BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rainboe
No brainer for me - in the 747
Is the funnel from LAX to LHR really 10 hours?
Plenty of diverts are available through the US and Canada and when oceanic there are diversions available in Greenland and Iceland, as well as turning back.
So how long is the real 747 funnel and how does the risk exposure compare to a big twin on one for three hours?
would you rather be 3 hours from Honolulu on one engine or 10 hours from destination on three engines in a 747?
Is the funnel from LAX to LHR really 10 hours?
Plenty of diverts are available through the US and Canada and when oceanic there are diversions available in Greenland and Iceland, as well as turning back.
So how long is the real 747 funnel and how does the risk exposure compare to a big twin on one for three hours?
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what if ... a depressurization? (Remember blades/bullets)
Flyng at 14000' which would have been the range?
Only to the next shark.
I think that the skin of a certain organ has been drawn too much.
Usque tandem CATILINA...?
Flyng at 14000' which would have been the range?
Only to the next shark.
I think that the skin of a certain organ has been drawn too much.
Usque tandem CATILINA...?
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
There was absolutely no external damage nor fuel leakage. If you are now talking about depressurisation, you are raising a whole new subject about risk and aviation in general. Perhaps it would be safer to take the train from LA to London?....no, not with the record of railway accidents.....maybe drive?......I don't think so, certainly not 'safer'. Flying these Arctic routes, we are well aware of risk of fire or depressurisation, and we always prepare and check weather for suitable diversion points. There are quite a few diversion airfields that are occasionally used ( I think the last user was an Air France B777 up in the Arctic a couple of years back).
If it is reassuring, we do not EVER operate out of range of diversion airfields at any time, even in the event of depressurisation and max 14,000' cruising. We can always make diversions quite rapidly. The one thing that is a big problem is fire. I think every flight there are still fools who creep into toilets for a quiet smoke- I would like to see them sent to prison!
If it is reassuring, we do not EVER operate out of range of diversion airfields at any time, even in the event of depressurisation and max 14,000' cruising. We can always make diversions quite rapidly. The one thing that is a big problem is fire. I think every flight there are still fools who creep into toilets for a quiet smoke- I would like to see them sent to prison!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SKY 9
I also flew for 30yrs + and have 18,000hrs+. Mostly on three engined A/C. Even though the birds flew on two and indeed on one. I would never continue for 10 hrs with a single engine failure. According to JAR/ops flame out's and surges should be treated as an engine failure.
The B744, being the wonderfull bird that she is, I for one, would certainly not like to be in the middle of winter flying across the north -Atlantic and have have a 2nd eng/fail. Even though certified, this bird flies as bad the DC10/MD11 or even the good old L1011! It's not a question of probabilities it's, to do with saftey and preventing further compications. I no doubt the crew on this particular flight had taken into account all the probalities and followed company SOP's, but the end result did turn into an incident!
I also flew for 30yrs + and have 18,000hrs+. Mostly on three engined A/C. Even though the birds flew on two and indeed on one. I would never continue for 10 hrs with a single engine failure. According to JAR/ops flame out's and surges should be treated as an engine failure.
The B744, being the wonderfull bird that she is, I for one, would certainly not like to be in the middle of winter flying across the north -Atlantic and have have a 2nd eng/fail. Even though certified, this bird flies as bad the DC10/MD11 or even the good old L1011! It's not a question of probabilities it's, to do with saftey and preventing further compications. I no doubt the crew on this particular flight had taken into account all the probalities and followed company SOP's, but the end result did turn into an incident!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: everywhere
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it wasn't an incident, why did Manchester stop all out bounds, and advise the fire engines that the 744 was not able to do a go-around due to low fuel. Normally if one declares a PAN, especially fuel related, it's an incident.
Had the crew not said PAN, nor made comments about not being able to do a go-around, this wouldn't even have made PPRUNE.
For my 5p, although SOP's etc had been met, I think it's stretching the limits a bit flying the distance they did with an engine out.
Had the crew not said PAN, nor made comments about not being able to do a go-around, this wouldn't even have made PPRUNE.
For my 5p, although SOP's etc had been met, I think it's stretching the limits a bit flying the distance they did with an engine out.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a 'Mickey Mouse' comment there, ?'Minnie'/'Muddled'?
Outside BA, I'm sure that all professional pilots consider a 'MAYDAY' - unable to go round and not having a lot of fuel available to use - to be at best an incident, at worst a potential accident.
But then, what do we know? Best live in your world, I guess, but what sort of world can it be? It worries me greatly to see such comments.
Outside BA, I'm sure that all professional pilots consider a 'MAYDAY' - unable to go round and not having a lot of fuel available to use - to be at best an incident, at worst a potential accident.
But then, what do we know? Best live in your world, I guess, but what sort of world can it be? It worries me greatly to see such comments.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what it comes to when the Beancounter get to run the airlines!
M.Mouse
Don´t insult your own intelligence. Loosing an engine in itself is an incident. Flying half way round the world afterwords and getting priority due fuel starvation does definitely not make it any less of an incident!
M.Mouse
No it didn't however much you and others try to hype it into one.
Controversial, moi?
OK I shall re-phrase.
The aircraft landed at MAN, having declared a MAYDAY as required by SOPs.
They landed with more than the legally required minimum fuel.
They in fact did have the ability to go-around.
If that makes it an incident then it was an incident.
loose = something that is not tight
lose = a loss of something
The aircraft landed at MAN, having declared a MAYDAY as required by SOPs.
They landed with more than the legally required minimum fuel.
They in fact did have the ability to go-around.
If that makes it an incident then it was an incident.
loose = something that is not tight
lose = a loss of something
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what the statistical chance of a second engine failure would be..................
Your mileage may vary. Consult your engineering dept. for further details.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. . . . Covered by SOPs?
I don't think that it's pressure from management nor from the beancounters who contributed to this unfortunate incident.
When all is said, written and done, the decision to continue a revenue passenger flight for 10+ hours, overflying and bypassing many suitable airports, minus one engine rests soley with the captain.
Sorry to say, but it was poor judgement of the captain. And it was lack of assertiveness on the part of the First Officer to challenge the captain's decision.
Except perhaps in a state of war or other extreme emergency, there is no logic and no intent of any SOP at any airline anywhere to suggest or to justify that it's "optional" or otherwise "acceptable" to continue a revenue passenger or revenue cargo flight for an additional 10 hours after an engine failure.
Assuredly there is a small paragraph in every airline operations manual that states that the flight crew is not constrained to exercise good judgement and common sense in interpreting rules and procedures....
Nevertheless, I'm sure that this episode will cause SOPs at many airlines to be rewritten with additional guidance about "continuing to the nearest suitable airport" after an engine failure of an airplane with 3 or more engines.
When all is said, written and done, the decision to continue a revenue passenger flight for 10+ hours, overflying and bypassing many suitable airports, minus one engine rests soley with the captain.
Sorry to say, but it was poor judgement of the captain. And it was lack of assertiveness on the part of the First Officer to challenge the captain's decision.
Except perhaps in a state of war or other extreme emergency, there is no logic and no intent of any SOP at any airline anywhere to suggest or to justify that it's "optional" or otherwise "acceptable" to continue a revenue passenger or revenue cargo flight for an additional 10 hours after an engine failure.
Assuredly there is a small paragraph in every airline operations manual that states that the flight crew is not constrained to exercise good judgement and common sense in interpreting rules and procedures....
Nevertheless, I'm sure that this episode will cause SOPs at many airlines to be rewritten with additional guidance about "continuing to the nearest suitable airport" after an engine failure of an airplane with 3 or more engines.
Herr Dr. Dipl.-Ing. Dornier's ghost and I have been having a quiet chat. According to him, you can't have too many engines; so, here's his proposal for the 747-600:
- Add fifth pod ferry structure to opposite wing,
- Provide control, fuel, hydraulic, electric and bleed air connections to the two extra pods.
Está servira para distraerle.
Dear Glueball, I am reminded of that little anecdote about never letting the small chaps (ie: squids, first officers and so on) touch the controls until 10k ft, or Flight Level 100, or whatever. This is not a plan to which I subscribe, by the way, we'll just leave the FL oout of the equation.I have Commanded, (sic) and even flown, certain aircraft, jet, turbine and emasculated for some time over some parts and in some places, for more than thirty years++(yeah!), and, have had the great advantage of reading on this thread, these past many pages. Once, long time ago, I was an FO. I do remember those great days of sitting next to God and working out how might I extricate him from the Alligator pond into which his backside had landed; without him having realised that he had even got himself into such a murky place in the first instance. I know that there were many great guys who returned the same ancestorial favour to me. In the travails of my aeronautical experiences there have been Captains who are opinionated, intransigent and generally twinned up. Think of that movie 'The Caine Mutiny' or, if you prefer, jolly old Captain Bligh. Good navigator though, damn good, what! Bosuns' pipes for him. Crossed The Pacific in a longboat, not an engine within a centimetre! So, who pulled out the voice recorder then, or did they sit, as I often have, with my little finger on the 'erase' toggle?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wonder what the statistical chance of a second engine failure would be..................
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.Mouse.
If you don't classify this as an'incident', how would you describe it as, 'unfortunate circumstances'! Standard procedure under the circumstances or what?
As stated earlier on this post. I would love to see this crews 'special report'.
And let's get one thing clear, I respect this crew's decison. Was it the right one. In my opinion, nooooo!
If you don't classify this as an'incident', how would you describe it as, 'unfortunate circumstances'! Standard procedure under the circumstances or what?
As stated earlier on this post. I would love to see this crews 'special report'.
And let's get one thing clear, I respect this crew's decison. Was it the right one. In my opinion, nooooo!
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
You speak as a trijet pilot. The B747 is a step up. The 'incident' at the end of the flight is independent of the decision to continue on 3. I still maintain that that aeroplane had far more redundancy and safety flying on 3 engines over an area with many emergency diversion airfields than a B777 gamely setting course across the Pacific where it has been shown if it loses an engine, it will be flying for up to 3 hours + on one engine at max continuous. We have dabblers in aviation here with experience only on single engine or maybe twins expressing disquiet- you have no idea about 4 engined operations and the redundancy built in to the B747, so please stop expressing verdicts!