BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Barry Schiff (yes, I know him) is a pompous twit who is totally in love with himself. He has exceeded his useful shelf life.
Every now and then a "retired Concorde Captain" or "ex-BA Jumbo Captain" gets dusted off for a 30-second spot on the news.
I hate to say this of my 'peers' but 90% of the time they talk a complete load of ****e! It's amazing how the industry changes in just ten years. Over 20 it's unrecognisable - and that's how most of these people remember it.
The last two decades have seen the advent of Fly-by-Wire, ETOPS, Ultra Long Range, FADEC, TCAS, Low Cost, GPS, 9-11... you name it, it's happened. It's just unfair to expect someone who has been out of the airline business for a while to have a complete understanding...
Time for this thread to go!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US media
NBC Nightly News chimed in on the story. At least they got the major facts right, and something of a balance of opinion on safety.
They could have omitted the pax sobstory though.
They could have omitted the pax sobstory though.
When people start rubbishing a guy like Barry Schiff on this forum then it really is time to go - evidently the ones who don't think much of him are complete idiots themselves and probably a downright danger to themselves and their aircraft - no doubt about it.
Good luck to y'all! (Some of you are really going to NEED it by the sounds of it...)
Good luck to y'all! (Some of you are really going to NEED it by the sounds of it...)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...just as an aside, I understand the bulk of the users of this board are located in the UK. I also see a lot of "hand-wringing" about "this is surely not the first time something like this has happened", and wonder as to why it happened to make the news this time.
Well, if you read through the whole thread, you'll see the initial notice of the event was by spotters with radios at Manchester. Then we had discussion from some people who had spoken with the cabin crew, and a few maintenance folks. Then the press caught wind of it.
As I thought about it, I realized that just about every emergency, non-emergency, fire drill, prang, go-around or similar event that occurs at MAN usually makes at least the Manchester papers. And often before they do, you see it here.
I understand that Manchester is the second-largest airport in the UK, boasting something on the order of 18 million passengers a year. Still, I decided to do a little study.
First, I grabbed Microsoft's list of the 30 busiest airports in the worldhttp://encarta.msn.com/media_7015005...r_Traffic.html, then I went over to the photo database at popular Planespotting site airliners.net, and I tallied up the number of spotter photographs taken from each of the 30 airfields on the list, plus Manchester. The theory is:
1. Total Passengers are roughly an indicator of total movements.
2. Total Photographs taken indicate the number of amateur observers and the degree to which the airport is under observation.
3. From this, we can calculate a Spotter Quotient of (Photos/Million Movements). A High Spotter quotient should indicate an airport where aircraft and aircrew behaviour is closely monitored by a band of net-savvy, anorak packing enthusiasts.
Here's my results:
So in terms of Spotter Quotient, Manchester is first in the world. Only one airport -- amsterdam-- has more than half the SQ of MAN. In absolute terms, if we determine spotter community by the number of photos, then Manchester is fourth in the world -- with LHR, AMS and FRA in the 1, 2 and 3 slots.
There are more eyes on aircraft coming into and going out of Manchester than anywhere else in the world.
Since, in the case discussed in this thread, economics played a factor (as it does in every other case: why run an airline if not to make money?), and a significant part of economics is global news exposure, if, after having suffered an engine failure, the crew elected to proceed across the pond, with the full knowledge that adverse winds might put them in MAN in an emergency, they acted very poorly indeed.
Had they landed at any other airport on their path, the odds of this event hitting the international press would have been greatly reduced.
...just something to think about when you're planning alternates.
Well, if you read through the whole thread, you'll see the initial notice of the event was by spotters with radios at Manchester. Then we had discussion from some people who had spoken with the cabin crew, and a few maintenance folks. Then the press caught wind of it.
As I thought about it, I realized that just about every emergency, non-emergency, fire drill, prang, go-around or similar event that occurs at MAN usually makes at least the Manchester papers. And often before they do, you see it here.
I understand that Manchester is the second-largest airport in the UK, boasting something on the order of 18 million passengers a year. Still, I decided to do a little study.
First, I grabbed Microsoft's list of the 30 busiest airports in the worldhttp://encarta.msn.com/media_7015005...r_Traffic.html, then I went over to the photo database at popular Planespotting site airliners.net, and I tallied up the number of spotter photographs taken from each of the 30 airfields on the list, plus Manchester. The theory is:
1. Total Passengers are roughly an indicator of total movements.
2. Total Photographs taken indicate the number of amateur observers and the degree to which the airport is under observation.
3. From this, we can calculate a Spotter Quotient of (Photos/Million Movements). A High Spotter quotient should indicate an airport where aircraft and aircrew behaviour is closely monitored by a band of net-savvy, anorak packing enthusiasts.
Here's my results:
Code:
MPax Pho SQ ATL 75.8 5210 69 ORD 66.5 2359 28 LHR 63.3 25110 397 HND 61.1 1727 28 LAX 56.2 16353 291 DFW 52.8 3203 61 FRA 48.5 23714 489 CDG 48.4 8698 180 AMS 40.7 24611 604 DEN 35.7 3619 101 PHX 35.5 6711 189 LAS 35.0 3005 85 MAD 33.9 4915 145 IAH 33.9 1965 58 HKG 33.9 9859 291 MSP 32.6 2551 78 DTW 32.5 664 20 BKK 32.2 2075 64 SFO 31.5 3447 109 MIA 30.0 11485 382 JFK 29.9 8062 269 LGW 29.6 6988 236 EWR 29.2 2725 93 SIN 29.0 4285 147 NRT 28.9 2049 70.9 PEK 27.2 4721 174 SEA 26.7 1492 56 MCO 26.7 2184 82 YYZ 25.9 7952 306 STL 25.6 839 33 and...down the list quite a bit: MAN 18.3 17419 952
There are more eyes on aircraft coming into and going out of Manchester than anywhere else in the world.
Since, in the case discussed in this thread, economics played a factor (as it does in every other case: why run an airline if not to make money?), and a significant part of economics is global news exposure, if, after having suffered an engine failure, the crew elected to proceed across the pond, with the full knowledge that adverse winds might put them in MAN in an emergency, they acted very poorly indeed.
Had they landed at any other airport on their path, the odds of this event hitting the international press would have been greatly reduced.
...just something to think about when you're planning alternates.
Last edited by DingerX; 2nd Mar 2005 at 05:43.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't had time to read all posts on this thread so I apologise if I am being repetitive.
Capt Doug Brown, BA Senior 747/777 Fleet Manager, states (Flight International) that this was "not a safety issue".
The editorial in the same issue also argues that the pax were 'not in danger at any point during the flight....'
Personally I have no problem with the crew continuing after shutting down an engine - all other things having been considered.
I do have a problem with the decision to continue to a point where an emergency had to be declared due to shortage of fuel. Getting the wrong transatlantic level is no excuse - this comes under 'contingencies' and should have been accounted for.
Declaring an emergency means that the aircraft is in 'grave and imminent danger'. It is misleading and disingenuous to state that, in this case safety was not an issue - it was!
Capt Doug Brown, BA Senior 747/777 Fleet Manager, states (Flight International) that this was "not a safety issue".
The editorial in the same issue also argues that the pax were 'not in danger at any point during the flight....'
Personally I have no problem with the crew continuing after shutting down an engine - all other things having been considered.
I do have a problem with the decision to continue to a point where an emergency had to be declared due to shortage of fuel. Getting the wrong transatlantic level is no excuse - this comes under 'contingencies' and should have been accounted for.
Declaring an emergency means that the aircraft is in 'grave and imminent danger'. It is misleading and disingenuous to state that, in this case safety was not an issue - it was!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I've never heard of Barry Schiff either.
Let me get this straight - A safe pilot is one that doesn't do anything dangerous.
Well, I'm glad thats sorted out. Where would we be without gems of wisdom like that!
CPB
If I remember correctly, Barry Schiff writes a column which appears regularily ... <snip>... 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.'
Well, I'm glad thats sorted out. Where would we be without gems of wisdom like that!
CPB
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the Aviation Safety Network (1st March 2005) the FAA are looking at this incident from a different angle. It is suggested that the decision to continue on only three engines was as a direct result of recent European Legislation requiring airlines to reimburse passengers for lengthy delays. By continuing the flight to the U.K. and not returning to L.A. no penalties were incurred.
(Light blue touch paper and retire.)
(Light blue touch paper and retire.)
Paxing All Over The World
Regular pax speaking:
SP, that point was covered in this thread. It was reported that the new European legislation is about delays prior to departure and cancellation, not post departure delays.
The info about Spotter Quotient is FANTASTIQUE!!! That ought to be compulsive reading in all corporate HQ and by those that plan standard routings.
As to those who say that they should be informed of such events mid-flight. The answer must be No, because: You/I/us are in no position to have an opinion.
If my doctor treats me without consent, I can complain because the process is slower. I can understand because I am on the inside of the problem and know how each medication is affecting me and give positive feedback. In an aircraft, I cannot possibly know this. Not least, there is no time for a round table discussion between us and the flight crew.
When a friend gives me a lift in their car, I can advise on risks due to weather conditions and traffic patterns, as I have been driving a car for 27 years. If my friend continues against my wishes, I can (usually) get out as the car allows this.
One of the reasons that an airline ticket from London to Paris will usually cost more than, say a coach, is that more precautions have been taken and the crew are trained to a higher standard. Lastly, because they cannot pull the 'coach' over to the side of the road and then decide what is wrong.
When we buy an airline ticket, we entrust our lives to the airline and, if they fail, they will pay, either: we never fly with them again and tell everyone how bad we think they are (such as I do with FR) or the airlines pays the executor of our will.
It really is that simple.
SP, that point was covered in this thread. It was reported that the new European legislation is about delays prior to departure and cancellation, not post departure delays.
The info about Spotter Quotient is FANTASTIQUE!!! That ought to be compulsive reading in all corporate HQ and by those that plan standard routings.
As to those who say that they should be informed of such events mid-flight. The answer must be No, because: You/I/us are in no position to have an opinion.
If my doctor treats me without consent, I can complain because the process is slower. I can understand because I am on the inside of the problem and know how each medication is affecting me and give positive feedback. In an aircraft, I cannot possibly know this. Not least, there is no time for a round table discussion between us and the flight crew.
When a friend gives me a lift in their car, I can advise on risks due to weather conditions and traffic patterns, as I have been driving a car for 27 years. If my friend continues against my wishes, I can (usually) get out as the car allows this.
One of the reasons that an airline ticket from London to Paris will usually cost more than, say a coach, is that more precautions have been taken and the crew are trained to a higher standard. Lastly, because they cannot pull the 'coach' over to the side of the road and then decide what is wrong.
When we buy an airline ticket, we entrust our lives to the airline and, if they fail, they will pay, either: we never fly with them again and tell everyone how bad we think they are (such as I do with FR) or the airlines pays the executor of our will.
It really is that simple.
Some points here.
1 The flying manual says carry on after a chat with the powers that be if it is safe to do so and at the time it was safe to do so.
2 the fuel state only became an issue when it appeared that the contents of one tank became unuseable and that was only noticed towards the end of the flight and did not manifest itself earlier on as the tank was behaving properly.
3 If the said tank apparently has unuseable contents then you are down below reserve and you quite rightly declare an emergency.So what the bloody hell is wrong with that,leave the crew alone.
1 The flying manual says carry on after a chat with the powers that be if it is safe to do so and at the time it was safe to do so.
2 the fuel state only became an issue when it appeared that the contents of one tank became unuseable and that was only noticed towards the end of the flight and did not manifest itself earlier on as the tank was behaving properly.
3 If the said tank apparently has unuseable contents then you are down below reserve and you quite rightly declare an emergency.So what the bloody hell is wrong with that,leave the crew alone.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sammypilot:
Just how many times does it need to be said.
BA does not apply pressure on pilots to continue or not to continue.
There is one page of advice in the flying manual. Entitiled "Flight Continuation Policy" with a revision date of 1 March 2002.
It has to be a made up story. The FAA cannot be that stupid?
L337
Just how many times does it need to be said.
BA does not apply pressure on pilots to continue or not to continue.
There is one page of advice in the flying manual. Entitiled "Flight Continuation Policy" with a revision date of 1 March 2002.
It has to be a made up story. The FAA cannot be that stupid?
L337
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soirry if you don't like the story but it appeared in the Washington Post on the 1st March 2005 - inserted by their Aviation Correspondent - who has the unfortunate surname of GOO.
Check their website for verification.
Check their website for verification.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are probably going round in circles here, as everyone has their own opinions, and no amount of argument is going to change them.
However the aspect of the new EU compensation legislation, which the newspapers seem to have picked on, needs investigating. From what I have read, the compensation is only paid for departure delays, and is not paid for 'extraordinary circumstances', which a surge on a RB211-524H most certainly is. If this is a factor that we are going to have to consider in the future, then it can only have a negative impact on flight safety. Do any legal experts have an opinion on the application of this legislation on airbourne delays?
I do not have anywhere near the experience of Captain Schiff. However, I have been flying the 747 for nearly 30 years and can assure you that, while this crew were circling over the Pacific sorting out their problems, the last thing on their mind would have been the issue of compensation.
Airclues
However the aspect of the new EU compensation legislation, which the newspapers seem to have picked on, needs investigating. From what I have read, the compensation is only paid for departure delays, and is not paid for 'extraordinary circumstances', which a surge on a RB211-524H most certainly is. If this is a factor that we are going to have to consider in the future, then it can only have a negative impact on flight safety. Do any legal experts have an opinion on the application of this legislation on airbourne delays?
I do not have anywhere near the experience of Captain Schiff. However, I have been flying the 747 for nearly 30 years and can assure you that, while this crew were circling over the Pacific sorting out their problems, the last thing on their mind would have been the issue of compensation.
Airclues
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sammypilot
For goodness' sake, how often does it need to be said - the new EU regulation does NOT require airlines to reimburse passengers for lengthy delays.
The Regulation is out there for anyone to read - not that the Washington Post bothered to, apparently, nor the 'Aviation Safety Network' (whoever they are) who just parroted what the Washington Post said, nor yourself, who just parroted what the 'Aviation Safety Network' said.
Please... Otherwise the next poster down the line will be saying that Sammypilot said that the Aviation Safety Network said that the Washington Post said that the EU Regulation said that ...
Therefore it 'must' be true
For goodness' sake, how often does it need to be said - the new EU regulation does NOT require airlines to reimburse passengers for lengthy delays.
The Regulation is out there for anyone to read - not that the Washington Post bothered to, apparently, nor the 'Aviation Safety Network' (whoever they are) who just parroted what the Washington Post said, nor yourself, who just parroted what the 'Aviation Safety Network' said.
Please... Otherwise the next poster down the line will be saying that Sammypilot said that the Aviation Safety Network said that the Washington Post said that the EU Regulation said that ...
Therefore it 'must' be true
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great thread !
My opinion is that the crew made the RIGHT decision ,okay a mayday? on app but if i were a pax on that flight i would not know any different if it werent for this site.I just wonder if this has happened before and if so how many times.The end result is they landed safely period and back in the good old UK .My question though is WHO`S decision in BA is it to continue? if its the Captains then i dont have a problem ,but if its Compass center then ........well Mike Street? comes to mind!!!
keith
well done to the crew,in my (limited)opinion you did well
My opinion is that the crew made the RIGHT decision ,okay a mayday? on app but if i were a pax on that flight i would not know any different if it werent for this site.I just wonder if this has happened before and if so how many times.The end result is they landed safely period and back in the good old UK .My question though is WHO`S decision in BA is it to continue? if its the Captains then i dont have a problem ,but if its Compass center then ........well Mike Street? comes to mind!!!
keith
well done to the crew,in my (limited)opinion you did well
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with you Paxboy & Bellend - passengers should NOT be told of any in flight difficulty (unless it has been fixed) as we can't do a darn thing about it - just worry. If passengers knew of what could and does go wrong they wouldn't fly.
Was in the jump seat in an Airbus A300 at night going into Kai Tak (Hong Kong) when the instrument and cockpit lights went out... just as we're approaching that big hill for a right hand turn (I think) onto the runway. Pilot flying calmly searched his nav bag and gave me his torch and said "Shine where I point". Landed no problem. He never had the time or inclination to tell the passengers. What's the point... why worry them.
Often wondered why pilots carried torches!!
Was in the jump seat in an Airbus A300 at night going into Kai Tak (Hong Kong) when the instrument and cockpit lights went out... just as we're approaching that big hill for a right hand turn (I think) onto the runway. Pilot flying calmly searched his nav bag and gave me his torch and said "Shine where I point". Landed no problem. He never had the time or inclination to tell the passengers. What's the point... why worry them.
Often wondered why pilots carried torches!!