BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)

[fireflybob]

>Can you imagine 350 people on a 777 on one engine for 3 hours or so?<

Rainboe, I believe this has already happened - may not have been a 777 - but there has been at least one case where a twin jet has had to fly on one for the three hours to make an airport - good game!

[catchup]

@fireflybob

Yes, it happened. Think it was an US carrier (United ?) on the southpacific back home. More than 3 h, I think, they missjudged the wind

Regards

[lasernigel]

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!

I'm NOT a pilot but do know that RR has a large engine maintenance factory in the Bay area which would have.SFO approx 1 hr from LAX.Nice nightstop.

[Globaliser]

catchup: Yes, it happened. Think it was an US carrier (United ?) on the southpacific back home. More than 3 h, I think, they missjudged the wind

It was indeed UA on a South Pacific flight, but I can't remember the routing. IIRC, they were 193 minutes on a single engine. I can't remember all the technical details of why it was 193 minutes but still legal - something to do with planning the flight according to estimated diversion times, but then the winds changing so that actual divert time was more than they'd planned for.

Familiar scenario, that?

[Algy]

Just for info, from Flight International at the time.



Engine-failure 777 busts ETOPS limit
Flight International (25Mar03, 342 words)


DAVID LEARMOUNT / LONDON

Pacific incident was longest ever single-engine diversion

A United Airlines Boeing 777-200ER was forced to fly a 190min diversion on one engine over the Pacific Ocean when it had been dispatched on a 180min limitation, according to the US Federal Aviation Administration. Boeing confirms that this is the longest ever single-engine diversion under extended-range twin-engine operations (ETOPS) rules.

The aircraft was operating Flight 842 from Auckland, New Zealand, to Los Angeles, USA, on 17 March when the captain was forced to shut down the No 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4090 engine because the oil pressure dropped dramatically, says the airline.

The aircraft was immediately cleared for diversion to Kona in the Hawaiian archipelago where it landed safely after a flight that United describes as "textbook". Early indications are that the engine may have suffered a bearing failure. United says the single-engine flying time was "just over 3h", but the FAA says it was "190 to 193min".

According to sources at the airline, the maximum FAA-approved concessionary one-engine flying time from suitable diversion airfields for a long-range United 777 is 207min, but this is only for exceptional circumstances.

Technically, the 777 is in a category of specially equipped long-range twins that are cleared under a standard ETOPS maximum of 180min, but in May 2000 the FAA approved United's 777s for a 15% increase to 207min under special circumstances. The airline normally, however, dispatches the aircraft on the basis of operational flight planning that assumes a 180min clearance, and this was what it did on 17 March, it confirms.

The FAA at present is working in co-operation with US industry body the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to draw up a new set of standards for long-range aircraft regardless of the number of engines they have, possibly taking modern twins into the 240min ETOPS range and beyond.

Europe's Joint Aviation Authorities, also working towards new standards for long-range flights over oceanic or wilderness areas, so far finds itself very much at odds with the US proposals (Flight International, 31 December-6 January).


Source: Flight International

[gas path]

lasernigel

I'm NOT a pilot but do know that RR has a large engine maintenance factory in the Bay area which would have.SFO approx 1 hr from LAX.Nice nightstop.

Er! not quite TAESL overhauls Tay, Trent 800 and the RB211-535 and at Oakland it's the T56 and Model 250, nearly all military stuff

[Rainboe]

V Kilmer

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.

Sorry if it smacks of teacher shouting at a classroom, but it is first quite necessary to sort out the whole question of the mechanics of continuing on 3 to allay the fears of the handwringing inexperienced who have been unstinting in their criticism of that decision. So far, we have had "the passengers should be told EVERY defect on these flights", we have had "a vote should have been taken by the passengers". When we clear that nonsense away and appreciate that it was a perfectly safe decision, we can start to examine what should fly this route, and in this (non) incident, the outcome.

1- So our heroes set off on 3 engines. I would hazard a guess that as numerous Trijets used to fly this route (even the Tristar until it was realised you can only stretch an elastic so far), then a 747 on 3, still with the same redundancy as a Trijet, is not 'bad news' in any way. It is as good, or better, than a long range twin in that it can still have another worst engine failure on the same side, and be equivalent to a twin losing one, and like a twin still have full power available on one side......except.......that is distributed over 2 engines, so you could still lose another and still have 1/4 thrust available, which the twin wouldn't- it would be a glider. I give this crew a vote of full confidence!

2- The outcome. They were on course for LHR with reduced fuel reserves (actually a daily occurence in normal operations!). So when fuel starts running low and it appears there are feeding problems, and it appears some fuel may become unusable, they immediately arranged to divert to MAN. Following low fuel procedures requiring a 'Mayday' if landing is likely with below official Reserve minimum, all actions by the crew are in accordance with guidelines. Some people, even pilots with no 4 engine long range experience, are using these facts to attack the whole question of the safety of the operation. This is the way long range operations are carried out people! Unlike a shorthaul operation where you can guess to the nearest 100kgs how much fuel you will use, long range ops are vastly more affected by winds, altitudes achieved, speeds flown, and the fuel disparity for the flight can be proportionately greater than in a shorthaul environment, so we are used to operating to lower reserves than in a shorthaul arena.

3- The FAA should not throw stones before the event is judged. I agree that they are following public disquiet, and once the issue is looked at again, there will be a silence from them. They really have no leg to stand on, having sold the world this miracle of modern engineering with multiple redundancy, and now trying to pretend it's no safer than a twin. Talk about arrogance!

PS Did United get the same flak for flying people for 3 1/4 hours ON ONE ENGINE as BA have taken for flying people ON THREE ENGINES? The world has gone crazy! Trouble is there are hundreds of 'instant Judges' pontificating here on matters they know not a dicky bird about!

[barryt]

Rainboe : I am interested to hear what your reaction to Barry Schiff's comments on this episode are.

[Rainboe]

I can't find his comments here- this thread is getting rather large, but I recall they were critical. Looking at his experience, he has an unknown amount of 747 time, but it mainly seems to be trijet/twins apart from the old days on Connies (with unreliable piston engines.

I have 18,000 hours wide experience from twin turboprops to shorthaul twins to 17 years on 747s- 34 years BOAC/BA and 38 years flying expeience. I think his comments as I recall them might be skewed to a less than 4 engines point of view. I disagree with them. He probably feels heavily committed to support the new American product and belief (ultra-long range twins are good) as opposed to the good old 747 (and Airbus product) of 4 engines for safety. He is not the author of the bible! I think those comments were indiscreet. A lot of experienced pilots, including the wealth of longhaul flying experience in BA (and BOAC) advocated what was carried out. Is there any airline with more active longhaul flying experience than BA/BOAC? I don't think so! It raised absolutely no disquiet there.
Even the Pope keeps banging on about not using birth control devices- does that make his word final?

[Stan Woolley]

Unless Barry Schiff is a BA 744 Captain his opinion and the opinion of V Kilmer's colleagues or my own friends including 747 TRE's appears to be of no interest to the likes of 'Rainboe the experienced.'

Flying the aircraft to 30 mins fuel and declaring a Mayday may seem a good show to him but whether he likes it or not a significant number of inexperienced* pilots disagree.

*Not BA

I wonder if Hapag Lloyds' procedures and crew training were considered high quality right up until the A310 accident?

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

Rainboe

<Following low fuel procedures requiring a 'Mayday' if landing is likely with below official Reserve minimum, all actions by the crew are in accordance with guidelines. >

Wrong! I am reliably informed that according to BA SOPs 'Will be' are the words you seek. 'is likely with' requires a PAN? Unless, of course, you know differently?

<Trouble is there are hundreds of 'instant Judges' pontificating here on matters they know not a dicky bird about!>

Tweet, tweet

Edit required?

[Rainboe]

I have almost as much experience as Schiff, and probably far more on Intercontinental and ex-US border flying experience than him. I am saying his word is no more final than mine.

I leave aside your facetiousness Mr. Woolley. The end of the flight was a new problem. No adverse event resulted from the decision to proceed on 3- it went like clockwork, and was no more dangerous than flying a DC10. That decision to continue was the one that raised criticism here. The events at the end of the flight were a different matter and should be examined separately, don't you think? I still await information about it. It was the apparent suddenly unusable fuel that caused the final problem.

[BA268passenger]

So far, we have had "the passengers should be told EVERY defect on these flights", we have had "a vote should have been taken by the passengers". When we clear that nonsense away and appreciate that it was a perfectly safe decision, we can start to examine what should fly this route, and in this (non) incident, the outcome.

Speaking as a passenger on that flight: of course I wouldn't want to know about EVERY defect on an aircraft (why worry me regarding something I can do nothing about), but when I am already worried & frightened - having heard loud banging, been shaken violently, and seen sparks and flames coming from an engine (I didn’t see the flames personally, but other passengers on my flight did) - it would seem to me to be sensible to give us passengers as much information as possible (particularly if it is information that is likely to reassure us that we’re not about to die).

The fact that you, as a captain, could describe what had happened, and what it meant to the continued safe operation of this flight, would help in several ways.
In particular, it would let us passengers know that you are fully aware of the situation and are trying to do something about it (it would also allow us to alert you, via the cabin crew, if the situation you described was different from the one we had observed – for example, if you didn’t seem to be aware of the presence of flames from the back of the engine).

On this particular flight the captain said the problem was caused by a “surge” in the engine, and he did mention sparks or flames & vibration. This did at least tally with what we had experienced – although I don’t suppose many of us had any idea what a “surge” was. Personally speaking, I would have felt less anxious if he had gone on to say something along the lines of:
“For those of you who don’t know, a surge in a jet engine is somewhat similar to a car back firing. It looks & feels dramatic, but it is not in itself dangerous, and does not imply serious damage within the engine, or to any other aircraft function. I can see from my instruments & gauges, that all other engines are functioning normally, and the engine I have shut down is not causing fuel loss, or any other problems. This aircraft incorporates a high degree of redundancy in its design and is certified to fly for long distances on three engines. In the extremely unlikely event of me having to shut down another engine, it is also perfectly capable of flying, and landing, using any two of its engines. Whilst this situation may seem somewhat dramatic, please be assured that it is something that we pilots train for on a regular basis”.

I would only have wanted him to say things that were true, but if he could have said at least some of this, it would have made me feel happier and less anxious. It might also have given me something more concrete to discuss with my wife when trying to convince her that we weren’t about to fall out of the sky.

I also think it would have been good to have been told why we couldn’t immediately loop back and land at LAX – which is what I assume most of us passengers expected him to do. We don’t know about maximum landing weights or things of that sort, nor do we know what is involved in dumping fuel, and how long it might take.

The captain on our flight did sound reassuring when he explained that we would be flying to London on three engines. It sounded as though he had weighed up the pros and cons, and assessed the safety implications, but for me personally I would have liked to have more insight into his thought processes – although I suppose not everyone thinks like me, and there could then be a slightly increased risk of people trying to argue with his decision (despite not having his experience, or access to many of the facts of the situation).

So to summarise my point of view: keep us passengers informed of what’s going on (particularly when we already know that something is going wrong), but the final decision as to how to proceed has be the captain’s (making use of other expert resources, as appropriate, and keeping safety as his uppermost concern).

[Rainboe]

Those comments are really interesting and should be taken on board by us all. I can say that we really sympathise on the flight deck with the sheer verbosity and quantity of BA cabin public addresses. There is a definite trend amongst pilots to minimise what we say because we are aware (being frequent BA passengers ourselves) what an unusually violent, frequent and lengthy ear bashing our passengers are subjected to from the public address. Nobody else does anything like as much- I hate to say it, but our cabin crew are on that PA 3 times as much as they should. And then at the end of the flight, instead of peace and quiet, you are touched for charity donations. I sympathise, as do many of us- it is frequently raised in despair in our bulletin board. I know the pilots would have been working incredibly hard for several hours talking to home base and assessing the situation and en-route weathers. It is possible the task of informing you may have been pushed firther down the list of priorities than it should have been. I will bear your comments in mind- they are very valid, should such an event occur to me.

[Bearcat]

From Flight Mag



US agency voices concern over captain’s decision

The US Federal Aviation Administration has raised concerns with its UK counterpart over the recent decision by a British Airways Boeing 747-400 captain to continue a Los Angeles to London flight following an engine failure seconds after take-off. The FAA’s surprise move is likely to have significant ramifications in the ongoing transatlantic debate over future regulation of long-range airliner operations.

The FAA says the BA captain’s decision – which the UK flag carrier has subsequently said it fully supports – was contrary to the course of action it would expect the crew of a US-registered aircraft to take. However, it recognises that the UK Civil Aviation Authority is the agency responsible for setting the rules by which UK-registered operations fly.

“A US carrier would not typically fly any distance with one engine shut down,” says the FAA. This would not necessarily mean the crew would land at the nearest airport, the agency says, because the captain could reasonably take into account the feasibility of reaching “a base where the [failed] engine could be looked at”.

The FAA says its discussions with the CAA are intended to establish “what the exact facts are”, and the agency says its only concern is “the safety of aircraft operating in our airspace”. The CAA says that it is “continuing closely to monitor the BA investigation into the occurrence and is in contact with the FAA on the matter. But at this stage, and without wishing to pre-empt the outcome of further investigations, the CAA sees no necessity to issue any new operational advice to UK carriers in comparative situations where an aircraft has suffered an engine failure.”

The 19 February BA flight did not, in the event, reach its London Heathrow destination, but diverted to Manchester 320km (170nm) to the north because it ran short of fuel.

The No 2 engine suffered a surge as the aircraft was passing 100ft (30m) just after take-off from Los Angeles (Flight International, 1-7 March). The captain elected to continue the flight to London Heathrow on the remaining three engines, but the aircraft ran short of fuel after failing to obtain its optimum flight level 310 cruising altitude.

DAVID LEARMOUNT LONDON

[Rainboe]

I find this disturbing. Does the FAA really sanction United to fly across those enormous Pacific wastes on twin engined aircraft such that with an engine failure at a critical point, flight times of up to 190 minutes + (Algy posting, page 30) are possible on one engine only? Is this seriously a way for modern technology to try to mock statistics? And at the same time, are we really to believe that the FAA finds it unacceptable for a 747 to continue its flight on 3 engines?

Who is going insane here? I know I will not traverse the Pacific as a passenger on twins. Who are they trying to kid? Which is the greater problem?

“A US carrier would not typically fly any distance with one engine shut down,” says the FAA.

Oh yes?

[Backtrack]

“A US carrier would not typically fly any distance with one engine shut down,” says the FAA. This would not necessarily mean the crew would land at the nearest airport, the agency says, because the captain could reasonably take into account the feasibility of reaching “a base where the [failed] engine could be looked at”.

LHR for instance.

and the agency says its only concern is “the safety of aircraft operating in our airspace”.

So they don't give a damn what happens over Canada, NAT or UK/Eire then?

[DOVES]

Earlier on this forum I was talking about the 'funnels' I was taught by the other's and my experience not to enter.
Apart from the possible consequences that could have been arisen from the engine surge (flames to the fuselage, to the stabilizer, blades to the other engine or to the body or to the wing/fuel tank),.
Can you imagine which was the atmosphere in that cockpit after the decision was taken to proceed to the destination?
I am sure that nobody slept on that plane that night.
And so when the sun came back to kill the dark: how many pilots were not incapacited to end that mission?
But I want to reassure everybody.
Once upon a time, in the first carrier I have been flying for, a Captain, who had landed La Caravelle with the landing gear up during a training flight, was appointed after a short while as a Flight Operations Manager.
Think it over!
Safe flights to everybody

[Rainboe]

I am fascinated by this 'funnel' every twin jet pours itself down when it passes Fiji heading up towards Honolulu, and the thought that should an engine fail, how far the distance on one engine pumping out maximum continuous power for up to 3 hours! Tell me, how does that 'funnel' compare to the LAX-LHR flights funnel on 3 remaining engines? Now an answer from someone- would you rather be 3 hours from Honolulu on one engine or 10 hours from destination on three engines in a 747? Is the attention of the FAA (and said Barry Schiff) well placed or misdirected?

Surges are a well known quantity on wide bodied aircraft for 34 years. They are harmless apart from the fact the engine may not be available for relighting.

It's been 31 years since I flew between Honolulu and Fiji. I remember a damn long way, precious little to navigate on, almost nowhere to divert to, tiny island to find at the end after hours of astro- and I think about 8 hours flying. And they do that in twins? With people?

[fireflybob]

Rainboe, quite so.

Reminds of the definition of the ideal aeroplane is when the flight engineer taps the captain on the shoulder and says "We've just lost number 4" and the captain responds with "Which side?".