BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the possibility of continuing on one engine is to facilitate airlines to continue onto a suitable airport, hence the existence of ETOPS. The possibility of continuing on three engines is to allow you to operate a commercial service.
Now call me a cynic but does anyone think the FAAs new aggressive stance on three engine operations could be linked to their commercial mandate? After all, Mr Boeing isn't selling many four engined aircraft but Monsieur Airbus is selling loads of the things. What better way to tilt the playing field than to ensure there is no commercial advantage in buying a four engined aircraft over a twin?
Now call me a cynic but does anyone think the FAAs new aggressive stance on three engine operations could be linked to their commercial mandate? After all, Mr Boeing isn't selling many four engined aircraft but Monsieur Airbus is selling loads of the things. What better way to tilt the playing field than to ensure there is no commercial advantage in buying a four engined aircraft over a twin?
Carnage Matey - I think you have a valid point which may not be far from the truth.
Boeing have just rolled out the B777-200 LR which will, I believe, be able to fly nonstop from, say, LHR to SYD with a decent payload.
Boeing have just rolled out the B777-200 LR which will, I believe, be able to fly nonstop from, say, LHR to SYD with a decent payload.
BA 268 PAX ---very good posting,very informative.
Rainboe --hear hear.BA need to deal with some of this idiotic drivel thats been said by the FAA and others.
The crew did very well-their lives are just as important and no way would they compromise safety.
Rainboe --hear hear.BA need to deal with some of this idiotic drivel thats been said by the FAA and others.
The crew did very well-their lives are just as important and no way would they compromise safety.
Está servira para distraerle.
Well, then again, this might not be too popular. But, no doubt more later.If a group of passengers has paid the price to charter a four engined aircraft, crew and company logo, to fly from A to B; then were the payees of the cost of the flight neither entitled to an opinion, nor able to make a statement of wishes such as: 'Dear Old Captain, now that you and your handling agent (aka BA) have told us absolutely everything, the whole truth and so on; may we please touch down in the windy city, (aka, in that part of the world: Chicago) for a jolly good beefsteak dinner (steer city of the world) and then toodle pip off the next morning? The Boeing, as Boeings do, did a good job. Passengers are not really an uninformed species of vermin and while I will not use inflammatory language; I could understand easily enough, how one or two of the poor encapsulated victims might have become a teeny little bit upset at being carted around the world on any less than the four engines (not donks) for which one might presume, that payment had been made and thus a legal contract established. By the very nature of the length and verbosity of this thread, to which tangled web I am a guilty party, BA have, with its agents, been the producers of possibly a PR fiasco which perhaps might make springtime in Hitler's Germany resemble a walk in the park, always presuming that you were beside The Wailing Wall.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPH
Lets get a perspective on the possibility of a second engine failure.
1 I flew jet aircraft for 30 years and 18,000hrs and didn't have a single engine failure. The company that I worked for had only a couple in that time.
2 Jet aircraft are reliable. So reliable in fact that the FAA and JAA allow aircraft with only 2 engines to operate up to 3 hrs away from a suitable airport (about 1200nms).
Lets get a perspective on the possibility of a second engine failure.
1 I flew jet aircraft for 30 years and 18,000hrs and didn't have a single engine failure. The company that I worked for had only a couple in that time.
2 Jet aircraft are reliable. So reliable in fact that the FAA and JAA allow aircraft with only 2 engines to operate up to 3 hrs away from a suitable airport (about 1200nms).
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
cavortingcheetah- you may be able to get away with idiocy disguised as attempted humourous comment so far, but to suggest some type of vote, by 370 people.....on an aeroplane? Indeed you have been smoking something! Are you sure you really are a pilot?
That was a very illuminating and well written passenger report, and most interesting to read. Surges, especially at night, are quite amazing spectacles. I suspect the sparks that emanate from the engine are either burning dust shaken off bits or sparks from the fan contacting the acoustic liner around the big front fan during the vibration.
The self appointed experts are coming out of the woodwork again. As to the suggestion to lob into Chicago, nice airport though it is, it is nowhere near a station holding a spare RB211, so it would not be a nightstop! More major being messed around and horrendous delays! Even JFK probably doesn't hold a spare, and after presumably failing a relight attempt, or the nature of the original failure, this was most certainly an engine change job.
It has been mentioned elsewhere, but I agree, it would appear the FAA's opinion is majorly skewed by the fact our US competitors ALL fly twin engined aircraft across the Atlantic with just a very very few on 4 engines. The 'American way' now seems to be 'twins are good', so to make 4 engines no further advantage over a twin can only benefit US operators and the whole Boeing v Airbus thing. It's just sad. For umpteen years, they were telling the world the 747 is amazingly redundant, now it is alleged to be no more redundant than a twin?
That was a very illuminating and well written passenger report, and most interesting to read. Surges, especially at night, are quite amazing spectacles. I suspect the sparks that emanate from the engine are either burning dust shaken off bits or sparks from the fan contacting the acoustic liner around the big front fan during the vibration.
The self appointed experts are coming out of the woodwork again. As to the suggestion to lob into Chicago, nice airport though it is, it is nowhere near a station holding a spare RB211, so it would not be a nightstop! More major being messed around and horrendous delays! Even JFK probably doesn't hold a spare, and after presumably failing a relight attempt, or the nature of the original failure, this was most certainly an engine change job.
It has been mentioned elsewhere, but I agree, it would appear the FAA's opinion is majorly skewed by the fact our US competitors ALL fly twin engined aircraft across the Atlantic with just a very very few on 4 engines. The 'American way' now seems to be 'twins are good', so to make 4 engines no further advantage over a twin can only benefit US operators and the whole Boeing v Airbus thing. It's just sad. For umpteen years, they were telling the world the 747 is amazingly redundant, now it is alleged to be no more redundant than a twin?
Guest
Posts: n/a
ROTMFLAO cavortingcheetah 
No doubt sergeant-major Rainboe does not appreciate your irony as most of the British members here who seem to form a close front against the enemy across the pond.
I don't remember the other passenger, who apparently had a less stiff upperlip earlier in this thread was praised in the same way for his story on the infamous flight.
No doubt the crew did an outstanding job, yet PR was not helped but luckily we can blame the Manchester spotters for that.
No doubt sergeant-major Rainboe does not appreciate your irony as most of the British members here who seem to form a close front against the enemy across the pond. I don't remember the other passenger, who apparently had a less stiff upperlip earlier in this thread was praised in the same way for his story on the infamous flight.
No doubt the crew did an outstanding job, yet PR was not helped but luckily we can blame the Manchester spotters for that.
Está servira para distraerle.
Can you just imagine what might have been the result had the 370 odd (yes) people on the flight who might have been voting, been pilots? Very General Electrifrying, I should have thought.
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
CC- do you talk to people like that in your normal life or do you think typing like a fool is somehow funny in a serious discussion? Trying to discuss something and you are coming up with daft ideas and babytalk. Either discuss properly or give it a rest!
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Carnage Matey!: Now call me a cynic but does anyone think the FAAs new aggressive stance on three engine operations could be linked to their commercial mandate? After all, Mr Boeing isn't selling many four engined aircraft but Monsieur Airbus is selling loads of the things. What better way to tilt the playing field than to ensure there is no commercial advantage in buying a four engined aircraft over a twin?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>does anyone think the FAAs new aggressive stance on three engine operations could be linked to their commercial mandate?
Seriously doubt it...
Based on the Don Phillips article, FAA appears to be going after "careless and reckless" and "continuing into unsafe conditions" violations (91.13 and 121.627(b), respectively).
What's not said is how they plan to charge a Part 129 carrier (BA) with Part 91 and Part 121 violations, as if BA was a Part 121 carrier. It seems more likely that FAA is responding to perceived public pressure to "do something" and that once the attention span of the average Joe Q. Citizen wanes, so too will any legal efforts related to this incident...
Seriously doubt it...
Based on the Don Phillips article, FAA appears to be going after "careless and reckless" and "continuing into unsafe conditions" violations (91.13 and 121.627(b), respectively).
What's not said is how they plan to charge a Part 129 carrier (BA) with Part 91 and Part 121 violations, as if BA was a Part 121 carrier. It seems more likely that FAA is responding to perceived public pressure to "do something" and that once the attention span of the average Joe Q. Citizen wanes, so too will any legal efforts related to this incident...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"continuing into unsafe conditions"
This is a can of worms. Safety can only be a quantitative value (x events per 100,000 hrs, etc). There is no such thing as a binary "safe condition" vs "unsafe condition".
As has been pointed out before, it's entirely possible for a pilot to fly his entire career without a real engine failure. Is this "safe" or "Unsafe"? How seldom are two failures on a single flight? It has happened, sure, but has a Captain's decision to press on EVER affected the outcome in this unlikely case?
FAA needs some operations engineering expertise, as evidenced by their puerile language.
As has been pointed out before, it's entirely possible for a pilot to fly his entire career without a real engine failure. Is this "safe" or "Unsafe"? How seldom are two failures on a single flight? It has happened, sure, but has a Captain's decision to press on EVER affected the outcome in this unlikely case?
FAA needs some operations engineering expertise, as evidenced by their puerile language.
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
I'm sorry to post twice, but I posted this in Tech Log and it seems more relevant here:
<<<It's really strange, isn't it? Some operators have been known to despatch, and fly over the ocean with just two engines to start with!!!! (the exclamation marks are added for extra drama). Is this an adequate safety margin? Can you imagine being west of Greenland on one?!! How do they get away with it?- perhaps the FAA should be informed! I mean- they only have two engines, up in the Arctic wastes- with hundreds of children and sweet innocent old ladies doing their knitting on board!
Funny me, I thought the whole point of having FOUR to start with was that if you lost one, you still had THREE. You could do the near statistically impossible and lose another and still be better off than a twin, because there ain't no way you gonna lose ANOTHER (well if you do, the odds are so unfair to you you should never enter another lottery in your life!).
So what would you rather fly in? A 4 engine 747 or a twin 777? And they're going to send that thing half way around the world?
Let's face it, the 747 has passed. Boeing is only interested in selling as many big twins as it can, so taking away the advantage of 4 engines and making it play on the same playing field to the same rules as the twin Boeings is to their advantage. They want to licence that thing with ETOPS endurance that seems to be going up exponentially- is the latest figure 3 hours on one engine? Can you imagine 350 people on a 777 on one engine for 3 hours or so? (whatever the figure is). Don't you think that merits closer examination by the FAA than a 747 on THREE engines? What an extraordinary issue this has become!>>>
<<<It's really strange, isn't it? Some operators have been known to despatch, and fly over the ocean with just two engines to start with!!!! (the exclamation marks are added for extra drama). Is this an adequate safety margin? Can you imagine being west of Greenland on one?!! How do they get away with it?- perhaps the FAA should be informed! I mean- they only have two engines, up in the Arctic wastes- with hundreds of children and sweet innocent old ladies doing their knitting on board!
Funny me, I thought the whole point of having FOUR to start with was that if you lost one, you still had THREE. You could do the near statistically impossible and lose another and still be better off than a twin, because there ain't no way you gonna lose ANOTHER (well if you do, the odds are so unfair to you you should never enter another lottery in your life!).
So what would you rather fly in? A 4 engine 747 or a twin 777? And they're going to send that thing half way around the world?
Let's face it, the 747 has passed. Boeing is only interested in selling as many big twins as it can, so taking away the advantage of 4 engines and making it play on the same playing field to the same rules as the twin Boeings is to their advantage. They want to licence that thing with ETOPS endurance that seems to be going up exponentially- is the latest figure 3 hours on one engine? Can you imagine 350 people on a 777 on one engine for 3 hours or so? (whatever the figure is). Don't you think that merits closer examination by the FAA than a 747 on THREE engines? What an extraordinary issue this has become!>>>
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: here..
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allways been difficult for yours truly to figure out why many people solely base their safety focus on whether you are flying a two, three or even four engined plane on polar tracks or above other hostile territory. It doesn't make a big difference if you experience an uncontrollable fire onboard - you have noplace to go!
Rainboe, the majority of my fellowpilots, does not worry to much about the fact that BA268 carried on three engines. What they are concerned about, is that they pressed on, and had to divert to MAN with possible less than reservefuel available, and declared an emergency.
VK
Rainboe, the majority of my fellowpilots, does not worry to much about the fact that BA268 carried on three engines. What they are concerned about, is that they pressed on, and had to divert to MAN with possible less than reservefuel available, and declared an emergency.
VK
This is a can of worms. Safety can only be a quantitative value (x events per 100,000 hrs, etc). There is no such thing as a binary "safe condition" vs "unsafe condition".
As has been pointed out before, it's entirely possible for a pilot to fly his entire career without a real engine failure. Is this "safe" or "Unsafe"? How seldom are two failures on a single flight? It has happened, sure, but has a Captain's decision to press on EVER affected the outcome in this unlikely case?
FAA needs some operations engineering expertise, as evidenced by their puerile language.
As has been pointed out before, it's entirely possible for a pilot to fly his entire career without a real engine failure. Is this "safe" or "Unsafe"? How seldom are two failures on a single flight? It has happened, sure, but has a Captain's decision to press on EVER affected the outcome in this unlikely case?
FAA needs some operations engineering expertise, as evidenced by their puerile language.
Boy can you ever see this in this thread.
However, the rulemaking by the authorities including US and European does consider the quantitative approach in developing the rule, and then decides at what level is "safe enough".
Using this approach, it is generally accepted that if you exceed the rule you have thrown a switch and you are no longer safe.
This is the basis of the rule, but obviously like all rules it can't cover such unforseen circumstances where 500 operators decide to operate right to the edge on every flight. Thus the safety is really assumed on the basis that the minimum level (flying on only 3 engine) will be a rare event.
So we now need to ask ourselves if it indeed was. Once again I doubt that we will ever obtain consensus on this board, so I truly await the outcome of the examination by the authorities of the individual circumstances for this event within this operators operating practices..
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Rainboe
Basicly I agree with you and others who compared a 4engine A/C flying on 3 donks with twins like 777.
But there is one little point which should considered to be fair, those planes are subject to ETOPS regulations.
And I mean not only the 3h rule, there are many other requirements like maintenance, MEL, and so on.
Regards
Basicly I agree with you and others who compared a 4engine A/C flying on 3 donks with twins like 777.
But there is one little point which should considered to be fair, those planes are subject to ETOPS regulations.
And I mean not only the 3h rule, there are many other requirements like maintenance, MEL, and so on.
Regards