BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
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.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The time has perhaps come for a rational analysis of this incident, without the xenophobic defensive posts of the BA gang and other pilots, nor those of the 'spotters' nor the 'Flight Simmers', but for a calm look at what happened?
The 'glitterati' at BA claim that 'safety is our number one priority'. So, let us have a look, and examine the less obvious 'pressures' pressing on the captain's decision:
1) It is perfectly in order AND NORMAL - for a four-engined aircraft to continue with an engine out, providing no degredation of passenger safety is incurred. For example, setting off across the Atlantic if there was damage to the engine, its cowling or any other part of the structure would NOT be a safe idea. It would, hopefully, be reasonable to lay this one to rest?
2) At some point, it became apparent that the aircraft was short of fuel for its planned destination, LHR. It subsequently became 'short of fuel' for its diversion airfield, MAN, such that a go-round was not possible, and there appeared to be some fuel in the tanks which was not 'easily useable'.
The question is, how and when did this happen? For a MAYDAY to be declared, following a PAN, things must have gone bad fairly quickly, otherwise a MAYDAY would have gone out first. Was the fuel shortage 'unknown' earlier due to -
a failure in the Boeing information system,
in the BA training system,
in the aircraft systems themselves, or
in the crew's lack of understanding of the aircraft system?
As captains we are charged with ensuring the safety of our passengers, crew and aircraft. We have to be strong enough to resist 'commercial pressures'. Let us now look at those. Airlines are extremely adept at applying 'subtle pressures' on captains, and BA, as hinted on this thread, are not clean in that respect. As others have stated, the failure of an engine out of LHR would probably have resulted in a return, so there is SOME 'commercial pressure' straightaway on the captain out of the USA. A 'safe' decision is then taken to continue towards destination, with constant monitoring and reviews, but like it or not, there is that 'pressure'. At the back of his/her mind is the knowledge that out of LHR he/she would be 'expected' to return, but out of USA, 'why did you................'?
Now we move on, several hours and reviews later, to a few hours before landing at MAN. Apparently unsatisfactory cruise levels were achieved 'due to ATC'. Options now are to divert to KEF, PWK, BFS, GLA, MAN etc as the fuel situation develops. Is there any, even subconscious pressure, on the captain to get it to a BA base like MAN? 'Why could you not go to....? It would certainly be reasonable - and expected - to go as far as is 'safe'.
A new fuel problem appears to have arisen - for whatever reason - and company procedures, as posted before here, are to declare a PAN if you will probably land with less than reserve fuel and a MAYDAY if you definitely will. Presumably an inability to carry out a g/a would also justify at least a PAN?
Depending on when this assessment was made, was there again any, even unseen, 'pressure' on the captain NOT to declare the PAN too far out, as he would then logically HAVE to land at the nearest suitable (NB not 'commercially' suitable), thereby taking away the fuel emergency. Were the emergency states ratcheted up late in the arrival by design or did things really catch the crew TOTALLY unaware as it appears?
There is, unpalatable as it may be to some of our contributors, a justifiable need for the passengers we carry to know some of the detail. BA in particular have a heavy responsibility to make this transparent, partly due to their eternal posturing about 'safety'. It is not enough for the vocalists to say 'get some time in on the 747 before you criticise' or 'go back to your FSim programme and play', 'leave it to the professionals' or 'what do YOU know about the Jumbo' as some have done. Leave it to 'the professionals' is what the passengers do and did - they have no choice.
I'm sure the BA investigation will probe thoroughly, but I defend the right of all readers here to ask (SENSIBLE PLEASE) questions of the 'professionals', even if they are not 747 qualified!
The 'glitterati' at BA claim that 'safety is our number one priority'. So, let us have a look, and examine the less obvious 'pressures' pressing on the captain's decision:
1) It is perfectly in order AND NORMAL - for a four-engined aircraft to continue with an engine out, providing no degredation of passenger safety is incurred. For example, setting off across the Atlantic if there was damage to the engine, its cowling or any other part of the structure would NOT be a safe idea. It would, hopefully, be reasonable to lay this one to rest?
2) At some point, it became apparent that the aircraft was short of fuel for its planned destination, LHR. It subsequently became 'short of fuel' for its diversion airfield, MAN, such that a go-round was not possible, and there appeared to be some fuel in the tanks which was not 'easily useable'.
The question is, how and when did this happen? For a MAYDAY to be declared, following a PAN, things must have gone bad fairly quickly, otherwise a MAYDAY would have gone out first. Was the fuel shortage 'unknown' earlier due to -
a failure in the Boeing information system,
in the BA training system,
in the aircraft systems themselves, or
in the crew's lack of understanding of the aircraft system?
As captains we are charged with ensuring the safety of our passengers, crew and aircraft. We have to be strong enough to resist 'commercial pressures'. Let us now look at those. Airlines are extremely adept at applying 'subtle pressures' on captains, and BA, as hinted on this thread, are not clean in that respect. As others have stated, the failure of an engine out of LHR would probably have resulted in a return, so there is SOME 'commercial pressure' straightaway on the captain out of the USA. A 'safe' decision is then taken to continue towards destination, with constant monitoring and reviews, but like it or not, there is that 'pressure'. At the back of his/her mind is the knowledge that out of LHR he/she would be 'expected' to return, but out of USA, 'why did you................'?
Now we move on, several hours and reviews later, to a few hours before landing at MAN. Apparently unsatisfactory cruise levels were achieved 'due to ATC'. Options now are to divert to KEF, PWK, BFS, GLA, MAN etc as the fuel situation develops. Is there any, even subconscious pressure, on the captain to get it to a BA base like MAN? 'Why could you not go to....? It would certainly be reasonable - and expected - to go as far as is 'safe'.
A new fuel problem appears to have arisen - for whatever reason - and company procedures, as posted before here, are to declare a PAN if you will probably land with less than reserve fuel and a MAYDAY if you definitely will. Presumably an inability to carry out a g/a would also justify at least a PAN?
Depending on when this assessment was made, was there again any, even unseen, 'pressure' on the captain NOT to declare the PAN too far out, as he would then logically HAVE to land at the nearest suitable (NB not 'commercially' suitable), thereby taking away the fuel emergency. Were the emergency states ratcheted up late in the arrival by design or did things really catch the crew TOTALLY unaware as it appears?
There is, unpalatable as it may be to some of our contributors, a justifiable need for the passengers we carry to know some of the detail. BA in particular have a heavy responsibility to make this transparent, partly due to their eternal posturing about 'safety'. It is not enough for the vocalists to say 'get some time in on the 747 before you criticise' or 'go back to your FSim programme and play', 'leave it to the professionals' or 'what do YOU know about the Jumbo' as some have done. Leave it to 'the professionals' is what the passengers do and did - they have no choice.
I'm sure the BA investigation will probe thoroughly, but I defend the right of all readers here to ask (SENSIBLE PLEASE) questions of the 'professionals', even if they are not 747 qualified!
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitty- I am a BA 747 Captain. I can categorically state that there is no company pressure on me whatsoever in such circumstances to either press on or return. Broad guidance is supplied to assit with decision making, but I operate knowing any sensible decision I take on safety grounds WILL be supported by the company. If I were to judge with the input of the other pilots on the flightdeck that there were any adverse safety implications with continuing, the company would support me, and so I have little doubt it will support the crew for deciding it is OK to carry on. Those pilots were concerned about their own safety as well as that of the cabin crew and passengers- they knew there was no problem with continuing, exactly as I would have done. Part of the deliberations of what action to take would be (in no special order):
where can repairs most easily be carried out
weather problems
position and favoured diversions
extent of damage
where the passengers could most effectively be handled and sent on their way
If I concluded the ability to reach home base was possible and perfectly viable, then that would be the decision.
-I want to do right by the company, but more important is the safety decision which overrides company convenience.
Many inexperienced people have made much of the Mayday call. This was not a 'grave and imminent danger' call- it is an automatic one made under fuel condition guidelines. That was a problem with fuel access that we all await with interest, but they did the right thing and made a quick diversion into MAN.
This thread has been used as a handwringing exercise by people demanding they be informed of every failure, any failure must result in return to departure/diversion nonsense. This thread has also been used to peddle rumour like 'the fuel shortage was caused by being made to fly at a lower altitude'- not proven at all yet. The 747 is a delight to fly even on 3 engines. Other aeroplanes cross the Atlantic on two, and will end up on one with a failure! In this case, I assume it was just a surge with no damage (spectacular though they may be). I believe they displayed correct airmanship- it's just a shame a lot of hand wringing 'experts' here have to express opinions on the very limited information that has come out. As for the new airline compensation regulations out in Europe, they will have received absolute zero consideration- we have not even been informed of them. They mean nothing to the operation- believe it or not it is the truth.
I intensely dislike the way Rumours & News has become a self appointed 'court martial' where airlines are tried and convicted on the flimsiest of information, opinions passed and judgements made as has happened here. News of 3 or 4 lines is enough to get people pontificating about 'how they know better' with no experience of flying whatsoever. I see no reason why people can't 'discuss' as you suggest, but they can leave out the judicial opinions based on very little knowledge of the actions of professionals who have made a lifetime career out of safe and skillfull operations- then they do overstep the mark.
where can repairs most easily be carried out
weather problems
position and favoured diversions
extent of damage
where the passengers could most effectively be handled and sent on their way
If I concluded the ability to reach home base was possible and perfectly viable, then that would be the decision.
-I want to do right by the company, but more important is the safety decision which overrides company convenience.
Many inexperienced people have made much of the Mayday call. This was not a 'grave and imminent danger' call- it is an automatic one made under fuel condition guidelines. That was a problem with fuel access that we all await with interest, but they did the right thing and made a quick diversion into MAN.
This thread has been used as a handwringing exercise by people demanding they be informed of every failure, any failure must result in return to departure/diversion nonsense. This thread has also been used to peddle rumour like 'the fuel shortage was caused by being made to fly at a lower altitude'- not proven at all yet. The 747 is a delight to fly even on 3 engines. Other aeroplanes cross the Atlantic on two, and will end up on one with a failure! In this case, I assume it was just a surge with no damage (spectacular though they may be). I believe they displayed correct airmanship- it's just a shame a lot of hand wringing 'experts' here have to express opinions on the very limited information that has come out. As for the new airline compensation regulations out in Europe, they will have received absolute zero consideration- we have not even been informed of them. They mean nothing to the operation- believe it or not it is the truth.
I intensely dislike the way Rumours & News has become a self appointed 'court martial' where airlines are tried and convicted on the flimsiest of information, opinions passed and judgements made as has happened here. News of 3 or 4 lines is enough to get people pontificating about 'how they know better' with no experience of flying whatsoever. I see no reason why people can't 'discuss' as you suggest, but they can leave out the judicial opinions based on very little knowledge of the actions of professionals who have made a lifetime career out of safe and skillfull operations- then they do overstep the mark.
Last edited by Rainboe; 6th Mar 2005 at 17:07.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Denmark
Age: 64
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New gossip/rumours/news
From dailybreeze.com
"The controller felt the pilot was not happy with the decision but followed company guidance,"
The LAX control tower called out fire engines, expecting the pilot would soon return to the airport. Brann said he has witnessed five or six engine blowouts in his 17 years at L.A. Tower, and pilots opted to return each time. Controllers were shocked when they learned that the plane was proceeding to its destination.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why when civil airliners fly with 4 fully seviceable engines? Once in a blue moon an engine hiccups- there is no reason to believe another one is likely to....except if someone has been working on all 4 doing unnecessary checks! Shades of Tristar Miami?
BTW, since when have 'contollers' been aviation experts with a better knowledge of what is required than the pilot? Why fire engines when the aeroplane has 3 good engines and needs the best part of 40 minutes to dump fuel down to landing weight?
BTW, since when have 'contollers' been aviation experts with a better knowledge of what is required than the pilot? Why fire engines when the aeroplane has 3 good engines and needs the best part of 40 minutes to dump fuel down to landing weight?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: asia
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I probably should not, but I can't resist having a quiet chuckle at the article quoted from daily breeze. It ends with
But then the immediate advertising below is
With a link to all sorts of cheap spares!
Mike Foote, the NATCA representative at LAX, said the episode should serve as a cautionary tale.
"Any time you set up a system where safety and profit are in direct competition, you're heading for trouble," he said.
"Any time you set up a system where safety and profit are in direct competition, you're heading for trouble," he said.
Aircraft Parts for Sale
Great deals on quality aircraft parts. Start your savings now!
Great deals on quality aircraft parts. Start your savings now!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: here..
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
- it's funny that you state, that there is no commercial pressure on you BA guys categorically, when 3 of the 5 deliberations you mention, on what action to take in a somehow similar scenario, is based on commercial considerations:
"where can repairs most easily be carried out" - Commercial consideration
"weather problems" - operational consideration
"position and favoured diversions" - Commercial/operational consideration
"extent of damage" - operational
"where the passengers could most effectively be handled and sent on their way" - commercial consideration
Just a thought!
VK
- it's funny that you state, that there is no commercial pressure on you BA guys categorically, when 3 of the 5 deliberations you mention, on what action to take in a somehow similar scenario, is based on commercial considerations:
"where can repairs most easily be carried out" - Commercial consideration
"weather problems" - operational consideration
"position and favoured diversions" - Commercial/operational consideration
"extent of damage" - operational
"where the passengers could most effectively be handled and sent on their way" - commercial consideration
Just a thought!
VK
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all odd! When safety is not an issue, passenger convenience and commercial efficiency become over-riding factors. Safety was not an issue in the decision to continue- there was no question of it being compromised, therefore the other factors take prominence.
I'm amazed at the capacity of people who are not familiar with the environment, even said 'controllers', to make judgements based on such sparse information. The only judgement after the event of any interest is the one made by the CAA. Even the FAA, large though it is, is pretty well irrelevant. It seems hard for Americans to understand that the FAA is not the be all/end all bible of international aviation. The pilots are only answerable to the CAA and their employer.
I'm amazed at the capacity of people who are not familiar with the environment, even said 'controllers', to make judgements based on such sparse information. The only judgement after the event of any interest is the one made by the CAA. Even the FAA, large though it is, is pretty well irrelevant. It seems hard for Americans to understand that the FAA is not the be all/end all bible of international aviation. The pilots are only answerable to the CAA and their employer.
Last edited by Rainboe; 6th Mar 2005 at 23:34.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: greece
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA 744 Diversion to MAN the real story
Brit 747 Loses Engine, Again
LONDON, March 4, 2005
(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."
Six days earlier, the same aircraft lost power in one of its engines shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.
The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the Boeing 747 ran low on fuel after facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
The failed engine was later replaced in London, Marritt said. The aircraft then flew to Melbourne, Australia, before continuing to Singapore. It was on the return flight from Singapore, covering 6,765 miles, that the replacement engine failed, The Wall Street Journal reported.
"It was the No. 2 engine that failed but in totally different circumstances. It's one of those very strange coincidences," Marritt said.
The FAA and British aviation officials are investigating the Feb. 19 flight from Los Angeles to London to determine whether any regulations were violated.
"We are concerned," said Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman.
The decision not to return that flight after the engine lost power raised concerns about a new European Union law which requires European carriers to reimburse passengers for substantial delays. Those payouts can be hundreds of dollars per passenger.
After the first incident, the British Airways pilots' union issued a statement saying the new regulation could pressure pilots to take risks to save their employers money. British Airways denied that financial considerations were part of the crew's decision to continue the flight from Los Angeles.
U.S. officials said they have no evidence the airline's decision to continue on was influenced by the regulation.
"We would never compromise the safety of our passengers," said British Airways spokeswoman Diane Fung on Monday. "The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to do so. The pilots are trained for such situations."
©MMV CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
LONDON, March 4, 2005
(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."
Six days earlier, the same aircraft lost power in one of its engines shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.
The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the Boeing 747 ran low on fuel after facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the Federal Aviation Administration said.
The failed engine was later replaced in London, Marritt said. The aircraft then flew to Melbourne, Australia, before continuing to Singapore. It was on the return flight from Singapore, covering 6,765 miles, that the replacement engine failed, The Wall Street Journal reported.
"It was the No. 2 engine that failed but in totally different circumstances. It's one of those very strange coincidences," Marritt said.
The FAA and British aviation officials are investigating the Feb. 19 flight from Los Angeles to London to determine whether any regulations were violated.
"We are concerned," said Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman.
The decision not to return that flight after the engine lost power raised concerns about a new European Union law which requires European carriers to reimburse passengers for substantial delays. Those payouts can be hundreds of dollars per passenger.
After the first incident, the British Airways pilots' union issued a statement saying the new regulation could pressure pilots to take risks to save their employers money. British Airways denied that financial considerations were part of the crew's decision to continue the flight from Los Angeles.
U.S. officials said they have no evidence the airline's decision to continue on was influenced by the regulation.
"We would never compromise the safety of our passengers," said British Airways spokeswoman Diane Fung on Monday. "The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to do so. The pilots are trained for such situations."
©MMV CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Query
Hi
Just reading this thread and am new to this world but a quick query...
"Six days earlier, the same aircraft lost power in one of its engines shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.
The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the Boeing 747 ran low on fuel after facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the Federal Aviation Administration said"
If the engine is shut down, then its not using fuel right ??
So...if they declared low on fuel on 3 engines, then what would have happened if they were on all four ??
F4Fan
Just reading this thread and am new to this world but a quick query...
"Six days earlier, the same aircraft lost power in one of its engines shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.
The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the Boeing 747 ran low on fuel after facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the Federal Aviation Administration said"
If the engine is shut down, then its not using fuel right ??
So...if they declared low on fuel on 3 engines, then what would have happened if they were on all four ??
F4Fan
Oh No !!! Not again
If they'd had all four they would have been higher and used fuel more efficiently.
Haven't we rather done this one to death in the previous thread on the same subject ???
As this isn't News and doesn't seem to promolgate any new Rumours, shouldn't it be merged with the previous thread and removed to Tech Log or somewhere ???
DGG
Haven't we rather done this one to death in the previous thread on the same subject ???
As this isn't News and doesn't seem to promolgate any new Rumours, shouldn't it be merged with the previous thread and removed to Tech Log or somewhere ???
DGG
Last edited by Dave Gittins; 7th Mar 2005 at 12:48.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think you've grasped the wrong end of the stick there mate. The fewer the engines, the lower the altitude, the slower the speed, the lower the efficiency (thanks to the lower altitude).
We shouldn't be mean
Aren't you being a little mean spirited Shuttleworth ??? I don't for one moment think that PPRune should be restricted. (and from the variety of Forii neither does Danny !!!)
F4Fan has asked a genuine question, without suggesting that the rest of us are idiots, and we have responded without intentionally being rude or patronising. Isn't that the way it should be ??? Knowledge should be shared and when a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, isn't it up to all of us to make the world a little safer ???
If we respond so badly to questions (no matter how good or bad they are) isn't that going to simply put off the questioners for fear of being ridiculed and where does information flow go to then ???
If I want to get upset by a thread, it's more likley to be from reading insulting remarks made to each other by professional pilots following petty disagreements, genuine misunderstandings and minor spelling errrorrs (which I must be the owrld's worst for.)
If I was going to appeal to Danny for anything, it would be a spell checker and for PPRune to be sometimes equipped with a breathalyser.
Oh happy day.
DGG
F4Fan has asked a genuine question, without suggesting that the rest of us are idiots, and we have responded without intentionally being rude or patronising. Isn't that the way it should be ??? Knowledge should be shared and when a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, isn't it up to all of us to make the world a little safer ???
If we respond so badly to questions (no matter how good or bad they are) isn't that going to simply put off the questioners for fear of being ridiculed and where does information flow go to then ???
If I want to get upset by a thread, it's more likley to be from reading insulting remarks made to each other by professional pilots following petty disagreements, genuine misunderstandings and minor spelling errrorrs (which I must be the owrld's worst for.)
If I was going to appeal to Danny for anything, it would be a spell checker and for PPRune to be sometimes equipped with a breathalyser.
Oh happy day.
DGG
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
Never mentioned I knew anything about AeroDynamics...was merely a Q - Apologies if i am not up to your standards.
I'm sure if you needed to know how to treat a person who had collapsed in front of you , you would expect a civil answer from me....but thats my training.
F4Fan
Never mentioned I knew anything about AeroDynamics...was merely a Q - Apologies if i am not up to your standards.
I'm sure if you needed to know how to treat a person who had collapsed in front of you , you would expect a civil answer from me....but thats my training.
F4Fan
Está servira para distraerle.
F4 Fan. Tricky things, these old 747s. Not quite the same old grannies as the HS 748s and perhaps rather less complicated. The number 2 engine, on the US standard specification Boeing 747, Presidential Mode/ mod 1999, has an extending nozzle, hydrauliccaly powered from green system, which allows for in flight refuelling. This allows for the ingestion of tankered fuel, cold soaked, at the rate of some five tons per hour. If the number 2 engine goes down, sometimes known as: CIA/SPEC/PRES/FLT Code Amber, then no in-flight refueling can occur. Standard operations call for an aerial and global redistribution of tankers in the event of shutdown of what is, in real terms, the critical engine on the Presidentially modified 747. There is no overwing manual deployment facility for this refuelling node.
Did the owners of the aircraft in question backsource their suppier to determine whether the specific mod had been incorporated? Call up the tankers?
More later, perhaps.
