BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spare (dead) engine carriage
There's an interesting (if imperfect) parallel here. In the case of many jetliners (DC-10, L-1011, 747 to cite examples I'm aware of) there's and option to "fourth pod" or "fifth pod" a spare, inoperative, not-even-hooked-up engine on a special pod in close to the wing root. It adds weight, and parasitic drag of course, and special performance tables must be used, but it's a fully certified configuration. If passengers load through a jetway they're probably completely unaware of the "extra" engine.
That said, there's a loose analogy to a 747 in cruise on three, compared to a trijet carrying an external spare.
Except the 747 has more redundancy.
That said, there's a loose analogy to a 747 in cruise on three, compared to a trijet carrying an external spare.
Except the 747 has more redundancy.
Está servira para distraerle.
The man who wrote the book: 'Handling the Big Jets'. Compulsory reading for all you poor guys going for interviews with BA et al::::Davis? Davies? What hydraulic redundancies.
What a machine, I only flew the 400 for a few hours in the SAA simulator.
I know full well where I would rather be. A 747 on three or an Airbus on eight or whatever else the silly Europeans think is necessary to propel another ghost ship through the skies.?
Rainboe, this for you: Have you any thoughts on The Helderberg, the SAA 747 SP that went down in, I think, 1975. I only ask because, like me, you have an opinion on most things and I would, in all politeness, like to have the benefit of your exponential expertise on this matter. Regards. cc
Upon reflection, I suppose that my idea merits (?) another header.
"It really was a very untraumatic experience......"
Clearly not so for many of the passengers who were obviously concerned about being flown half-way around the world on 3 engines after a somewhat dramatic event at 100 ft.
Puff up your wonderful ba SOPs all you like, rainboe, but the fact is that this flight pushed things too far in the eyes of many contributors to this thread.
Just because it can doesn't mean it should.......
Clearly not so for many of the passengers who were obviously concerned about being flown half-way around the world on 3 engines after a somewhat dramatic event at 100 ft.
Puff up your wonderful ba SOPs all you like, rainboe, but the fact is that this flight pushed things too far in the eyes of many contributors to this thread.
Just because it can doesn't mean it should.......
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well............
Rainboe said some things that I would like to highlight for further questions. This is not meant as a diatribe nor in a nasty manner. There is no malice intended. Rainboe just said some things that I would like to clarify, or have clarified. Think of this as a discussion in the Pub over a fine pint (or three)......
"I have to agree, it was not 'clever or smart', it was sensible, even you admit it was safe, it was following standard procedures, it was done with the agreement and assistance of main base who would have inspected the parameters of the engine."
What standard procedures? And just when did it become totally acceptable to abdicate the Captains authority to someone on the ground?
"Just a reminder. The engine was an inboard, therefore reduced trim requirement (and minimal trim drag). The aeroplane effectively became a Trijet. It then had 3 alternators instead of 4."
Aside from the understatement that the airplane became a "TriJet", there are no "alternators" on modern jets. Electrical power is supplied by generators that provide 3 phase power. If you think the inboard failure was minimal, take a look at the numbers for a fifth pod flight. You now have ten thousand pounds of freight hanging off the left wing.
"I would be amazed if a visual inspection was not carried out by the pilots (as long as it wasn't dark)."
Full daylight, how does one inspect the bottom of the wings, the undercarriage, the horizontal stabilizer from the cabin?
"In short- once established there appeared to be no extraneous problem......there was no problem."
Aside from the non-operating engine.............
"There has been criticism of the motivation of the pilots actions. I can tell you that the recent changes to delay compensation would have had zero influence on a pilot. They don't apply to delays of this sort. What those pilots were considering was where the pax wanted to go, where the spares were located, how best to get the aeroplane fixed earliest, but all these would be after considering the number 1 issue- what was safety!"
Here is the slippery slope. Delays of this sort? What delay? An engine was lost at 100 feet after takeoff.
"The safest option is not necessarily to go back, over weight for an extended fuel dumping into LAX where spares would not be available,"
You do not know that spares would not be available.
"nor to JFK- way off route home, tight for space and limited engineering,"
May be tight, but you insult the Enginering staff.
"not anywhere else in N America where the crew would be out of hours and 300 people trying to get hotel rooms in Winnipeg. Those pilots have their own skins to worry about too,mortgages to pay and kids to bring up."
That slippery slope again, the money thing.
"They almost got them to their desired destination- they got them to within coach distance."
They ALMOST got them to their destination.
"They followed procedure and didn't hazard anyone- admitted by many 747 pilots although they might have said their water would suggest they should go back."
I'll ask again...What procedure?
"Hence the frustration at some of the insulting comments and abuse thrown at my colleagues- it seems to be getting too common for laymen here not just to question, but to make their own critical comments coupled with abusive namecalling about things they don't understand."
Well, I'll be the first one to say everyone CHILL OUT!
Already gotten my dumb head taken off by N.O.D and now Rainboe, but hey, this is supposed to be a learning experience. BTW Rainboe, I mentioned the number of seats thing because the person who posted immediately prior to me claimed to be a FE "in type", ie, 747-400.
You know what I'm talking about, right?
I never said the flight was unsafe. Nope. I ALLUDED that it was not PRUDENT.
As has been stated previously, just because you CAN do a thing does not necessarily mean that you SHOULD do a thing.
I'm gonna raise the one thing about this whole deal that bugs me again. There was never a PLAN to fly LAX-LHR on three. Losing the engine immediately after takeoff created that scenario. Reconfiguring the plan on the fly like that brings to mind the Happag-LLoyd flight that went gear down and wound up short of the runway.
So that's my e-pinion. Take it or leave it. Ya leave the ground, you fly the plane. Key words: Fly the plane!
PB
"I have to agree, it was not 'clever or smart', it was sensible, even you admit it was safe, it was following standard procedures, it was done with the agreement and assistance of main base who would have inspected the parameters of the engine."
What standard procedures? And just when did it become totally acceptable to abdicate the Captains authority to someone on the ground?
"Just a reminder. The engine was an inboard, therefore reduced trim requirement (and minimal trim drag). The aeroplane effectively became a Trijet. It then had 3 alternators instead of 4."
Aside from the understatement that the airplane became a "TriJet", there are no "alternators" on modern jets. Electrical power is supplied by generators that provide 3 phase power. If you think the inboard failure was minimal, take a look at the numbers for a fifth pod flight. You now have ten thousand pounds of freight hanging off the left wing.
"I would be amazed if a visual inspection was not carried out by the pilots (as long as it wasn't dark)."
Full daylight, how does one inspect the bottom of the wings, the undercarriage, the horizontal stabilizer from the cabin?
"In short- once established there appeared to be no extraneous problem......there was no problem."
Aside from the non-operating engine.............
"There has been criticism of the motivation of the pilots actions. I can tell you that the recent changes to delay compensation would have had zero influence on a pilot. They don't apply to delays of this sort. What those pilots were considering was where the pax wanted to go, where the spares were located, how best to get the aeroplane fixed earliest, but all these would be after considering the number 1 issue- what was safety!"
Here is the slippery slope. Delays of this sort? What delay? An engine was lost at 100 feet after takeoff.
"The safest option is not necessarily to go back, over weight for an extended fuel dumping into LAX where spares would not be available,"
You do not know that spares would not be available.
"nor to JFK- way off route home, tight for space and limited engineering,"
May be tight, but you insult the Enginering staff.
"not anywhere else in N America where the crew would be out of hours and 300 people trying to get hotel rooms in Winnipeg. Those pilots have their own skins to worry about too,mortgages to pay and kids to bring up."
That slippery slope again, the money thing.
"They almost got them to their desired destination- they got them to within coach distance."
They ALMOST got them to their destination.
"They followed procedure and didn't hazard anyone- admitted by many 747 pilots although they might have said their water would suggest they should go back."
I'll ask again...What procedure?
"Hence the frustration at some of the insulting comments and abuse thrown at my colleagues- it seems to be getting too common for laymen here not just to question, but to make their own critical comments coupled with abusive namecalling about things they don't understand."
Well, I'll be the first one to say everyone CHILL OUT!
Already gotten my dumb head taken off by N.O.D and now Rainboe, but hey, this is supposed to be a learning experience. BTW Rainboe, I mentioned the number of seats thing because the person who posted immediately prior to me claimed to be a FE "in type", ie, 747-400.
You know what I'm talking about, right?
I never said the flight was unsafe. Nope. I ALLUDED that it was not PRUDENT.
As has been stated previously, just because you CAN do a thing does not necessarily mean that you SHOULD do a thing.
I'm gonna raise the one thing about this whole deal that bugs me again. There was never a PLAN to fly LAX-LHR on three. Losing the engine immediately after takeoff created that scenario. Reconfiguring the plan on the fly like that brings to mind the Happag-LLoyd flight that went gear down and wound up short of the runway.
So that's my e-pinion. Take it or leave it. Ya leave the ground, you fly the plane. Key words: Fly the plane!
PB
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, I admit.
But one of the things that leaps ouit from this thread is quite a lot of folks seem to have a 'binary' view about safety, namely that something is either safe or it is not.
I don't want to talk about the specifics of this case, for whilst I am a medium experienced pilot I know nothing about long range ops or the 747.
But some people seem to think that less safe = unsafe. That any reduction in safety must mean that immediately becomes unsafe.
Well, thats just simplistic. In reality 'safety' is a point somewhere between perfection (impossible) and certain failure, and it can be subjective, especially to the layperson.
Here is the bottom line - operating aircraft is about managing risks, not avoiding them. The question here is not whether safety was reduced, but whether it was reduced unduly.
I get a bit peeved when people talk about commercial considerations as though they are a dirty word. Every one wants perfect safety, but NO ONE is willing to pay for it. You've only got to look at the travelling public voting with their feet in regards to low cost operators.
Please note I am not saying I think low cost carriers are unsafe, but rather that price is the driving factor behind a very large proportion of tickets sales. It is my belief that only a small percentage of folks even consider whether a particular carrier is safe or not. Any travel agents out there care to comment? How often does a customer walk in and say "I'd like a ticket to Timbuktoo with the safest airline you do business with"
As to whether this particuar flight represented an undue reduction in safety, I'll leave the type rated L/H ops folks to pontificate.
CPB
But one of the things that leaps ouit from this thread is quite a lot of folks seem to have a 'binary' view about safety, namely that something is either safe or it is not.
I don't want to talk about the specifics of this case, for whilst I am a medium experienced pilot I know nothing about long range ops or the 747.
But some people seem to think that less safe = unsafe. That any reduction in safety must mean that immediately becomes unsafe.
Well, thats just simplistic. In reality 'safety' is a point somewhere between perfection (impossible) and certain failure, and it can be subjective, especially to the layperson.
Here is the bottom line - operating aircraft is about managing risks, not avoiding them. The question here is not whether safety was reduced, but whether it was reduced unduly.
I get a bit peeved when people talk about commercial considerations as though they are a dirty word. Every one wants perfect safety, but NO ONE is willing to pay for it. You've only got to look at the travelling public voting with their feet in regards to low cost operators.
Please note I am not saying I think low cost carriers are unsafe, but rather that price is the driving factor behind a very large proportion of tickets sales. It is my belief that only a small percentage of folks even consider whether a particular carrier is safe or not. Any travel agents out there care to comment? How often does a customer walk in and say "I'd like a ticket to Timbuktoo with the safest airline you do business with"
As to whether this particuar flight represented an undue reduction in safety, I'll leave the type rated L/H ops folks to pontificate.
CPB
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
Bug- where to start! You repair 'em, we'll fly em. Someone 'repaired' this one and it went tits up again- I think it is more a question of engineering defending that one!
We have a flight continuation policy as standard procedure in L/H. This recommends if safe to continue to destination or get as far as conveniently possible for all concerned. This brings in Maintrol at London who have a far wider picture of crew locations, hotel availability, spares etc. It works.
OK alternators/generators- let's call them 'electric boxes' shall we and not quibble about names? Even I get tired, so 15-0 to you if you are points scoring.
You worry about damage. There are thousands of surges over the history of the 747 in BA. I'm not aware of any external damage from them. If you are such a nervous passenger- don't fly. Just keep fixing them, and I hope better then the replacement engine.
"Delays'- other people brought in delay compensation as a possible motive for what happened- which I have been adamantly refuting. Returning to LAX would be a delay, wouldn't it? The whole area is a nonsense to raise in the first place, and frankly quite insulting
.
<You do not know that spares would not be available.>...Maintrol do, and they communicated with them. What more do you want?
I've been flying to JFK for 33 years. It's gone from being a major terminal to just another station with normal engineering cover in that time. In the old days we would have automatically thought to head there, but it is no longer a major engineering station and that was advised to us years ago.
<<I never said the flight was unsafe. Nope. I ALLUDED that it was not PRUDENT.>>...who are YOU to decide what is prudent? You have no flying experience. You are a 'greasemonkey' no?
<<There was never a PLAN to fly LAX-LHR on three.>>... what is the basis of this fascination you have with
a plan? When you select 'engine out' on the FMS, you are presented with a 3 engine plan instantly, with maximum altitudes specified. Inputting the winds enroute gives you fuel at destination. What more do you want? (not fuel feed problems!). That's what they followed. You are showing the dangers of a little knowledge. The Hapag incident was due to following the FMS with the gear fixed down throughout the flight increasing the fuel flow, which was not 'known' to the FMS. Therefore it was telling porkies to the pilots. In this case, our illustrious heroes had selected 'engine out' which told the FMS that the aeroplane was on 3 engines, therefore it was telling the truth, so whatever point you are trying to make is not valid.
Your profile states engineer. I think it is more the engineering aspects of this and the following engine failure, and even the Hapag incident that require urgent investigation!
*****
CHEETAH- Helderberg went down at TOD into Mauritius didn't it? What relevance does it have? I gather it had a large load of Lithium batteries now understood to be significant fire risks (I've had to get a mobile phone out of my pocket when the battery started overheating- rapidly). There was a traumatic and fatal fire on board.
What conclusion should we draw from that- that no plane should fly more than 130 miles from an airport?
********
Beagle
These SOPS are approved by the CAA and in full agreement of BA Flt Ops itself. The only people who seem to have trouble with them are laymen or non-4 engine jet pilots. They are proven, they are safe (unlike to me flying over the Pacific with people on board for 3 hours on one engine). The crew is very very highly trained- they are professionals, and they are paid to take these decisions. We do not have a 'vote now' system where passengers make the decision themselves. If some of them didn't like it, it is not to the crew to bow to the lowest common denominator! What next- passengers voting whether they would like to penetrate Cb areas? I'm afraid that decision is the prerogative of the pilots, as was this. They got there safely, with minimal disruption.
We have a flight continuation policy as standard procedure in L/H. This recommends if safe to continue to destination or get as far as conveniently possible for all concerned. This brings in Maintrol at London who have a far wider picture of crew locations, hotel availability, spares etc. It works.
OK alternators/generators- let's call them 'electric boxes' shall we and not quibble about names? Even I get tired, so 15-0 to you if you are points scoring.
You worry about damage. There are thousands of surges over the history of the 747 in BA. I'm not aware of any external damage from them. If you are such a nervous passenger- don't fly. Just keep fixing them, and I hope better then the replacement engine.
"Delays'- other people brought in delay compensation as a possible motive for what happened- which I have been adamantly refuting. Returning to LAX would be a delay, wouldn't it? The whole area is a nonsense to raise in the first place, and frankly quite insulting
.
<You do not know that spares would not be available.>...Maintrol do, and they communicated with them. What more do you want?
I've been flying to JFK for 33 years. It's gone from being a major terminal to just another station with normal engineering cover in that time. In the old days we would have automatically thought to head there, but it is no longer a major engineering station and that was advised to us years ago.
<<I never said the flight was unsafe. Nope. I ALLUDED that it was not PRUDENT.>>...who are YOU to decide what is prudent? You have no flying experience. You are a 'greasemonkey' no?
<<There was never a PLAN to fly LAX-LHR on three.>>... what is the basis of this fascination you have with
a plan? When you select 'engine out' on the FMS, you are presented with a 3 engine plan instantly, with maximum altitudes specified. Inputting the winds enroute gives you fuel at destination. What more do you want? (not fuel feed problems!). That's what they followed. You are showing the dangers of a little knowledge. The Hapag incident was due to following the FMS with the gear fixed down throughout the flight increasing the fuel flow, which was not 'known' to the FMS. Therefore it was telling porkies to the pilots. In this case, our illustrious heroes had selected 'engine out' which told the FMS that the aeroplane was on 3 engines, therefore it was telling the truth, so whatever point you are trying to make is not valid.
Your profile states engineer. I think it is more the engineering aspects of this and the following engine failure, and even the Hapag incident that require urgent investigation!
*****
CHEETAH- Helderberg went down at TOD into Mauritius didn't it? What relevance does it have? I gather it had a large load of Lithium batteries now understood to be significant fire risks (I've had to get a mobile phone out of my pocket when the battery started overheating- rapidly). There was a traumatic and fatal fire on board.
After the TRC a retired SAA employee was quoted as saying "we murdered the people aboard the Helderberg" (article). He alleged that weapons, ammunition and explosives - billed as agricultural equipment - were transported on the London, Frankfurt, Taipei and Lisbon routes.
********
Beagle
Puff up your wonderful ba SOPs all you like, rainboe, but the fact is that this flight pushed things too far in the eyes of many contributors to this thread.
Last edited by Rainboe; 25th Mar 2005 at 10:48.
Here is the bottom line - operating aircraft is about managing risks, not avoiding them. The question here is not whether safety was reduced, but whether it was reduced unduly.
121.565(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
...
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.
It doesn't say "not unduly less safe".
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear, hear Capt Pit Bull. And I don't think your post is off topic at all as this whole thread is really a discussion about safety.
This whole relative safety isuue is exactly what I posted about a couple of pages ago. Flying is not ABSLOUTLY safe, there's always a chance that the plane could crash.
Certainly in this case I'm firmly of the opinion that the flight from LAX-LHR on 3 engines was less safe than on 4. But LESS SAFE does not equate with UNSAFE.
The whole issue of measuring safety is a minefield simply because the number of hazards we all face on a daily basis are innumerable.
Taking into account the comments here from the 747 pilots I'm really struggling to see anything other than that they choose best and safest option given the circumstances they were in.. though I readily accept that were I a pax on the flight the irrationality that is human nature might have had me want them to return to LAX.
This whole relative safety isuue is exactly what I posted about a couple of pages ago. Flying is not ABSLOUTLY safe, there's always a chance that the plane could crash.
Certainly in this case I'm firmly of the opinion that the flight from LAX-LHR on 3 engines was less safe than on 4. But LESS SAFE does not equate with UNSAFE.
The whole issue of measuring safety is a minefield simply because the number of hazards we all face on a daily basis are innumerable.
Taking into account the comments here from the 747 pilots I'm really struggling to see anything other than that they choose best and safest option given the circumstances they were in.. though I readily accept that were I a pax on the flight the irrationality that is human nature might have had me want them to return to LAX.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see that there is a real need for someone to design a voting consol for the passengers. This would mean that the crew could explain to the passengers exactly what had happened to the aircraft, the passengers could then vote on the next course of action!
Mutt.
Mutt.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm,
I guess what I meant was 3 versus 4, and people crapping themselves as a result.
As for continuing or landing nearest, (which is the bit of the FARs you refer to) I just am not qualified to judge.
But surely the likelihood of a subsequent engine failure would always exist, and would always mean that continueing would be marginally less safe (even flying 200 miles instead of 150 miles say) and therefore the as safe clause could never be really exercised?
Bah, I hate air law <boggles>!
CPB
I guess what I meant was 3 versus 4, and people crapping themselves as a result.
As for continuing or landing nearest, (which is the bit of the FARs you refer to) I just am not qualified to judge.
But surely the likelihood of a subsequent engine failure would always exist, and would always mean that continueing would be marginally less safe (even flying 200 miles instead of 150 miles say) and therefore the as safe clause could never be really exercised?
Bah, I hate air law <boggles>!
CPB
Last edited by Capt Pit Bull; 25th Mar 2005 at 16:00.
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 was it not therefore 'safe' for a DC10 or MD11 to fly LAX-LHR? Boeing managed for years to sell the 747 with its '4 engined safety'. Funny now that they are trying to move 777s wholesale, suddenly 4 engines are no better than 2. And it's mysteriously 'safe' to fly 300 people on _ engine for _ hours across the _ wastes!*
*- fill in from following,:
one, three, three, one, Atlantic, Pacific, Indian.
*- fill in from following,:
one, three, three, one, Atlantic, Pacific, Indian.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote FAA Regs.
121.565(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
...
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.
You note the word MAY , not SHOULD, or MUST. The FAA regulation therefore allows the commander to do what he considers is best. ( I won't add that the FAA will defend him but I cannot see how they can criticise him for doing what this pilot in command did).
The whole basis of aviation is that the commander is in charge of the flight, not Ops, the Ops Manager, the CAA or even the FAA. Time and time again one pilot will do one thing; another would make a different decision; neither is wrong. In this case the commander concerned decided to continue, he should be backed up. In the same situation another commander might decide to dump fuel and make an overweight landing. He too should be backed up.
We have got to get away from becoming "hindsight experts" and accept that on that day with the evidence that was in front of him this commander decided to continue. All the evidence is that safety was not compromised by his decision.
That’s what makes the job interesting and worthwhile. If you don’t like it become an accountant or better still a journalist because as we all know, they are the very best of hindsight experts. Strangely they never feature very highly in the credibility polls along with MP’s. Now I wonder why?
(edited for minor spelling mistake)
121.565(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
...
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.
You note the word MAY , not SHOULD, or MUST. The FAA regulation therefore allows the commander to do what he considers is best. ( I won't add that the FAA will defend him but I cannot see how they can criticise him for doing what this pilot in command did).
The whole basis of aviation is that the commander is in charge of the flight, not Ops, the Ops Manager, the CAA or even the FAA. Time and time again one pilot will do one thing; another would make a different decision; neither is wrong. In this case the commander concerned decided to continue, he should be backed up. In the same situation another commander might decide to dump fuel and make an overweight landing. He too should be backed up.
We have got to get away from becoming "hindsight experts" and accept that on that day with the evidence that was in front of him this commander decided to continue. All the evidence is that safety was not compromised by his decision.
That’s what makes the job interesting and worthwhile. If you don’t like it become an accountant or better still a journalist because as we all know, they are the very best of hindsight experts. Strangely they never feature very highly in the credibility polls along with MP’s. Now I wonder why?
(edited for minor spelling mistake)
Last edited by sky9; 25th Mar 2005 at 17:39.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent post sky9. The decision to continue is never taken lightly. Only after using all of the resources available to him, and considering all of the options and risks, will a captain decide to continue. The day that this decision is taken away from the operating crew will be a sad day for the future generations of pilots.
All of the technical points have been covered many times on this thread, some correct and some not so correct, so I don't intend to repeat them. I think that most people are set in their views, either one way or another. However, in my personal view, this crew did an excellent job and should be commended.
Airclues
(29+ years and 17,000+ hours on the 747/744)
All of the technical points have been covered many times on this thread, some correct and some not so correct, so I don't intend to repeat them. I think that most people are set in their views, either one way or another. However, in my personal view, this crew did an excellent job and should be commended.
Airclues
(29+ years and 17,000+ hours on the 747/744)
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Airclues,
In my view this incident throws up 3 questions:-
1 Should the Boeing aircraft QRH Low Fuel procedure (open crossfeed) also include a note that fuel might be consumed from one tank first if the booster pump in that tank have a higher pressure than the other pumps.
2 Does simulator software replicate the reality of the above?
3 Will pilots decisions in the future be influenced by the thought of nearly 50 pages in PPRuNe dissecting his actions; if so it will be a bad day for flight safety.
In my view this incident throws up 3 questions:-
1 Should the Boeing aircraft QRH Low Fuel procedure (open crossfeed) also include a note that fuel might be consumed from one tank first if the booster pump in that tank have a higher pressure than the other pumps.
2 Does simulator software replicate the reality of the above?
3 Will pilots decisions in the future be influenced by the thought of nearly 50 pages in PPRuNe dissecting his actions; if so it will be a bad day for flight safety.
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
For point 3, it's dreadful, isn't it? I really didn't want to be so involved with this, but I was damned if I was going to watch the usual Pprune Court Martial try and condemn this crew (in their absence), with no defence, by a massed jury of assorted ignoramuses, swearers and expletive name callers, people who know nothing about aviation, and pilots who think they know it all because they flew a twin once, and sadly, even fellow professional pilots who've flown big things, but happy to criticise their colleagues in their absence.
Perhaps sometimes it's better to restrain from criticism or name calling until more information is known and the masters at the CAA have adjudicated? As for that dork at the FAA, words fail!
Perhaps sometimes it's better to restrain from criticism or name calling until more information is known and the masters at the CAA have adjudicated? As for that dork at the FAA, words fail!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe, congratulations for your efforts and endless patience. I think you did make a difference, because on these occasions the informed tend to give up in the face of ignorance ... which leaves the field to the opinionated ...
Your words of admonishment for the "massed jury of assorted ignoramuses.... etc." certainly rings a bell with me. A bit more humility and caution would do no harm from time to time on PPRuNe.
Your words of admonishment for the "massed jury of assorted ignoramuses.... etc." certainly rings a bell with me. A bit more humility and caution would do no harm from time to time on PPRuNe.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sky9
1. This was not the problem. The problem was that the fuel went below the Overide/Jettison Pump stack pipe level during the approach. The crew declared a Mayday because they thought that the fuel in this tank might be unusable. In fact it was, but isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? The CAA have contacted UK 744 operators about this and will be issuing a technical bulletin on the subject.
2. Yes it does. However, how often do we fail an inboard on the sim? Perhaps there is a lesson here?
3. I hope not: Yes
Airclues
1. This was not the problem. The problem was that the fuel went below the Overide/Jettison Pump stack pipe level during the approach. The crew declared a Mayday because they thought that the fuel in this tank might be unusable. In fact it was, but isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? The CAA have contacted UK 744 operators about this and will be issuing a technical bulletin on the subject.
2. Yes it does. However, how often do we fail an inboard on the sim? Perhaps there is a lesson here?
3. I hope not: Yes
Airclues
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
Strangley enough, one of the absolute worst offenders was none other than the Editor of Flight International itself! Quite why David L took it upon himself to pre-empt the CAA review I cannot imagine, but he appears to have walked into this Pprune Court Martial holding a placard saying 'whatever the evidence.....GUILTY!' I appalled at him, and it will be revisited next subscription time. 38 years I have been taking Flight- it will stop while he chairs it.
My above post is rather more insulting that I intended. By 'ignoramuses', I essentially meant 'aviation ignoramuses', and I did not mean to cause offence. But simply when someone knows nothing about aviation risk and common practice, it's easy to make a shoot from the hip judgement from instinct without considering other factors (lesson for FAA 'spokespersons' there! The 747 is a wonderful beastie, and I would rather fly 100 flights back from LAX on 3 engines than 100 flights across the Pacific in a twin! It's not as modern or flash as some of the new twins, not as economic, but it is safe! Like most of my experienced colleagues, we spend our careers juggling risk management. Our prime motivation is to move people safely, to where they want to go.
My above post is rather more insulting that I intended. By 'ignoramuses', I essentially meant 'aviation ignoramuses', and I did not mean to cause offence. But simply when someone knows nothing about aviation risk and common practice, it's easy to make a shoot from the hip judgement from instinct without considering other factors (lesson for FAA 'spokespersons' there! The 747 is a wonderful beastie, and I would rather fly 100 flights back from LAX on 3 engines than 100 flights across the Pacific in a twin! It's not as modern or flash as some of the new twins, not as economic, but it is safe! Like most of my experienced colleagues, we spend our careers juggling risk management. Our prime motivation is to move people safely, to where they want to go.
Está servira para distraerle.
O Prismatic One. I thank you for the courtesy of your reply and apologise for taking so long to get back to you. Was under water for a while.Yes it did and the CVR made for very unhappy listening. I know it is not really relevant to this thread but then, so much stuff and guff has appeared here that I tend to view this stream as a general chat show. Very imoral. Always been a lot more than just a suggestion of a cover up when talking about The Helderberg.
Do not let yourself be too concerned with David L. He is to aviation no more than is that clunkhead Jeremy Clarkson to motoring. Limited knowledge but a susidised forum for gratuitous expostulation. Whoopsie: Does that sound familiar.
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is anybody able to explain why what happened to G-VATL on 8 February 2005, concerning an Airbus A340-642, published on AAIB Special Bulletin 1/2005 of 16 March 2005, has been considered a serious incident, while someone keeps insisting that what occurred to BA 747-400 BA268, Lax-Lhr on 20th February 2005 was:
Quote: "...Therefore this aeroplane turned effectively into a trijet flying the route from LAX-LHR. as thousands have happily done so over the years.
So where is the problem?..."
Yet both had an engine shut down and both had to divert declaring MAY DAY.
Excuse me my ignorance. I fly small airplanes and it takes 80 sectors for me to fly the same amount of hours an elephant's Skipper grows in perhaps 5 of them.
Fly Safe
DOVE
Quote: "...Therefore this aeroplane turned effectively into a trijet flying the route from LAX-LHR. as thousands have happily done so over the years.
So where is the problem?..."
Yet both had an engine shut down and both had to divert declaring MAY DAY.
Excuse me my ignorance. I fly small airplanes and it takes 80 sectors for me to fly the same amount of hours an elephant's Skipper grows in perhaps 5 of them.
Fly Safe
DOVE