BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now you know, Animalclub.
I have always carried two...and sure needed one on a dark night in a TriStar...
Now about the BA 747.
It would appear that clearly the Captain was well within his statutory rights in continuing, and within company rights as well.
Was it a 'wise' decision?
Everyone seems to have their opinion, of course.
But for me....not especially a good show.
Legal? Yes.
Prudent? I don't think so...at all.
Should the Captain be called in for a chat?
Don't see why, as he has appeared to be well within policy.
BA however, might want to review that policy, in view of possible safety implications...and the rather bad press they have received over this...ah, incident.
The CAA I'm sure will remain mum on the subject.
Why should anyone expect more?
I have always carried two...and sure needed one on a dark night in a TriStar...
Now about the BA 747.
It would appear that clearly the Captain was well within his statutory rights in continuing, and within company rights as well.
Was it a 'wise' decision?
Everyone seems to have their opinion, of course.
But for me....not especially a good show.
Legal? Yes.
Prudent? I don't think so...at all.
Should the Captain be called in for a chat?
Don't see why, as he has appeared to be well within policy.
BA however, might want to review that policy, in view of possible safety implications...and the rather bad press they have received over this...ah, incident.
The CAA I'm sure will remain mum on the subject.
Why should anyone expect more?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barryt
I'm not rubbishing Mr Schiff, I'm poking fun at something he (might) have said, because it struck me as amusing, in a "zero information content / blindingly obvious" sort of way. He sounds like an experienced aviator, but most of us would admit to have utterred something fatuous at some point in our life. (seems to happen to me every time I pick up the PA.... )
Since you ask, no, I have not flown any of the the types mentioned. I am in fact a medium time commercial pilot of strictly average capabilities. No ace of the base here.
But I do have enough wisdom to not spout off on topics I am not fully conversant with. I have my opinions about this incident, but since its not my area of expertise I'll keep them to myself.
Dinger,
<grin> Excellent post btw.... Maybe that explains the urge I get to moon at the MAN spotters everytime I taxi past.
rgrds,
CPB
I'm not rubbishing Mr Schiff, I'm poking fun at something he (might) have said, because it struck me as amusing, in a "zero information content / blindingly obvious" sort of way. He sounds like an experienced aviator, but most of us would admit to have utterred something fatuous at some point in our life. (seems to happen to me every time I pick up the PA.... )
Since you ask, no, I have not flown any of the the types mentioned. I am in fact a medium time commercial pilot of strictly average capabilities. No ace of the base here.
But I do have enough wisdom to not spout off on topics I am not fully conversant with. I have my opinions about this incident, but since its not my area of expertise I'll keep them to myself.
Dinger,
<grin> Excellent post btw.... Maybe that explains the urge I get to moon at the MAN spotters everytime I taxi past.
rgrds,
CPB
desk jockey, can you clarify this statement,
"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."
Because everything i have read confirms that passengers will be compensated for
1) being bumped off a flight
2) a flight being cancelled, and
3) long departure delays.
This includes the press release from the European Airlines Association which includes, amongst many others, British Airways. This is from their press release:
"There is also provision for assistance in the case of long delay including overnight accommodation if necessary. In the case the passenger chooses to abandon his travel plans, the delayed airline must reimburse him the entire cost of the journey, including sectors already travelled."
"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."
Because everything i have read confirms that passengers will be compensated for
1) being bumped off a flight
2) a flight being cancelled, and
3) long departure delays.
This includes the press release from the European Airlines Association which includes, amongst many others, British Airways. This is from their press release:
"There is also provision for assistance in the case of long delay including overnight accommodation if necessary. In the case the passenger chooses to abandon his travel plans, the delayed airline must reimburse him the entire cost of the journey, including sectors already travelled."
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey, a first, a post from 411A that one can almost agree with!
Apart from
What is the world coming to?
Apart from
Was it a 'wise' decision?
Everyone seems to have their opinion, of course.
But for me....not especially a good show.
Legal? Yes.
Prudent? I don't think so...at all.
Everyone seems to have their opinion, of course.
But for me....not especially a good show.
Legal? Yes.
Prudent? I don't think so...at all.
What is the world coming to?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Interesting theory DingerX, but didn't you forget the factor hamburgers sold on the mentioned airports?
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
desk jockey, can you clarify this statement
"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." - WRONG
From The Times, quoted in this thread:
"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." - WRONG
The Regulation states that, once a delay has exceeded five hours, if the passenger decides that the journey no longer serves any purpose , he may elect not to travel and receive a refund of the ticket price.
I invite you to consider how many passengers on a LAX-LON flight would turn around and say 'I've had enough of this, I'm going home'. Bear in mind that this would not be an option for those returning to the UK because they cannot claim that the journey 'no longer serves any purpose'.
Yes, the Regulation requires airlines to provide meals and where necessary hotel accommodation, but in the case of overnight delay that would be standard BA practice anyway, Regulation or no Regulation.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desc Jockey,
Sorry to see you geting so frustrated about the Washington Post. I make no comment on the question of compensation because I don't have the knowledge. However the Washington Post is a respected journal close the Adminstration and there is little doubt that their report will be accurate.
You should realise that our "Allies" in the US consider the European Union a threat to their World Leadership and therefore take every opportunity to take a swipe at Europe.
Sorry to see you geting so frustrated about the Washington Post. I make no comment on the question of compensation because I don't have the knowledge. However the Washington Post is a respected journal close the Adminstration and there is little doubt that their report will be accurate.
You should realise that our "Allies" in the US consider the European Union a threat to their World Leadership and therefore take every opportunity to take a swipe at Europe.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
desk jockey,
I have read the EU regs and you are correct that this statement is wrong, but only because it refers to the time of arrival and the delay period under Art. 6 is actually > 4hrs. The regs (Article 6) provide for compensation under Article 7 where the departure of the flight is delayed. In the case of a delay to this flight of >4hrs, Art. 6 says that the passengers are entitled to the following:
Further, if the delayed departure time would not be the same day, they are entitled to hotel accommodation and transport.
So, the Wall Street Journal was not far from getting it right - not too bad for a journalist
PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT commenting upon the decision to continue or what factors may have payed a part in it, simply commenting on the EU regs and how they MIGHT have applied.
Aiglon
From the Wall Street Journal, quoted in this thread:
"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." - WRONG
"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." - WRONG
- meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time (Art. 91(a))
- free of charge, two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails (Art. 9(2))
- EUR600 each
Further, if the delayed departure time would not be the same day, they are entitled to hotel accommodation and transport.
So, the Wall Street Journal was not far from getting it right - not too bad for a journalist
PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT commenting upon the decision to continue or what factors may have payed a part in it, simply commenting on the EU regs and how they MIGHT have applied.
Aiglon
A340
Does anyone know if the A340 gives a "LAND ASAP" ECAM memo for a single engine failure?
That would give us an idea of how much emphasis Airbus put on a single engine failure in a four engine aircraft.
That would give us an idea of how much emphasis Airbus put on a single engine failure in a four engine aircraft.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was just talking with a NWA mechanic about the report of visible flames etc. coming from the back of an engine and he maintains that usually indicates "shelling" of an engine; ie: the expulsion of blades resulting from an uncontained or contained failure.
His point was there is no way to know and if there was molten metal coming out the back, the possibility of damage to either the flaps or horizontal stab is distinct, and if there was damage (in the form of skin damage), then over ten hours the potential of that damage to propogate was certain.
Like I said before, literally all of the people that I have spoken to at NWA that have intimate experience with the 744 cannot rationalize the decision to continue across the continental US and the northern Atlantic after such a failure.
Although it may be unpopular, my take on this is that the crew was suckered/coerced into the notion that continuing to destination was a good idea.
His point was there is no way to know and if there was molten metal coming out the back, the possibility of damage to either the flaps or horizontal stab is distinct, and if there was damage (in the form of skin damage), then over ten hours the potential of that damage to propogate was certain.
Like I said before, literally all of the people that I have spoken to at NWA that have intimate experience with the 744 cannot rationalize the decision to continue across the continental US and the northern Atlantic after such a failure.
Although it may be unpopular, my take on this is that the crew was suckered/coerced into the notion that continuing to destination was a good idea.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from WSJ (via Bloomberg)
By Alan Purkiss
March 4 (Bloomberg) -- A British Airways Plc 747 that flew
from Los Angeles to the U.K. on three engines on Feb. 19 had a
carbon-copy incident on its very next round flight, the Wall
Street Journal reported.
The aircraft, registered as G-BNLG, left Singapore for
London on Feb. 25 with 356 passengers and suffered an engine
failure after three and a half hours; after consulting BA's
operations center, the crew continued on three engines, landing
at London's Heathrow Airport 11 hours later, the newspaper said.
In the Feb. 19 incident, the engine on the left side next to
the fuselage failed on takeoff; it was replaced, and the
replacement failed on the Singapore-London flight, a circumstance
described by BA Spokeswoman Diana Fung as ``a strange
coincidence,'' the Journal said.
In mid-February, a European Union regulation requiring
airlines to pay compensation of as much as $788 per person to
passengers in the event of long delays or cancellations came into
effect, but BA says that had nothing to do with the decisions to
proceed with the two flights, the paper reported.
Les Dorr, a spokesman for the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration, said the agency believed the Los Angeles flight
would have violated U.S. regulations, which require most planes
to land at the nearest suitable airport after an engine failure,
according to the Journal.
(Wall Street Journal Online 3-4)
By Alan Purkiss
March 4 (Bloomberg) -- A British Airways Plc 747 that flew
from Los Angeles to the U.K. on three engines on Feb. 19 had a
carbon-copy incident on its very next round flight, the Wall
Street Journal reported.
The aircraft, registered as G-BNLG, left Singapore for
London on Feb. 25 with 356 passengers and suffered an engine
failure after three and a half hours; after consulting BA's
operations center, the crew continued on three engines, landing
at London's Heathrow Airport 11 hours later, the newspaper said.
In the Feb. 19 incident, the engine on the left side next to
the fuselage failed on takeoff; it was replaced, and the
replacement failed on the Singapore-London flight, a circumstance
described by BA Spokeswoman Diana Fung as ``a strange
coincidence,'' the Journal said.
In mid-February, a European Union regulation requiring
airlines to pay compensation of as much as $788 per person to
passengers in the event of long delays or cancellations came into
effect, but BA says that had nothing to do with the decisions to
proceed with the two flights, the paper reported.
Les Dorr, a spokesman for the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration, said the agency believed the Los Angeles flight
would have violated U.S. regulations, which require most planes
to land at the nearest suitable airport after an engine failure,
according to the Journal.
(Wall Street Journal Online 3-4)
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
Aiglon, sorry, I suggest you read the Regulation again.
There is nothing in the Regulation which states that financial compensation (on a scale set out in Article 7) is to be paid out in the case of Delay. The compensation provisions are invoked only in the case of Denied Boarding or Cancellation.
Let me walk you through it:
Art.4 (Denied Boarding) - reference is made to Art.7 in 4.3
Art.5 (Cancellation) - reference is made to Art.7 in 5.1.c and also in 5.3
Art.6 (Delay) - there is no reference to Art.7
Whatever its merits or demerits, this Regulation is going to cause so much grief between airlines and their customers, precisely because of the amount of misunderstanding and misinformation surrounding it, as well as the shoddy way it was drafted by people far removed from the realities of air transport operation.
There is nothing in the Regulation which states that financial compensation (on a scale set out in Article 7) is to be paid out in the case of Delay. The compensation provisions are invoked only in the case of Denied Boarding or Cancellation.
Let me walk you through it:
Art.4 (Denied Boarding) - reference is made to Art.7 in 4.3
Art.5 (Cancellation) - reference is made to Art.7 in 5.1.c and also in 5.3
Art.6 (Delay) - there is no reference to Art.7
Whatever its merits or demerits, this Regulation is going to cause so much grief between airlines and their customers, precisely because of the amount of misunderstanding and misinformation surrounding it, as well as the shoddy way it was drafted by people far removed from the realities of air transport operation.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the report of visible flames etc. coming from the back of an engine and he maintains that usually indicates "shelling" of an engine; ie: the expulsion of blades resulting from an uncontained or contained failure.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"shelling??"
ManagedNav:
I'm not sure what school NWA techies attend, but I taught engine troubleshooting for decades to dozens of different airline & military customer groups, and never ever heard anyone use the term "shelling".
A stall or surge may or may not imply physical damage to the engine, even though a spectacular flame front suddenly appears at the inlet and exhaust. Some engines are quite prone to surges, as I'm sure you are aware since you list DC-8 in your bio; a few surges are hardly unusual on a downwind outboard JT3D in reverse thrust.
And while I have seen shrapnel damage to aircraft skin, it has always been the result of major engine case penetrations and always accompanied by severe engine vibration during the spooldown. (Most notable was a Pan Am A310 at Hamburg in 1987 - it even bent the pylon!)
I've seen no report hinting that BA had this kind of problem.
I'm not sure what school NWA techies attend, but I taught engine troubleshooting for decades to dozens of different airline & military customer groups, and never ever heard anyone use the term "shelling".
A stall or surge may or may not imply physical damage to the engine, even though a spectacular flame front suddenly appears at the inlet and exhaust. Some engines are quite prone to surges, as I'm sure you are aware since you list DC-8 in your bio; a few surges are hardly unusual on a downwind outboard JT3D in reverse thrust.
And while I have seen shrapnel damage to aircraft skin, it has always been the result of major engine case penetrations and always accompanied by severe engine vibration during the spooldown. (Most notable was a Pan Am A310 at Hamburg in 1987 - it even bent the pylon!)
I've seen no report hinting that BA had this kind of problem.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It took me a minute, but I think I got it now. If an engine "surge" is the same as a compressor stall, then yes, I have certainly experienced them. They are rarely cause for a shutdown unless there are other more serious symptoms.
The way the articles explained it made it sound more like a failure. Most compressor stalls I have experienced produced a flame ahead of the inlet. I don't remember any mention of that.
Don't worry about the education of our NWA mx staff...they are some of the finest in the world.
Did you teach engine trouble-shooting to BA by any chance?
The way the articles explained it made it sound more like a failure. Most compressor stalls I have experienced produced a flame ahead of the inlet. I don't remember any mention of that.
Don't worry about the education of our NWA mx staff...they are some of the finest in the world.
Did you teach engine trouble-shooting to BA by any chance?
Last edited by ManagedNav; 4th Mar 2005 at 13:02.
I beleive what the crew did was not only safe, but was in the best interests of the pax. They didnt rush any decision, sought advice where ever they could. The flight resulted in a totally safe landing, without any additional damage to the aircraft, or passenger or crew hurt.
An engine shutdown is not an emergency on a 744, its a non-normal situation.
The crew would have had full support of all the dispatchers and flight followers at BA, and would have used the technology in the aircraft to seek advise and performance updates for the situation at hand.
In our company if the updated Wx indicates that our alternate is no longer availabe as an alternate, and we were using it as an alternate we would have to declare a maday or pan, as the term "fuel emergency" means nothing. We may land with a fully servicable aircraft with excess fuel, but without an alternate in reach we are not meeting the perscribed fuel policy.
Its standard practice for RFF to be in attendance if a pan or maday is called, those RFF crews love to get their trucks out for a drive whenever they can.
No doubt if they were able to get the higher level they wanted things would have been different, I think ATC may have been lookng at the overall traffic across the tracks, and the mach number required to have the original level without upsetting the whole flow.
Some CRM aspects I received by email ...
An engine shutdown is not an emergency on a 744, its a non-normal situation.
The crew would have had full support of all the dispatchers and flight followers at BA, and would have used the technology in the aircraft to seek advise and performance updates for the situation at hand.
In our company if the updated Wx indicates that our alternate is no longer availabe as an alternate, and we were using it as an alternate we would have to declare a maday or pan, as the term "fuel emergency" means nothing. We may land with a fully servicable aircraft with excess fuel, but without an alternate in reach we are not meeting the perscribed fuel policy.
Its standard practice for RFF to be in attendance if a pan or maday is called, those RFF crews love to get their trucks out for a drive whenever they can.
No doubt if they were able to get the higher level they wanted things would have been different, I think ATC may have been lookng at the overall traffic across the tracks, and the mach number required to have the original level without upsetting the whole flow.
Some CRM aspects I received by email ...
Let's be a little practical about this and imagine we are on the flight and in real time.
I am assuming several items to describe my thoughts but I have flown across the Atlantic many times to-wards the UK when I also worked for BA (not BAA which stands for British Airports Authority a different company).
Planning: You have a company produced fuel calculation and decide as Captain (or Pilot Flying) to load minimum legal fuel as no adverse conditions expected.
Event: You have an engine surge at a reasonable time after take-off. You have safe altitude and you have no control problems or any items requiring immediate action after recall items of thrust close and autothrottle disengaged. First conscious thought is: We have ample time to consider this. Maintain present altitude is probably decided intuitively.
Decision Process: Here we move into what most pilots have all done intuitively to high degrees but now British Airways and most UK operators are specifically trying to use a decision process that suits the circumstances. In this case with time available almost certainly the Captain and crew would be working to-gether discussing and using available resources.
The NOTECHS behaviour marker system validated under the JARTEL project uses the following for decision-making, as used by BA.
Problem definition and diagnosis:
Hyperthetically: We have an engine surge and the parameters indicate no damage or adverse effects to the aircraft. Discuss with crew members and even draw in relief crew for discussion. Call up maintenance for advice of possibility of any ongoing problems or not. Confirmation and agreement reached that one option is : flight can remain airborne for time being and also well within safe range of many suitable airfields. Suggestion and confirm engine should be shut down rather than increase any risk of damage.
Option generation:
Options: Circle further to consider and ponder, continue en-route for time being, return to nearest suitable airfield such as departure airport, continue to destination. Anything else?
Risk Assessment and Option generation:
Aircraft and passengers and crew are not at risk. All above options safe at present. Which is best ? Which is acceptable? Can fly all of USA over land within safe range of airfields so why not continue en-route for time being and at same time consider options further. Do we have enough fuel for destination if that becomes a viable option? Is it legal and is it acceptable for our company? Etc etc.
Option decided after such deliberations: Continue en-route and buy time in the direction we wish to go and possibly see if destination is achievable, acceptable and viable. Time taken to do this perhaps 20-30 minutes of fuel burn at very heavy weight. Internal thought of Captain
" Is this critical ? I will not know until later in flight but need to carefully watch and consider this." Tell other crew of this thought.
Outcome Review:
Travel a thousand miles and have no adverse problems and all options still available. Fuel burn computer and manual calculations indicates can reach London with legal minimums although have used some contingency fuel. Can contingency fuel be used for such a situation thinks Captain? Yes it can is the agreement of the crew members, and then checked in the ops manual for confirmation as time allows this.
So we now are approaching the Atlantic. Can we proceed legally? Yes
Do company requirement allow us to do this? Yes
Do we have enough anticipated fuel? Yes
Is it completely safe within our acceptable parameters? Yes
Is this an acceptable option to all crew concerned? Yes
Conclusion. Continue to destination London knowing that in any event Shannon in Ireland, ( 90minutes prior to London) Prestwick in Scotland (50 minutes prior to London) Manchester (30 minutes prior to London) and en-route alternatives are still going to be available crossing and approaching landfall the other side of the Atlantic.
En-Route: Fuel monitoring starts to show a poor picture. Poor flight level achieved and cannot improve and cruise fuel burn worse than expected due headwind.
Start the decision process over again:
Problem Definition and diagnosis/ Option generation/ Risk Assessment and Option selection/ Outcome review?
New option selection after the process. We are going to be tight on fuel for London. We may need to select an alternate. Let's go as far as we can which will in any event be well past Ireland before making a final decision but our bottom line is that we shall not go below legal minumum to reach London.
Approaching Scotland realise cannot reach London. Manchester is a likely new destination as we have BA staff coverage at this place. During descent fuel indicates will land with fuel marginally below final reserve fuel. Company requirement is that we must declare a fuel emergency so make a Pan Pan call. ( UK requirements no longer allow crew to request fuel priority descent and landing it's either an emergency or it's not !!!)
Because Pan Pan emergency call made the fire trucks and emergency services have to be in attendance on landing. The media love to report and see this.
Final Outcome Review again:
Was it a safe landing? Yes
Was a decision process used throughout with review? Yes
Were risk factors understood and acted upon ? Yes.
Did the crew exercise Co-operation? Yes
Did the Captain and crew exercise leadership and managerial skills? Yes
Was the captain and crew Situationally Aware in noticing, understanding and projecting ahead changing circumstances? Yes
Did outside influences of wind and altitude allocation affect Captains ongoing decisions? Yes
Did the crew communicate plans and contingencies and bottom lines ahead of events? Yes.
I am assuming several items to describe my thoughts but I have flown across the Atlantic many times to-wards the UK when I also worked for BA (not BAA which stands for British Airports Authority a different company).
Planning: You have a company produced fuel calculation and decide as Captain (or Pilot Flying) to load minimum legal fuel as no adverse conditions expected.
Event: You have an engine surge at a reasonable time after take-off. You have safe altitude and you have no control problems or any items requiring immediate action after recall items of thrust close and autothrottle disengaged. First conscious thought is: We have ample time to consider this. Maintain present altitude is probably decided intuitively.
Decision Process: Here we move into what most pilots have all done intuitively to high degrees but now British Airways and most UK operators are specifically trying to use a decision process that suits the circumstances. In this case with time available almost certainly the Captain and crew would be working to-gether discussing and using available resources.
The NOTECHS behaviour marker system validated under the JARTEL project uses the following for decision-making, as used by BA.
Problem definition and diagnosis:
Hyperthetically: We have an engine surge and the parameters indicate no damage or adverse effects to the aircraft. Discuss with crew members and even draw in relief crew for discussion. Call up maintenance for advice of possibility of any ongoing problems or not. Confirmation and agreement reached that one option is : flight can remain airborne for time being and also well within safe range of many suitable airfields. Suggestion and confirm engine should be shut down rather than increase any risk of damage.
Option generation:
Options: Circle further to consider and ponder, continue en-route for time being, return to nearest suitable airfield such as departure airport, continue to destination. Anything else?
Risk Assessment and Option generation:
Aircraft and passengers and crew are not at risk. All above options safe at present. Which is best ? Which is acceptable? Can fly all of USA over land within safe range of airfields so why not continue en-route for time being and at same time consider options further. Do we have enough fuel for destination if that becomes a viable option? Is it legal and is it acceptable for our company? Etc etc.
Option decided after such deliberations: Continue en-route and buy time in the direction we wish to go and possibly see if destination is achievable, acceptable and viable. Time taken to do this perhaps 20-30 minutes of fuel burn at very heavy weight. Internal thought of Captain
" Is this critical ? I will not know until later in flight but need to carefully watch and consider this." Tell other crew of this thought.
Outcome Review:
Travel a thousand miles and have no adverse problems and all options still available. Fuel burn computer and manual calculations indicates can reach London with legal minimums although have used some contingency fuel. Can contingency fuel be used for such a situation thinks Captain? Yes it can is the agreement of the crew members, and then checked in the ops manual for confirmation as time allows this.
So we now are approaching the Atlantic. Can we proceed legally? Yes
Do company requirement allow us to do this? Yes
Do we have enough anticipated fuel? Yes
Is it completely safe within our acceptable parameters? Yes
Is this an acceptable option to all crew concerned? Yes
Conclusion. Continue to destination London knowing that in any event Shannon in Ireland, ( 90minutes prior to London) Prestwick in Scotland (50 minutes prior to London) Manchester (30 minutes prior to London) and en-route alternatives are still going to be available crossing and approaching landfall the other side of the Atlantic.
En-Route: Fuel monitoring starts to show a poor picture. Poor flight level achieved and cannot improve and cruise fuel burn worse than expected due headwind.
Start the decision process over again:
Problem Definition and diagnosis/ Option generation/ Risk Assessment and Option selection/ Outcome review?
New option selection after the process. We are going to be tight on fuel for London. We may need to select an alternate. Let's go as far as we can which will in any event be well past Ireland before making a final decision but our bottom line is that we shall not go below legal minumum to reach London.
Approaching Scotland realise cannot reach London. Manchester is a likely new destination as we have BA staff coverage at this place. During descent fuel indicates will land with fuel marginally below final reserve fuel. Company requirement is that we must declare a fuel emergency so make a Pan Pan call. ( UK requirements no longer allow crew to request fuel priority descent and landing it's either an emergency or it's not !!!)
Because Pan Pan emergency call made the fire trucks and emergency services have to be in attendance on landing. The media love to report and see this.
Final Outcome Review again:
Was it a safe landing? Yes
Was a decision process used throughout with review? Yes
Were risk factors understood and acted upon ? Yes.
Did the crew exercise Co-operation? Yes
Did the Captain and crew exercise leadership and managerial skills? Yes
Was the captain and crew Situationally Aware in noticing, understanding and projecting ahead changing circumstances? Yes
Did outside influences of wind and altitude allocation affect Captains ongoing decisions? Yes
Did the crew communicate plans and contingencies and bottom lines ahead of events? Yes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Event: You have an engine surge at a reasonable time after take-off. You have safe altitude and you have no control problems or any items requiring immediate action after recall items of thrust close and autothrottle disengaged.
2) I do miss the unexpected event of unusable fuel from tank #2 in your CRM evaluation. I guess that amount of fuel was included into the calculations reaching LHR?
The way the articles explained it made it sound more like a failure. Most compressor stalls I have experienced produced a flame ahead of the inlet. I don't remember any mention of that.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add to the debate...from CNN the same aircraft and the same position engine (new engine I believe) shut down again and the aircraft continued to LHR....what are the chances of that....
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html