BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Está servira para distraerle.
I regret to have to say that, as I found upon reading page 31 ( I think) there is a degree of: 'verbosity and quantity' in this discussion which keeps surging on. Self opinionation in as closed an area as a cockpit can be remarbably destructive and hardly conducive to babytalk, whatever that may be, to quote Nubar Gulbenkian. Sometimes I really am glad that I am just a retired Tyrannosaurus Captain (but a Rex for all that) and not a simply an old Diplodocus.
I have so far refrained from comment on this subject.
I have never flown a Boeing 747 of any variety.
I have, however, quite a lot of experience as a DC-10 captain and have a fair amount of experience on the LAX - LON route.
In addition I flew the DC-10 across the Atlantic (and the Pacific) under two regimes; I have a UK ATPL and an FAA ATR on type.
In general, the FAA regulations were more restrictive than the CAA and, from my point of view, that was quite welcome.
If I lost an engine on take-off from LAX heading east (on the N-register) I knew that I would have to explain "in great detail" to the the FAA exactly why I considered it OK to continue to any other airfield other than the "nearest suitable airfield".
It certainly would not have been a possibility to announce that you were going to continue across the whole of the USA , Canada and the North Atlantic.
In all of my many years of flying long haul before JARs, I was always required to arrive with "emergency holding" plus "diversion fuel" to an alternate.
Under JARs, I hear BA calling London on a very regular basis that they "Are committed to Heathrow". For those of you out there that don't understand JARs this basically means that they no longer have enough fuel to go to an alternate but, because Heathrow has two runways and the weather is reasonable, they can continue.
In other words, as long as both runways at Heathrow keep going without a single glitch, they can land without breaking any rules. Needless to say, nothing ever goes wrong at Heathrow!
So what is my point? I can live with going round Santa Monica Bay twice (which must have used up a lot of fuel) and then proceeding eastwards to the amazement of a lot of people. I could just about have made a case to continue across the USA/Canada but the Pond might have stretched my good humour somewhat.
What really bothers me is the last hour of this flight.
Having got past 30W the crew must have had a very good idea of how the "Howgozit" was going. I would have thought that it would have been obvious that Heathrow was already an impossibility to any sensible person.
So why did this hard-working crew that had done their level best for BA go past PIK/BFS/SNN etc and end up with a "Mayday" at MAN?
With 11 hours to think about the problem, I would certainly not have got myself in a situation like this.
Perhaps the big worry here is the the way the BA crew were trained or indoctrinated. I have already seen on this thread (and others) ample evidence from BA pilots that they think such situations are perfectly safe and that any criticism is superfluous. Indeed they dismiss the FAA as an irrelevance.
This, having done both with big aeroplanes, is a very arrogant statement. I can say that with a great deal of confidence that the numberof US-registered aircraft exceeds the the rest of the world put together.
Therefore, the posting from "BA God Help Me" should be seen in context.
I have never flown a Boeing 747 of any variety.
I have, however, quite a lot of experience as a DC-10 captain and have a fair amount of experience on the LAX - LON route.
In addition I flew the DC-10 across the Atlantic (and the Pacific) under two regimes; I have a UK ATPL and an FAA ATR on type.
In general, the FAA regulations were more restrictive than the CAA and, from my point of view, that was quite welcome.
If I lost an engine on take-off from LAX heading east (on the N-register) I knew that I would have to explain "in great detail" to the the FAA exactly why I considered it OK to continue to any other airfield other than the "nearest suitable airfield".
It certainly would not have been a possibility to announce that you were going to continue across the whole of the USA , Canada and the North Atlantic.
In all of my many years of flying long haul before JARs, I was always required to arrive with "emergency holding" plus "diversion fuel" to an alternate.
Under JARs, I hear BA calling London on a very regular basis that they "Are committed to Heathrow". For those of you out there that don't understand JARs this basically means that they no longer have enough fuel to go to an alternate but, because Heathrow has two runways and the weather is reasonable, they can continue.
In other words, as long as both runways at Heathrow keep going without a single glitch, they can land without breaking any rules. Needless to say, nothing ever goes wrong at Heathrow!
So what is my point? I can live with going round Santa Monica Bay twice (which must have used up a lot of fuel) and then proceeding eastwards to the amazement of a lot of people. I could just about have made a case to continue across the USA/Canada but the Pond might have stretched my good humour somewhat.
What really bothers me is the last hour of this flight.
Having got past 30W the crew must have had a very good idea of how the "Howgozit" was going. I would have thought that it would have been obvious that Heathrow was already an impossibility to any sensible person.
So why did this hard-working crew that had done their level best for BA go past PIK/BFS/SNN etc and end up with a "Mayday" at MAN?
With 11 hours to think about the problem, I would certainly not have got myself in a situation like this.
Perhaps the big worry here is the the way the BA crew were trained or indoctrinated. I have already seen on this thread (and others) ample evidence from BA pilots that they think such situations are perfectly safe and that any criticism is superfluous. Indeed they dismiss the FAA as an irrelevance.
This, having done both with big aeroplanes, is a very arrogant statement. I can say that with a great deal of confidence that the numberof US-registered aircraft exceeds the the rest of the world put together.
Therefore, the posting from "BA God Help Me" should be seen in context.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, JW411 - you beat me to it - We both know what we are talking about despite what others may wish to think? This was in preparation as you posted.
Lets forget 'FAA v CAA', 4 motors v 2/3 motors and all that mess. Lets talk 'nuts and bolts'. I have to put my cards on the table - based ONLY on what I know from here, someone screwed up. Now, if one of my crew got themselves into this position -
OK, firstly it is unlikely, as said earlier. Let us suppose, however, that they HAD to press on, and the only 'suitable' airfields were 'across the water', several hours away.
I would have expected to be told - yep, woken up if necessary, and that is something the guys don't do lightly! A team would have looked at it. Dispatch, engineering, flight tech, commercial etc etc. At least hourly sitreps from the airplane would be coming in. We would be running a 'howgozit' in dispatch. The crew would NOT have gotten to a low fuel drill position UNLESS there were no other 'suitables'!
After the event - suppose they had done just that - I would have everybody in - same lot again - plus flight crew. I need to know why they let this happen. If, now, the matter had gone public on the web, as this has, I would expect a large number of others to want to know why as well. Were they keeping a howgozit on the flight deck? When was it obvious they would not reach LHR? When was it obvious they were going to be 'in difficulties' with available fuel at MAN? Why did they not land somewhere earlier? Perhaps one of the advantages in them keeping going instead of landing at 'nearest suitable' is that they had HOURS to work all this out. Why did dispatch let them carry on so long? I believe that would be OPS for BA - you don't use 121 dispatchers. I CANNOT believe that there was NOT some 'interference' from the ground in the decision.
Why the 'mice and men' are so anxious to keep everybody in the dark I cannot understand. We even have a self-proclaimed BA long-haul pilot picking someone up for spelling when he/she does not even seem to understand the english language! This incident needs to be looked at thoroughly and not trivialised. I'm sure the guys I know in BA and the CAA will. The pax also have a right to know what went wrong and what is being done about it, and then, perhaps, they can 'leave it to the professionals' with a bit more confidence.
Lets forget 'FAA v CAA', 4 motors v 2/3 motors and all that mess. Lets talk 'nuts and bolts'. I have to put my cards on the table - based ONLY on what I know from here, someone screwed up. Now, if one of my crew got themselves into this position -
OK, firstly it is unlikely, as said earlier. Let us suppose, however, that they HAD to press on, and the only 'suitable' airfields were 'across the water', several hours away.
I would have expected to be told - yep, woken up if necessary, and that is something the guys don't do lightly! A team would have looked at it. Dispatch, engineering, flight tech, commercial etc etc. At least hourly sitreps from the airplane would be coming in. We would be running a 'howgozit' in dispatch. The crew would NOT have gotten to a low fuel drill position UNLESS there were no other 'suitables'!
After the event - suppose they had done just that - I would have everybody in - same lot again - plus flight crew. I need to know why they let this happen. If, now, the matter had gone public on the web, as this has, I would expect a large number of others to want to know why as well. Were they keeping a howgozit on the flight deck? When was it obvious they would not reach LHR? When was it obvious they were going to be 'in difficulties' with available fuel at MAN? Why did they not land somewhere earlier? Perhaps one of the advantages in them keeping going instead of landing at 'nearest suitable' is that they had HOURS to work all this out. Why did dispatch let them carry on so long? I believe that would be OPS for BA - you don't use 121 dispatchers. I CANNOT believe that there was NOT some 'interference' from the ground in the decision.
Why the 'mice and men' are so anxious to keep everybody in the dark I cannot understand. We even have a self-proclaimed BA long-haul pilot picking someone up for spelling when he/she does not even seem to understand the english language! This incident needs to be looked at thoroughly and not trivialised. I'm sure the guys I know in BA and the CAA will. The pax also have a right to know what went wrong and what is being done about it, and then, perhaps, they can 'leave it to the professionals' with a bit more confidence.
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
So a trijet pilot gives us the benefit of his experience (not awfully relevant- losing an engine on a trijet does not equate to a 747), and judging by his harebrained profile, some Walter Mitty dispatcher gives his verdict. Can you explain how some people dare to set off across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans on just 2 engines to start with? I still think this needs re-examining. People are ducking this issue- answer please- what is your opinion of a planeload of passengers lives hanging on one engine, over the Pacific Ocean for 3 hours? How does this compare to a 747 on 3 engines for 10 hours? Not really much comparison?
I don't know what benefit the comment about how large US aviation is. BA is the biggest 747 operator in the world with 57 747, something less of 777. Nobody else has the breadth and depth of intercontinental, long range experience BA has. We lost a couple in 1948 or so, but haven't done bad since then!
I don't know what benefit the comment about how large US aviation is. BA is the biggest 747 operator in the world with 57 747, something less of 777. Nobody else has the breadth and depth of intercontinental, long range experience BA has. We lost a couple in 1948 or so, but haven't done bad since then!
Last edited by Rainboe; 12th Mar 2005 at 07:34.
Controversial, moi?
We even have a self-proclaimed BA long-haul pilot picking someone up for spelling when he/she does not even seem to understand the english language!
I understand English quite as well as I understand the pompous, opinionated twaddle from those who clearly have insufficient knowledge to make a reasoned argument.
Walter mentions the team on the ground. A fundamental misapprehension about the way BA operates.
JW411 mentions his experience on an old, and somewhat disaster prone tri-jet, and then pontificates about a modern 4 engine aircraft.
It is little wonder those working for the company become irritated by half-baked, misinformed argument.
I think this thread has lost it's way a little.
The point I will make is that regardless of how many engines you have, be it 4, 3, or 2, when one of them stops, your margin of safety has been reduced. It is then up to the pilot in command to manage this reduction in safety as per the company SOPs and other relevant regulations. At the end of the day, you may be asked to justify your actions.
Is it safe, is it practical and is it legal?
The point I will make is that regardless of how many engines you have, be it 4, 3, or 2, when one of them stops, your margin of safety has been reduced. It is then up to the pilot in command to manage this reduction in safety as per the company SOPs and other relevant regulations. At the end of the day, you may be asked to justify your actions.
Is it safe, is it practical and is it legal?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. . . . Rainboe says...
BA is the biggest 747 operator in the world with 57 747, something less of 777. Nobody else has the breadth and depth of intercontinental, long range experience BA has.
PS: Even if I were at BA earning top-dog salary, it wouldn'd be enough money for me to fly a 74 loaded with pax for 10+ hours on 3 motors!
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
Glueball, you haven't answered the question. Would you prefer to be on a 747 on 3 engines (ie, it has magically become a trijet that used to fly this route) for 10 hours, or on a 777 over the Pacific wastes on 2 engines, with the likelihood of 3 hours cruising on one engine to get you to safety if you lose another.
I know with the enormous redundancy built in to the 747 which I would like- even down to 2 engines, you still have 2 more. You could even lose another engine- not at all pleasant, but you would still be flying.
Fathom- you haven't thought this through. If our B-52 loses #4 (on the left wing), he is (according to your logic) 'reducing his margin'. Should he scrub the mission or carry on and ignore? Where do we cross the line from dodgy ETOPS operations to safely redundant 4 engine ops? We go from twins (land at nearest if engine out) to Trijets (think about landing soon if engine out) to 747 (carry on if engine out, but watch out for 2 eng driftdown and monitor diversion airfields).
I know with the enormous redundancy built in to the 747 which I would like- even down to 2 engines, you still have 2 more. You could even lose another engine- not at all pleasant, but you would still be flying.
Fathom- you haven't thought this through. If our B-52 loses #4 (on the left wing), he is (according to your logic) 'reducing his margin'. Should he scrub the mission or carry on and ignore? Where do we cross the line from dodgy ETOPS operations to safely redundant 4 engine ops? We go from twins (land at nearest if engine out) to Trijets (think about landing soon if engine out) to 747 (carry on if engine out, but watch out for 2 eng driftdown and monitor diversion airfields).
I wonder if some of the posters on this thread are caught up in a sort of corporate arrogance? The theme seems to be "we are the biggest therefore we are the best and we have absolutely nothing to learn from anyone else". In this case the corporate arrogance goes right back to Imperial Airways. It must be strange to imagine that you are better than anyone else.
If the DC-10 was such an awful aeroplane why did BA fly them? They even borrowed DC-10s from ANZ before they had their own (for the LAX-LHR route). In fact, the BA DC-10s were still going strong long after their L-1011s were dead and buried.
If the DC-10 was such an awful aeroplane why did BA fly them? They even borrowed DC-10s from ANZ before they had their own (for the LAX-LHR route). In fact, the BA DC-10s were still going strong long after their L-1011s were dead and buried.
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
BA has never had a DC10. The LAX LHR ones were ANZ operated by BA crew the right side of LAX.
I think they didn't have enough engines for BA! (That was a facetious attempt at humour!)
It's not corporate arrogance. 2 engine ops are different to 3 engine ops as are 4 engine ops different. Perhaps we need 6 engine ops on this route to totally satisfy everybody, but then the 'anything wrong with an aeroplane should cause a diversion' brigade will still grumble.
I'm still getting my head around 300 people over the Pacific on one engine. One thing this thread has let me appreciate is that ETOPS has gone too far. How many 777s are going to take a swim in the lifetime of the aeroplane?
I think they didn't have enough engines for BA! (That was a facetious attempt at humour!)
It's not corporate arrogance. 2 engine ops are different to 3 engine ops as are 4 engine ops different. Perhaps we need 6 engine ops on this route to totally satisfy everybody, but then the 'anything wrong with an aeroplane should cause a diversion' brigade will still grumble.
I'm still getting my head around 300 people over the Pacific on one engine. One thing this thread has let me appreciate is that ETOPS has gone too far. How many 777s are going to take a swim in the lifetime of the aeroplane?
Sorry old son but you are talking rubbish. British Airways operated and owned the following DC-10-30s:
G-BEBL, G-BEBM, G-BHDH, G-BHDI, G-BHDJ, G-DCIO,
G-MULL and G-NIUK.
They came from BCAL and were operated for many years by BA.
So the history of BA is obviously not your strong suite either.
G-BEBL, G-BEBM, G-BHDH, G-BHDI, G-BHDJ, G-DCIO,
G-MULL and G-NIUK.
They came from BCAL and were operated for many years by BA.
So the history of BA is obviously not your strong suite either.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep...At the time, the BA DC10 fleet was the happiest little fleet in BA. Routes out of LGW with some decent CC and routes like Bermuda, San Juan, Miami,Dallas, Houston, New York,Atlanta, as well as the odd African excursion and places like Baku. Great little fleet and one of BA's best kept secrets. Rainboe is probably getting confused with the Caledonian operation where BA mainline pilots got seconded for a couple of yrs of shagging...oops, sorry, service.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The theme seems to be "we are the biggest therefore we are the best and we have absolutely nothing to learn from anyone else".
I can say that with a great deal of confidence that the numberof US-registered aircraft exceeds the the rest of the world put together.
As has been asked several times, and ignored by a few, would you prefer to be on a three-engined 747 or a 777 with either two or one?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I would prefer to be flying on the number of engines that the aircraft was designed to operate on for normal operations. e.g. 2 for a 777/767 4 for a 747 A340 etc etc
If an engine is shut down for good reason, I expect the crew to take account of all relevant factors. I might not expect them to land at the nearest suitable airport but I would not expect the flight to develop into a mayday situation due to shortage of fuel.
I have not and will not criticise the crew on the flight in question - I was not there so am not aware of the full circumstances. I do criticise the few who, against all reasonable argument, continue to demonstrate complete arrogance and stupidity. I cannot believe that you guys are really BA pilots. They must be ashamed of you.
By the way, flying as we know it was invented in the USA. The magnificent 747 was built in Seattle. To argue that BA (or us Brits in general) know better than anyone else is absurd and ridiculous.
If an engine is shut down for good reason, I expect the crew to take account of all relevant factors. I might not expect them to land at the nearest suitable airport but I would not expect the flight to develop into a mayday situation due to shortage of fuel.
I have not and will not criticise the crew on the flight in question - I was not there so am not aware of the full circumstances. I do criticise the few who, against all reasonable argument, continue to demonstrate complete arrogance and stupidity. I cannot believe that you guys are really BA pilots. They must be ashamed of you.
By the way, flying as we know it was invented in the USA. The magnificent 747 was built in Seattle. To argue that BA (or us Brits in general) know better than anyone else is absurd and ridiculous.
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
If an engine is shut down for good reason, I expect the crew to take account of all relevant factors
I was incorrect about BA and the DC10. I forgot several were unwillingly inherited and operated out of Gatwick. They were rapidly subbed out to charters and saw out their existences there. Experience of Trijet operations does not necessaily cross over to 4 jet ops just as twins are different again.
The very length of this debate just goes to show that there is no 'right or wrong' verdict which can be applied to this case.
Idiotic comments about 747s on 3 engines being the same as DC-10s or TriStars are spurious; at the end of the day the sole concern shown by most who do not support the ba view is that it is the overall level of risk exposure which ba is prepared to inflict on its customers which needs to be re-examined. That level is the product of degree of risk multiplied by the time during which that risk applies.
Hence people can understand a decision to cross the CONUS on 3 engines with plenty of en-route alternatives and no fuel factors to worry about. But 'halfway around the world' on 3 engines and a very tight fuel state anticipated on arrival? Many see that as just too chancy - I certainly do.
Idiotic comments about 747s on 3 engines being the same as DC-10s or TriStars are spurious; at the end of the day the sole concern shown by most who do not support the ba view is that it is the overall level of risk exposure which ba is prepared to inflict on its customers which needs to be re-examined. That level is the product of degree of risk multiplied by the time during which that risk applies.
Hence people can understand a decision to cross the CONUS on 3 engines with plenty of en-route alternatives and no fuel factors to worry about. But 'halfway around the world' on 3 engines and a very tight fuel state anticipated on arrival? Many see that as just too chancy - I certainly do.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>at the end of the day the sole concern shown by most who do not support the ba view is that it is the overall level of risk exposure which ba is prepared to inflict on its customers which needs to be re-examined<<
BEagle,
As a BA 747 Captain, I still am not sure what you and others understand the risk exposure of a 747 crossing the Atlantic to be. I have seen many 'human' comments, ie a general feeling of concern, but no objective reasons why we shouldn't. What exactly do YOU see the risk exposure to be? A further engine failure? A systems failure? Lack of fuel?
I understand the 'human' aspect, and I understand the PR aspect to BA, but I still don't exactly understand what you and others perceive the RISK to be.
BEagle,
As a BA 747 Captain, I still am not sure what you and others understand the risk exposure of a 747 crossing the Atlantic to be. I have seen many 'human' comments, ie a general feeling of concern, but no objective reasons why we shouldn't. What exactly do YOU see the risk exposure to be? A further engine failure? A systems failure? Lack of fuel?
I understand the 'human' aspect, and I understand the PR aspect to BA, but I still don't exactly understand what you and others perceive the RISK to be.
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 is little difference between a 747 on 3 engines and a Trijet. I would equate it to a slightly underpowered Tristar trying to stretch itself to do the route. What is the difference?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the 'human' aspect, and I understand the PR aspect to BA, but I still don't exactly understand what you and others perceive the RISK to be.
Wasn't there a famous case where a crew spent so much time trying to resolve an UC problem they few into terrain?