BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gator10....Here you go....Can't wait to hear the knee-jerk replies by the self-proclaimed experts...
Crossing the Atlantic
With a Dead Engine
Saga of British Airways Flight
Raises Concerns at FAA;
Forced to Land in Manchester
March 1, 2005
Passengers heard the pops, and people on the ground saw sparks flying out from beneath the wing. A British Airways 747 had an engine fail during takeoff in Los Angeles 10 days ago.
But instead of returning to the airport to land, Flight 268 continued on across the U.S, up near the North Pole, across the Atlantic -- all the way to England.
The flight, with 351 passengers on board, didn't quite make it to London, its scheduled destination. It eventually made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, setting off a controversy over the risk of flying 10 hours with a dead engine hanging under the wing.
The Feb. 19 British Airways incident came just two days after the European Union began making airlines compensate passengers for delays. In the aftermath, the British Air Line Pilots' Association, the union representing British Airways pilots, issued a statement warning the industry that the new regulation could pressure pilots to take more risks to save money.
British Airways flew a 747 to the U.K. after one of its four engines died on takeoff from Los Angeles.
In addition, airline regulators, pilots and safety experts are raising questions about the crew's decision to fly such a long distance after an engine failure, since it narrows the safety margin in the unlikely event that something else goes wrong with the plane.
Engine failures on jet aircraft occur only infrequently, and pilots are trained to handle them. Jet aircraft are designed to climb and cruise after losing one engine, and the four-engine Boeing 747 can fly on just two engines (though at lower altitude, and with some strain).
British Airways says the plane was safe flying on three of its four engines. The airline also says it has flown 747s with just three engines before -- once in April 2003, for instance, on the same Los Angeles-London route. "Had there been any kind of question on safety, they would have turned back to Los Angeles or gone to another U.S. airport," says British Airways spokesman John Lampl.
For U.S. airlines, Federal Aviation Administration regulations require commercial carriers to land at the nearest suitable airport after an engine failure. However, British Air and safety experts say that British regulations don't. In the complex world of aviation law, which is governed by bilateral treaties and international agreements, the bottom line is that the FAA doesn't have jurisdiction over a British crew in this instance.
Yesterday, an FAA spokeswoman said the agency has "concerns" about the flight and is going to contact regulators in the U.K. to discuss the incident.
Turning around a plane and landing it immediately can be an expensive proposition. First, there is the cost of dumping tons of expensive jet fuel (planes have difficulty landing with full tanks), and the likely additional cost of putting up the passengers in hotels. In addition, under last month's new EU rules on passenger compensation, British Airways would have also had to pay travelers €210,600, or about $280,000 -- €600 apiece -- if they got to London's Heathrow Airport more than five hours late.
Mr. Lampl of British Airways said any suggestion that the plane continued because of financial pressure from the new EU rules is "total rubbish." The issue "most likely was never discussed with the crew," he said. British Air hasn't released the names of crew members.
Many aviation experts say most pilots won't take undue risks to keep costs down -- after all, their own lives are at stake, as well as those of hundreds of passengers. While economics can factor into airline decisions, "I don't think the crew would take a risk they thought was unacceptable solely for money," said Bernard Loeb, a former top investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board.
However, he criticizes British Air's decision to fly on to the U.K. with the disabled engine. "I don't think it was an appropriate decision at all. There are a lot of events that could have occurred that would have created a major problem."
Flight 268 took off just after 9:24 p.m. from Los Angeles, according to a track of the flight recorded by the airport. The inboard engine on the left side of the airplane experienced an unusual power surge at takeoff, and Los Angeles officials said residents near the airport reported seeing sparks and hearing "popping of engines."
The Boeing 747-400 headed southwest over Santa Monica Bay, climbed to 5,000 feet and circled for more than 20 minutes while the crew diagnosed the problem and communicated with British Airways operations center in London. After deciding the flight could get to London on three engines, the jet headed to the U.K.
Passengers heard two loud pops as the plane took off, one passenger told the Times of London, which wrote about the incident on Friday. The captain announced that the plane had lost an engine and the crew was considering whether to continue to the U.K.
One former pilot questions the decision to proceed with an ailing airplane. "Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts," says Barry Schiff, a retired 747 captain with Trans World Airlines who has written books on proper flying procedures and has received a congressional commendation for his work in aviation safety.
Unable to climb as high as planned, the plane flew at a lower altitude across the Atlantic, increasing drag. That increases fuel burn. In addition, with two engines on one side of the plane but only one on the other, the plane's rudder had to be used to keep the aircraft flying straight. That increases drag as well.
While crews are trained for all of these contingencies -- 747 pilots have special charts detailing three-engine performance -- they didn't get as much tail wind as they had expected at the lower altitude, British Air said. That made the emergency landing in Manchester necessary. Mr. Lampl said he didn't know if the airline would still end up paying penalties because of the diversion to Manchester.
Compared with the majority of planes flying across the Atlantic today, the 747 has more redundancy than most. That's because most trans-Atlantic aircraft these days have two engines, compared with the four engines on a 747. Stuart Matthews, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, a nonprofit aviation-safety group, says he's been on a 747 that had to shut down an engine while cruising, and it continued on to its destination rather than diverting to the nearest airport. "Lots of aircraft fly across the Atlantic with fewer than three engines," he said.
But he, too, said he was surprised at the decision to continue the flight when one engine was lost so early in the trip. Flying more than 5,000 miles is a long way to go without all your engines.
• Write to Scott McCartney at [email protected]2
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...666421,00.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:[email protected]
(2) mailto:[email protected]
(3) mailto:[email protected]Gator10 Gator10
Crossing the Atlantic
With a Dead Engine
Saga of British Airways Flight
Raises Concerns at FAA;
Forced to Land in Manchester
March 1, 2005
Passengers heard the pops, and people on the ground saw sparks flying out from beneath the wing. A British Airways 747 had an engine fail during takeoff in Los Angeles 10 days ago.
But instead of returning to the airport to land, Flight 268 continued on across the U.S, up near the North Pole, across the Atlantic -- all the way to England.
The flight, with 351 passengers on board, didn't quite make it to London, its scheduled destination. It eventually made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, setting off a controversy over the risk of flying 10 hours with a dead engine hanging under the wing.
The Feb. 19 British Airways incident came just two days after the European Union began making airlines compensate passengers for delays. In the aftermath, the British Air Line Pilots' Association, the union representing British Airways pilots, issued a statement warning the industry that the new regulation could pressure pilots to take more risks to save money.
British Airways flew a 747 to the U.K. after one of its four engines died on takeoff from Los Angeles.
In addition, airline regulators, pilots and safety experts are raising questions about the crew's decision to fly such a long distance after an engine failure, since it narrows the safety margin in the unlikely event that something else goes wrong with the plane.
Engine failures on jet aircraft occur only infrequently, and pilots are trained to handle them. Jet aircraft are designed to climb and cruise after losing one engine, and the four-engine Boeing 747 can fly on just two engines (though at lower altitude, and with some strain).
British Airways says the plane was safe flying on three of its four engines. The airline also says it has flown 747s with just three engines before -- once in April 2003, for instance, on the same Los Angeles-London route. "Had there been any kind of question on safety, they would have turned back to Los Angeles or gone to another U.S. airport," says British Airways spokesman John Lampl.
For U.S. airlines, Federal Aviation Administration regulations require commercial carriers to land at the nearest suitable airport after an engine failure. However, British Air and safety experts say that British regulations don't. In the complex world of aviation law, which is governed by bilateral treaties and international agreements, the bottom line is that the FAA doesn't have jurisdiction over a British crew in this instance.
Yesterday, an FAA spokeswoman said the agency has "concerns" about the flight and is going to contact regulators in the U.K. to discuss the incident.
Turning around a plane and landing it immediately can be an expensive proposition. First, there is the cost of dumping tons of expensive jet fuel (planes have difficulty landing with full tanks), and the likely additional cost of putting up the passengers in hotels. In addition, under last month's new EU rules on passenger compensation, British Airways would have also had to pay travelers €210,600, or about $280,000 -- €600 apiece -- if they got to London's Heathrow Airport more than five hours late.
Mr. Lampl of British Airways said any suggestion that the plane continued because of financial pressure from the new EU rules is "total rubbish." The issue "most likely was never discussed with the crew," he said. British Air hasn't released the names of crew members.
Many aviation experts say most pilots won't take undue risks to keep costs down -- after all, their own lives are at stake, as well as those of hundreds of passengers. While economics can factor into airline decisions, "I don't think the crew would take a risk they thought was unacceptable solely for money," said Bernard Loeb, a former top investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board.
However, he criticizes British Air's decision to fly on to the U.K. with the disabled engine. "I don't think it was an appropriate decision at all. There are a lot of events that could have occurred that would have created a major problem."
Flight 268 took off just after 9:24 p.m. from Los Angeles, according to a track of the flight recorded by the airport. The inboard engine on the left side of the airplane experienced an unusual power surge at takeoff, and Los Angeles officials said residents near the airport reported seeing sparks and hearing "popping of engines."
The Boeing 747-400 headed southwest over Santa Monica Bay, climbed to 5,000 feet and circled for more than 20 minutes while the crew diagnosed the problem and communicated with British Airways operations center in London. After deciding the flight could get to London on three engines, the jet headed to the U.K.
Passengers heard two loud pops as the plane took off, one passenger told the Times of London, which wrote about the incident on Friday. The captain announced that the plane had lost an engine and the crew was considering whether to continue to the U.K.
One former pilot questions the decision to proceed with an ailing airplane. "Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts," says Barry Schiff, a retired 747 captain with Trans World Airlines who has written books on proper flying procedures and has received a congressional commendation for his work in aviation safety.
Unable to climb as high as planned, the plane flew at a lower altitude across the Atlantic, increasing drag. That increases fuel burn. In addition, with two engines on one side of the plane but only one on the other, the plane's rudder had to be used to keep the aircraft flying straight. That increases drag as well.
While crews are trained for all of these contingencies -- 747 pilots have special charts detailing three-engine performance -- they didn't get as much tail wind as they had expected at the lower altitude, British Air said. That made the emergency landing in Manchester necessary. Mr. Lampl said he didn't know if the airline would still end up paying penalties because of the diversion to Manchester.
Compared with the majority of planes flying across the Atlantic today, the 747 has more redundancy than most. That's because most trans-Atlantic aircraft these days have two engines, compared with the four engines on a 747. Stuart Matthews, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, a nonprofit aviation-safety group, says he's been on a 747 that had to shut down an engine while cruising, and it continued on to its destination rather than diverting to the nearest airport. "Lots of aircraft fly across the Atlantic with fewer than three engines," he said.
But he, too, said he was surprised at the decision to continue the flight when one engine was lost so early in the trip. Flying more than 5,000 miles is a long way to go without all your engines.
• Write to Scott McCartney at [email protected]2
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...666421,00.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:[email protected]
(2) mailto:[email protected]
(3) mailto:[email protected]Gator10 Gator10
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial pressure
BA do indeed have a good safety culture, except seemingly where expensive diversion issues come into play.
The tragic example of the 747 approach-go around at LHR where a hotel was nearly struck, and the captain ended up taking his own life months later is a case in point. One of the key factors there was the pressure applied by the airline to Captain Stewart to attempt a landing at LHR in low vis with an incapacitated co-pilot at the end of a long flight. The captain's wish to divert to MAN, for a safer approach and landing, was over-ruled on the basis of cost.
This took place some years ago, but sadly BA do not seem to have learnt an important lesson. The negative publicity from this story, and possible litigation, may result in more costly fall-out than the diversion would.
Expecting some pompous comments now from BA experts!
The tragic example of the 747 approach-go around at LHR where a hotel was nearly struck, and the captain ended up taking his own life months later is a case in point. One of the key factors there was the pressure applied by the airline to Captain Stewart to attempt a landing at LHR in low vis with an incapacitated co-pilot at the end of a long flight. The captain's wish to divert to MAN, for a safer approach and landing, was over-ruled on the basis of cost.
This took place some years ago, but sadly BA do not seem to have learnt an important lesson. The negative publicity from this story, and possible litigation, may result in more costly fall-out than the diversion would.
Expecting some pompous comments now from BA experts!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RoyHudd,
>>One of the key factors there was the pressure applied by the airline to Captain Stewart to attempt a landing at LHR in low vis with an incapacitated co-pilot at the end of a long flight. The captain's wish to divert to MAN, for a safer approach and landing, was over-ruled on the basis of cost.<<
That's the first time I've heard that. Where does that come from?
(Not a pompous comment, I hope, just intrigued)
I can only go on my personal experience of 18 years in BA; in that time I have NEVER been criticised for costing them money when safety has been an issue.
>>One of the key factors there was the pressure applied by the airline to Captain Stewart to attempt a landing at LHR in low vis with an incapacitated co-pilot at the end of a long flight. The captain's wish to divert to MAN, for a safer approach and landing, was over-ruled on the basis of cost.<<
That's the first time I've heard that. Where does that come from?
(Not a pompous comment, I hope, just intrigued)
I can only go on my personal experience of 18 years in BA; in that time I have NEVER been criticised for costing them money when safety has been an issue.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh, there are a lot of pompous twits on here aren't there 
Surely we are all entitled to hold our own views and, more importantly, to express them.
Danny, sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted your comment as a suggestion that the flight would depart in a (generally) E-W direction. However, I still don't see why you consider it silly of people to suggest that the flight divert to an east coast airport. OK, so it's not on the planned flight path, so what, diversions often aren't. It would have taken the aircraft, crew and passengers that bit closer to London and would either (I'm guessing here, OK) have burnt off sufficient fuel for a landing or at least meant they would have to dump less.
Hobie, yes old chap, I do have a crash helmet but I don't feel the need to put it on. I'm big enough and ugly enough to look after myself. Besides, I don't really care; they're my views and I'm entitled to voice them
Aiglon
Surely we are all entitled to hold our own views and, more importantly, to express them.Danny, sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted your comment as a suggestion that the flight would depart in a (generally) E-W direction. However, I still don't see why you consider it silly of people to suggest that the flight divert to an east coast airport. OK, so it's not on the planned flight path, so what, diversions often aren't. It would have taken the aircraft, crew and passengers that bit closer to London and would either (I'm guessing here, OK) have burnt off sufficient fuel for a landing or at least meant they would have to dump less.
Hobie, yes old chap, I do have a crash helmet but I don't feel the need to put it on. I'm big enough and ugly enough to look after myself. Besides, I don't really care; they're my views and I'm entitled to voice them
Aiglon
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny, sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted your comment as a suggestion that the flight would depart in a (generally) E-W direction
Can't resist THIS one..
For all the "ivory tower" 744 commanders out there who think what happened was quite OK, read this (copied from previous article), and read it SLOWLY and CAREFULLY.
"One former pilot questions the decision to proceed with an ailing airplane. "Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts," says Barry Schiff, a retired 747 captain with Trans World Airlines who has written books on proper flying procedures and has received a congressional commendation for his work in aviation safety."
And if you don't know who Barry Schiff is, and the calibre man THAT guy is, then you may as well get back onto 152s then...
"One former pilot questions the decision to proceed with an ailing airplane. "Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts," says Barry Schiff, a retired 747 captain with Trans World Airlines who has written books on proper flying procedures and has received a congressional commendation for his work in aviation safety."
And if you don't know who Barry Schiff is, and the calibre man THAT guy is, then you may as well get back onto 152s then...
Controversial, moi?
Apart from
and the fact that the article insists on calling British Airways British Air the article was factual and well written, unlike the rubbish in The Times.
up near the North Pole
By the way all the hysterical reports have been posted here it would seem BA is the ONLT airline to ever continue onwards to destination after suffering an engine failure.What total b****lcks.
I would put money on virgin having done so on many an occasion.The only difference is they are could at covering up.
Interestingly l have been on a 747 that had an engine run down an hour out of tokyo and continued to LHR and the pax never knew or felt a thing.
If you passengers are really terrified then you would never fly across the pond in a twin,where you can be over 2 hours away from a suitable place to land at the moment of engine failure.
TWO hours (actually the limit is 3 hours) on one engine,in the depths of winter.Like the idea?
I would put money on virgin having done so on many an occasion.The only difference is they are could at covering up.
Interestingly l have been on a 747 that had an engine run down an hour out of tokyo and continued to LHR and the pax never knew or felt a thing.
If you passengers are really terrified then you would never fly across the pond in a twin,where you can be over 2 hours away from a suitable place to land at the moment of engine failure.
TWO hours (actually the limit is 3 hours) on one engine,in the depths of winter.Like the idea?
frangatang : I'll wager you are correct and that BA is not the only airline to have done this.
But I think you are missing the point with regard to your ETOPS related comments. You are mixing chalk and cheese here. Sure I like the idea of ETOPS - I'll take the risk any day....but DON'T ask me to take the risk when I don't HAVE TO (ie, as in one of those motors failing just after take-off) mate....
I'll gladly take the risk of flying on when I am 3 hours out over the ocean with only 1 engine - I don't have a choice, do I now, so it isn't even a question of "risk" anymore anyway...
And I suppose you think Barry Schiff is also wrong in his comments on this episode....
But I think you are missing the point with regard to your ETOPS related comments. You are mixing chalk and cheese here. Sure I like the idea of ETOPS - I'll take the risk any day....but DON'T ask me to take the risk when I don't HAVE TO (ie, as in one of those motors failing just after take-off) mate....
I'll gladly take the risk of flying on when I am 3 hours out over the ocean with only 1 engine - I don't have a choice, do I now, so it isn't even a question of "risk" anymore anyway...
And I suppose you think Barry Schiff is also wrong in his comments on this episode....
barryt
...For all the "ivory tower" 744 commanders out there read this...SLOWLY and CAREFULLY...
Fortunately, during the many years spent ascending our ivory towers, most of us developed the ability to read items of no substance rather quickly.
..."Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts,"...
A well reasoned, rational and intellectual position. Always good to hear. Can't argue with something as well written and researched as that!
...who has written books on proper flying procedures...
That settles it! There's no contradicting someone who has written a book on "proper flying procedures" now is there!
If his comment was correctly reported; and if it is indicative of the general level of logic, insight and intellectual rigour to be found in his publications; then I don't feel any pressing need to read them.
...and if you don't know who Barry Schiff is, and the calibre man THAT guy is, then you may as well get back onto 152s then...
I'd never heard of him before now, but, despite this obvious deficiency in my education, I still feel able to remain on the B744.
Regards
Bellerophon
...For all the "ivory tower" 744 commanders out there read this...SLOWLY and CAREFULLY...
Fortunately, during the many years spent ascending our ivory towers, most of us developed the ability to read items of no substance rather quickly.
..."Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts,"...
A well reasoned, rational and intellectual position. Always good to hear. Can't argue with something as well written and researched as that!
...who has written books on proper flying procedures...
That settles it! There's no contradicting someone who has written a book on "proper flying procedures" now is there!
If his comment was correctly reported; and if it is indicative of the general level of logic, insight and intellectual rigour to be found in his publications; then I don't feel any pressing need to read them.
...and if you don't know who Barry Schiff is, and the calibre man THAT guy is, then you may as well get back onto 152s then...
I'd never heard of him before now, but, despite this obvious deficiency in my education, I still feel able to remain on the B744.
Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: here..
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frangatang wrote:
So what you are suggesting, is that BA is not as good as Virgin to cover up incidents, or in this case, maybe a bad decision? That is "commercially" an interesting thought. I don't think that any legacy carrier deliberately is trying to cover up things. There is a big difference, in trying to cover up things, and to refrain from sending out "Breaking News" each and every time a crew files an FSR or Voyage report.
As I've said before, I can't wait to read the report. I have a feeling that most of the 747(BA?) "non event, perfectly safe, no commercial pressure" guys in this particular case, are up for a surprise. Then someone will have some really interesting safety culture issues to solve. I shall however be the first one to stand corrected if the coming report has nothing to comment about safetywise/decisionwise in this incident. There seems to be lessons to learn for "either group", no matter what the outcome of this report is.
- and by the way, it doesn't really matter how much of an expert you are, if your decisions or statements are based on very limited, biased or even wrong facts. So while we are waiting for facts to surface, anyones opinion can be as good or bad as the orther!
VK
I would put money on virgin having done so on many an occasion.The only difference is they are could at covering up.
As I've said before, I can't wait to read the report. I have a feeling that most of the 747(BA?) "non event, perfectly safe, no commercial pressure" guys in this particular case, are up for a surprise. Then someone will have some really interesting safety culture issues to solve. I shall however be the first one to stand corrected if the coming report has nothing to comment about safetywise/decisionwise in this incident. There seems to be lessons to learn for "either group", no matter what the outcome of this report is.
- and by the way, it doesn't really matter how much of an expert you are, if your decisions or statements are based on very limited, biased or even wrong facts. So while we are waiting for facts to surface, anyones opinion can be as good or bad as the orther!
VK
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oak Ridge, USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 diversion
From my limited experience - I know that with the 747-200 the rules (my company) were different if the No 1 engine had problems as opposed to the No 2 because of the hydraulic systems differences when run from No 1 or No 2. Also whatever decision was made was that of the Captain and was without doubt (to me) within company rules and what he or she deemed as safe and reasonable. With all the wild posts here don't you think that a 747-400 Captain on a 10+ hr flight over the North Atlantic at night - electing to continue to the UK - might - just might - have known what they were doing???
Guest
Posts: n/a
With all the wild posts here don't you think that a 747-400 Captain on a 10+ hr flight over the North Atlantic at night - electing to continue to the UK - might - just might - have known what they were doing???
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. KAOS
I am sure that the crew in question took into account possibe loss of a second engine or loss of cabin pressure as well as stronger than forecast winds and other relevant factors before their decision to continue.
JJ
I am sure that the crew in question took into account possibe loss of a second engine or loss of cabin pressure as well as stronger than forecast winds and other relevant factors before their decision to continue.
JJ
Está servira para distraerle.
If I remember correctly, Barry Schiff writes a column which appears regularily in the magazine World Airnews. Africa's Leading Aviation Journal.
He has some 26k hours and has flown 280 types of aircraft. He has said ' The safest pilot is the one most likely to complete a fruitful flying career (professional or otherwise) without ever having endangered his aircraft or his passengers.'
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts