BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
DOVES,
Where did you get the idea that 2 ton of fuel was "trapped"?
Slow to transfer, maybe. But not necessarily trapped and unusable.
The flt crew, perhaps, took the most prudent option and made the worst case assumption that it was unusable and declared a mayday. Makes sense, yes?
Rainboe and co have been trying to explain in considerable detail to all and sundry why the events of BA268 were handled correctly and within SOPs.
Methinks this is all a bit of a wind-up now.
Rainboe, let it lie they will never understand and your keyboard must be knackered by now.
And as a matter of fact the final bell rang after they declared May Day to Manchester:
2000 of 5000 Kg of fuel ramained trapped on tank number 2,
reducing the endurance to less than 30 minutes.
2000 of 5000 Kg of fuel ramained trapped on tank number 2,
reducing the endurance to less than 30 minutes.
Slow to transfer, maybe. But not necessarily trapped and unusable.
The flt crew, perhaps, took the most prudent option and made the worst case assumption that it was unusable and declared a mayday. Makes sense, yes?
Rainboe and co have been trying to explain in considerable detail to all and sundry why the events of BA268 were handled correctly and within SOPs.
Methinks this is all a bit of a wind-up now.
Rainboe, let it lie they will never understand and your keyboard must be knackered by now.
But flying a quad with one engine out doesn't make it any more likely that you're going to have a fire on board, does it?
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky Wave
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But flying a quad with one engine out doesn't make it any more likely that you're going to have a fire on board, does it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must be less likely. You have one less engine to blow up!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shouldn't be so sure on that:
1) Did they pull the Engine Fire Warning Switch? So were fuel, Hydraulic, Air, Electrical still flowing to that powerplant?
I guess they didn't, just because they had decided that it was not "Severe Eng Damage"
2) Was, during and after hours and hours, the oil still lubricating enough that engine turning for windmilling?
Think it over... Think it over!
And what about those idiots that go to the toilet to smoke: did those 300 souls and more refrain from smoking such a long time and in such a freightening situation?
I am still waiting for any AUTHORITY to tell me:
- Diagnosis
- Well/Wrong Done
- Causes/concauses
- Recommendations
Fly Safe
DOVES
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But flying a quad with one engine out doesn't make it any more likely that you're going to have a fire on board, does it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must be less likely. You have one less engine to blow up!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shouldn't be so sure on that:
1) Did they pull the Engine Fire Warning Switch? So were fuel, Hydraulic, Air, Electrical still flowing to that powerplant?
I guess they didn't, just because they had decided that it was not "Severe Eng Damage"
2) Was, during and after hours and hours, the oil still lubricating enough that engine turning for windmilling?
Think it over... Think it over!
And what about those idiots that go to the toilet to smoke: did those 300 souls and more refrain from smoking such a long time and in such a freightening situation?
I am still waiting for any AUTHORITY to tell me:
- Diagnosis
- Well/Wrong Done
- Causes/concauses
- Recommendations
Fly Safe
DOVES
Last edited by DOVES; 19th Mar 2005 at 09:15.
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
Turin is right, we are going around and around the same points and it is time to leave it with a parting shot at DOVES! They did a Precautionary engine shutdown- are you saying that is not enough? The Rolls doesn't have any problem with windmilling for ages. They even leave them windmilling when parked overnight- it causes no problem.
If you are now going to raise dangers of fire from smoking in the toilets, fuel temperature low, one pack tripping off (well- there are 3 to start with), what has that got to do with it? Maybe we shouldn't fly aeroplanes on long range flights at all? Why are you so nervous? This is what you are expected to handle if you fly these routes!
Please answer my question- what is your opinion of B777 being accepted for ETOPS when they may have to fly for 3+ hours over the Pacific on one engine? I keep asking, but nobody who is so critical of BA over this will say how happy they are with that ETOPs operation over the Pacific! Why will nobody answer?
If you are now going to raise dangers of fire from smoking in the toilets, fuel temperature low, one pack tripping off (well- there are 3 to start with), what has that got to do with it? Maybe we shouldn't fly aeroplanes on long range flights at all? Why are you so nervous? This is what you are expected to handle if you fly these routes!
Please answer my question- what is your opinion of B777 being accepted for ETOPS when they may have to fly for 3+ hours over the Pacific on one engine? I keep asking, but nobody who is so critical of BA over this will say how happy they are with that ETOPs operation over the Pacific! Why will nobody answer?
1) Did they pull the fire shutoff handle? So were fuel, Hydraulic, Air, Electrical still flowing to that powerplant?
2) Was, during and after hours and hours, the oil still lubricating enough that engine turning for windmilling?
2) Was, during and after hours and hours, the oil still lubricating enough that engine turning for windmilling?
Whilst I agree you do have electric and hydraulic services in the engine I am suggesting that there is much less risk of them catching fire when they're not working and just sitting there in the -56 degree airflow. (please don't bother posting to tell me that the airflow will be warmer due to friction)
Sky Wave
Not quite right - If the decision was made to shut the engine down prior to the Flaps being up ( for whatever reason, damage suspected or not) then the crew should have used the "Fire Engine, Severe Damage or Separation Checklist", which does indeed included the item "Engine Fire Switch....Pull".
Not quite right - If the decision was made to shut the engine down prior to the Flaps being up ( for whatever reason, damage suspected or not) then the crew should have used the "Fire Engine, Severe Damage or Separation Checklist", which does indeed included the item "Engine Fire Switch....Pull".
.... - If the decision was made to shut the engine down prior to the Flaps being up ( for whatever reason, damage suspected or not) then the crew should have used the "Fire Engine, Severe Damage or Separation Checklist", which does indeed included the item "Engine Fire Switch....Pull".
I've seen the results of this first hand in the simulator. In fact the recommendation is to take your time even when the fire bell has been illumunated seeing as there have been extremely few if any engine fire bell warning that having been delayed have ever resulted in the loss of a big jet. twin, tri or quad.
The aircraft has redundancy (multiple extinguishers in the pylon as well as fire shielding to give you at least 5 minutes to collect your thoughts.
I now note that the arguments pro and con for BA are winding down to a few final contestents and the what-ifs are still with us. I will welcome the silence unless new facts are revealed.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny, are you with me?
Please,help us. 
Regards
Well well well.........
2 days later the show is still going on. How about all "true" pilots keeping their mouth shut? Could the drivel die without fuel?
Regards
2 days later the show is still going on. How about all "true" pilots keeping their mouth shut? Could the drivel die without fuel?
Regards
Regards
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prudence
OK, having been thoroughly smacked upside my head by Nigel on Draft, I must beg to differ.
I still can't see the logic of continuing on to the initial intended destination 10+ hours away when losing an engine immediately after takeoff.
Athough the 747 is certified to fly on 3, that number is for either ferry or survival purposes. To lose one right after liftoff opens a can of worms that we are experiencing here right now.
What IS the right decision?
Well, from my comfy chair in front of my super PC, the decision is easy. Land now and sort it out. Obviously, the crew, having left the ground had other ideas.
I am of the opinion that the ground staff screwed the pooch when they elected to go along and in fact, assist the crew in their idea to continue.
Before you all start screaming at me, think about it for a minute. There was no plan to leave LA for London on three engines. What happened was in fact a flight from LA to London on three engines. The failure scenarios depicted on all the checklists are for engine failures that happen when you are going somewhere from altitude. Not from takeoff. Maybe I'm wrong there, but I don't think the slide rule guys figured that someone would lose an engine, climb out and continue to their planned long range destination.
Considering the outcome, the decision to continue the flight and overfly suitable airports where repairs could be made is telling. There is also the idea that the aircraft left a station where repairs could not be made.
Los Angeles, an airport located in the United States happens to have at its disposal numerous maintenance facilities and in fact, happens to have on the property Engineers in the employ of.. British Airways.
I read a post earlier that had me rolling: "Suffice to say that this crew, and all the other professionals involved (engineers, ATCOs etc), did an excellent job in getting their customers to within 200 miles of their destination in a safe and professional manner."
Hardy har ha! That's our new goal. We don't need to get them where they're going! Within 200 miles is fine!
Oh please.
Now I see a post from a 747-400 Flight Engineer/Engineer who believes the crew did everything right.
Who wants to tell the guy there are only two seats in the -400 cockpit? OK, not counting the jumpseat.
Whoops! I guess I just did.
Anyhoo, everyone lived, the only thing injured was maybe somebodies pride, so overall, no foul. But I have to ask, why would anyone lose an engine on takeoff and consider flying the rest of the day?
And stop comparing the 747 to ETOPS! Different kettle of fish entirely!
PB
I still can't see the logic of continuing on to the initial intended destination 10+ hours away when losing an engine immediately after takeoff.
Athough the 747 is certified to fly on 3, that number is for either ferry or survival purposes. To lose one right after liftoff opens a can of worms that we are experiencing here right now.
What IS the right decision?
Well, from my comfy chair in front of my super PC, the decision is easy. Land now and sort it out. Obviously, the crew, having left the ground had other ideas.
I am of the opinion that the ground staff screwed the pooch when they elected to go along and in fact, assist the crew in their idea to continue.
Before you all start screaming at me, think about it for a minute. There was no plan to leave LA for London on three engines. What happened was in fact a flight from LA to London on three engines. The failure scenarios depicted on all the checklists are for engine failures that happen when you are going somewhere from altitude. Not from takeoff. Maybe I'm wrong there, but I don't think the slide rule guys figured that someone would lose an engine, climb out and continue to their planned long range destination.
Considering the outcome, the decision to continue the flight and overfly suitable airports where repairs could be made is telling. There is also the idea that the aircraft left a station where repairs could not be made.
Los Angeles, an airport located in the United States happens to have at its disposal numerous maintenance facilities and in fact, happens to have on the property Engineers in the employ of.. British Airways.
I read a post earlier that had me rolling: "Suffice to say that this crew, and all the other professionals involved (engineers, ATCOs etc), did an excellent job in getting their customers to within 200 miles of their destination in a safe and professional manner."
Hardy har ha! That's our new goal. We don't need to get them where they're going! Within 200 miles is fine!
Oh please.
Now I see a post from a 747-400 Flight Engineer/Engineer who believes the crew did everything right.
Who wants to tell the guy there are only two seats in the -400 cockpit? OK, not counting the jumpseat.
Whoops! I guess I just did.
Anyhoo, everyone lived, the only thing injured was maybe somebodies pride, so overall, no foul. But I have to ask, why would anyone lose an engine on takeoff and consider flying the rest of the day?
And stop comparing the 747 to ETOPS! Different kettle of fish entirely!
PB
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hardy har ha! That's our new goal. We don't need to get them where they're going! Within 200 miles is fine!
Where would I rather be Machester or LAX????
So sir, you are talking out of your a**.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Various
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the consequence of running an open forum is that every idiot on the planet gets to tell those with expertise that they are wrong? Is it not something we must endure by virtue of having an open site? So it is up to us to let the nonsense die by not coming back.
That being said, I do keep coming back, for some of the nonsense spoken here is truly amazing - even entertaining. We have the full spectrum of human reasoning(!!) and some idiotic nonsense is spouted.
What is telling is the general lack of respect for those who do the job and fly the aircraft in question - very little polite questioning (and thus learning) that might indicate something other than a desire to leap to a conclusion and preach to all about the maddness of those involved.
I can take that from the "civvies" but to see some pilots engage in this game is mighty depressing. Their competence might sometimes strike one as being the issue!
But there is some good training material on this thread. For example, take the post just two above, by Plastic Bug, give it to your trainees and ask them to identify the assumptions, biases and points of ignorance it contains. Would make for an interesting discussion to tease out each step of the argument he presents.
That being said, I do keep coming back, for some of the nonsense spoken here is truly amazing - even entertaining. We have the full spectrum of human reasoning(!!) and some idiotic nonsense is spouted.
What is telling is the general lack of respect for those who do the job and fly the aircraft in question - very little polite questioning (and thus learning) that might indicate something other than a desire to leap to a conclusion and preach to all about the maddness of those involved.
I can take that from the "civvies" but to see some pilots engage in this game is mighty depressing. Their competence might sometimes strike one as being the issue!
But there is some good training material on this thread. For example, take the post just two above, by Plastic Bug, give it to your trainees and ask them to identify the assumptions, biases and points of ignorance it contains. Would make for an interesting discussion to tease out each step of the argument he presents.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Plastic Bug: I read a post earlier that had me rolling: "Suffice to say that this crew, and all the other professionals involved (engineers, ATCOs etc), did an excellent job in getting their customers to within 200 miles of their destination in a safe and professional manner."
Hardy har ha! That's our new goal. We don't need to get them where they're going! Within 200 miles is fine!
Hardy har ha! That's our new goal. We don't need to get them where they're going! Within 200 miles is fine!
But I ask myself, what if the crew had known immediately that there wasn't enough fuel to reach London, but there was to reach MAN or GLA or wherever? What would I have preferred.
Given the choice between piddling about near LAX for an hour or two to dump fuel and then return to LAX for goodness only knows what length of delay, or a safe continuation, even if it was already known that it would only be as far as MAN, GLA or somewhere else in the British Isles, I'll go for the continuation every time, thank you.
I have a life to lead, and if continuing the flight is safe, I would like to get the flight done and dusted so that I get on with the rest of the things I have to do, thank you. It's easier to get home by alternative means from MAN or GLA than from LAX.
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
Plastic Bug- I wasn't going to involve myself anymore, but the ignorance of your posting is breathtaking! How can you be so arrogant as to know nothing about the industry yet be so criticalof experienced peoples inputs? What has the number of seats on a 747 flight deck (4 not 3) got to do with it? Who's pride got 'injured'? Yours for making such an utterly daft posting? You have said nothing new- in fact I don't think you've even read the preceeding 40 pages. Why not zip it and let the CAA decide what is right?
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Rainboe: Why not zip it and let the CAA decide what is right?
As someone else has pointed out, that's the reality of the Internet.
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
Yes, you're absolutely right. But it is fascinating isn't it that not one person who seems to be critical of this decision to continue on 3 engines following an engine failure has dared take on my repeated question, which for their benefit I will now repeat yet again!
What is our opinion of ETOPS regulations that allow an airline like United to operate with 300 people on board for 3+ hours ON ONE ENGINE at max continuous power over the Pacific wastes to nearest diversion?
Instead we have every opinion from people who know very little criticising a crew for flying on 3 engines!
What on earth is the problem here?
What is our opinion of ETOPS regulations that allow an airline like United to operate with 300 people on board for 3+ hours ON ONE ENGINE at max continuous power over the Pacific wastes to nearest diversion?
Instead we have every opinion from people who know very little criticising a crew for flying on 3 engines!
What on earth is the problem here?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Look, the crew, and ulitimately the PIC, made their call and continued.
For the whole flight they had multiple other safe options available. So maybe they weren't smart, or maybe the dispatchers weren't on their game...but the bottom line is they were never in a position where the passengers were at risk.
Forgetting a few idiocies, the bulk of the posts here would be good reading for a LOFT style CRM program....we could all be caught like this one day.
What if this was a 777 with a dodgy surging engine 2 hours out from Cold Bay or King Salmon (WX on minimums and totally unfamiliar), but 3 hours from Anchorage where all is OK? Tough call...I know what I'd do and I'd trust that Boeing and GE/Pratts/RR would get me there. And I'd be right if it all worked and wrong if it didn't. That's what happens when you put on those shiny new 4 gold bars.
For the whole flight they had multiple other safe options available. So maybe they weren't smart, or maybe the dispatchers weren't on their game...but the bottom line is they were never in a position where the passengers were at risk.
Forgetting a few idiocies, the bulk of the posts here would be good reading for a LOFT style CRM program....we could all be caught like this one day.
What if this was a 777 with a dodgy surging engine 2 hours out from Cold Bay or King Salmon (WX on minimums and totally unfamiliar), but 3 hours from Anchorage where all is OK? Tough call...I know what I'd do and I'd trust that Boeing and GE/Pratts/RR would get me there. And I'd be right if it all worked and wrong if it didn't. That's what happens when you put on those shiny new 4 gold bars.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny, are you with me?...
...Please,help us.
...Please,help us.
All I can say is that the B744 is a wonderful machine and has so much more redundancy built in than anything else I've ever flown. Still, what do I know? I don't start line training until next month!
Perhpas I'll close this one until I get out of the sim tomorrow. By then I'll have experienced double engine failures!
Está servira para distraerle.
ETOPS and Twin Jets over The Pacific
This thread is in response to a 'challenge' posed by Rainboe in the Manchester/747 thread. I hope that he will excuse me for, as it were, jumping on his bandwagon. I have never flown large twin jets and now, almost certainly never will. But, speaking as both a Pilot and a frequent passenger; I would be jolly frightened at the prospect of three hours on one at MCT over The Pacific waterland. So, while I do not personally think that there is any direct connective parallel between a four engined jet on three over The Atlantic and a twin jet on one over The Pacific; wild horses would not get me, as crew or me and my family on a 777 ex LAX for SYD. This, in spite of the fact that I consider it to be one of the finest aircraft ever constructed.
Where in this lies the correlation between ETOPS, common sense and commercialism-or anything else that springs to mind ?
That'll do for now. Standing by, with great interest, to receive boarders!
Very.