Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
Thoughts? This article from Times Online:
Turning back after engine failure would have left airline liable to pay out for delays under new rules on compensation.
A British Airways jumbo jet carrying 351 passengers was forced to make an emergency landing after an 11-hour transatlantic flight with a failed engine.
The fault occurred on take-off from Los Angeles but the pilot declined all opportunities to land in the US and instead continued on three engines for 5,000 miles to Britain.
The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000.
Balpa, the British Air Line Pilots’ Association, gave warning last night that the regulation could result in pilots being pressured into taking greater risks for commercial reasons.
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. Passengers must also be put up in hotels if the delay continues overnight.
The BA flight departed at 8.45pm on Saturday and the airline admitted that the delay would have been well over five hours if it had returned to Los Angeles.
BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the flight. But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only 100ft above the ground.
Air traffic controllers at Los Angeles spotted streams of sparks shooting from the engine and immediately radioed the pilot. He attempted to throttle the engine back but was forced to shut it down after it continued to overheat. The plane then began circling over the Pacific while the pilot contacted BA’s control centre in London to discuss what to do. They decided the flight should continue to London even though it would burn more fuel on just three engines.
The Boeing 747 was unable to climb to its cruising altitude of 36,000ft and had to cross the Atlantic at 29,000ft, where the engines perform less efficiently and the tailwinds are less favourable. The unbalanced thrust also meant the pilot had to apply more rudder, causing extra drag.
The pilot realised as he flew over the Atlantic that he was running out of fuel and would not make it to Heathrow. He requested an emergency landing at Manchester and was met by four fire engines and thirty firefighters on the runway.
Philip Baum, an aviation security specialist on board the flight with his wife and three daughters, said he had heard two loud bangs shortly after take-off. “The pilot came on to say we had lost an engine and he was negotiating about whether or not we should land back at Los Angeles.
“A few minutes later, I was amazed to see from the map on the TV screen that we were flying eastwards towards Britain. I would be disgusted if the issue of compensation had any bearing on the decision.”
BA said financial concerns had played no part in the decision. Captain Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.
“The plane is as safe on three engines as on four and it can fly on two. It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue. The options would have been limited for passengers [if the plane had returned to Los Angeles].” He said the pilot would have had to dump more than 100 tonnes of fuel before landing at Los Angeles. “The authorities would have had words to say about that.”
Captain Brown said pilots always took the final decision on any safety issue and would never choose to put themselves at risk. “Even without 350 passengers behind you, you are always going to be concerned about your own neck.”
But David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, said: “It was a very odd decision to continue to London. Even if the pilot didn’t want to dump so much fuel, he could have diverted to Chicago.
“You are not as safe on three engines as you are on four and I suspect that, given the choice, most passengers would have opted to return to LA.”
Some airlines are trying to avoid paying compensation for delays involving technical failures of an aircraft. They are citing a clause in the regulation which excludes delays “caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.
But the Air Transport Users Council, which advises passengers on how to obtain their rights, said airlines would still be liable in cases involving engine failure because the cause was likely to be poor maintenance. Simon Evans, its chief executive, admitted that the regulation could lead to airlines taking greater risks. “We recognise there is a possibility that an airline might take a decision to fly in order to avoid paying compensation.”
Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Balpa’s chairman, said: “The EU regulation is poorly drafted and increases the pressure on pilots to consider commercial issues when making judgments in marginal safety situations.”
Article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...499342,00.html
Turning back after engine failure would have left airline liable to pay out for delays under new rules on compensation.
A British Airways jumbo jet carrying 351 passengers was forced to make an emergency landing after an 11-hour transatlantic flight with a failed engine.
The fault occurred on take-off from Los Angeles but the pilot declined all opportunities to land in the US and instead continued on three engines for 5,000 miles to Britain.
The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000.
Balpa, the British Air Line Pilots’ Association, gave warning last night that the regulation could result in pilots being pressured into taking greater risks for commercial reasons.
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. Passengers must also be put up in hotels if the delay continues overnight.
The BA flight departed at 8.45pm on Saturday and the airline admitted that the delay would have been well over five hours if it had returned to Los Angeles.
BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the flight. But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only 100ft above the ground.
Air traffic controllers at Los Angeles spotted streams of sparks shooting from the engine and immediately radioed the pilot. He attempted to throttle the engine back but was forced to shut it down after it continued to overheat. The plane then began circling over the Pacific while the pilot contacted BA’s control centre in London to discuss what to do. They decided the flight should continue to London even though it would burn more fuel on just three engines.
The Boeing 747 was unable to climb to its cruising altitude of 36,000ft and had to cross the Atlantic at 29,000ft, where the engines perform less efficiently and the tailwinds are less favourable. The unbalanced thrust also meant the pilot had to apply more rudder, causing extra drag.
The pilot realised as he flew over the Atlantic that he was running out of fuel and would not make it to Heathrow. He requested an emergency landing at Manchester and was met by four fire engines and thirty firefighters on the runway.
Philip Baum, an aviation security specialist on board the flight with his wife and three daughters, said he had heard two loud bangs shortly after take-off. “The pilot came on to say we had lost an engine and he was negotiating about whether or not we should land back at Los Angeles.
“A few minutes later, I was amazed to see from the map on the TV screen that we were flying eastwards towards Britain. I would be disgusted if the issue of compensation had any bearing on the decision.”
BA said financial concerns had played no part in the decision. Captain Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.
“The plane is as safe on three engines as on four and it can fly on two. It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue. The options would have been limited for passengers [if the plane had returned to Los Angeles].” He said the pilot would have had to dump more than 100 tonnes of fuel before landing at Los Angeles. “The authorities would have had words to say about that.”
Captain Brown said pilots always took the final decision on any safety issue and would never choose to put themselves at risk. “Even without 350 passengers behind you, you are always going to be concerned about your own neck.”
But David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, said: “It was a very odd decision to continue to London. Even if the pilot didn’t want to dump so much fuel, he could have diverted to Chicago.
“You are not as safe on three engines as you are on four and I suspect that, given the choice, most passengers would have opted to return to LA.”
Some airlines are trying to avoid paying compensation for delays involving technical failures of an aircraft. They are citing a clause in the regulation which excludes delays “caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.
But the Air Transport Users Council, which advises passengers on how to obtain their rights, said airlines would still be liable in cases involving engine failure because the cause was likely to be poor maintenance. Simon Evans, its chief executive, admitted that the regulation could lead to airlines taking greater risks. “We recognise there is a possibility that an airline might take a decision to fly in order to avoid paying compensation.”
Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Balpa’s chairman, said: “The EU regulation is poorly drafted and increases the pressure on pilots to consider commercial issues when making judgments in marginal safety situations.”
Article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...499342,00.html
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, said: “It was a very odd decision to continue to London. Even if the pilot didn’t want to dump so much fuel, he could have diverted to Chicago.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
kokpit: Thoughts?
Even there, there is already too much uninformed or downright ignorant hysteria from people who ought to be keeping their mouths shut as they have not the faintest idea what they are talking about.
Globeliser , this is the SLF forum and all of us who are SLF can have our say - right or wrong. Let the crews/engineers etc discuss it on R&N and leave the "ignorant" SLF to discuss it on THEIR forum.
I for one have every confidence in a BA captain's decision. I appreciate all the valid points made by qualified B744 pilots. I'm in the aviation business. BUT, as SLF, I still would feel very uneasy about embarking on a 10 hour flight after experiencing an engine failure so early into the flight. It doesn't make me right in a technical sense, but damn it I can say that I don't like it. And yes, I'm not very keen crossing the ocean on twins - which is why I tend to go for 4 engined a/c when I have the choice.
I for one have every confidence in a BA captain's decision. I appreciate all the valid points made by qualified B744 pilots. I'm in the aviation business. BUT, as SLF, I still would feel very uneasy about embarking on a 10 hour flight after experiencing an engine failure so early into the flight. It doesn't make me right in a technical sense, but damn it I can say that I don't like it. And yes, I'm not very keen crossing the ocean on twins - which is why I tend to go for 4 engined a/c when I have the choice.
I agree. To cross the pond after an EFATO (which this effectively was) seems wholly imprudent. Diverting into and organising onward transfer of passengers from an East Coast alternate would have given me a far warmer feeling.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
We had this debate a couple of months ago (before this legislation was put in place) with another carrier and the concensus was that provided the reason for the engine failure didn't suggest that another failure was more likely to occur, then it's just as safe to burn off the fuel you'd need to dump anyway by getting closer to your destination as it is to turn back to your point of origin.
I do think it's at best ill-informed to suggest that flight at 290 is inherently less safe than at 370 and that the upper winds are automatically more favourable at the greater level. Has anyone actually checked what the relevant upper winds were for this flight? Thought not. Of course the flight would have been less efficient, that's why the tech stop at MAN. Hopefully it was a 'splash 'n' dash' rather than a full unload.
As has been said before, in the days of piston a/c, engine failure was routine and the go/no-go decisions were based on remaining available range and not on a panic knee-jerk to get back on the ground asap.
As to the 747 flying on 3 engines, we permit TAKE-OFF on 3 engines, for heaven's sake! (admittedly without pax but with overflight of our PSZ and the local community etc...) There's NO PROBLEM with this procedure, provided the rules are adhered to.
BTW it's absolutely Standard Procedure to meet any a/c with an engine failure with the fire equipment. In our case, with only one out on a 747, we'd have probably gone for a Local StandBy, (LSB) rather than another category of response, but MAN might be different. You can't tell the category of response from the report, but 30 firefighters in 4 trucks sounds a little cramped to me!
I'm afraid, in my personal opinion, David Learmont once again makes an inappropriate comment to the media. It rather tarnishes the excellent work he's done in the past to promote aviation safety.
Cheers,
TheOddOne.
I do think it's at best ill-informed to suggest that flight at 290 is inherently less safe than at 370 and that the upper winds are automatically more favourable at the greater level. Has anyone actually checked what the relevant upper winds were for this flight? Thought not. Of course the flight would have been less efficient, that's why the tech stop at MAN. Hopefully it was a 'splash 'n' dash' rather than a full unload.
As has been said before, in the days of piston a/c, engine failure was routine and the go/no-go decisions were based on remaining available range and not on a panic knee-jerk to get back on the ground asap.
As to the 747 flying on 3 engines, we permit TAKE-OFF on 3 engines, for heaven's sake! (admittedly without pax but with overflight of our PSZ and the local community etc...) There's NO PROBLEM with this procedure, provided the rules are adhered to.
BTW it's absolutely Standard Procedure to meet any a/c with an engine failure with the fire equipment. In our case, with only one out on a 747, we'd have probably gone for a Local StandBy, (LSB) rather than another category of response, but MAN might be different. You can't tell the category of response from the report, but 30 firefighters in 4 trucks sounds a little cramped to me!
I'm afraid, in my personal opinion, David Learmont once again makes an inappropriate comment to the media. It rather tarnishes the excellent work he's done in the past to promote aviation safety.
Cheers,
TheOddOne.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Globaliser
Yes: Please can we leave this one to the Rumours and News thread, where at least some of the posters have some idea what they are talking about.
Could you do us all a favour and let us know which ones these are?
Captain Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.
This is the sort of arrogance one comes to expect from BA. I bet a significant percentage of passengers would have voted to return to LA, and if I'd known it would end with a MAYDAY I'd have been one of them. If that makes me a SLF duffer so be it.
Yes: Please can we leave this one to the Rumours and News thread, where at least some of the posters have some idea what they are talking about.
Could you do us all a favour and let us know which ones these are?
Captain Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.
This is the sort of arrogance one comes to expect from BA. I bet a significant percentage of passengers would have voted to return to LA, and if I'd known it would end with a MAYDAY I'd have been one of them. If that makes me a SLF duffer so be it.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFATO
But the Air Transport Users Council, which advises passengers on how to obtain their rights, said airlines would still be liable in cases involving engine failure because the cause was likely to be poor maintenance.
Paxing All Over The World
Taking the a/c to a suitable way point would seem reasonable. Use the fuel rather than dump it and have time to get a stand by a/c into place, which might obviate the need for penalty payments. The newspaper report is just another newspaper report to be ignored. Crossing on three? Probably operationally valid but probably not valid from a PR perspective!
Last year, I was at an event which was reported in The Daily Telegraph and they reported that incorrectly. Since they had a reporter inside the hall and spoke to the person running the event (me) and STILL reported it badly... I no longer expect any newspaper report to be valid.
Last year, I was at an event which was reported in The Daily Telegraph and they reported that incorrectly. Since they had a reporter inside the hall and spoke to the person running the event (me) and STILL reported it badly... I no longer expect any newspaper report to be valid.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that a majority of people involved in the incident were SLF, it seems to me that we have every right to discuss it in this forum: However contributors would be well advised to read the technical postings on the thread in R&N before posting, which can be found here. It's worth noting that there appears to be some difference in opinion, even within the professional flying community.
As Cabin Crew, I'm accustomed to trusting my Captain's judgement on technical matters on a daily basis, so it is hard to imagine that this would have been different (had I been on board). However, given the nature of the job, this probably isn't surprising, and I can see that others might take a different view.
Most pilots I fly with don't take ill-considered risks because their favourite person is on board, and they want them to get home safely. Commercial considerations get chucked in the pot with the other stuff, but they are never the dominant ingredient.
As Cabin Crew, I'm accustomed to trusting my Captain's judgement on technical matters on a daily basis, so it is hard to imagine that this would have been different (had I been on board). However, given the nature of the job, this probably isn't surprising, and I can see that others might take a different view.
Most pilots I fly with don't take ill-considered risks because their favourite person is on board, and they want them to get home safely. Commercial considerations get chucked in the pot with the other stuff, but they are never the dominant ingredient.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Not sure about the 744 but in a Classic, dumping fuel with six pumps down to max landing weight, takes approximately 31 minutes. That certainly wouldn't take you very far from LA to a suitable en-route alternate
Taking the a/c to a suitable way point would seem reasonable. Use the fuel rather than dump it and have time to get a stand by a/c into place, which might obviate the need for penalty payments.
Not sure about the 744 but in a Classic, dumping fuel with six pumps down to max landing weight, takes approximately 31 minutes. That certainly wouldn't take you very far from LA to a suitable en-route alternate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even there, there is already too much uninformed or downright ignorant hysteria from people who ought to be keeping their mouths shut as they have not the faintest idea what they are talking about.
However, that was not the reasoning behind my post. I simply wondered on what the passenger perspective might be, hence the post in SLF
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From reading the professionals forum and the information given, the aircraft wasnt taken to some suitable point closer to home but had to declare a Mayday to land at Manchester airport as it was running out of fuel. Is this normal practice?. Doubt it somehow.
But what is most interesting is the whining and squealing from the so-called aviation professionals asking for the R&N thread to be closed.
It's as though they don't want people to make any comment upon a very long flight after an engine failure on take-off, which was conducted over some pretty sparse terrain for most of its route, culminating in an emergency landing at Manchester with insufficient fuel for a second approach....
Why would such debate seem unreasonable?
It's as though they don't want people to make any comment upon a very long flight after an engine failure on take-off, which was conducted over some pretty sparse terrain for most of its route, culminating in an emergency landing at Manchester with insufficient fuel for a second approach....
Why would such debate seem unreasonable?
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a 747 pilot, i just thought i would add that with 1 engine out the 747 is still 1 more engine away from crashing than a twin is at take off. The 4th engine is needed until V1 after that there is no performance problem apart from slightly increased fuel burn. The aircraft will also fly on 2 and the crew would have worked out the critical point for a second failiure and the fuel burn to the nearest suitable (and this means cast iron) diversion. Any other in flight contingencies could just as easily happen with all 4 turning and we're not considering banning oceanic or arctic flights are we?
As for the mayday on the approach, i gather this was due to a low fuel warning in 1 of the tanks, the tank supplying the dead engine still had plenty of fuel to allow a further approach, but by declaring a mayday pilot gets sterile runway and avoids that risk. 3 engine go arounds being a bit of a nuisance. 2 engine go arounds are also possible by the way. Unfortunately the use of that word causes much excitement in the press and what was an unfortunate incident becomes front page news.
As for the mayday on the approach, i gather this was due to a low fuel warning in 1 of the tanks, the tank supplying the dead engine still had plenty of fuel to allow a further approach, but by declaring a mayday pilot gets sterile runway and avoids that risk. 3 engine go arounds being a bit of a nuisance. 2 engine go arounds are also possible by the way. Unfortunately the use of that word causes much excitement in the press and what was an unfortunate incident becomes front page news.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
The discussion is interesting, lets look at the two elements involved….
1: Continued flight after engine failure, there is nothing in the QRH stating to land at the nearest suitable airport. The decision to continue will have involved the crew, dispatch and maintenance. As all communications through ACARS and SATCOM are recorded, transcripts will be available for any required investigation. A pilots report should be submitted to the authorities, but as these same authorities haven’t insisted on a policy banning continued flight, I doubt that any action will be taken.
2: Arrival fuel. JAA regulations appear to permit the use of a 2nd runway at the same airport for the declared alternate. So my understanding of the regulations is that the flight should have arrived overhead MAN with:
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.
Mutt.
The discussion is interesting, lets look at the two elements involved….
1: Continued flight after engine failure, there is nothing in the QRH stating to land at the nearest suitable airport. The decision to continue will have involved the crew, dispatch and maintenance. As all communications through ACARS and SATCOM are recorded, transcripts will be available for any required investigation. A pilots report should be submitted to the authorities, but as these same authorities haven’t insisted on a policy banning continued flight, I doubt that any action will be taken.
2: Arrival fuel. JAA regulations appear to permit the use of a 2nd runway at the same airport for the declared alternate. So my understanding of the regulations is that the flight should have arrived overhead MAN with:
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.
Mutt.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: About 3000 below Midhurst SID I reckon
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few years back on a tristar belonging to a charter company, the passengers were informed prior to departure that the aircraft had suffered a problem with the landing gear. After take-off developed a bigger problem with the landing gear. Despite knowing it would slow them down, burn more fuel and lower the altitude, they took the decision to continue to london rather than circle, dump fuel and return to origin. It eventually diverted to Portugal. Emergency landing. Didn't make the press.
It happens more than whats advertised. Only now the press have the new compesation regulations as a reason to arouse suspicion amongst the public making it a more interesting read.
BA would not compromise the safety of its passengers for financial gain. It has a fairly good compensation policy in place as it is (better than most airlines). The Captain would have made the decision to continue as it was safe to do so. I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have been on the phone to management in London to ask how much money they would have to pay out if they returned to LAX, just so he can add that into the decision.
Think about it logically. You choose:
1 - Aircraft is safe so continue to destination.
2 - Aircraft not safe but continue anyway because of new compensation law, risk ditching, lose aircraft and hundreds of lives, face law suits, loss of life compensation, unrecoverable damage to business, thousands of greiving relatives on your conscience.
It happens more than whats advertised. Only now the press have the new compesation regulations as a reason to arouse suspicion amongst the public making it a more interesting read.
BA would not compromise the safety of its passengers for financial gain. It has a fairly good compensation policy in place as it is (better than most airlines). The Captain would have made the decision to continue as it was safe to do so. I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have been on the phone to management in London to ask how much money they would have to pay out if they returned to LAX, just so he can add that into the decision.
Think about it logically. You choose:
1 - Aircraft is safe so continue to destination.
2 - Aircraft not safe but continue anyway because of new compensation law, risk ditching, lose aircraft and hundreds of lives, face law suits, loss of life compensation, unrecoverable damage to business, thousands of greiving relatives on your conscience.