BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Another Boeing Trimotor?
That's what they called the 377 which had one ditching to its name
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a very unlucky coincidence - same aircraft ,same engine...
Now if you guys say it is safe, then ok , we believe you - but and i quote BA have said "If it happened again they would definitely not continue as the PR has looked so bad on them" . . . so why the change of heart in a matter of days?
I don't think this will look good in the press unfortunately , as although it will be just facts, fare paying customers will be alarmed that this is actually happening - and not much can stop that .............
Now if you guys say it is safe, then ok , we believe you - but and i quote BA have said "If it happened again they would definitely not continue as the PR has looked so bad on them" . . . so why the change of heart in a matter of days?
I don't think this will look good in the press unfortunately , as although it will be just facts, fare paying customers will be alarmed that this is actually happening - and not much can stop that .............
It would be interesting to learn more about the NAT level allocated.
Is the possibility of a fuel-punitive lower FL considered during the planning stage for normal NAT operations? Or is normal contingency allowance assumed to be sufficient for such an event?
Was the non-normal (sic) state of the 747 in question known to the Oceanic system before onward clearance was sought? If not, would the OEI status of the a/c have made any difference to the allocation of available levels when Oceanic clearance was requested? Or would the fact that no emergency was declared mean that the Oceanic controller could reasonably assume that the 747 should be capable of accepting whatever level it had been allocated?
Is the possibility of a fuel-punitive lower FL considered during the planning stage for normal NAT operations? Or is normal contingency allowance assumed to be sufficient for such an event?
Was the non-normal (sic) state of the 747 in question known to the Oceanic system before onward clearance was sought? If not, would the OEI status of the a/c have made any difference to the allocation of available levels when Oceanic clearance was requested? Or would the fact that no emergency was declared mean that the Oceanic controller could reasonably assume that the 747 should be capable of accepting whatever level it had been allocated?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trimotor...?
Actually, RatherBeFlying, the Stratocruiser in question (a PanAmerican machine, at 30N,140W)...ended up a twin.
One engine had a runaway prop (eventually rotation was stopped, by pulling the fire handle, for oil starvation) and another engine sputtered ...and died.
Well, not totally dead right away.
Sadly, the GE turbosupercharger died, followed eventually by the engine.
It just wasn't their day.
One engine had a runaway prop (eventually rotation was stopped, by pulling the fire handle, for oil starvation) and another engine sputtered ...and died.
Well, not totally dead right away.
Sadly, the GE turbosupercharger died, followed eventually by the engine.
It just wasn't their day.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but and i quote BA have said "If it happened again they would definitely not continue as the PR has looked so bad on them" . . . so why the change of heart in a matter of days?
L337
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - the Captain makes the decision. This flight landed without injury to anyone so the Captain will be able to ponder his / her decision making. Would they make the same decisions again? Hmm I wonder.
The attempts of some to argue that a normal level of safety was maintained of this flight, or even that the decisions made were in the best interests of the passengers are brave but flawed. The CRM evaluation using behavioural markers was complete tosh - a spin worthy of Waterside or even the Labour Party. So - it's as safe to continue until an emergency has to be declared due to shortage of fuel (perceived or actual), as it would be to land earlier at any one of a number of suitable airfields is it? Go figure!
The attempts of some to argue that a normal level of safety was maintained of this flight, or even that the decisions made were in the best interests of the passengers are brave but flawed. The CRM evaluation using behavioural markers was complete tosh - a spin worthy of Waterside or even the Labour Party. So - it's as safe to continue until an emergency has to be declared due to shortage of fuel (perceived or actual), as it would be to land earlier at any one of a number of suitable airfields is it? Go figure!
Ah 411, it was for many more IFSDs than this one occasion that the Stratocruiser became known as the Boeing Trimotor.
Perhaps the ditching concentrated Boeing's mind on making sure the 747 would fly so well on two.
Perhaps the ditching concentrated Boeing's mind on making sure the 747 would fly so well on two.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Currently on the left side of the pond
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread, I see three camps:
The first says that any engine shutdown is a major event and the only proper action is to find nearest airport.
The second says that on a four engine plane you have enough redundancy to evaluate the cause of the shutdown and based on that and related checks it may be safe, and proper, to continue.
The third agrees with the second camp on a technical level but says that the public perception will be so negative that you’re better of landing.
Most interesting is that almost everyone with knowledge seems to be in the second camp…..
My take: I follow knowledge when it is built on verified theories and qualified statistics. Basing it on nothing but personal conviction and preferences tends to be counter productive.
Also, it seems Manchester should be avoided
The first says that any engine shutdown is a major event and the only proper action is to find nearest airport.
The second says that on a four engine plane you have enough redundancy to evaluate the cause of the shutdown and based on that and related checks it may be safe, and proper, to continue.
The third agrees with the second camp on a technical level but says that the public perception will be so negative that you’re better of landing.
Most interesting is that almost everyone with knowledge seems to be in the second camp…..
My take: I follow knowledge when it is built on verified theories and qualified statistics. Basing it on nothing but personal conviction and preferences tends to be counter productive.
Also, it seems Manchester should be avoided
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame that since The Times has become a tabloid it has adopted the journalistic values of its sister paper (to be honest it happened well before then); the Sun. Sod the facts write anything for a good story. If operational decisions are made on the basis of what will be written on PPRuNe and in the tabloids I fear for the future.
As so many who have knowledge of the 747 have stated on this thread the loss of one engine has no technical safety implications only operational. It is ironic that some of those who have criticised the crew also eulogise about the Tristar; a 3 engined aircraft whose RB211’s were not nearly as reliable as they are today.
Personally I have only ever flown twins. Now if one of those engines stops 3 hrs away from a suitable airport the risk assessment of that is far greater than on this flight. The crew of the "Atlantic Glider" must have thanked someone for tectonic plate movement that put the Azores in the middle of the central Atlantic.
As so many who have knowledge of the 747 have stated on this thread the loss of one engine has no technical safety implications only operational. It is ironic that some of those who have criticised the crew also eulogise about the Tristar; a 3 engined aircraft whose RB211’s were not nearly as reliable as they are today.
Personally I have only ever flown twins. Now if one of those engines stops 3 hrs away from a suitable airport the risk assessment of that is far greater than on this flight. The crew of the "Atlantic Glider" must have thanked someone for tectonic plate movement that put the Azores in the middle of the central Atlantic.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be money to be saved!
"CBS/AP) A British Airways jet that continued on an 11-hour flight from Los Angeles to London after one of its four engines lost power also flew on three engines on a later flight from Singapore to London, the airline said Friday.
The Boeing 747 left Singapore on Feb. 25 and landed at London's Heathrow Airport the next day, arriving only 15 minutes behind schedule, BA spokesman Jay Marritt said.
Three hours into the 14-hour flight, an oil pressure indicator showed there was a problem with one of the engines, which the captain shut down as a precaution, Marritt said. It was the captain's decision to continue with Flight 18, which was carrying 356 passengers, he added.
"It's still very safe to fly a 747 on three engines," Marritt said. "It is certified to do so."
"CBS/AP) A British Airways jet that continued on an 11-hour flight from Los Angeles to London after one of its four engines lost power also flew on three engines on a later flight from Singapore to London, the airline said Friday.
The Boeing 747 left Singapore on Feb. 25 and landed at London's Heathrow Airport the next day, arriving only 15 minutes behind schedule, BA spokesman Jay Marritt said.
Three hours into the 14-hour flight, an oil pressure indicator showed there was a problem with one of the engines, which the captain shut down as a precaution, Marritt said. It was the captain's decision to continue with Flight 18, which was carrying 356 passengers, he added.
"It's still very safe to fly a 747 on three engines," Marritt said. "It is certified to do so."
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my two cents.......
I don't really have a problem with a four engine aircraft continuing on three across the North Atlantic. He has one more operating engine than most of the aircraft on the track system.
HOWEVER.....this was not just an ordinary precautionary shutdown. Most reports tell of fire/sparks coming from the engine on takeoff. Systems integrity may be monitored from the cockpit, but any ancillary damage done (FOD, cowling damage) cannot. If the cowling were damaged/distorted, for example, three engine cruise data would not be valid. Yes, the burn could be established during the trans-con segment, but all in all, the "flame/spark" part of the story is the tiebreaker for a fuel dump/return to origin (that is assuming the crew was told of this- reports vary).
Interesting discussion.
I don't really have a problem with a four engine aircraft continuing on three across the North Atlantic. He has one more operating engine than most of the aircraft on the track system.
HOWEVER.....this was not just an ordinary precautionary shutdown. Most reports tell of fire/sparks coming from the engine on takeoff. Systems integrity may be monitored from the cockpit, but any ancillary damage done (FOD, cowling damage) cannot. If the cowling were damaged/distorted, for example, three engine cruise data would not be valid. Yes, the burn could be established during the trans-con segment, but all in all, the "flame/spark" part of the story is the tiebreaker for a fuel dump/return to origin (that is assuming the crew was told of this- reports vary).
Interesting discussion.
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done CM Falcon..where were u 20 pages ago?!
As PAX I fly on the baisis that 'they' know more than me and that if 'they' make a decision it's putting their own ass/es on the line as well.
As PAX I fly on the baisis that 'they' know more than me and that if 'they' make a decision it's putting their own ass/es on the line as well.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if 'they' make a decision it's putting their own ass/es on the line as well.
If they are happy, so should you as a passenger be. Just sit back and enjoy your Gin & Tonic. If something is seriously wrong, they will tell you about it.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right, it has possibly escaped the perception of many people that the crew would actually not take any action which would endanger their own lives..... or risk losing their licence and career.
(Edited, in hindsight i agree with M.Mouse. )
Mutt.
(Edited, in hindsight i agree with M.Mouse. )
Mutt.
Last edited by mutt; 6th Mar 2005 at 15:49.
Controversial, moi?
He is referring to a 747 Captain who had an incident at LHR, well documented at the time. There were no similarities in any way, shape or form to an IFSD ex. LAX.
The Captain involved tragically committed suicide some time after the event.
As I said completely and utterly irelevant to this thread.
The Captain involved tragically committed suicide some time after the event.
As I said completely and utterly irelevant to this thread.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting point may be that if you are going to ferry a three engined 744 (without PAX) then a required check would be to boroscope your remaining 3 good engines to ascertian absolute serviceability. It does therefor seeem a little strange to carry on with 3 for such a long flight.
Having said that however I can see both sides of the argument here, like in or not in this day and age commercial concerns are a high priority. If the gain from carry on outweighs the bad PR and small increased risk then that is the way it will go. Its still up to the man at the front to make the decision and I do not think there is any black/white situation here. The captain was within his FCOPs so made the call, end of story.
Having said that however I can see both sides of the argument here, like in or not in this day and age commercial concerns are a high priority. If the gain from carry on outweighs the bad PR and small increased risk then that is the way it will go. Its still up to the man at the front to make the decision and I do not think there is any black/white situation here. The captain was within his FCOPs so made the call, end of story.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting point may be that if you are going to ferry a three engined 744 (without PAX) then a required check would be to boroscope your remaining 3 good engines to ascertian absolute serviceability.
Yeah, but the difference is, that you have to do a takeoff before cruising that long
regards
Yeah, but the difference is, that you have to do a takeoff before cruising that long
regards