BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Ben Webster deserves a letter to the editor signed by as many 747-rated pilots as can be found (not working for BA to avoid appearance of conflict of interest) that support the decision making in this flight.
If cannot trust the accuracy of this story why on earth should regard ANY of the other stories in todays rag as accurate?
I've been saying this for years.
Stop buying these hack rags, save a few trees and send a message to the publishers. Hit 'em in the pocket, where it hurts.
Personally I think the Captain should resign, Boeing and Rolls Royce should pay at least £1Million in compensation to ALL the passengers each and British Airways should be liquidated and bring back BOAC/BEA.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the engine failed on takeoff at LAX at 100' altitude and the crew/company elected to continue to LHR. Control Tower saw sparks coming from the engine.
While a 74 is ok on 3 engines, it's certainly going to burn A LOT more fuel at lower altitude and higher drag.
I wouldn't go on an ocean crossing with a failed engine due to unknown reasons, unknown damage, unbalanced windmilling, etc. Could the reason the company elected to continue with a disabled aircraft have anything to do with the new passenger compensation regulations?
You would also have to consider the possibility of the other engine on the same side failing. If that happened you'd be in a lot of hurt both fuel wise and landing controllability wise. Also, I'm not sure on the -400, but on the -200 depending on which side the engines are out on, the gear will go down but won't come up, hence probably no go-around capability.
While a 74 is ok on 3 engines, it's certainly going to burn A LOT more fuel at lower altitude and higher drag.
I wouldn't go on an ocean crossing with a failed engine due to unknown reasons, unknown damage, unbalanced windmilling, etc. Could the reason the company elected to continue with a disabled aircraft have anything to do with the new passenger compensation regulations?
You would also have to consider the possibility of the other engine on the same side failing. If that happened you'd be in a lot of hurt both fuel wise and landing controllability wise. Also, I'm not sure on the -400, but on the -200 depending on which side the engines are out on, the gear will go down but won't come up, hence probably no go-around capability.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadtrip you have NO idea what your talking about some of the gear will not come up if you have a sys 1 or 4 hydraulic failure an engine failure is not a hydraulic failure.
SMOC
SMOC
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
opps. Faulty memory. 74s were a few years back. Made me pull out a very dusty OM. At least on the 200, the manual states that once the gear is down, you should not attempt a go-around, 2E one side. It is possible, but VMCA2 comes into play, drag from retracting the gear, etc. would make it a not-so-sure thing and maybe having to trade altitude for airspeed, if you have it. I've done it many times in the sim (of course) and an 2E one-side approach is not to bad if it's not rushed and planned carefully for. Of course the 400 with more power is probably better, to a point.
Bottom line is a 2E approach one-side is a very undesirable thing. I guess Boing (and hence the company) thinks it's ok to continue on 3E, but personally I think it's a bad idea with possible damage to an engine.
Bottom line is a 2E approach one-side is a very undesirable thing. I guess Boing (and hence the company) thinks it's ok to continue on 3E, but personally I think it's a bad idea with possible damage to an engine.
Está servira para distraerle.
I see much speculation in these threads. I will not be so rude as to comment upon inanity. However, here goes! Reflect on these things. Did the aircraft eventually fly the Great Circle or the Rhumb Line Route? Was not nearly all of the flight across a land mass, serviced with good category diversion airfields. Were not updates on Alternates' WX regularily available. Is not Manchester a BA/SOP Alternate for London, HR,GW? I remember flight planning for a fifth pod ferry. I do not seem to remember that three pod driftdowns were a worry, nor two pod at lower weights.
I think that the Crew had a multitude of escape routes and that, like good Commanders, they planned accordingly. (Wellington would never have won at Waterloo without The Prussians). They most certainly had their Island Alternates stitched up. Oh yes, this Mayday/Pan matter. I seem to remember that the CAA now requires that a fuel shortage be communicated by means of a Mayday call, not a Pan call. If I am correct in this, then the gravity of the situation reflected in a such Mayday call inbound Manchester, may not be reflective of the true gravity of the situation.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is BA's emergency fuel level for the 744?
From our Ops Gen "An emergency exists if the fuel remaining reduces to an amount where an approach to land should be started without delay. A MAYDAY call must be made if the Emergency Fuel Level is reached."
I'm sure the crew would have considered the above as part of their planning/contingency and have been well aware that UK ATC will only provide a priority approach in response to a MAYDAY call.
From our Ops Gen "An emergency exists if the fuel remaining reduces to an amount where an approach to land should be started without delay. A MAYDAY call must be made if the Emergency Fuel Level is reached."
I'm sure the crew would have considered the above as part of their planning/contingency and have been well aware that UK ATC will only provide a priority approach in response to a MAYDAY call.
Controversial, moi?
cavortingcheetah
Your will not be popular on this thread for using reasoned and sensible argument!
If I was a betting man I would say your speculation is probably the nearest to what actually happened of anything written so far.
763jock
With respect that quote from one of your company manuals is very imprecise. In BA the amount is defined generically i.e. 30 minutes holding fuel at 1500' blah, blah. It is shown in kgs. on the flight plan and is the amount that must remain in tanks after landing.
Our SOPs are that if it is likely to land with less than that fuel a PAN call must be made and if an aircraft WILL land with less than that fuel a MAYDAY call must be made.
The article I had the misfortune to read in The Times was cringemaking in the extreme. Since News International took over The Times it has slowly descended to the level of The Sun and the article was nothing less than one would expect, up to its usual abysmally low standards.
As for Mr. Learmount, does he actually know anything about aviation?
Your will not be popular on this thread for using reasoned and sensible argument!
If I was a betting man I would say your speculation is probably the nearest to what actually happened of anything written so far.
763jock
An emergency exists if the fuel remaining reduces to an amount where an approach to land should be started without delay
Our SOPs are that if it is likely to land with less than that fuel a PAN call must be made and if an aircraft WILL land with less than that fuel a MAYDAY call must be made.
The article I had the misfortune to read in The Times was cringemaking in the extreme. Since News International took over The Times it has slowly descended to the level of The Sun and the article was nothing less than one would expect, up to its usual abysmally low standards.
As for Mr. Learmount, does he actually know anything about aviation?
Last edited by M.Mouse; 26th Feb 2005 at 12:55.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
James
This was mentioned by 'RatherBeFlying' on page 3 of this thread, and the fuel transfer problems have been discussed at length. I suggest that people read the entire thread before posting or we could end up going round in circles.
Airclues
This was mentioned by 'RatherBeFlying' on page 3 of this thread, and the fuel transfer problems have been discussed at length. I suggest that people read the entire thread before posting or we could end up going round in circles.
Airclues
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM.
Our Ops Gen specifies different figures for the multitude of types we operate. They range from 900 kgs up to 3700kgs. I did not post the figures as they are not relevant to this thread, but they are calculated IAW the 30 mins holding etc as you state.
Just wondered what the actual figure is for the 744?
Our Ops Gen specifies different figures for the multitude of types we operate. They range from 900 kgs up to 3700kgs. I did not post the figures as they are not relevant to this thread, but they are calculated IAW the 30 mins holding etc as you state.
Just wondered what the actual figure is for the 744?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: here..
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone insinuating, that it is a non event, landing with 5Ts of fuel left in a 744, after inflight replanning, and given the scenario here, are fooling themselves and Joe public, if you ask me. How can you even suggest, that it is a wise and a safe move, to press on to a maintenance station, with less than final reserve fuel available(mayday call was given) upon landing?
I admit the information available is very sparse, if at all true. I can hardly wait, to read the report with great interest. I think there are lessons to be learned for everyone here! We don't wanna see anymore "A310 out of fuel" like accidents.
VK
M.Mouse - what is minimum legal fuel upon landing in MAN for a 744(given the scenario - true/false)?
I admit the information available is very sparse, if at all true. I can hardly wait, to read the report with great interest. I think there are lessons to be learned for everyone here! We don't wanna see anymore "A310 out of fuel" like accidents.
VK
M.Mouse - what is minimum legal fuel upon landing in MAN for a 744(given the scenario - true/false)?
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sometimes wonder why what appears to be a perfectly reasonable decision by an operating crew becomes an hot issue on PPRuNe.
OK, so one engine on a 4 engine aircraft is shut down. It still has 3 remaining engines which is one more than a 767 and 3 times the number of engines that a twin has with one shut down which can now operate up to 3 hrs away from a suitable airport. Hardly big deal and worthy of 12 pages on PPRuNe.
So it continues from LAX to the UK. En-Route is passes many airports that it could land if necessary, probably passing reasonably close to Glasgow and Belfast.
It eventually lands at Manchester with 5 tonnes of fuel; perfectly adequate for the landing and a possible alternate; say Birmingham or Liverpool presuming that the weather wasn’t Cat3 at the time.
To ensure that he doesn't get messed about by ATC or other aircraft with lowish fuel he calls a MAYDAY.
The crew have done an excellent job, safety wasn’t compromised, ATC gave him the priority that I would expect, passengers got close to their destination and no doubt someone was able to do a 3 engined ferry if necessary.
Well done guys good safe commercial operation; it's about time that this thread was shut down
OK, so one engine on a 4 engine aircraft is shut down. It still has 3 remaining engines which is one more than a 767 and 3 times the number of engines that a twin has with one shut down which can now operate up to 3 hrs away from a suitable airport. Hardly big deal and worthy of 12 pages on PPRuNe.
So it continues from LAX to the UK. En-Route is passes many airports that it could land if necessary, probably passing reasonably close to Glasgow and Belfast.
It eventually lands at Manchester with 5 tonnes of fuel; perfectly adequate for the landing and a possible alternate; say Birmingham or Liverpool presuming that the weather wasn’t Cat3 at the time.
To ensure that he doesn't get messed about by ATC or other aircraft with lowish fuel he calls a MAYDAY.
The crew have done an excellent job, safety wasn’t compromised, ATC gave him the priority that I would expect, passengers got close to their destination and no doubt someone was able to do a 3 engined ferry if necessary.
Well done guys good safe commercial operation; it's about time that this thread was shut down
Está servira para distraerle.
Here's a little thought. If all the nonsense that has been talked about on all the pages on this thread weree talked about through all the hours that it took BA (BOAC
) to get to Manch then it is a compliment to the crew that they did not run out of hot air over Gander.
Here's another twerp pushing their agenda on this: Richard North , who runs an anti-EU weblog and has decided to drink the Koolaid about this story.
Sky9
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does the 747 QRH say in the engine failure/shutdown procedure? On all the Boeing twins "plan to land at nearest suitable airport" is mentioned. My guess (never flown more than 2 donks!) is that this is not a requirement on the 747...
"Well done guys good safe commercial operation; it's about time that this thread was shut down."
There are many who disagree. To my mind they got away with it by the skin of their teeth having been driven by commercial pressure... This time they got away with it - but what about next time?
There are many who disagree. To my mind they got away with it by the skin of their teeth having been driven by commercial pressure... This time they got away with it - but what about next time?
Controversial, moi?
My guess (never flown more than 2 donks!) is that this is not a requirement on the 747...
There are many who disagree. To my mind they got away with it by the skin of their teeth having been driven by commercial pressure... This time they got away with it - but what about next time?
So everytime any airliner lands with around reserve fuel \'they got away with it\'?
What is the policy at Virgin for an IFSD on a 4 engined aeroplane?