BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, after reading rossma's (a pax on BA268) first post, I replayed BA268's departure from LAX on the PASSUR Airport Monitor site, a dependable source of entertainment for the aviation aficionados among us SLF.
BA268 first appears on the screen after takeoff at 21:24 local and heads out over the ocean climbing rather sluggishly. It turns SW and completes an anticlockwise loop over the ocean mostly at 5000 ft W of LAX at 21:33. It completes a second, tighter loop off Palos Verdes Point at 21:42, then starts climbing as it turns southward towards the coast, which it crosses at 14000 ft at Seal Beach (E of Long Beach) at 21:48. It heads NE and passes Victorville at 22700 ft at 21:57, before disappearing off the screen.
So it looks like the crew spent just 18 min (not 30-45 min as was rossma's impression) circling over the Pacific before deciding to head for home.
Rockhound
BA268 first appears on the screen after takeoff at 21:24 local and heads out over the ocean climbing rather sluggishly. It turns SW and completes an anticlockwise loop over the ocean mostly at 5000 ft W of LAX at 21:33. It completes a second, tighter loop off Palos Verdes Point at 21:42, then starts climbing as it turns southward towards the coast, which it crosses at 14000 ft at Seal Beach (E of Long Beach) at 21:48. It heads NE and passes Victorville at 22700 ft at 21:57, before disappearing off the screen.
So it looks like the crew spent just 18 min (not 30-45 min as was rossma's impression) circling over the Pacific before deciding to head for home.
Rockhound
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isnt from BA, but it should give you an idea of a companies policy in relation to this situation.
Engine failure or precautionary shutdown.
1. When one engine is stopped in flight due to mechanical failure or
as a precautionary measure to prevent possible damage, a
landing shall be made at the nearest suitable airport in point of
time where a safe landing can be effected, except,
2. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft having 3 or more engines
may, if not more than one engine fails or is shut down, proceed to
the airport of his choice if, upon consideration of the following
factors, he determines that proceeding to that airport is as safe as
landing at the nearest suitable airport (FAR 121.565):
a. The nature of the malfunction and the mechanical difficulties
which may be encountered if flight is continued.
b. The altitude, aircraft weight, and usable fuel at the time of
engine stoppage.
c. The weather conditions enroute and at possible landing
points.
d. The air-traffic congestion.
e. The type of terrain.
f. The familiarity of the pilot with the airport to be used.
3. When an engine is stopped in flight, the pilot-in-command shall
immediately notify the company and ATC and shall keep them
fully informed regarding the progress of the flight.
4. If the pilot-in-command selects an airport other than the nearest
suitable airport in point of time, he shall on completion of the trip,
submit a Pilot’s Use Of Emergency Authority Report Form 0-000,
giving his reasons for determining that the selection of an airport
other than the nearest in point of time was as safe a course of
action. If the aircraft has 3 or more engines, continuation with one
engine inoperative does not constitute a use of pilot’s emergency
authority. Form 0-000 is used merely as a convenient document
on which to submit the required report.
5. The pilot shall advise the company and ATC of the course of
action he is going to follow after an engine failure or malfunction.
Mutt.
Engine failure or precautionary shutdown.
1. When one engine is stopped in flight due to mechanical failure or
as a precautionary measure to prevent possible damage, a
landing shall be made at the nearest suitable airport in point of
time where a safe landing can be effected, except,
2. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft having 3 or more engines
may, if not more than one engine fails or is shut down, proceed to
the airport of his choice if, upon consideration of the following
factors, he determines that proceeding to that airport is as safe as
landing at the nearest suitable airport (FAR 121.565):
a. The nature of the malfunction and the mechanical difficulties
which may be encountered if flight is continued.
b. The altitude, aircraft weight, and usable fuel at the time of
engine stoppage.
c. The weather conditions enroute and at possible landing
points.
d. The air-traffic congestion.
e. The type of terrain.
f. The familiarity of the pilot with the airport to be used.
3. When an engine is stopped in flight, the pilot-in-command shall
immediately notify the company and ATC and shall keep them
fully informed regarding the progress of the flight.
4. If the pilot-in-command selects an airport other than the nearest
suitable airport in point of time, he shall on completion of the trip,
submit a Pilot’s Use Of Emergency Authority Report Form 0-000,
giving his reasons for determining that the selection of an airport
other than the nearest in point of time was as safe a course of
action. If the aircraft has 3 or more engines, continuation with one
engine inoperative does not constitute a use of pilot’s emergency
authority. Form 0-000 is used merely as a convenient document
on which to submit the required report.
5. The pilot shall advise the company and ATC of the course of
action he is going to follow after an engine failure or malfunction.
Mutt.
External Inspection at Night
after a 20:45 takeoff from LAX, it's going to be several hours before [the engines] are visible in morning light from the cabin
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, could I ask the enthusiasts to refrain from their uninformed speculation. The flight crew will be aware if the engine has seized (catastrophic failure) or is still windmilling (plain vanilla failure or rundown). Sending someone back after dark to 'inspect' the failed no. 2 engine is about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick. Ambient light or whatever still won't let you see much of the no. 2 engine and waiting until daylight will still give you as limited a view! 
The continued uninformed hand wringing about continued flight with 3 engines is also unnecessary as we have had plenty of replies by experienced B744 pilots who all state that an immediate landing at the nearest suitable airfield is not necessary just because of an engine shutdown. Also, the suggestions that the flight continue to the east coast USA shows a distinct lack of understanding of spherical geometry and why all those lovely inflight route maps have such long curvy paths up from the UK to the US west coast!
One thing is certain with this incident and that is the fact that the crew will have made safety their number one concern and any speculation otherwise is just uninformed scaremongering. To claim otherwise is an insult to all of us who consider ourselves to be professional pilots. BA are a legacy carrier and have a very good safety culture. Just because a journalist takes a few known facts and ads his or her own spin to it does not change the fact that this crew operated safely. The doomsayers who like to add fantasy scenarios that end with a ditching in the Atlantic only show their ignorance of 4 engined LROPS and would be better served if their confined their questions to the very well considered SOP's that have evolved over many years operations.
If the replies by some of the most experienced B744 pilots can't convince some of you that the operation of the flight on 3 engines was safe then you are either not a professional pilot flying heavy metal or just plain argumentative! The pax point of view is perfectly acceptable, however, if they were left uninformed for a period of time, that would be because the crew were taking their time to make sure that the flight was operating safely and would be able to continue to do so. The old adage; AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE is still valid and it is precisely that order that the crew would have dealt with matters.
The continued uninformed hand wringing about continued flight with 3 engines is also unnecessary as we have had plenty of replies by experienced B744 pilots who all state that an immediate landing at the nearest suitable airfield is not necessary just because of an engine shutdown. Also, the suggestions that the flight continue to the east coast USA shows a distinct lack of understanding of spherical geometry and why all those lovely inflight route maps have such long curvy paths up from the UK to the US west coast!
One thing is certain with this incident and that is the fact that the crew will have made safety their number one concern and any speculation otherwise is just uninformed scaremongering. To claim otherwise is an insult to all of us who consider ourselves to be professional pilots. BA are a legacy carrier and have a very good safety culture. Just because a journalist takes a few known facts and ads his or her own spin to it does not change the fact that this crew operated safely. The doomsayers who like to add fantasy scenarios that end with a ditching in the Atlantic only show their ignorance of 4 engined LROPS and would be better served if their confined their questions to the very well considered SOP's that have evolved over many years operations.
If the replies by some of the most experienced B744 pilots can't convince some of you that the operation of the flight on 3 engines was safe then you are either not a professional pilot flying heavy metal or just plain argumentative! The pax point of view is perfectly acceptable, however, if they were left uninformed for a period of time, that would be because the crew were taking their time to make sure that the flight was operating safely and would be able to continue to do so. The old adage; AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE is still valid and it is precisely that order that the crew would have dealt with matters.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between The Black Swan & The Swettenham Arms
Age: 69
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
each individual pilots' threshold for safety, there must be a line that can never be crossed.
However could 'the line' in this instance have been at Manchester?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I suppose it could have been MAN.
Am I to take it that everyone believes that the outcome was satisfactory and would do it over again exactly the same way if they had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight? I concur that it is not fair to pass judgement until the investigation is complete, but that doesn't mean that the decisions that were made are going to be automatically exonerated just because a few biased opinions were made here on this board.
By the way, I have yet to find one 744 pilot here at Northwest that isn't scratching their head in wonder at the sequence of events; They all say they would probably elect to divert alot sooner than MAN as they do not consider the intent of the guidlines governing 3 engine operations to be a free ticket to bypass more prudent alternatives.
Am I to take it that everyone believes that the outcome was satisfactory and would do it over again exactly the same way if they had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight? I concur that it is not fair to pass judgement until the investigation is complete, but that doesn't mean that the decisions that were made are going to be automatically exonerated just because a few biased opinions were made here on this board.
By the way, I have yet to find one 744 pilot here at Northwest that isn't scratching their head in wonder at the sequence of events; They all say they would probably elect to divert alot sooner than MAN as they do not consider the intent of the guidlines governing 3 engine operations to be a free ticket to bypass more prudent alternatives.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, the suggestions that the flight continue to the east coast USA shows a distinct lack of understanding of spherical geometry and why all those lovely inflight route maps have such long curvy paths up from the UK to the US west coast!
Aiglon
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to have a go at Danny, but as someone who was awarded an Astro Nav Certificate and a Bridge Watchkeeping Officer's Certificate whilst in the Royal Navy I am well aware of the curved nature of the earth. I have in fact flown with BA from LAX to LHR when I did my PPL in California, so I am well aware of the likely route. I also have a fATPL and a very good mark in Gen Nav.
Just because the original flight plan was probably a route well away from the likes of Boston or New York is there anything to prevent the Captain choosing to make such a city the destination? He after all the Captain and has ultimate responsibility for decision making. Or thats what they taught me when I did air law. Maybe different when on the line these days though.
Let us also consider if the engine had failed 60 seconds or so earlier ie before V1. If it had done the take off will have been abandoned, aircraft to hangar, crew & pax to hotel. But because they got 100ft of the ground before the failure they can continue 5000nm to London. And that is legal and safe, if it seems on the face of it a little odd. As they say 'the law is an ass'.
There is no way you can determine in my opinion, other then by visual inspection on the ground, as to whether or not an engine failure is contained or uncontained. Somebody posted earlier the EGT was 120 degrees above the max limit of 1080. The engine had to be completely shut down to bring the EGT back in limits. No way of telling that some piece of Rolls Royce's finest has not been spat out and damaged the underside of the leading edges, the flaps, maybe hit an elevator or rudder, or perhaps punctured the underside of the fuselage at some point. Was anything like this considered? Or was it assumed all was ok in regard to this as no such indication received by the time the finished circling off the coast?
Seems to me that the whole decision was based entirely on did they have enough fuel and enough performance to get back to the UK on three engines. To my mind there were other things that needed to be considered before considering a 5000nm, 10 hour trip back home following an engine failure at take off.
My MCC instructor was an ex BA 744 Captain. He did say it was not uncommon for 747's to continue to destination OEI. But I am not sure he said it was normal to do so if the failure occured 100ft above the ground following take off.
My greatest concern is that 'pilots' and 'aviating factors alone' are no longer the sole individuals involved in deciding what to do following a malfunction. What is known as 'good airmanship' seems ever more to lag behind economics, passenger convenience, environmental concerns and what you could losely describe as 'making the rules work for you'.
Just because the original flight plan was probably a route well away from the likes of Boston or New York is there anything to prevent the Captain choosing to make such a city the destination? He after all the Captain and has ultimate responsibility for decision making. Or thats what they taught me when I did air law. Maybe different when on the line these days though.
Let us also consider if the engine had failed 60 seconds or so earlier ie before V1. If it had done the take off will have been abandoned, aircraft to hangar, crew & pax to hotel. But because they got 100ft of the ground before the failure they can continue 5000nm to London. And that is legal and safe, if it seems on the face of it a little odd. As they say 'the law is an ass'.
There is no way you can determine in my opinion, other then by visual inspection on the ground, as to whether or not an engine failure is contained or uncontained. Somebody posted earlier the EGT was 120 degrees above the max limit of 1080. The engine had to be completely shut down to bring the EGT back in limits. No way of telling that some piece of Rolls Royce's finest has not been spat out and damaged the underside of the leading edges, the flaps, maybe hit an elevator or rudder, or perhaps punctured the underside of the fuselage at some point. Was anything like this considered? Or was it assumed all was ok in regard to this as no such indication received by the time the finished circling off the coast?
Seems to me that the whole decision was based entirely on did they have enough fuel and enough performance to get back to the UK on three engines. To my mind there were other things that needed to be considered before considering a 5000nm, 10 hour trip back home following an engine failure at take off.
My MCC instructor was an ex BA 744 Captain. He did say it was not uncommon for 747's to continue to destination OEI. But I am not sure he said it was normal to do so if the failure occured 100ft above the ground following take off.
My greatest concern is that 'pilots' and 'aviating factors alone' are no longer the sole individuals involved in deciding what to do following a malfunction. What is known as 'good airmanship' seems ever more to lag behind economics, passenger convenience, environmental concerns and what you could losely describe as 'making the rules work for you'.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: kent
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the angry passenger
I was basing my 30-45 minutes on the time it took them to let us know we were flying all the way home. Everybody assumed that we were going around to the other side of LAX to get a decent run at a landing (not being pilots). They only told us the news as we passed Las Vegas.
I still think most people are missing the point - the passengers pay to be on the plane and surely their (perceived) safety and contentment must be a priority for airlines & pilots.
It seems that commercial planes are quick enough to land if a disagreement breaks out on board - is that because the airline won't get any stick for the delay as it can be blamed on rowdy passengers ? I am just asking for us to be considered !
I still think most people are missing the point - the passengers pay to be on the plane and surely their (perceived) safety and contentment must be a priority for airlines & pilots.
It seems that commercial planes are quick enough to land if a disagreement breaks out on board - is that because the airline won't get any stick for the delay as it can be blamed on rowdy passengers ? I am just asking for us to be considered !
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK for aiglon.
Open this site
http://gc.kls2.com/
In the paths section put in LAX-LHR.
Hit display map.
Open this site
http://gc.kls2.com/
In the paths section put in LAX-LHR.
Hit display map.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
uncontained??
Stop and think, timzsta: If a bit of stray innards has enough energy to penetrate the steel structural case of the engine, it will CERTAINLY penetrate the aluminum cowling, and the high-pressure air (probably with burning fuel) will be very evident around the nacelle, and the fire warning bell will be interrupting cockpit chat. The result air loss will soon bring the engine to an involuntary halt.
The fire warning is a GENUINE emergency, and the procedure is well defined. I bet no crew would waste any time finding the nearest safe runway, dumping fuel if necessary.
The fire warning is a GENUINE emergency, and the procedure is well defined. I bet no crew would waste any time finding the nearest safe runway, dumping fuel if necessary.
<quote>There is no way you can determine in my opinion, other then by visual inspection on the ground, as to whether or not an engine failure is contained or uncontained.</quote>
Nope, sorry, you've got me there Danny (but then, I'm not a "real" pilot). Are you suggesting that the BA268 would have routed from LAX to LHR in a westerly direction, across the pacific, arriving on the east coast of the UK, nearer to LHR than MAN? I thought it would have routed in an easterly direction, across the atlantic (prsumably that's why it's trans-atlantic not trans-pacific), arriving on the west coast of the UK, nearer to MAN that LHR.
No, they wouldn't carry on westwards but they would normally go quite a bit north, then come south again.
If you have a globe of the world handy, take a look at the relative positions of California and the UK and trace the most direct route over the surface - a Great Circle. You will notice the peak latitude it reaches is higher than that of the departure or destination airfield.
These sort of routes are varied because of wind components, and generally go to higher latitudes Westbound to avoid the worst of the jetstreams and return lower down to get the benefit of same.
-------------------------------------------------
Just because the original flight plan was probably a route well away from the likes of Boston or New York is there anything to prevent the Captain choosing to make such a city the destination?
Let us also consider if the engine had failed 60 seconds or so earlier ie before V1. If it had done the take off will have been abandoned, aircraft to hangar, crew & pax to hotel. But because they got 100ft of the ground before the failure they can continue 5000nm to London. And that is legal and safe, if it seems on the face of it a little odd.
I still think most people are missing the point - the passengers pay to be on the plane and surely their (perceived) safety and contentment must be a priority for airlines & pilots.
Not to mention that our own necks are on the line just as much as our passengers and most of us have homes and families to come back to as well, so sheer self-preservation kicks in quite early, I can tell you...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: kent
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
I agree with everthing in that paragraph except for the 'perceived' bit. Like a surgeon performing an operation or a lawyer in court defending a client, we are relied on as professional pilots to use our professional skills to do the utmost for those entrusted to our care. This does not often involve taking ad-hoc input from people with no knowledge or experience in the field.
--------------
most lawyers and surgeons act on their clients behalf and with their consent i.e. they ask the untrained client before removing a leg or deciding upon a defense strategy. You still can't grasp the point can you - a lot of passengers were scared and wanted to land and the Stewards knew this. I know this as i was at the back of the plane and spoke to lots of people as they were wandering around stretching their legs or queueing for the toilets (restrooms). As you can surely understand it was the hot topic for discussion
At the very least you must concede that this was not a good marketing/PR move by BA. Surely as a pilot (the smiling professional face of the airline) you must be part of the drive to keep hold of business in an increasingly cut-throat marketplace.
I agree with everthing in that paragraph except for the 'perceived' bit. Like a surgeon performing an operation or a lawyer in court defending a client, we are relied on as professional pilots to use our professional skills to do the utmost for those entrusted to our care. This does not often involve taking ad-hoc input from people with no knowledge or experience in the field.
--------------
most lawyers and surgeons act on their clients behalf and with their consent i.e. they ask the untrained client before removing a leg or deciding upon a defense strategy. You still can't grasp the point can you - a lot of passengers were scared and wanted to land and the Stewards knew this. I know this as i was at the back of the plane and spoke to lots of people as they were wandering around stretching their legs or queueing for the toilets (restrooms). As you can surely understand it was the hot topic for discussion
At the very least you must concede that this was not a good marketing/PR move by BA. Surely as a pilot (the smiling professional face of the airline) you must be part of the drive to keep hold of business in an increasingly cut-throat marketplace.
most lawyers and surgeons act on their clients behalf and with their consent i.e. they ask the untrained client before removing a leg or deciding upon a defense strategy.
At the very least you must concede that this was not a good marketing/PR move by BA. Surely as a pilot (the smiling professional face of the airline) you must be part of the drive to keep hold of business in an increasingly cut-throat marketplace.
)After the incident, when all the safety considerations had been reviewed and the flight 'put back on an even keel', then there would be time for a more detailed explanation to the passengers as to what happened and why a particular course of action was being followed. If you as a passenger on this flight felt kept in the dark in this respect, then that is a valid complaint and I'm sure that the crew and the airline would like to know so they can do better in this respect in the future.
I would still say that with the facts as they are known at the moment, the crew did a good job in terms of a SAFE operation to get the passengers as near to their final destination as possible...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rossma,
I'm with you 100%. I think it was very derelict of the crew not to advise you pax of their intentions shortly after establishing themselves on course for the UK. It looks like they set course for home well before crossing the California coast after completing their second circuit over the Pacific. As you passed Victorville, which lies some 75 mi as the crow flies NE from LAX, right behind you on the same course and at the same altitude, was a Virgin A340 out of LAX (I shouldn't say ex-LAX) headed for LHR. From Victorville it's another 170 mi or so to Las Vegas.
Rockhound
I'm with you 100%. I think it was very derelict of the crew not to advise you pax of their intentions shortly after establishing themselves on course for the UK. It looks like they set course for home well before crossing the California coast after completing their second circuit over the Pacific. As you passed Victorville, which lies some 75 mi as the crow flies NE from LAX, right behind you on the same course and at the same altitude, was a Virgin A340 out of LAX (I shouldn't say ex-LAX) headed for LHR. From Victorville it's another 170 mi or so to Las Vegas.
Rockhound
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from Rockhound
It's a while since I've been to LAX, but doesn't the LAXX SID stipulate a minimum altitude of 14,000 feet on crossing Seal Beach. How many of us could complete several turns, on three engines, and roll out so as to cross Seal Beach exactly at the minimum altutude? (Apoplogies if my memory of the LAXX SID is incorrect, but it's rather late 
)
Airclues
Edit;
Just found this
....then starts climbing as it turns southwest towards the coast which it crosses at 14,000 feet at Seal Beach...
)Airclues
Edit;
Just found this
Last edited by Captain Airclues; 1st Mar 2005 at 01:25.
This just hit the street. Can someone post the article?
Monday, Feb 28, 2005
[$$] Crossing the Atlantic With a Dead Engine
at The Wall Street Journal Online - 26 minutes ago
Thanks.
Monday, Feb 28, 2005
[$$] Crossing the Atlantic With a Dead Engine
at The Wall Street Journal Online - 26 minutes ago
Thanks.