well presented thoughts and opinions no matter which side of the pond, or indeed part of the world, they emanate from. As professional pilots though, the least one would expect is for views expressed to be backed up with something of substance.
With your overwhelming credentials and experience I would expect you to be able to produce a superior and more convincing argument than 'they were wrong.'

'My perception' is that your 'us v them' America is best attitude is an embarrassment to your more enlightened and balanced peers. You are exactly the sort of individual that wrongly gives America a reputation for being arrogant and disdainful within the global community. The thing I fear, as you point out, is that people will form perceptions of American professionals based on your posts and I believe you to be doing them a great dissevice.

You genuinely seem to believe that all 747 pilots in the UK believe they did the right thing and that all 747 pilots in the US believe they did the wrong thing. Incredible.
Your friends opinions would be welcomed here. They are in an infinitely stronger position than you to pass judgement. Their opinions would likely be based on actual concrete evidence, therefore respected and well-received whatever their conclusions may be.

you should hear what pilots on this side of the pond think of the choices made on that day

Yes, I'm sure it would make the BA crew realise the error of their infidel ways.

[Nice flaps]

Just to anticipate the usual question

No one would feel the need to question your credentials, bullshot. You have provided an interesting, well balanced contribution, which clearly reveals substantial experience and airmanship. It is not of an unsubstantiated, critical, or nationalistic nature. jondc9 has failed in all aspects which is why he has provoked a strong reaction.

[jondc9]

nice flaps and others:


it is very unlikely that my US based 747 friends will post on pprune. They have read the posts as forwarded by me and have come to the conclusion that posting here would be as effective as talking to a rock.

to SKY 9, you and the others always seem to refer to me as a CNN expert...why not by my certificates, which I imagine are similiar to yours? A simple question for you. Will you answer ?

I have also demanded an apology from DANNY and L337 as they question whether or not I am a real pilot. See post 88 on this thread and others on other threads. I have offered an unimpeachable source for my credentials/certicicates and Danny and L337 have been invited to disprove who I say I am or say they are sorry. I await their response within 4 days or automatically assume their most humble retraction.


In america, when something is so wrong, we, as a slang term just say: WRONG.


Wrong refering to the highest level of morality and not regulations, SOPs and policies and economic considerations.

Many times on this and other threads, pilots ( I guess they are pilots, no real proof) have indicated that they would prefer to fly a 744 vs 777. I offer this priority of planes:

1. fully functioning 744, 2. fully functioning 777, 3. crippled 744, 4. crippled 777, 5. "Spirit of ST. Louis"




If you would like an analysis of the FAA quote regarding an understanding with BA, fine.

When a media reports an FAA official speaking of reaching an understanding with BA and a change for operations in US airspace, the only way you can disprove that is to contact the FAA spokesperson and have him retract the statement. This post/thread, unlike the first thread which was on the actual incident, is based on the article leading off this post. Do you understand that?

Simply saying, "BA POLICIES HAVE NOT CHANGED" is like screaming, "YOUR MOM WEARS COMBAT BOOTS". or Neener, Neener, Neener!

In fact if BA polices have not changed, report it to the Times of London and ask them to get the FAA to coment on this, FOR THE RECORD. When the response is published, we can discuss it.


This has never been a US vs. UK thing, and to say it is, is a disservice to a fine friendship between 2 great nations. Shame on you.

I recall financial hardships by BA in recent years...in the US, money has become a guiding light to airlines, even changing safety and mx procedures leading to death. Witness Alaska MD80 crash due to poor lubrication of jackscrew.


The posters who defend the handling of the incident have spoken of redundency of 744, of regulations and SOPs and a myriad of others. Fine.

Their defense of this situation is as strong as Sec.State Rice's defense of the business in Iraq and WMD. And some people still believe we will find WMD in Iraq and it is all just fine. But people are waking up to that crock too.

I often find when people defend something with such passion, their views are tainted by motivated self interest. What interest have I but safety? and do not for a minute think it is a journalistic interest, I post on this forum primarily as a pilot, I acknowlege the journalistic portion as a disclaimer, as surely as the disclaimer posted on the bottom of pprune's forum.


over to you on the old RT

j

[Fropilot]

Failures on aircraft will always occur. What we should all focus on is that a PIC in consultation with his airline made and took a course of action that resulted in safe landing in Manchester. No two incidents are ever likely to be the same. Only those who believe or naive enough to believe that flailures can and will be experienced only as per the QRH or FCOM blame the crew. A pilot who understands and makes a life saving decision is a better assest than one who thinks life in an aircraft will always replicate the manuals to the dot.

There are too many variables.

I do not believe that the decision was based on economics but on the ability of the crew and aircraft to continue the flight safely. BA is great airline. And when I fly with them I know that I am being looked after by some of the best pilots in the world. Some of the posts on this thread show that we have converts to the teaching doctrine that a set of robotic responses to a memorized set of responses to a situation beats common sense and good airmanship. Some recent incidents/accidents illustrate clearly the difference between believers in the QRH/FCOM and those who truly undesrtand the profession of flying.

Finally and most important a safe landing is more important than killing yourself and passengers etc. than killing yourself and others by believing recommendations for machines you may not fully understand will always save your ass.

[downthebay]

I had thought there was a more recent thread on this topic but I failed to find it. Just wanted to point out that AvWeb's John Deakin published a column this week with his take on the situation.
Here (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/193882-1.html).
I am SLF with no agenda here. Cheers.

[Rainboe]

Thanks for pointing that out. how nice to see a totally independant opinion supports the crew's actions!

It was mildly upsetting seeing the inferences that the crew were browbeaten, or 'influenced', by BA management into continuing. People must understand these were safety minded pilots in no mood to be forced what they didn't want to do, and no BA pilot I know would ever be 'obliged' to take an action they considered unsafe. Anybody who has flown the 747 knows the mechanics of engine stalls and flying the beast on 3 engines. The crew did exactly what I would have done, and I flew them for 8 years (and the Classic 747 for 10 years before that). The outcome has shown that the go decision has been vindicated. I will always accept that many pilots don't like it and would maybe have done otherwise, but they must accept they have no experience of the -400. There is no airline flying today with as extensive a history of longhaul operations as BA, and as experienced pilots, and with a 747-400 it was the right thing to do, in my opinion. The option of dump and return seemed to be the favoured opinion by many here- understand fuel jettison (pouring about 40 tonnes of raw fuel into the vortex) carries additional risks of its own. Landing en route ( a long way off route) would have been dreadfully inconvenient and not solved much. Decisions like that are what pilots are paid to take.

[West Coast]

"been dreadfully inconvenient"

When speaking of a safety related issue, that has no place in the conversation.
For the record, as best I can tell, they didn't do anything wrong.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I guess all those here, only jondc9 it seems, suggesting the BA crew should have dumped fuel and landed at LAX will be campaigning for all ETOPS flying to cease and indeed for DC10/L1011/B727/DA50/900 etc flights to be limited to always operating within 400nm of a suitable alternate?

I mean we can't have aeroplanes flying over the Atlantic on three engines can we...even when 1000s of flight a week happen on two?

I have flown a couple of different 4 engined aircraft, turboprop & jet...a single engine failure in such an aircraft is a complete non event...for gods sake P3 mil operators shut engines down to increase loiter time.

Boeing are very succinct in what qualifies as reason to 'land at the nearest suitable' airport and 1 engine out in a 4 engined aeroplane is not on the list.

The media is not qualified to comment and neither would be most employees at the FAA. For that reason alone their possible views after the fact will never come into my decision making processes.

The crew on the day made a very safe and correct decision...end of story.
Edit: jonc when in a hole best to stop digging.