BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)

[catchup]

Now it's getting strange.

Regards

[28L]

>>It would be interesting to know how many accidents are caused by mistakes made when distracted by a seemingly minor problem<<

So do you want us to land ASAP for all "seemingly minor" problems? I think that's unrealistic.

[barit1]

Wasn't there a famous case where a crew spent so much time trying to resolve an UC problem they few into terrain?

N310EA

The captain forgot to fly the airplane.

So do you want us to land ASAP for all "seemingly minor" problems?

Certainly NOT if the "seemingly minor" problem is UC

[HOVIS]

As a long time BA Licensed Engineer, now with one of their subsiduries, can I just say that there is an awful lot of utter drivel on these thirty-odd pages!

The FACTS of this case have NOT been fully discussed here.

That is because the AAIB/CAA/NTSB etc like to keep them to themselves so that a judgement can be made without emotion and based on detailed analysis of FACTS and accurate testimony.

I do know several of the BA Engineers who were involved in this "post flight". Assesing the aircraft systems and preparing a three engine ferry.

Those same engineers were also involved with a certain eastern carrier who recently had to cope with a three day AAIB investigation at MAN after an undercarriage fire and full evacuation!
RESULT? the AAIB told all in no uncertain terms to keep their mouths shut or find a good solicitor.

The point I am trying to make is that second guessing any investigation is always going to be just that-a guess.

Let the AAIB do their job.

Some of you so-called professional pilots are just making yourselves look very,very silly.

No one was hurt here (unless you count the tech who walloped his knee when he slipped up in the 'c' duct during the three engine prep) let's keep it real eh?

[woodpecker]

mmmm.

Remind me to do a search of each thread and ignore any references to "Mayday" and not make comments regarding the facts.

Utter drivel?

very,very silly?

let's keep it real eh?


I think not!

PS

Can I have my pen back? I left it in the Capts pen holder on "Papa Alpha" ex the Irish-Backup (the one that went before the front line service) from LHR back in '82!

[MarkD]

Hovis

You're right.

If only the FAA "source" running off to the papers had the same respect for AAIB as you do.

[lomapaseo]

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.

....... 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.

......

Exactly. In order to assess this dispassionately one needs to understand that no 2 flights operate with the same level of risk. The risk is made up of known problems which have known statistical probabilities, which have not been totally eliminated but are being managed (engine reliability and/or blown out windshields as divergent examples of numerous others). In addition there are known risks associated with air-turn-Backs, heavy landings, diversions etc. by placing the crew into higher than normal workload for a flight. Then there is the biggie, which is latent but unknown risk like the fuse pins in the engine mounts were before they were identified and managed.

The regulatory agencies are aware of the relative contribution of these risks and do permit time limited exceedences of identified risks based on their expected overall contributions to the historical total risk. Each of these identified risks are accepted on a day-to-day basis on the presumption that they will be managed over a time period so as not to seriously degrade over affect overall risk.

Thus you have required inspections retrofits and managed operations

The issue, as I see it, is how pervasive or widespread is the continuation of flight with and engine shutdown and what level of increased risk is abosrbed, if any, compared to Air-turn-back, fuel dumps, diversions etc. if an alternate course of action is chose.

If this level of risk is so small that it does not appreciably contribute to the overal avergage level per flight and that if its pervasiveness is so unlikely that it doesn not occur on a daily basis to the extent that increases overall fleetwide risk to the product, and if it is not prohibitied by the FAR/JARS, then it is acceptable

Of course there will be some squirming to be done in order for BA to answer those ifs

[ManagedNav]

Can any of our 744 pilots tell me if this flight were to lose a second engine at any point along the route flown over the Atlantic, that there would be no risk of running out of fuel before making it to an alternate? Would this have been considered?

I know everyone contends that it is considered very unlikely for this to occur; all I want to know is if it did happen at any point along the track was there an alternate within range should it happen? Without knowing the intended route, weight, or performance wrt fuel flow and achievable flight level on two engines, I was curious.....was there any segment of the flight plan that could have been unprotected should a second failure have occurred?

[barit1]

Well duh

Running out of fuel on three crossing the pond?

Worst case might be if your destination were way East like Moscow or Cairo - after you've overflown dozens of alternates.

More specifics, please.

[ManagedNav]

Read again...

Running out of fuel on 2, two, dos....

Was it determined or could it be inferred that if they had lost another engine at any, I repeat, any point along the route while feet-wet, that they could still be assured of a safe landing?

[Rainboe]

Yes. If you are operating on 3, you plan for a 2 engined operation. It's normal to come back across the Atlantic from LAX more southerly than the route out to catch the jetstreams from Newfoundland eastwards. At the worst place to lose a second engine, you would have around you Gander, Sondrestrom (not nice, but useable), Keflavik, Prestwick, Dublin and Shannon. In addition there are some emergency airfields that may be available, Macrihanish (western Scotland), Knock (Ireland). The crew would have ensured they could have landed the aeroplane on a second engine failure at any time. Then, being on a 747, you could even lose a third engine! I'm not saying it flippantly- it wouldn't be at all pretty, but you would still be flying and still be alive- this is the difference from Trijet ops.

Now compare that to losing one engine over the Pacific and being straight away down to one for over 3 hours! Not at all healthy, is it?

[cwatters]

So do you want us to land ASAP for all "seemingly minor" problems?

No but an unexplained engine failure doesn't count as minor in my book.

[Rainboe]

When a surge is a well known quantity, has not been known to cause any ongoing problems, and the engine is happily windmilling away, then it is a minor problem.
What is your 'book'? What makes you, an electronics engineer, experienced in model electric flight, a better expert to decide than the well experienced crew? You've flown a few twin engined models and assessed the performance degradation on one engine?

[hobie]

I sure hope some of the more "Agressive" posters are not taking this thread with them onto the flight deck (metaphorically speaking) .....

[Slickster]

I am a 747 pilot with BA, and am amazed that this thread has gone on so long, and at some of the pompous posts. Just to clarify:a) I don't think that I am the greatest because I fly for BA, b) I can't comment on their procedures compared to any others, because I haven't used any others. The CAA seem happy enough with BA's Flight Contiuation Policy, else it wouldn't be allowed.

I can say that I've had an engine failure (over Riga, on the way to Hong Kong), and that all 4 flight crew were happy to continue. It is in essence, just a case of monitoring weathers more closely, monitoring the drift down over high terrain (not a problem for us), and therefore always making sure you have the option to land somewhere if the unthinkable happens and you lose another engine. If that happens it just ain't your day, but the 747 flies on 2 happily enough, although it's a bit of a handful if they're both on the same side. We landed without incident, a little late, in Hong Kong.I'm not sure the passengers ever even knew.

So why all the fuss over this LA flight? Granted an unforseen problem occured very late in the flight, and to be extra safe the dreaded mayday word was used, and the aeroplane landed safely. I say again, why all the fuss?

[Rainboe]

The problem here, and I think this is why it is a waste of time, is there are either totally inexperienced people who know nothing of the business, or people with limited aviation experience or experience in different areas, suddenly feeling they can make public pronouncements of their verdicts of the actions of the crews who have been working in 4 engine long range operations almost all their working lives. In effect, Pprune Rumours & News now seems to be a 'Court Martial Forum' where you will be judged not by your betters, but by people who know little or nothing, firing shoot from the hip judgements and verdicts. Their motives seem to be based on either a dislike of the airline in question, or the fact there was no diet soda when they took their particular flight with that airline.

I have to say I have been trying my best to explain concisely the issues involved, and it has been an utter waste of time. People don't read or understand the explanations, nor try to. The responses raised seem to be teasing, abuse or jingoistic nonsense. I've tried to explain the same things again and again to people who won't try and see, but still fire daft comments or inappropriate experience- the latest being an electronic engineer who 'has had some experience with electric powered models'! What on earth gives such people the right to pontificate on matters far over their heads I cannot imagine! It's a total waste of time- most of the pages of this thread are duplicated by people who can't be bothered to read it, but want to stick their inexperienced oar in anyway! I give up!

[Globaliser]

Rainboe: The problem here, and I think this is why it is a waste of time, is there are either totally inexperienced people who know nothing of the business, or people with limited aviation experience or experience in different areas, suddenly feeling they can make public pronouncements of their verdicts of the actions of the crews who have been working in 4 engine long range operations almost all their working lives.
...
I have to say I have been trying my best to explain concisely the issues involved, and it has been an utter waste of time. People don't read or understand the explanations, nor try to. ... It's a total waste of time- most of the pages of this thread are duplicated by people who can't be bothered to read it, but want to stick their inexperienced oar in anyway! I give up!

There is always the saying about the number one rule of Internet bulletin boards: Never participate in the expectation that you will change anyone's mind.

But seriously, I don't think that the input from you or from the other 744 drivers on this thread has been a waste of time. For every difficult person who has piled in, refusing to listen to the people with experience and weighing in with their "highly relevant" experiences of flying twins or trijets, there may have been one or two or more of readers like me who:-

1. Know virtually nothing ourselves about the business of flying jet airliners;
2. Appreciate that not everyone on the Internet will be who they claim to be;
3. Nevertheless see a consistent trend of posts from people who are (or at least claim to be) 744 drivers who have calmly explained why there was nothing wrong with the continuation of the flight, and why the low fuel state when the aircraft was nearer MAN can't be used to impugn the earlier decision;
4. Have been persuaded that this is correct, even though we do not have the knowledge or experience to positively pitch in and say we agree.

To you and your 744 brethren, thank you for the time you have spent explaining the realities and trying to refute the hysteria.

[Rainboe]

Thank you. That is common sense. It is frustrating to me that so many people feel they have to deliver a verdict on the actions of a flight crew on the sparcest of information. I am happy to await the deliberations of the CAA and AAIB which will be used as a basis for future reaction by the industry. The shoot from the hip mouthing off delivered by the FAA is plain incompetent and ill considered, but then they want all the world to play by twin engined rules for obvious reasons.

[Capt Fathom]

I give up!

Rainboe ... you promised!

[Anti-ice]

Perhaps 'all the fuss' is about the fact that deep down, probably most of the passengers onboard were stressed by the situation/possibility of something else developing, and for safetys sake would rather have diverted , and flown on a fully fit aircraft.

Yes,the dreaded mayday word was used, and despite their skill in making the crossing and landing safely in Manchester, a larger margin for error being allowed in the process.

Now BA pride themselves on 'safety being our main priority', but perhaps these 'untrained' passengers rightly felt that they may have been put in danger and that the 'safety priority' was being conveniently sidelined.

It's a hell of a big plane, and an engine out landing is only practised in a simulator - lifelike as it is, nothing beats the real thing... supposing their approach had 'become unstable' in their new found first 'real' experience of this situation, or the weather at Manchester had suddenly closed in - as it was doing over those few wintery days ?

People don't deny your skill or interpretation of an emergency situation, just the fact that things may have 'sailed a bit to close to the wind for comfort' ....

If the engine had failed on pushback 15 mins earlier, they woudln't have continued the flight... so would it not have been prudent to divert to somewhere else heading East rather than make an ocean crossing ending with an emergency diversion ?