Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
Guest
Posts: n/a
If a highly experienced airline captain decided to continue on three, that's okay with me, having read some of the more rational posts on the R&N thread.
WIth a whole series of diversion fields across the USA, the decision was made with a lot of options and could be charged at any time in the first few hours of flight, whilst overflying the continental USA and Canada.
What would be interesting would be to understand why the Atlantic crossing was made at FL290 - was this an ATC imposition? Its not entirely clear to me, from what I've read, whether 290 was an operational limit due to 3 engined flight.
If it was due only to ATC, why wasn't the service a little more flexible for a flight on 3?
WIth a whole series of diversion fields across the USA, the decision was made with a lot of options and could be charged at any time in the first few hours of flight, whilst overflying the continental USA and Canada.
What would be interesting would be to understand why the Atlantic crossing was made at FL290 - was this an ATC imposition? Its not entirely clear to me, from what I've read, whether 290 was an operational limit due to 3 engined flight.
If it was due only to ATC, why wasn't the service a little more flexible for a flight on 3?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK EAST COAST
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't appear that any rules were broken and a safe efficient decision was taken by an airline that has a good reputation. I suspect that it happens more often than we passengers realise and if Manchester hadn't been involved it would have not been a newsworthy event.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a pilot saves the lives of all on board in a true "there we were upside down....." type of emergency, that pilot will rightly be seen as a hero/heroine.
This incident however seems to be different. It was not an immediate emergency. However, a pretty important piece of the aeroplane stopped working. In a p*****g competition between "Professionals" and "Public Opinion", the latter will ALWAYS win. I think (imho) if 100 experienced travelling PAX were asked what they would prefer in this situation, the majority would say "land".
As to those who say "leave it all to the Professionals"..:
Professional Seamen decided that a great way of saving time and money was to close the bow-doors of ferries as they were leaving port. It worked, hundreds of times...........
Professional Engineers decided that a program of preventative maintenance scheduling rather than inspection was adequate for rail tracks..they were right..for years..
Professional Auditors decided that pro-forma audit tools were all that were needed for big businesses like Enron.....
And so on.
Perhaps a word from Henry Ford who, on being asked why his latest aircraft had SIX engines replied " because there's no room for a Seventh...." My kinda guy.
This incident however seems to be different. It was not an immediate emergency. However, a pretty important piece of the aeroplane stopped working. In a p*****g competition between "Professionals" and "Public Opinion", the latter will ALWAYS win. I think (imho) if 100 experienced travelling PAX were asked what they would prefer in this situation, the majority would say "land".
As to those who say "leave it all to the Professionals"..:
Professional Seamen decided that a great way of saving time and money was to close the bow-doors of ferries as they were leaving port. It worked, hundreds of times...........
Professional Engineers decided that a program of preventative maintenance scheduling rather than inspection was adequate for rail tracks..they were right..for years..
Professional Auditors decided that pro-forma audit tools were all that were needed for big businesses like Enron.....
And so on.
Perhaps a word from Henry Ford who, on being asked why his latest aircraft had SIX engines replied " because there's no room for a Seventh...." My kinda guy.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Well, if we're going to continue the parallel discussion here, then I might as well throw in a couple of cents' worth.
It seems to me that this is one of the key questions. It sounds like ATC positively descended the aircraft from the original level to cross at 290, and thus turned an OK situation into one which needed re-planning.
The other key question seems to be that identified by mutt:-
It seems that the aircraft actually arrived with enough fuel on board that (in retrospect) they hadn't needed to call MAYDAY, but perhaps only a PAN.
Neither of these questions suggests to me anything other than a flight which was going fine until a second curve ball was thrown, and then some sensible re-planning. The only other real question I can think of is why to MAN rather than to GLA or PIK - but again it will probably turn out that that was an entirely legitimate decision.
So I adhere to the view that, on the basis of what appears to be known, the crew did everything by the book at the time the decision to press on, and there appears to have been no safety reason for a return to LAX at that time. And as we all know, there are added risks and environmental damage involved in such a return, before you get to commercial considerations.
Which is why it is such a good thing that airliners are not operated by the popular vote of uninformed pax. If my fellow pax had to decide when we were and weren't going anywhere, I suspect that I'd only get about half of my trips completed as booked.
Let's face it, if given the choice between a riskier return to origin and a safer three-engine continuation, which would you choose?
Final 3 Greens: What would be interesting would be to understand why the Atlantic crossing was made at FL290 - was this an ATC imposition? Its not entirely clear to me, from what I've read, whether 290 was an operational limit due to 3 engined flight.
If it was due only to ATC, why wasn't the service a little more flexible for a flight on 3?
If it was due only to ATC, why wasn't the service a little more flexible for a flight on 3?
The other key question seems to be that identified by mutt:-
mutt: 5000 kgs "appears" to be the fuel they expected to arrive in compliance with these rules.
We will have to wait to see why the MAYDAY was declared.
We will have to wait to see why the MAYDAY was declared.
Neither of these questions suggests to me anything other than a flight which was going fine until a second curve ball was thrown, and then some sensible re-planning. The only other real question I can think of is why to MAN rather than to GLA or PIK - but again it will probably turn out that that was an entirely legitimate decision.
So I adhere to the view that, on the basis of what appears to be known, the crew did everything by the book at the time the decision to press on, and there appears to have been no safety reason for a return to LAX at that time. And as we all know, there are added risks and environmental damage involved in such a return, before you get to commercial considerations.
strake: This incident however seems to be different. It was not an immediate emergency. However, a pretty important piece of the aeroplane stopped working. In a p*****g competition between "Professionals" and "Public Opinion", the latter will ALWAYS win. I think (imho) if 100 experienced travelling PAX were asked what they would prefer in this situation, the majority would say "land".
Let's face it, if given the choice between a riskier return to origin and a safer three-engine continuation, which would you choose?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Strake
Agreed, but it doesn't mean that public opinion is always right.
TS
The R&N posts are now saying that the 744 was instructed to descend by ATC, but there does not seem to be any official corroboration of that.
In a p*****g competition between "Professionals" and "Public Opinion", the latter will ALWAYS win
TS
The R&N posts are now saying that the 744 was instructed to descend by ATC, but there does not seem to be any official corroboration of that.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the master plan was to arrive overhead LHR at a nice fuel efficient 39,000ft, flame out and deadstick it in. ATC are wholly to blame for asking them to come down early.
Still waiting for the experts on here to tell us which posts on that highly entertaining R&N thread are the ones we should take seriously.
Still waiting for the experts on here to tell us which posts on that highly entertaining R&N thread are the ones we should take seriously.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps the master plan was to arrive overhead LHR at a nice fuel efficient 39,000ft, flame out and deadstick it in. ATC are wholly to blame for asking them to come down early.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cruising level has nothing to do with this, it quite legal to plan to arrive overhead manchester with fuel for the approach, 30 minutes holding and then divert to the 2nd runway, using the Jeppesen flight planning system and our B744 fuel biases, the required fuel comes to 5500 kgs.
I dont know the weight of the BA aircraft, so its quite conceivable that it planned to arrive with 5000 kgs. If you have problems with this, they shouldnt be addressed to BA but the JAA.
Mutt.
I dont know the weight of the BA aircraft, so its quite conceivable that it planned to arrive with 5000 kgs. If you have problems with this, they shouldnt be addressed to BA but the JAA.
Mutt.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mutt
were you addressing me, because I don't have any problems with the flight or the calling of a Mayday in line with company SOPs?
I am interested though, whether 290 was the altitude that the crew chose for optimum fuel burn or whether it was imposed by ATC and meant worse fuel consumption, because if it was the latter, then they were working under an additional constraint and it would appear that the system did not assist them as much as it could have.
And just to be very clear, I have immense respect for BA and believe that they are a safety oriented company.
were you addressing me, because I don't have any problems with the flight or the calling of a Mayday in line with company SOPs?
I am interested though, whether 290 was the altitude that the crew chose for optimum fuel burn or whether it was imposed by ATC and meant worse fuel consumption, because if it was the latter, then they were working under an additional constraint and it would appear that the system did not assist them as much as it could have.
And just to be very clear, I have immense respect for BA and believe that they are a safety oriented company.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
slim_slag: Still waiting for the experts on here to tell us which posts on that highly entertaining R&N thread are the ones we should take seriously.
Good enough for you?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning Globaliser.
Not sure Danny recommended reading any posts, and I what he says doesn't help me understand what happened in the slightest.
One of the pax on the flight mentioned 'consent' this morning. This concept has been kicking around in my head for a few days now and I think is what us 'enthusiasts' and pax need to consider.
My trade uses 'informed consent' in it's line of work. When you walk through the hospital door you don't suddenly give up all your rights to make informed choices. The same applies to when I walk though the door of an aeroplane.
Informed consent was developed by the courts to restrict the previous 'godlike' powers and attitudes of surgeons who were making inappropriate decisions on behalf of their customers. I think somebody needs to hit BA with a lawsuit and let the courts decide the limits of authority of airline pilots when out of the ordinary events happen. I'm not suggesting the courts should decide which buttons a pilot pushes and in which order when an engine fails, but they should set out the rights of the people in the back (who are quite capable of understanding risk etc) when things like this happen. There is obviously significant 'professional' opinion out there saying what BA did is wrong, it needs clearing up, and the courts are the place to do it.
Calculating fuel burn, effect of altitude and temperature on the same, and subsequent range is a skill a student pilot is expected to understand before you send them out on their first solo cross country. If the student pilot had to land short of his destination with a MAYDAY there would be questions asked. Bookworm's post is the one I would bring to your attention, he asked some very pertinent questions, nobody seems to want to answer.
Looks like the US business press has got hold of the story, one can see US companies not wanting to put their highly paid executives in BA's premium cabins now. Would you blame them?
Not sure Danny recommended reading any posts, and I what he says doesn't help me understand what happened in the slightest.
One of the pax on the flight mentioned 'consent' this morning. This concept has been kicking around in my head for a few days now and I think is what us 'enthusiasts' and pax need to consider.
My trade uses 'informed consent' in it's line of work. When you walk through the hospital door you don't suddenly give up all your rights to make informed choices. The same applies to when I walk though the door of an aeroplane.
Informed consent was developed by the courts to restrict the previous 'godlike' powers and attitudes of surgeons who were making inappropriate decisions on behalf of their customers. I think somebody needs to hit BA with a lawsuit and let the courts decide the limits of authority of airline pilots when out of the ordinary events happen. I'm not suggesting the courts should decide which buttons a pilot pushes and in which order when an engine fails, but they should set out the rights of the people in the back (who are quite capable of understanding risk etc) when things like this happen. There is obviously significant 'professional' opinion out there saying what BA did is wrong, it needs clearing up, and the courts are the place to do it.
Calculating fuel burn, effect of altitude and temperature on the same, and subsequent range is a skill a student pilot is expected to understand before you send them out on their first solo cross country. If the student pilot had to land short of his destination with a MAYDAY there would be questions asked. Bookworm's post is the one I would bring to your attention, he asked some very pertinent questions, nobody seems to want to answer.
Looks like the US business press has got hold of the story, one can see US companies not wanting to put their highly paid executives in BA's premium cabins now. Would you blame them?
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why is it generally assumed that BA’s decision was at least partially influenced by the new EU compensation rules? Has anyone actually read them ?
Firstly, it is relevant to ask, had the aircraft returned to LAX, would the passengers have been entitled to anything at all?
‘The BA flight departed at 8.45pm on Saturday’. In other words, it wasn’t delayed, it wasn’t cancelled, it was a routine departure. Nobody was denied boarding. What subsequently happened was an en-route event. The EU rules deal specifically with departure delays, they make no reference to en-route delays, arrival delays or diversions.
Secondly, even if the aircraft had been delayed on departure, there seems to be widespread ignorance of what the new rules provide for.
‘The regulation requires airlines to refund passengers the full cost of their tickets as well as flying them home if a delay lasts longer than five hours.’ INCORRECT. The airline is obliged to offer passengers the opportunity to abandon their journey and receive a full refund, OR continue with their journey.
In other words, the LAX-originating passengers could have said ‘I don’t want to go to London any more’ and claimed a refund. The London-originating passengers would have flown with a delay or on an alternative flight. They would not have been entitled to any financial compensation. The only exceptional cost to BA would have been if any passengers had originated in, say, Sydney, and opted to abandon their trip – the airline would have been obliged to get them back home AND refund their ticket.
Whatever the issues surrounding this particular event, I am sure that liability for compensation under the new rules played no part whatsoever in BA’s decision.
Firstly, it is relevant to ask, had the aircraft returned to LAX, would the passengers have been entitled to anything at all?
‘The BA flight departed at 8.45pm on Saturday’. In other words, it wasn’t delayed, it wasn’t cancelled, it was a routine departure. Nobody was denied boarding. What subsequently happened was an en-route event. The EU rules deal specifically with departure delays, they make no reference to en-route delays, arrival delays or diversions.
Secondly, even if the aircraft had been delayed on departure, there seems to be widespread ignorance of what the new rules provide for.
‘The regulation requires airlines to refund passengers the full cost of their tickets as well as flying them home if a delay lasts longer than five hours.’ INCORRECT. The airline is obliged to offer passengers the opportunity to abandon their journey and receive a full refund, OR continue with their journey.
In other words, the LAX-originating passengers could have said ‘I don’t want to go to London any more’ and claimed a refund. The London-originating passengers would have flown with a delay or on an alternative flight. They would not have been entitled to any financial compensation. The only exceptional cost to BA would have been if any passengers had originated in, say, Sydney, and opted to abandon their trip – the airline would have been obliged to get them back home AND refund their ticket.
Whatever the issues surrounding this particular event, I am sure that liability for compensation under the new rules played no part whatsoever in BA’s decision.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference with the medical profession is that you are dealing with 1 person at a time! How do you suggest they get consent from 350 passengers? maybe a polling card? And how do you decide who to listen to, i can assure you the regular pax at the front would want to get as close to london as possible, and they pay more, shall we do what they want? Or do we let the majority rule, many of whom will have read 1 too many daily mails and watched 1 too many When planes crash on channel 5?
The average patient at least has some knowledge of their body and how it works, most airline passengers would not have the first idea how a 747 works, whats safe whats not.
Additionally another difference is that doctors dont have 6 monthly licence renewals, medicals, line checks, and written exams every year to establish their competency. And much more importantly, if a doctor makes a mistake he doesnt accompany it to the mortuary.
"Calculating fuel burn, effect of altitude and temperature on the same, and subsequent range is a skill a student pilot is expected to understand before you send them out on their first solo cross country. If the student pilot had to land short of his destination with a MAYDAY there would be questions asked. Bookworm's post is the one I would bring to your attention, he asked some very pertinent questions, nobody seems to want to answer."
After the failiure Manchester was the planned destination, having used your ppl fuel planning techniques. (It may come as a shock but with different levels and temperatures and large weight changes over 5000nm its ever so slightly more complicated than in a cessna) So aircraft arrives overhead MAN with enoough fuel for approach go around, 30 mins holding at 1500ft and another approach (ie the same fuel it would have made LHR with on 4) only the fuel is imbalanced because it is difficult to crossfeed at low tank quantities. So although one of the tanks has plenty of fuel the other 3 are down below 2t ish which generates a low fuel message. Of course when these tanks run dry the aircraft will just take the fuel from the fuller tank, but not wishing to check this out and anyway who wants to do a 3 engine go around, they declare a mayday to get a sterile runway and make certain of a landing. Mayday does not mean "help we're crashing" (except in daily mail and tv programmes described above) it means "we have a problem which requires your help" A PAN will not prevent you holding/get you a sterile runway at a major airport.
The aircraft landed safely as a result.
As for losing US business, you only have to check BA's safety record over the last 20 yrs to see its one of the safest airlines around, US conglomerates will not take any notice.
The average patient at least has some knowledge of their body and how it works, most airline passengers would not have the first idea how a 747 works, whats safe whats not.
Additionally another difference is that doctors dont have 6 monthly licence renewals, medicals, line checks, and written exams every year to establish their competency. And much more importantly, if a doctor makes a mistake he doesnt accompany it to the mortuary.
"Calculating fuel burn, effect of altitude and temperature on the same, and subsequent range is a skill a student pilot is expected to understand before you send them out on their first solo cross country. If the student pilot had to land short of his destination with a MAYDAY there would be questions asked. Bookworm's post is the one I would bring to your attention, he asked some very pertinent questions, nobody seems to want to answer."
After the failiure Manchester was the planned destination, having used your ppl fuel planning techniques. (It may come as a shock but with different levels and temperatures and large weight changes over 5000nm its ever so slightly more complicated than in a cessna) So aircraft arrives overhead MAN with enoough fuel for approach go around, 30 mins holding at 1500ft and another approach (ie the same fuel it would have made LHR with on 4) only the fuel is imbalanced because it is difficult to crossfeed at low tank quantities. So although one of the tanks has plenty of fuel the other 3 are down below 2t ish which generates a low fuel message. Of course when these tanks run dry the aircraft will just take the fuel from the fuller tank, but not wishing to check this out and anyway who wants to do a 3 engine go around, they declare a mayday to get a sterile runway and make certain of a landing. Mayday does not mean "help we're crashing" (except in daily mail and tv programmes described above) it means "we have a problem which requires your help" A PAN will not prevent you holding/get you a sterile runway at a major airport.
The aircraft landed safely as a result.
As for losing US business, you only have to check BA's safety record over the last 20 yrs to see its one of the safest airlines around, US conglomerates will not take any notice.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the surgeon’s job to wield the scalpel and the pilot’s job to fly the airplane. That's where it stops. The customer is master of his own destiny; it is not the pilot’s role to decide what is best for the customer. It is up to the surgeon/pilot to present the options and likely results to the customer and for the customer to decide which option to take. The customer does not hand over all decision making to the pilot when he walks onto the airplane. If the customer makes a bad decision then so be it.
As for how the customers' decisions are passed to the pilots? That's for the courts to decide, naturally with the input of the experts in the field. Perhaps the presumption is that in non-standard situations the plane lands as soon as reasonably possible, sort of how the FARS suggests one should proceed if you have an engine failure on a US registered 747. It sounds from the witness on the plane that the pax did not want to continue, this was known by cabin crew, and this should have been communicated to flight deck.
I am not interested in the minutiae of how a 747 pilot plans his fuel burn. All I said was that if a student pilot has to land short of destination with a MAYDAY questions will be asked. It is incredibly arrogant to expect this should not apply to 747 pilots. Looks like the FAA are getting interested, they obviously have questions about how flights are managed in their airspace, quite right too.
To say an airline is safe because it hasn't had an accident in 20 years shows extraordinary complacency.
So MAN was the planned destination all along? Perhaps you should put that in the R&N thread so the experts can discuss. From a PAX point of view, if I have to change planes anyway, I'd rather stop at an enroute airport which didn't require a three engined winter atlantic crossing. I'd also rather stop at an airport where they didn't have to make sure the runway was sterile because of fuel concerns.
Feel free to rubbish me
Cheers
As for how the customers' decisions are passed to the pilots? That's for the courts to decide, naturally with the input of the experts in the field. Perhaps the presumption is that in non-standard situations the plane lands as soon as reasonably possible, sort of how the FARS suggests one should proceed if you have an engine failure on a US registered 747. It sounds from the witness on the plane that the pax did not want to continue, this was known by cabin crew, and this should have been communicated to flight deck.
I am not interested in the minutiae of how a 747 pilot plans his fuel burn. All I said was that if a student pilot has to land short of destination with a MAYDAY questions will be asked. It is incredibly arrogant to expect this should not apply to 747 pilots. Looks like the FAA are getting interested, they obviously have questions about how flights are managed in their airspace, quite right too.
To say an airline is safe because it hasn't had an accident in 20 years shows extraordinary complacency.
So MAN was the planned destination all along? Perhaps you should put that in the R&N thread so the experts can discuss. From a PAX point of view, if I have to change planes anyway, I'd rather stop at an enroute airport which didn't require a three engined winter atlantic crossing. I'd also rather stop at an airport where they didn't have to make sure the runway was sterile because of fuel concerns.
Feel free to rubbish me
Cheers