BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
No it was not commercial pressure it was standard operating procedures in place and used countless times before.
Were the crew aware, when they made the decision to continue the flight from LAX, that they would need, some 11 hours later, to declare an emergency and land at MAN rather than LHR?
If the answer is "yes" then that would seem to be an abuse of the emergency system.
If the answer is "no", which seems much more likely, then someone or something got the fuel sums wrong in deciding that continuation to LHR was reasonable.
Either of those seems worthy of discussion, and something that we can learn from to improve the decision making process.
Bookworm
This is a rumor and news thread and is certainly not privy to actual validated facts, so I don't see how there is any possibility of discussion to improve decision making when we all seem to have such a divergence of opinions.
This thread is due to die out if no new factual information is forthcoming since we seem to all have had our discussion
Either of those seems worthy of discussion, and something that we can learn from to improve the decision making process
This thread is due to die out if no new factual information is forthcoming since we seem to all have had our discussion
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky9
t 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.
The alternate had to be another runway in Manchester, 5000 kgs isnt enough to divert to another alternate with holding fuel.
Mutt.
t 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.
The alternate had to be another runway in Manchester, 5000 kgs isnt enough to divert to another alternate with holding fuel.
Mutt.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
bookworm: Were the crew aware, when they made the decision to continue the flight from LAX, that they would need, some 11 hours later, to declare an emergency and land at MAN rather than LHR?
...
If the answer is "no", which seems much more likely, then someone or something got the fuel sums wrong in deciding that continuation to LHR was reasonable.
...
If the answer is "no", which seems much more likely, then someone or something got the fuel sums wrong in deciding that continuation to LHR was reasonable.
At least to this interested SLF who's been reading this ever-lengthening thread with alternating interest and disgust. (I'll leave you to work out which bits of apparent hysteria have provoked the latter.)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: here..
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky9 wrote:
So do I, and many other - remembering everytime time, the Gods were picking on LCC's for operating with minimum fuel onboard etc.. Wise folks have learned that you eventually get what you give - what goes around comes around. 
Still waiting for more "non biased" facts to surface!
VK
I sometimes wonder why what appears to be a perfectly reasonable decision by an operating crew becomes an hot issue on PPRuNe.
Still waiting for more "non biased" facts to surface!
VK
BEagle
...To my mind they got away with it by the skin of their teeth having been driven by commercial pressure...
On what basis or evidence do you believe that they were driven by commercial pressure?
Quite a serious allegation to make against the crew, particularly from a man of your experience, I'm sure you wouldn't make it without evidence.
Care to share it with us?
Regards
Bellerophon
...To my mind they got away with it by the skin of their teeth having been driven by commercial pressure...
On what basis or evidence do you believe that they were driven by commercial pressure?
Quite a serious allegation to make against the crew, particularly from a man of your experience, I'm sure you wouldn't make it without evidence.
Care to share it with us?
Regards
Bellerophon
Interesting thread,
I can tell you this, if an airline pilot, bypassed suitable alternates and crossed the pond, after shutting down an engine (either a 2, 3, 4, engine aiplane), the pilot would likely get a visit from the FAA.
My understanding is when this sort of thing has happened in the U.S., in the past, the carriers crew got some (unpaid) time off.
I believe all loss of engines are required to be reported to the FAA.
Did these guys fill out an ASAP (NASA) report?
Thanks.
I can tell you this, if an airline pilot, bypassed suitable alternates and crossed the pond, after shutting down an engine (either a 2, 3, 4, engine aiplane), the pilot would likely get a visit from the FAA.
My understanding is when this sort of thing has happened in the U.S., in the past, the carriers crew got some (unpaid) time off.
I believe all loss of engines are required to be reported to the FAA.
Did these guys fill out an ASAP (NASA) report?
Thanks.
Last edited by gator10; 27th Feb 2005 at 03:58.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gator10.
Please point me to a reference instructing a B744 crew to land at the nearest suitable airport following an engine failure.
As an FAA operator, we have had NUMEROUS B747 flights continue to destination following an engine failure and some have returned to the departure airport. There is no fixed rule, it all depends on the route, weather etc etc.
None of our crews would get suspended for making either decision!
Why would you expect an European airline to report an engine failure to the FAA???
Mutt.
Please point me to a reference instructing a B744 crew to land at the nearest suitable airport following an engine failure.
As an FAA operator, we have had NUMEROUS B747 flights continue to destination following an engine failure and some have returned to the departure airport. There is no fixed rule, it all depends on the route, weather etc etc.
None of our crews would get suspended for making either decision!
Why would you expect an European airline to report an engine failure to the FAA???
Mutt.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Miami, Florida, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gator10.
You are correct about the FAA situation. If it had been a US crew on a US flight, the crew would not be flying again for a very long time. US rules require that an aircraft which has shut an engine down land at the nearest suitable airport in point of time. A three or more engine aircraft which shuts an engine down may go to a further airport if it is considered "as safe as" landing at the nearest. 10 hours later bypassing numerous alternates like in this case would definitely not qualify as an airport "as safe as" the nearest one . They would be "busted" big time. But they operate under different rules.
So to me the problem is the rules, not necessarily the crew themselves.
You are correct about the FAA situation. If it had been a US crew on a US flight, the crew would not be flying again for a very long time. US rules require that an aircraft which has shut an engine down land at the nearest suitable airport in point of time. A three or more engine aircraft which shuts an engine down may go to a further airport if it is considered "as safe as" landing at the nearest. 10 hours later bypassing numerous alternates like in this case would definitely not qualify as an airport "as safe as" the nearest one . They would be "busted" big time. But they operate under different rules.
So to me the problem is the rules, not necessarily the crew themselves.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if this was posted in the last 15 pages...my apologies if this is a repeat.......
From the Times Online-
Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
By Ben Webster
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.”
From the Times Online-
Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
By Ben Webster
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.”
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show us this FAA requirement. Provide a link. Remember this a FOUR engined operation. Not two.
Never have I read such junk from so many people who have no idea about long haul four engine operations.
L337
Never have I read such junk from so many people who have no idea about long haul four engine operations.
L337
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought for all you "experts":
Would you really want to dump fuel off LAX ( not a normal operation) and land on 3 engines at a high weight and speed; or reduce your weight to a normal landing weight?
Returning to LAX would not have happened within 90 minutes. I know what I would have preferred and commercial pressure would have had nothing to do with it.
Would you really want to dump fuel off LAX ( not a normal operation) and land on 3 engines at a high weight and speed; or reduce your weight to a normal landing weight?
Returning to LAX would not have happened within 90 minutes. I know what I would have preferred and commercial pressure would have had nothing to do with it.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 hours later bypassing numerous alternates like in this case would definitely not qualify as an airport "as safe as" the nearest one .
....and they still had an additional serviceable engine compared to what I fly with every day.
Nice one ManagedNav,
Finally a rational, well presented analysis of the sitution from our friends in the press. Now us mere mortals have reasonable handle on the facts.
Had it been left to the talking heads and supermen here on Pprune, the thread would have been shut down long ago with no one really sure what the facts were.
Finally a rational, well presented analysis of the sitution from our friends in the press. Now us mere mortals have reasonable handle on the facts.
Had it been left to the talking heads and supermen here on Pprune, the thread would have been shut down long ago with no one really sure what the facts were.
Whilst my remark was indeed intended to be flippant, it was also aimed at the purveyors of the utter twaddle, dithering and smokescreen, that has made up the greater body of this subject.
It was nice for once to see a beleivable selection of facts presented in a coherent and apparently logical fashion by the much berated, Gentlemen of the Press.
All the rubbish and obstupefaction that has been spouted by the cynical experts here, does nothing to raise confidence in the travelling public
Simple as that.
It was nice for once to see a beleivable selection of facts presented in a coherent and apparently logical fashion by the much berated, Gentlemen of the Press.
All the rubbish and obstupefaction that has been spouted by the cynical experts here, does nothing to raise confidence in the travelling public
Simple as that.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: here..
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human Factor wrote
This is precisely why I think this incident looks bad.
Bookworm wrote
I totally agree with Bookworms concerns. Having bypassed numerous diversion fields enroute, they kept on going, until they ended up with broadcasting a MAYDAY call, to ensure safety of the aircraft at MAN. You can hardly call that good airmanship - experienced BA crew or not!
VK
So what you're actually saying is that during the ten hour flight, there were numerous alternates they could land at if required. Doesn't seem quite so bad now does it....
Bookworm wrote
Are you saying that it is "standard operating procedure" to continue a flight to the point where it is necessary to make a Mayday call to ensure the safety of the aircraft?
VK