Old B747SP incident in Buenos Aries

[Imagegear]

After dinner with friends last night the gentleman told me about a flight he made out of BA - (destined for NY I think) On takeoff they lost two to on one side, in addition to flap damage due to heavy bird strikes..

It became a serious challenge to maintain control of the very heavy aircraft, reconfigure fuel weights and dump until they were down to weight. As I understand it at one point a third engine also lost power but was recovered, The guy sitting next to my friend in First was a senior executive with overall responsibility for flight safety and ops responsibilities for an American Airline, He very quickly became convinced that they were going down but did not choose to tell my friend the bad news not knowing what his reaction would be.

After some five hours of flying around getting reconfigured and discussing potential outcomes, they returned to make a safe landing back at BA. The now "two best friends" met up for a further two days of de-stressing and at that time, he gave my friend the news that during the flight he was convinced they were not going to make it. Said friend I understand was quite happy not to have known the potential outcome.

Now here's the sting, I can find no reference to this incident and I have looked in the PPrune archive, on various websites, and on the NTSB web site (I think Panam was mentioned) and date in the 1980's possibly around 1985. and found nothing.

Does anyone have any knowledge of said incident? or information, possibly a report?, I understand that certain issues of this type could be buried in the long grass by certain airlines not wanting bad publicity, who knows. I will be seeing my friend in a few days time and I might have a little more detail, but as a starter for 10, here we are. I would like to continue our discussion with a little more knowledge since he seems to be laying something to rest.

Your mission, should you accept it, etc, etc....

With thanks,

IG

[V12]

It's not your one but has a lot of similarities with the PeopleXpress B747-200 ex EGKK in the early 80's which had very similar issues at Vr, 2 engines on port side stalling and 3rd flaming, and got almost within treetop height of Russ Hill just west on Rwy26, whilst dumping everything it could. Unbelievable airmanship from the crew to save it. I saw it taxi out but didn't see the ensuing near disaster.

[Airbubba]

Was this a Pan Am flight EZE-JFK? Or was it Aerolíneas Argentinas?

[capngrog]

Here's a link to a website devoted to the B-747SP. I'm not familiar with that particular website, but it may be a good starting point for your search. Good luck and let us know what you find out.

The link: https://www.747sp.com/

Cheers,
Grog

[lomapaseo]

I would have access to anything like that if the facts were even partially correct. Since I don't recall in my mind anything that matches I don't want to waste a lot of time.

Can you at least provide a couple of guaranteed facts and I'll tell you if the data is recorded against them

[DaveReidUK]

Was this a Pan Am flight EZE-JFK? Or was it Aerolíneas Argentinas?

Pan Am to JFK sounds more likely.

Aerolineas did fly a single 747SP for 10 years, but it appears to have been most often used to MIA and LAX rather than JFK.

Edit: No, AA's 1987 timetable does show the SP serving JFK.

[tdracer]

It's not your one but has a lot of similarities with the PeopleXpress B747-200 ex EGKK in the early 80's which had very similar issues at Vr, 2 engines on port side stalling and 3rd flaming, and got almost within treetop height of Russ Hill just west on Rwy26, whilst dumping everything it could. Unbelievable airmanship from the crew to save it. I saw it taxi out but didn't see the ensuing near disaster.

I have a vague recollection of 'coffee pot' discussion of an event that sounds like this one - what my coworkers described was an over-rotation on takeoff - inlet separation cause 3 engines to surge (two unrecoverable), they circled around while dumping fuel and landed.
Events of that type meant much tougher requirements for inlet performance at high angles of attack for the 767 and for the 747 re-engine with the JT9D-7R4G2.

[lomapaseo]

I have a vague recollection of 'coffee pot' discussion of an event that sounds like this one - what my coworkers described was an over-rotation on takeoff - inlet separation cause 3 engines to surge (two unrecoverable), they circled around while dumping fuel and landed.
Events of that type meant much tougher requirements for inlet performance at high angles of attack for the 767 and for the 747 re-engine with the JT9D-7R4G2.

I had seen the complete video of that one taken by a passenger behind the port wing. It starts out on taxi out (boring) and then continues through the takeoff. After liftoff (normal) and passing over the end of the runway below, you can see the flame spurts from the right engine followed by the hedgerows below rising up into closeup views.At that point the aircraft has descended below the horizon from the tower view and the equipment was being called, then the film is cut-off only to come back on much later in and out of clouds with fuel dump pouring out of the wing. The sound is heard of the pilot saying not to worry and that he expects the ground staff will be already to meet them and rebook them on alternate flights. The passengers reported no-ground staff ever met them (went home).

I recall (subject to the official report) The investigation showed that most of the engines were heavily worn with little EGT margin (as purchased from PE by CO). The FDR showed the crew over pitched the aircraft after the first engine quit (nonresponsive in an engine stall condition). The other engines continued to operate during the turnback but likely may have experience a short powerloss while pitched up.

I have seen clips from that video in the public arena since then.

[Airbubba]

I recall (subject to the official report) The investigation showed that most of the engines were heavily worn with little EGT margin (as purchased from PE by CO). The FDR showed the crew over pitched the aircraft after the first engine quit (nonresponsive in an engine stall condition). The other engines continued to operate during the turnback but likely may have experience a short powerloss while pitched up.

The official AAIB report ('I have the honour to be Sir your obedient servant' etc.) is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f68ae5274a1317000623/4-1989_N605PE.pdf

[hart744]

No F/E in the cockpit?

[tdracer]

The official AAIB report ('I have the honour to be Sir your obedient servant' etc.) is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f68ae5274a1317000623/4-1989_N605PE.pdf

Thanks Airbubba, but I don't think that the incident I'm thinking of - the 1988 time frame is too late (we were well into certifying the 747-400 at that time). The incident I'm thinking would have been years earlier - around when we were doing the 747-200 with the JT9D-74RG2 (which struggled to meet the stiffened high angle of attack inlet requirements - that would be around 1983 or '84 time frame)

[Australopithecus]

That sounds like a Canadian Pacific ex YVR in ‘78 or ‘79. But I think that one was also a bird massacre event.

[Imagegear]

After meeting my friend this morning I know a little more.

a) It was definitely PANAM
b) Definitely an "SP"
c) Definitely Buenos Aires to JFK
d) After checking with SWMBO, he has stated that it is now definitely in the late '79 to early 1980 timeframe
e) The passenger sitting next to him was a KLM Executive expert, who was subsequently called to provide input to an internal enquiry. Possibly under non-disclosure? (My thoughts here)

I don't know whether I will be able to push for too much more info, his description of the event has obviously burnt a mark on his memory, but it has tweaked my interest.
Thanks for all the help so far, he was really appreciative of the feedback from this site since not a great deal of the "What and Why" appears to have been communicated with the SLF.

Thanks,

IG

[OvertHawk]

No F/E in the cockpit?


According to the report the crew member in the Flight Engineers Station was a licensed flight engineer - turbojet. He was also an ATP holder (although not rated on the 747 as a pilot).

OH

[CargoOne]

The official AAIB report ('I have the honour to be Sir your obedient servant' etc.) is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f68ae5274a1317000623/4-1989_N605PE.pdf

Two remarkable items from this report (which are not related to the incident itself) - 1) today it is hard to believe that prior to -400, 747 wasn't really a long haul aircraft compared to what we used to these days. LGW-MIA was not doable without enroute re-clearance, today you can make that in A321neo LR on a good day; 2) US Major 747 Captain just 38 years old :)

[misd-agin]

Enroute re-clearance might have been to reduce fuel loads. We do it on the newer jets today while crossing the pond, it allows us to carry less reserve fuel.

[lomapaseo]

After meeting my friend this morning I know a little more.

a) It was definitely PANAM
b) Definitely an "SP"
c) Definitely Buenos Aires to JFK
d) After checking with SWMBO, he has stated that it is now definitely in the late '79 to early 1980 timeframe
e) The passenger sitting next to him was a KLM Executive expert, who was subsequently called to provide input to an internal enquiry. Possibly under non-disclosure? (My thoughts here)

I don't know whether I will be able to push for too much more info, his description of the event has obviously burnt a mark on his memory, but it has tweaked my interest.
Thanks for all the help so far, he was really appreciative of the feedback from this site since not a great deal of the "What and Why" appears to have been communicated with the SLF.

Thanks,

IG


Could be PA N739. Had 2 in less than a month, dual engine bird ingestions, one event in IST and one in EZE. Single IFSD, not a big deal except to the birds.

[Airbubba]

Could be PA N739. Had 2 in less than a month, dual engine bird ingestions, one event in IST and one in EZE. Single IFSD, not a big deal except to the birds.

N739PA, the plane that was blown out of the sky over Lockerbie, was not an SP.

[wiggy]

.. today it is hard to believe that prior to -400, 747 wasn't really a long haul aircraft compared to what we used to these days. LGW-MIA was not doable without enroute re-clearance.

I think you're being a bit harsh on the poor old beast...LHR-MIA was definitely "doable" on most typical days on a 747-100 without resorting to reclearance but there often wasn't much to spare in the way of weight. The -200 with RR engines would do the likes of LHR -SEA and, with, reclearance LHR-NRT non-stop.

You are right though, the -400 was a game changer and helped usher in "Ultra" Long haul..

[lomapaseo]

N739PA, the plane that was blown out of the sky over Lockerbie, was not an SP.

Ok, how about PA N743 it had two event of double engine fuel icing resulting in a single engine IFSD.

I doubt that the subject description in the OP is in the recorded data, other than the ice cubes in a drink

[Pistonprop]

N743PA also not an SP. If my memory is correct (seldom is according to my wife) the SPs were N5..PA registered
Edit: 530 to 540 it would seem.

[lomapaseo]

N743PA also not an SP. If my memory is correct (seldom is according to my wife) the SPs were N5..PA registered
Edit: 530 to 540 it would seem.

Feb 79 EZE N532PA double engine birdstrike, one engine shutdown , I hope that's it because that took too much time chasing it.

[Imagegear]

Lomapaseo - Feb 79 EZE N532PA double engine birdstrike, one engine shutdown , I hope that's it because that took too much time chasing it.

I think you may have found the original short record. Thanks

Perhaps tdracer will be along shortly who may be able to confirm and put a little more flesh around it.

Good work,

IG

[CargoOne]

I think you're being a bit harsh on the poor old beast...LHR-MIA was definitely "doable" on most typical days on a 747-100 without resorting to reclearance but there often wasn't much to spare in the way of weight. The -200 with RR engines would do the likes of LHR -SEA and, with, reclearance LHR-NRT non-stop.
.

Thanks for pointing out, I am more used to -200 freighter versions and corresponding weights. Anyway, back then 747 was seniority equivalent to 777 fleet today at US majors... and I am much more used to see 50 years old SFOs than 38 years old Captains :)

[Rick777]

5 hours flying around on 2 engines or less sounds like a very long time. The SP can dump a lot faster than that.

[Twiglet1]

It's not your one but has a lot of similarities with the PeopleXpress B747-200 ex EGKK in the early 80's which had very similar issues at Vr, 2 engines on port side stalling and 3rd flaming, and got almost within treetop height of Russ Hill just west on Rwy26, whilst dumping everything it could. Unbelievable airmanship from the crew to save it. I saw it taxi out but didn't see the ensuing near disaster.

ATC lost sight of it due to her being so low if i recall

[DaveReidUK]

ATC lost sight of it due to her being so low if i recall

You recall correctly, according to the account in post #8.

[Airbubba]

From the AAIB report of the 1988 People Express Gatwick incident linked above:


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1317x161/aaib_1_5daf8705838d68ecb9a9ac264a72f8d3af846065.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1334x621/aaib_2_5f05067c81ef7e72177c71842b1f9c520fd6a8c2.jpg

[tdracer]

Lomapaseo -

Perhaps tdracer will be along shortly who may be able to confirm and put a little more flesh around it.

IG
Sorry, no knowledge about that one. If we're talking 1979 time frame, I was right in the middle of the 767 development program, and the 747 was a completely separate group located in another building so not so much cross pollination going on.
Well after the 767 was certified and in service - sometime in late 1983 or early '84 - they combined the 767 and 747 Propulsion groups.

[WHBM]

2) US Major 747 Captain just 38 years old :)

Regarding the Gatwick incident. Although Frank Lorenzo's Continental was regarded as a mainstream US carrier at the time, it had a certain reputation. They had just absorbed People Express, which was a post-deregulation startup, and the 747 N605PE was still in PE livery. The aircraft came from a rather mixed background. It was an early -200B model, new to Alitalia in 1972 (the AAIB report incorrectly states 1978), traded back to Boeing in 1980. It then hung around for nearly 4 years, mainly in the desert with various leases out for the Jeddah Hadj, until it was picked up by People Express in 1984 when they were in expansion mode and used on transatlantic low-cost flights. They ran notably short of cash and eventually were sold to Mr Lorenzo and merged in a year before the incident. Continental had not been 747 operator until then so the previous methods and recently recruited staffing carried on. You might say the aircraft had not been operated by a well-resourced carrier for some 8 years prior to the event.

The early -200Bs were not a significant advance on the original -100, that came later when the RR and GE engined versions came along, which P&W then caught up with, all still designated -200B so a bit confusing. Alitalia, along with several other operators, traded in the whole of their original 747 fleet, including this one, for the new and much more capable models in 1980-81.

[Airbubba]

Regarding the Gatwick incident. Although Frank Lorenzo's Continental was regarded as a mainstream US carrier at the time, it had a certain reputation. They had just absorbed People Express, which was a post-deregulation startup, and the 747 N605PE was still in PE livery.

I'm not sure if People's ops and Continental ops had been merged a year later but the 747 was operating under a Continental callsign as the AAIB report states.

Both People and Continental had some young senior captains at the time. People started up in 1981 and low time copilots in the early classes found themselves rapidly moving up as the airline expanded. Continental had an ALPA strike in 1983 and anybody willing to cross the picket line got a good number (and a bad place on the published 'list' of replacement pilots). A colleague of mine years ago got hired by Continental in his late 20's and made captain in two years.

Years later circa 2001 ALPA offered the Continental pilots with 'unfortunate dates of hire' amnesty and accepted them as dues paying members. Some now refer to themselves as 'former s**bs'.

[Imagegear]

Thanks to all for your input to my original question, it seems like although a rather scary event for the SLF at the time, it did not warrant any major review or investigation. Probably when less publicity was better than too much.

I have discussed your comments with my friend who seems to be more at ease with the reasons why very little information was available to the fare paying punters, and he will leave a little more settled than when he arrived.

Thanks again,

IG

[stilton]

Regarding the Gatwick incident. Although Frank Lorenzo's Continental was regarded as a mainstream US carrier at the time, it had a certain reputation. They had just absorbed People Express, which was a post-deregulation startup, and the 747 N605PE was still in PE livery. The aircraft came from a rather mixed background. It was an early -200B model, new to Alitalia in 1972 (the AAIB report incorrectly states 1978), traded back to Boeing in 1980. It then hung around for nearly 4 years, mainly in the desert with various leases out for the Jeddah Hadj, until it was picked up by People Express in 1984 when they were in expansion mode and used on transatlantic low-cost flights. They ran notably short of cash and eventually were sold to Mr Lorenzo and merged in a year before the incident. Continental had not been 747 operator until then so the previous methods and recently recruited staffing carried on. You might say the aircraft had not been operated by a well-resourced carrier for some 8 years prior to the event.

The early -200Bs were not a significant advance on the original -100, that came later when the RR and GE engined versions came along, which P&W then caught up with, all still designated -200B so a bit confusing. Alitalia, along with several other operators, traded in the whole of their original 747 fleet, including this one, for the new and much more capable models in 1980-81.



Not all true


Continental had operated 747’s in the past, four new -124 variants were delivered to the airline and operated between 1971 and 1974, then the price of fuel saw them replaced by the DC10


That was the queen of the skies ‘first life’ at Cal, then several used models rejoined the fleet with the PE merger in the ‘80’s

[PanAm707]

Lomapaseo -

I think you may have found the original short record. Thanks

Perhaps tdracer will be along shortly who may be able to confirm and put a little more flesh around it.

Good work,

IG

Pan Am puplished in the 70s "Crosscheck: flight safety dialogue": An incident at EZE with a 747SP is discribed in the April/May issue of 1979. As I`m not allowed to insert links please check Merrick Library Miami Pan Am flight safety dialogue, Vol. 6, No. 3, April 1979 page 28 for a short report. Maybe that will help?!

By the way, does anybody know if it was common practice in the industry at that point of time to publish inhouse such kind of a safety related product comparable to "Crosscheck"? For example at AA, TW, BA, LH, JP, QF... Thanks!

[aerolearner]

As I`m not allowed to insert links please check Merrick Library Miami Pan Am flight safety dialogue, Vol. 6, No. 3, April 1979 page 28 for a short report.
https://merrick.library.miami.edu/cdm/search/collection/asm0341/searchterm/crosscheck/field/title/mode/any/conn/and/order/title

Thanks for the link to Crosscheck, quite interesting.
Also the other Pan Am manuals and publications are worth a look. A picture of an era in air transport.

[Longtimer]

https://merrick.library.miami.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/asm0341/id/60984/rec/49 is a link to the specific issue.

[Airbubba]

https://merrick.library.miami.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/asm0341/id/60984/rec/49 is a link to the specific issue.

And here is the article about the EZE bird incident:


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/515x590/paa_eze_3_e156c37b206c705ebbacba6b9e21b802e861e6e1.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/530x977/paa_eze_4_83d88c4747bf7bf12983182c7fe85ca6468f0009.jpg

[Imagegear]

Well Gentlemen,

I never fail to be amazed that after so many years, Pprune membership has again come up trumps to put flesh on the bones of this incident.

Many people must have spent considerable time researching the challenge, to deliver a very useful outcome.I will be communicating the information to my friend who no doubt will take some satisfaction that the incident appears to have been well managed, and perhaps any latent fears he may have had, are put to rest.

My sincere thanks to everyone,

Imagegear