BA engine fault on Takeoff at PHX

[JammedStab]

Happened back in December. ATC communications video shown here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWAsQ3qldo8

Can someone tell me if that is an engine-out procedure that the followed. It kind of sounds like it based on their discussions with ATC.

[FlightDetent]

Hillarious!! Is this scripted?

[xaf2fe]

"He didn't declare an emergency."

Well, yeah he did, but before our European friends get all upset, here's the deal;

Over here in the colonies we never used "Mayday," we have always said we are "Declaring an Emergency."
However, we recently made the change to "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday."
But it might take some time to make the change, on both sides of the mic. Some old habits are hard to break.

I'm sure this controller has been told and is now up to date.

[JammedStab]

Hillarious!! Is this scripted?

Not hilarious at all to pilots knowledgeable about this stuff. Obviously, condensed from real time.

Probably best to delete your post.

"He didn't declare an emergency."

Actually, if you listen carefully to that video(around4:42) the controller appears to say that "They DID declare an emergency" but it also sounds like "DIDN'T". Seeing as the aircraft did declare an emergency and the controller likely knows what MAYDAY means, I suspect that the transcript has a typo and it should stat DID.

Probably best to delete the rest of your post.

[EDLB]

Very professional done from ATC and BA pilots. ATC made a very clear RT with slow good pronounced language. The pilots had their handful with the added engine failure checklist. Funny that ATC asked for the fuel quantity in lbs again after they got it in tons. I would assume that ARFF could do the simple math.

[FlightDetent]

JS, you're wrong. Clearly "Didn't".

The amount of misunderstanding among native speaking guys makes this an absolute case-study.

Imagine their faces, after having asked to dump - too heavy to land, one engine gone. Then this comes in:

"Speedbird 38P heavy, are you able to climb to 10 thousand feet - or not?"
"BAW38P heavy, yeah - now we can climb to 10 thousand feet it that helps you out, sir. And we're happy to downgrade the Mayday at the moment, 'cause you're obviously helping us out the best you can."
"I'm sorry 38P heavy, say again the last part?"
"You can, ... we don't ..., I'm guessing we've downgraded from our Mayday status. That's all, BAW38P."
"Downgrade a Mayday status?"
"Well, I am happy you're helping us out, so you know we have an issue. And we're ... we're obviously coming back in. Over"

[EDLB]

Speedbird clearly stated an emergency with Mayday Mayday Mayday, and it was understood by ATC. Since they where coming back for a 3 engine MLW landing the airport had ARFF out. ATC did clear the airspace and runway for Speedbird. ATC will most likely not downgrade a Mayday in such a situation, why should they? ATC knows that the pilots have a very high workload in this situation, so they do not go in semantics. What need to be done was clear and ATC helped as much as they could. Communicate comes always third for the pilots.

[JammedStab]

JS, you're wrong. Clearly "Didn't".

I'm right....Clearly "DID".

Which makes sense with what he stated right after that. "I would assume that they are going to need to return" which is based on the fact that they DID declare an emergency.

And, yes...American controllers do know what MAYDAY means. So you are wrong there as well.

A good example though of how words can be misinterpreted even by native speakers.

But I do agree with you that there was some statements at one point by BA that were not particularly easy to understand in terms of what they were saying.

[FlightDetent]

No JS, you are reading it the opposite way around. Clearly didn't. And the since the ATC is confused why no emergency declared at that point - he feels like there should be one - that leads to the fuzzy statement assume he'd come back. Why? Because either the poor ATCO or his colleague before completely missed the 3x MAYDAY call.

Every single thing the BA said made perfect sense (to a pilot) and they went out of their way to be the smallest possible pain they could. BTW your profile is a bit economical with details, are you a pilot?

I'm sure the ATC did an illustrious job in their field - i.e. keeping the traffic separated (!!!) - but on a communication side, they're half clueless of what the BA guys job was. [Or did they expect them to fly on three back to the UK ? :} Fair enough]

This one is a must in class to show how the fluent English speaking pilots got it wrong (when scared to death, literally):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICb8p9SvvM For a light amusement during the break, that BAW/PHX recording is perfect.

Another show point at 09:03:
"Can you let me know what your fuel left is?"
"Er, we've got - there's about 54 tonnes of fuel. So we've just come down to max landing weight. And if possible, we'd like to stop the rollout towards the end of the runway, sir?"
"Oh yeah, you said how many? how, You said how many pounds of fuel?
"Sorry, how many what, sor?
"How many pounds, or can you give us that in time? Or is it just easier with - you said 5,400 pounds?
"50 thousand kilos"
"50 thousand kilos, okay".

The boring option:
"BAW report endurance.
"Just a sec, sir. ... About 3 hours, one or two G/As included."
"Copy 38P"

[FlightDetent]

Speedbird clearly stated an emergency with Mayday Mayday Mayday, and it was understood by ATC. Since they where coming back for a 3 engine MLW landing the airport had ARFF out. ATC did clear the airspace and runway for Speedbird. ATC will most likely not downgrade a Mayday in such a situation, why should they? ATC knows that the pilots have a very high workload in this situation, so they do not go in semantics. What needs to be done was clear and ATC helped as much as they could. Communicate comes always third for the pilots.

The ATC knew well what happened, with a good understanding of the urgency/gravity of the situation. They seem to have completely missed the MAYDAY call, never acknowledged it.

Calling MAYDAY (imminent danger to life) for a surge-shutdown is too much and would attract a negative remark with many TREs and Flt OPS standards departments. It's probably a BA policy (a reasonable approach against splitting hairs) to declare one for any power plant issues, and then downgrade. Which brings a question Can you really downgrade/cancel a MAYDAY? What do we expect the ATC, ARFF, MED and Airport OPS teams would do at that point?. Pull the red button back up and wire-seal it, climb the greasy pole to bunks?.

[172_driver]

Was there any major misunderstanding between pilot and ATC? I think not.

No need to get academic or stuck on semantics.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Speedbird clearly stated an emergency with Mayday Mayday Mayday, and it was understood by ATC. Since they where coming back for a 3 engine MLW landing the airport had ARFF out. ATC did clear the airspace and runway for Speedbird. ATC will most likely not downgrade a Mayday in such a situation, why should they? ATC knows that the pilots have a very high workload in this situation, so they do not go in semantics. What need to be done was clear and ATC helped as much as they could. Communicate comes always third for the pilots

Bear in mind they will have been communicating to multiple ATC agencies. It sounded very well managed to me. Compare also this (certainly the video is better...)

https://youtu.be/9KhZwsYtNDE

[golfbananajam]

The MAYDAY-MAYDAY-MAYDAY call is quite clear at 1:54 at which point the speedbird crew tell ATC what their initial intentions are in a clear, calm manner, doesn't seem like any panic or uncertainty, to me at least, from either the crew or ATC, sounds almost like a routine event.

Well done to all involved

[Hotel Tango]

What inane comments from the usual armchair experts! Remember that this is not an everyday event for those concerned and that the recording you hear is greatly condensed giving a distorted impression. On the whole it was handled well. And just as the FD crew are busy with a multitude of things so is ATC.

[FlightDetent]

Was there any major misunderstanding between pilot and ATC? I think not.No need to get academic or stuck on semantics. If it ain't broke, don't fix it


During a real-life event we perform between 60-80% of the trained standard, at best. It matters to some, what the trained standard is. And knowing where the 40-20% got lost too. For the next crew who will need to dodge the bullet. For the controller when the same happens to A/C with a strong East Asian accent, and Level 4 ICAO English.

The ATC surely did their job well both in the air and on the ground, and missing the 3xM call did not stop them, which underscores a lot. Safely handled with margins.

Between PHX ATC and BA long-haul crew, with an event as simple as surge with ENG shutdown on a quad, seamless is the standard you'd hope to see. This was the best of both worlds encounter but ended with a lot more training material than appropriate.

[cargosales]

It depresses me sometimes that some Flight Sim warriors on here think they actually know what they're talking about, do not have the ability to correctly listen to, let alone understand, anything more complicated than a 12 minute odd audio clip etc. Yet still feel free to gob off with insults and inaccuracies about what actually happened.

And one wonders why professional pilots get paid so much .. might have something to do with being responsible for 350 odd PAX travelling in close proximity to 54 tons of flammable liquid in a sick aircraft !!!!!

[wiedehopf]

"How many pounds, or can you give us that in time? Or is it just easier with - you said 5,400 pounds?
"50 thousand kilos"
"50 thousand kilos, okay".

The boring option:
"BAW report endurance.
"Just a sec, sir. ... About 3 hours, one or two G/As included."
"Copy 38P"

Endurance is actually not what the controllers want to know. Like the souls on board it's for the Fire and Rescue team.
How much combustible stuff is there?
(Don't know if it's really useful to know but that's the standard two questions asked by ATC when there is an emergency)

And the protocol training for ATC should change the question to: How much fuel do you have on board? In kilograms or pounds please!

[MaximumPete]

It's amazing the number of folk I taught in the simulator prioritised noise abatement rather than obstacle clearance in an engine-out situation. After all, in a twin you've lost nearly half the noise! That's why it's important that there should be no ambiguity about what you're doing and making sure ATC know!


Cargosales: I worked on the theory that if we get home it follows that the rest of crew and passengers will have successful a outcome. If the we had three or three hundred the responsibilities are just the same

[cargosales]

You will note I praised the crew. My criticism is reserved for the ATCO. I do not recall being taught A N C with C being convert fuel figures in any of my LPC's. It was a daft request at an inappropriate time. Do it yourself if you need it that badly. You are welcome to confirm the validity of my license and type rating via PM. Sincerely, flight sim warrior.

You are quite correct wtsmg but please be assured that my comments were NOT directed at you. Quite the opposite in fact.

And I seriously agree with you about overloading a pilot, already in a very stressful situation, with inane and downright daft questions that someone on the ground should be able to work out in seconds. But to be fair to the ATCOs, they too are under enormous pressure. And they may not have the time to think it through or do the maths.

It's not limited to aviation but there is a point at which the human brain simply 'overloads' and cannot cope with anything more complicated that 'what is 2 + 2?' And in this specific instance that applies equally to pilots and ATCOs.

Just my 2p worth

CS

[KelvinD]

It strikes me the biggest issue here is not who declared what or how many pounds there in a kilo, it is apparent failure to communicate between the various ATC sectors. As the flight is passed/handed over from one sector to another, one would expect the controller handing off to include relevant info on the flight, such as the declared emergency etc. It sounded to me as if Approach hadn't updated Tower on the intention to dump fuel and return to Phoenix.

[Hotel Tango]

KelvinD: Utter utter utter cock! Please do not comment on things (such as ATC) which you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about!

[Herod]

C'mon guys. For a start, we only have the edited version. It seems to me the crew and ATC did the job in front of them, to a successful outcome. Let's not nitpick. As regards cancelling a "Mayday", in Europe it is (was?) possible to downgrade to a "Pan". You're still getting the full emergency service, it's just that the immediate danger to life is no longer there.

[tdracer]

To be fair - there are two definitions of "ton" - 1,000 kilo or 2,000 pounds. There is a 10% difference between the 'pound ton' and the 'metric ton'. Most people on this side of the pond think in pound tons, not metric tons, so ATC may have wanted to clarify.

[FlightDetent]

@cargosales which comments you find objectable?

[421dog]

As regards cancelling a "Mayday", in Europe it is (was?) possible to downgrade to a "Pan"

After losing an engine in a piston twin at fl200 immediately above the only remaining (CB limited) approach corridor to ORD on a seriously convective afternoon and realizing that there was no way I was going to be able to get a word in edge-wise to center that I would soon be on my way to a substantially lower altitude, I called Pan-pan, (not wanting to needlessly upset the applecart with a "Mayday"). My communication was, however, interpreted in exactly the same way as a "Mayday". An emergency was understood, and ATC made me enough of a hole that I and my passengers got out of the way, down in one piece, at an appropriate location, with a minimum of fuss, and nobody on the big iron missed his connection.
I asked about this issue in the (obligatory) post-emergency phone call with the FSDO, (they were happy with my actions) and I was informed that, in FAA parlance, there is no distinction betwixt the two.

[Airbubba]

To be fair - there are two definitions of "ton" - 1,000 kilo or 2,000 pounds. There is a 10% difference between the 'pound ton' and the 'metric ton'. Most people on this side of the pond think in pound tons, not metric tons, so ATC may have wanted to clarify.

Yep, ton and tonne are homophones, not that there is anything wrong with that.

And the BA pilot said runway 08 instead of runway 8, surprised the PPRuNe R/T police here didn't go after him for the miscue.

[cargosales]

KelvinD: Utter utter utter cock! Please do not comment on things (such as ATC) which you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about!

Breaking my own rules here .. and probably some of PPRuNe's, by being personal but hey

Please, HotelTango, play the ball, not the player. And contribute something useful rather than just insulting people.

This thread is ultimately about flight safety which is in all of our interests, whether me as a PAX or the guys up front trying their damndest to deal with an emergency. I'd rather like to survive such an emergency, as I'm sure would they. Because those guys 'driving' will the the first to arrive at the scene of an accident !! Please think about that before posting in that vein...

Kind regards

CS

[old,not bold]

Interesting, isn't it. BA 268, 20th February 2005, has a surge on take-off from LAX. Far from declaring a Mayday, a decision was taken to fly back to London on the remaining 3-engines. That decision was robustly defended here on PPRuNe by people professing to be B747 pilots, which I'm sure they were, at least 95% were, mostly on the grounds that A B747-400 is a different animal, and that flying it LAX-LHR on 3 engines is no less safe than with 4. (Provided you get your revised fuel calculations right, of course.) A few dinosaurs disagreed, repeating the mantra, "Land as soon as safe to do so" if an engine gives up the ghost. I don't remember anyone criticising the lack of a Mayday call.
My point is, what's different about this latest incident? I'm guessing that something was, but what?

[FlightDetent]

Lessons learned? I never understood why did not they land on the East Coast, whilst accepting their actions were safe. The ABN-OP of calling a Mayday regardless and then downgrade which we see here, have they been introduced post the crossing? Maybe the publicity was just not desired ever again.

[Hotel Tango]

Cargosales, I do not comprehend your post one iota. So, as one who worked in ATC for 46 years I'm supposed to accept the total rubbish put forward by a poster with no obvious ATC qualifications or knowledge? Are you kidding me. I didn't insult him, I spoke the truth.

[Airbubba]

I think you'll find '08' is correct phraseology as per ICAO doc 9432 / 2.4.2.

We don't use much of that ICAO stuff here in America. If you know somebody that has the PHX Jepps, take a look at the 10-9 page for the runway number.

[Locked door]

Ref continue or not (LAX - PHX), the situations were vastly different. The general mantra for a 747 is continue if it’s safe to do so. Considerations include

Severe damage or not? Engine surges/failures can occur for multiple reasons, eg. guide vane angle failure (surge, not severe damage), or bits missing (surge/failure, structural damage), fuel metering unit failure (flameout, not severe damage).

Terrain clearance emergency turn procedure? If there is one once completed there’s probably not enough fuel to reach destination. No ETP and you might have enough gas to get home.

Fuel loading, there might simply be not enough fuel on board to get home one eng inop, if you’re lucky and are carrying a lot of contingency fuel there might be enough.

En route MSA’s. If there are MSA’s above the two eng inop max ceiling then either a reroute or divert is required. A reroute might mean an increase to trip fuel which now means you’re short of fuel.

En route weathers. If Goose, Gander, Kef, Prestwick etc are wide open you might consider continuing as you could get in two eng inop. If the enroute wx is crappy and you don’t fancy having a go two eng inop (go around is very difficult / impossible after gear extension) you would divert.

Decompression fuel. If continuing one eng inop do you still have enough fuel to perform an emergency descent at the critical point mid Atlantic and still be able to reach a suitable airfield with reserves intact. And is the weather at those suitable airfield good enough?

These are just some of the concerns a 747 crew need to address. The 747 is designed to be “go minded”. Some crews have quite correctly elected to continue, other crews have quite correctly elected to return or divert.

Unless you are type rated on the aircraft in question, and have all the information that that particular crew had available to them, you are quite simply not qualified to pass judgement on a crews decision.

Hope that helps.

LD

[JammedStab]

No JS, you are reading it the opposite way around. Clearly didn't. And the since the ATC is confused why no emergency declared at that point - he feels like there should be one - that leads to the fuzzy statement assume he'd come back. Why? Because either the poor ATCO or his colleague before completely missed the 3x MAYDAY call.

Every single thing the BA said made perfect sense (to a pilot) and they went out of their way to be the smallest possible pain they could. BTW your profile is a bit economical with details, are you a pilot?

Once again, I read it as DID declare an emergency. Whether I am right or wrong really doesn't matter much anyways in terms of the outcome of this particular scenario. The more telling thing is how it demonstrates how easy it is for a single word to be misunderstood by two native speakers and a reminder to try to be very particular in clarity of wording. with ATC communication

I would be willing to bet large dollars that every active ATC controller in the US knows what MAYDAY means. It is possible that the MAYDAY call wasn't heard but I guarantee he knew what the term meant.

Feel free to read through my posts to see if I am a pilot. I think you will enjoy them.

[exfocx]

FlightDetent,

Sorry, but if you go to 1.55 on the vid you'll see and hear M, M, M. Imo, the confusion with the ATC'er is that he doesn't get why they'd want to downgrade.

[Bull at a Gate]

I might be a bit old fashioned, or just plain wrong (much more likely) but after declaring a mayday isn’t every further communication from the aircraft supposed to include the word “mayday”? That would have avoided the obvious confusion on this recording.

[Herod]

Locked door posted: Unless you are type rated on the aircraft in question, and have all the information that that particular crew had available to them, you are quite simply not qualified to pass judgement on a crews decision.



That should be at the top of every thread of this kind.

Bull at a Gate. As far as I'm aware, the inclusion of "mayday" should be on first contact with a new controller., not on every transmission.

[old,not bold]

Locked Door, thank you for that summary of most of the factors that need to be thought about, plus the usual PPRuNe lecture on second guessing the crew, which no-one was actually doing.

Of course, all of those also applied in the BA 268 case; especially "if you’re lucky and are carrying a lot of contingency fuel there might be enough". Hmmm, I seem to remember that BA 268 diverted to MAN due to fuel.

I'll show my colours and say that I was among those who thought that BA got that one wrong, simply because the engine surge was the first hole in the cheese. Luckily the second and third did not line up. But they nearly did; just consider if a go-round had been necessary at Manchester from 1,000 feet. The second hole was a higher fuel burn than they claculated; a go-round for a reason outside their control could have been the third. We dinosaurs think that when your safety buffer is eroded by the loss of an engine you don't tempt fate. So I'm with this guy who declared a Mayday to make sure he got the full attention of ATC while he sorted out the situation, and then landed as soon as safe to do so. The passengers on BA 268 did not volunteer to take part in a 3-engine ferry over the arctic.

[GS-Alpha]

They did indeed divert into Manchester on that occasion. It was discussed to death at the time, and was due to being unsure as to whether all of the fuel in the failed engine’s main tank was available. (Nothing to do with a higher fuel burn than they anticipated). They decided to play it safe, even though it was actually all usable and there was plenty of fuel to continue on to LHR. There really is no reason a 747 cannot continue on three engines as long as all of the continuation requirements are met, however the publicity created around that particular event has resulted in public perception guiding the likely subsequent actions, rather than flight continuation safety. The downgrading of the Mayday in this case, will have been due to the fact that the flight continuation situation was by that stage fully assessed, and there was no longer any particular flight safety urgency to be on the ground - just public perception.

[Locked door]

Old Not Bold,

When you have completed a type rating on a four engine heavy aircraft come back and read that post. You might go a bit pink in the face.

Have a read of this.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542302bfe5274a1317000bd7/Boeing_747-436__G-BNLG_06-06.pdf

Dont skim it, read it all and then come back and explain what the crew did wrong. Base your argument on facts, not “I feel” or “I think”, and base your arguments on four engine aircraft certification and rules.

The crew made sensible, appropriate decisions, came up with a plan that contained sensible bottom lines w.r.t fuel, and changed the plan in a calm manner when the circumstances altered, and obtained the appropriate level of assistance from each ATC unit as and when required.

Note the FAA recognised the crew made good decisions and that no action would be taken after reviewing the facts.

LD

[Locked door]

NB, a hairy old TRI once pointed out to me that a 747 on three engines has more redundancy than any fully serviceable twin engine jet on two engines.

[Meikleour]

Locked door: Oh dear! Reference to the full report does in fact show that BA came in for criticism for their use of a non - Boeing standard fuel balancing procedure. This, coupled with the crew's apparent poor/incomplete understanding of the fuel system turned what should have been a routine 3-eng fly on into an emergency! BA were requred to introduce extra training sunsequently. ( if you are inclined to attack my credentials - 13 years B747 and 10 years A340 and TRE both types )

[Locked door]

Meikleour,

I’m not and never have said it was a perfect sector. The criticism raised was that the crew shouldn’t have continued / it was unsafe to do so.

It was an unfortunate end to the flight and of course lessons were learned. What irks me is the “BA are unsafe and should never have continued” mantra from twin jet or flight sim pilots!

ATB

LD

[portmanteau]

I am guessing that US pilots cleared for "zero nine left" at LHR, don't say " give me that in single figures please".
When in Rome..... and btw the Jepps at PHX not only show 8 but they paint 8 on the runway and not 08 as we limeys would.

[wiggy]

NB, a hairy old TRI once pointed out to me that a 747 on three engines has more redundancy than any fully serviceable twin engine jet on two engines.



Simplistically it’s true and TBF I was happy to trot that line out for about 20 years, then converted to a relatively modern twin and saw how time had moved on and what that was capable of. Ultimately, yes, a four holer gives you more options than a twin in the case of an engine out ... but as witnessed by the never ending arguments here about the BA LAX flight that continued being able to do so may or may not be a good thing.....

[Meikleour]

Locked door: Fair enough - but you did attack old, not bold based on, I asume, your guess as to his experience! I did the first part of my career with BA and it always amazed me their predilection for "going their own way" with respect to long standing manufacturer procedures. In that case it bit them badly!
By the by, use of the Override/Jettison Pumps for balancing was an often used procedure in the circuit for base training but then the fuel in tanks was never below 13tons total remaining! What is the current procedure at BA?

[KelvinD]

Hotel Tango: I will confess to having only 5 years experience working with ATC. And I maintain my comment was not "utter, utter poppycock". If there had been better communication between controllers, at least a part of the conversation between the tower and the ground units would not have arisen. I am referring to the tower not knowing that the flight had indeed declared an emergency or what the intentions were. May I respectfully suggest you sit down with a nice warm drink and let your blood pressure settle down.
TDracer: 2,240 lbs!

[Hotel Tango]

KelvinD, I'm not sure what you mean when you mention your 5 years experience with ATC. My opinion of your post was based on my 46 years experience working in ATC. The fact of the matter is that you simply have no idea of what was involved at the time with regard to internal communications. You base your conclusion simply on a very compressed/edited recording missing many key and pertinent transmissions not to mention unrecorded (to the public) co-ordination between controllers and between controllers and various agencies. To suggest that the TWR was not in the loop is erroneous. And when you're sitting in your armchair criticizing ATC please also bear in mind that there would have been numerous people communicating to numerous units whilst still also handling all the other traffic in and around the airport. PHX is an extremely busy airport. As I previously stated, as far as I'm concerned, a good job was done by all with a positive outcome. If posters wish to analyse every aspect in detail then they should only do so if they have all relevant evidence at hand. This they have not. Hence my elevated blood pressure as you put it!

[Igundwane]

Having watched a Caravan nearly arse end a 172 trainer on landing this afternoon, over what I suspect was a mis-communication from TWR and a possible lack of judgement from the pilot, I would say the boys in PHX and the BA pilots did a pretty dammn good job at communicating whilst juggling many multiple balls in the air at once, whilst translating between English and American 🤣 😂 🤣

[SeenItAll]

NB, a hairy old TRI once pointed out to me that a 747 on three engines has more redundancy than any fully serviceable twin engine jet on two engines.

So if you believe that a 747 operating on three has more redundancy than a ETOPS twin operating on two; then I assume you will be more comfortable if one of the 747's three goes south than if one of the twin's two goes south? I don't think so. That 747 on two is going to struggle to remain in the air, while the twin on one can go indefinitely (or up to 330 minutes depending on certification).

[Magplug]

That 747 on two is going to struggle to remain in the air

What complete rubbish.... How many hours do you have on 747's ?

[Airclues]

That 747 on two is going to struggle to remain in the air,

Agree with Magplug......complete rubbish.

(32 years and 15,000 hours on 747, TRI/TRE)

[RogueRivered]

No JS, you are reading it the opposite way around. Clearly didn't. And the since the ATC is confused why no emergency declared at that point - he feels like there should be one - that leads to the fuzzy statement assume he'd come back. Why? Because either the poor ATCO or his colleague before completely missed the 3x MAYDAY call.

Wrong on all accounts. He definitely said "did." And they obviously acknowledged the Mayday. In addition, statements such as "That's lovely," could be very hard to understand in America. We don't say things like that. Lol.

[RogueRivered]

(And then ask them if it was 5400 pounds. Really!? The equivalent of about two and half tons on board a 74 to fly from Arizona to London? Think about what you're saying!) Very very silly.

You will recall that this exchange about the fuel happened after the fuel dump, so, no, I don't think they were still talking about flying to London. Silly.

[cargosales]

Apart from the distinct inability of certain posters on here to understand 'Mayday mayday mayday', I'm amazed that no-one has commented on the ability of the pilot speaking on the R/T (PF or PNF I don't know - don't know him, never met him, never spoken to him etc) to cope with multiple radio inputs while dealing with an emergency.. Guess that's why he's flying a 747 for BA...

I'm no particular fan of Big Airways (or at least their customer service department) but these guys were consumate professionals.. Who even had the presence of mind to mention to the controller where the problem had occured and that there might be debris on the runway! Think about that one because I rather doubt it would happen in every corner of the world, let alone be acted upon by the controllers.

[DingerX]

I don't see the problem. The ATCO asked for fuel remaining, and thought he heard "54 hundred", which clearly could not be the case, and was missing the denominator. So the question was "How many pounds of fuel remaining did you say you had? If you'd rather say endurance, that's cool too", it wasn't "Could you convert that to pounds for me?" When the answer comes back in KG, he takes it and deals with it. It sounded pretty well handled on all sides.

And Mr. Atienza got the transcription wrong. It's clearly "did" with the tongue on the top of the palate between the ds: Did declare. There's no nasalizing there.

Now that LX out of Pulkovo, that's some quality Engleesh for you.

[SeenItAll]

Agree with Magplug......complete rubbish.

(32 years and 15,000 hours on 747, TRI/TRE)

Struggle was a poor choice of word. But the fact remains, a twin on one engine is operating in a regime for which it is designed. A 747 on two, not so much.

[lomapaseo]

Struggle was a poor choice of word. But the fact remains, a twin on one engine is operating in a regime for which it is designed. A 747 on two, not so much.

A better summation of your opinion

Most of the data I can recall where more than one engine lost significant power,. were at conditions where light loads, time to dump fuel and runway in sight or time to make several restart attempts This leaves the major problem as the pilot workload not within normal training. But other than the normal "what-ifs" of PPrune I don't see any relationship with the successful air-turnback of this thread

[KelvinD]

HotelTango: "Working 5 years with ATC" means exactly that. I was never a controller but I spent 50 years working in communications, 5 years of which were spent with ATC. During that time, I met and worked with many controllers of various nationalities and found some of them to be nice, even tempered people. Others I found to be prima donnas who appeared able only to communicate with themselves with a "I am a controller and second only to God" attitude.
(We haven't met, have we?)
My post served to highlight only how communications really are and implied no criticism of either the pilot or ATC. The approach controller sounded like a really helpful and knowledgeable bloke (ignoring the fuel weight error). The tower controller had not been informed fully of what was happening and it would have made his life easier if the controller handing off to him had made sure he had all the facts at the time.

[Hotel Tango]

The tower controller had not been informed fully of what was happening and it would have made his life easier if the controller handing off to him had made sure he had all the facts at the time.

As I clearly explained, and continue to emphasise, on what factual evidence do you come to this conclusion?

[cessnapete]

Locked Door, thank you for that summary of most of the factors that need to be thought about, plus the usual PPRuNe lecture on second guessing the crew, which no-one was actually doing.

Of course, all of those also applied in the BA 268 case; especially "if you’re lucky and are carrying a lot of contingency fuel there might be enough". Hmmm, I seem to remember that BA 268 diverted to MAN due to fuel.

I'll show my colours and say that I was among those who thought that BA got that one wrong, simply because the engine surge was the first hole in the cheese. Luckily the second and third did not line up. But they nearly did; just consider if a go-round had been necessary at Manchester from 1,000 feet. The second hole was a higher fuel burn than they claculated; a go-round for a reason outside their control could have been the third. We dinosaurs think that when your safety buffer is eroded by the loss of an engine you don't tempt fate. So I'm with this guy who declared a Mayday to make sure he got the full attention of ATC while he sorted out the situation, and then landed as soon as safe to do so. The passengers on BA 268 did not volunteer to take part in a 3-engine ferry over the arctic.


Just for info, the Lax Lhr 3 eng BA 268 diverted to Man not because of lack of fuel, but it was in the wrong tanks.
Fuel cross feed finger trouble en route. Red faces and revision of the Manuals!!

[Bull at a Gate]

Found it! This is what I was referring to:

In the UK from CAP413:-

1.4.6 Following the initial distress or urgency message, it is permissible for pilots and controllers to use 'MAYDAY' and 'PAN' as a callsign prefix at their discretion, where it is judged that this would have a beneficial effect on the outcome.

Not quite as I remembered it, we are not in the UK, and as Herod points out it is common to only use the mayday prefix on transfer to a new controller, but my point remains. Wouldn't repeated use of the word "mayday" have helped ensure that there was no confusion as to whether an emergency had been declared?