BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experimenting may be fun, but it is most definitely frowned upon since the DC10 crew started pulling CBs somewhere in the automatics, and allegedly caused the famous incident of an engine spooling up and bursting its contents causing a cabin breech which sucked a passenger out!
Appreciate your comment, and in the very clear interest of flight safety, I will only too happily confirm that any experimenting I've done over the years has been absolutely and only confined to simulators, in a very controlled environment, on occasions with the motion systems off to ensure that no mechanical damage was done.
Some of the things we've "tested" could never be regarded as safe or even acceptable in line operations. There were occasions when looking back afterwards, it might be descibed as "fun", but I can assure you that at the time, we were working very hard indeed, as it was the only way we could determine what the limits were, so that the correct parameters could then be used to ensure the fideltity of the product we were working on.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most of the a/c flying the atlantic today are twins, so why be concerned with a 4 holer flying around with 3. Its safer with more than less.
p.s. you still have the apu to power the galley.
p.s. you still have the apu to power the galley.
From today's Sunday Times:
BA accused over flights with one engine down
DIPESH GADHER, TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
BRITISH AIRWAYS has allowed jumbo jets to complete long-haul flights on at least seven occasions despite pilots having to shut down an engine.
On each occasion the flight had to be completed on three engines rather than four because of technical problems.
Safety concerns have been raised because the pilots of the Boeing 747s decided to continue with their journeys rather than divert to a nearby airport.
In one recent case this led to an aircraft making an emergency landing at Manchester because pilots feared it was running low on fuel after crossing the Atlantic with one engine down.
America’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has accused British Airways (BA) of “careless and reckless” behaviour although the airline says passenger safety has never been compromised.
The phenomenon is not confined to BA. Since the start of last year 18 British-registered aircraft — including Airbus A340s, BAe146s and jumbos — have been forced to shut down one of four engines in the air, according to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) records. Several then continued their journeys.
The FAA is investigating one BA flight, carrying 351 passengers, that suffered an engine surge immediately after taking off from Los Angeles airport in February.
The faulty engine was shut down, but after taking advice from BA technicians in London, the captain continued with the 11-hour flight to Heathrow rather than returning to Los Angeles or diverting to another American airport.
Forced to fly at a lower altitude than the flight crew wanted, the plane used up more fuel than expected because of less favourable tailwinds.
By the time the aircraft reached Ireland the captain felt that attempting a landing at Heathrow would be too risky and asked for a diversion to Manchester.
Howard Ramsdale, 47, a passenger on the flight, said: “I was absolutely astounded that we didn’t return to LA. There wasn’t a single person that I spoke to on that plane who wanted to carry on. “As far as I’m concerned my life was put at risk. It was a very stressful flight and I’m not really sure that I’d get on an aircraft again, let alone a BA one.” Ramsdale, a science teacher from Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, has written to the airline, demanding compensation for the trauma he suffered.
BA has backed the actions of the pilot and points out that the 747 is certified to fly on three engines.
Given the circumstances, the CAA also believes that flying with one engine down is “a safe option”, more so if the plane is well into its journey.
This view, however, does not appear to be shared by the FAA, which could fine BA if it concludes that the airline violated American regulations.
BA accused over flights with one engine down
DIPESH GADHER, TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
BRITISH AIRWAYS has allowed jumbo jets to complete long-haul flights on at least seven occasions despite pilots having to shut down an engine.
On each occasion the flight had to be completed on three engines rather than four because of technical problems.
Safety concerns have been raised because the pilots of the Boeing 747s decided to continue with their journeys rather than divert to a nearby airport.
In one recent case this led to an aircraft making an emergency landing at Manchester because pilots feared it was running low on fuel after crossing the Atlantic with one engine down.
America’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has accused British Airways (BA) of “careless and reckless” behaviour although the airline says passenger safety has never been compromised.
The phenomenon is not confined to BA. Since the start of last year 18 British-registered aircraft — including Airbus A340s, BAe146s and jumbos — have been forced to shut down one of four engines in the air, according to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) records. Several then continued their journeys.
The FAA is investigating one BA flight, carrying 351 passengers, that suffered an engine surge immediately after taking off from Los Angeles airport in February.
The faulty engine was shut down, but after taking advice from BA technicians in London, the captain continued with the 11-hour flight to Heathrow rather than returning to Los Angeles or diverting to another American airport.
Forced to fly at a lower altitude than the flight crew wanted, the plane used up more fuel than expected because of less favourable tailwinds.
By the time the aircraft reached Ireland the captain felt that attempting a landing at Heathrow would be too risky and asked for a diversion to Manchester.
Howard Ramsdale, 47, a passenger on the flight, said: “I was absolutely astounded that we didn’t return to LA. There wasn’t a single person that I spoke to on that plane who wanted to carry on. “As far as I’m concerned my life was put at risk. It was a very stressful flight and I’m not really sure that I’d get on an aircraft again, let alone a BA one.” Ramsdale, a science teacher from Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, has written to the airline, demanding compensation for the trauma he suffered.
BA has backed the actions of the pilot and points out that the 747 is certified to fly on three engines.
Given the circumstances, the CAA also believes that flying with one engine down is “a safe option”, more so if the plane is well into its journey.
This view, however, does not appear to be shared by the FAA, which could fine BA if it concludes that the airline violated American regulations.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that BEagle. When it comes to the discussions between the CAA and FAA I'm intrigued by the ironic possibilities to which this matter gives rise.
Would one not wish to be a "fly on the wall" for the various chats and exchanges between the CAA and FAA as they take hours and days to dissect and argue out a decision that normally has to be taken in minutes?
I mean to say, if YOU are up to your ears "in the merde" you are normally told that the regulations and requirements are clear, are you not?
Of course, what you are really being told is that the interpretation being shoved down your throat is the current "conventional wisdom" as to how the regulations should be interpreted. Individual pilots facing "the system" have an uphill battle to explain why what they decided seemed quite reasonable at the time. The system tends to win these arguments.
But what happens when two equally opinionated authorities - here the CAA and FAA - disagree? I, for one, would pay for an observer's seat as they thrash out their points of view. In fact it is the argument, not the published outcome that will be interesting - perhaps a better source of education and enlightenment than your average accident report?
Would one not wish to be a "fly on the wall" for the various chats and exchanges between the CAA and FAA as they take hours and days to dissect and argue out a decision that normally has to be taken in minutes?
I mean to say, if YOU are up to your ears "in the merde" you are normally told that the regulations and requirements are clear, are you not?
Of course, what you are really being told is that the interpretation being shoved down your throat is the current "conventional wisdom" as to how the regulations should be interpreted. Individual pilots facing "the system" have an uphill battle to explain why what they decided seemed quite reasonable at the time. The system tends to win these arguments.
But what happens when two equally opinionated authorities - here the CAA and FAA - disagree? I, for one, would pay for an observer's seat as they thrash out their points of view. In fact it is the argument, not the published outcome that will be interesting - perhaps a better source of education and enlightenment than your average accident report?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: PA. USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this my first post, and after reading some of the responses I think I'd rather be flying a three engine 747 transatlantic than waiting for the fall out from this!
It seems we need to start some new courses, I'd like to suggest PRM (Prune Resource Management) as the first class.
I'll be honest by page 10 of the postings, I'd had enough of the bickering, I began to remember all the reasons I had given up on AOL chat rooms so long ago, and went straight to the last page.
What I have gleaned from all of this is that a massive degree of professionalism was exercised by the flight crew on this particular Man diversion flight. They dealt with an everchanging situation with complete competence, I very much doubt they relaxed for one minute during this flight. They did their best for the company, their best for the passengers and the outcome was the best it could have been. They earnt their money that day, they performed as trained. They pooled all the companies resources, they drew on Mr.Boeings resources, they worked together and came up with a plan.
Not only will I continue to fly BA. I want this crew on the flight deck of all my flights.
As an outsider (former professional pilot) peering in to Prune I see disaray, failure to communicate, dissension and d*ck waving!
I don't care if all 4 are running, if I see this behaviour around an aircraft, I'm not getting on it !!
Regards,
Paul.
(Going to put my hard hat on now)
It seems we need to start some new courses, I'd like to suggest PRM (Prune Resource Management) as the first class.
I'll be honest by page 10 of the postings, I'd had enough of the bickering, I began to remember all the reasons I had given up on AOL chat rooms so long ago, and went straight to the last page.
What I have gleaned from all of this is that a massive degree of professionalism was exercised by the flight crew on this particular Man diversion flight. They dealt with an everchanging situation with complete competence, I very much doubt they relaxed for one minute during this flight. They did their best for the company, their best for the passengers and the outcome was the best it could have been. They earnt their money that day, they performed as trained. They pooled all the companies resources, they drew on Mr.Boeings resources, they worked together and came up with a plan.
Not only will I continue to fly BA. I want this crew on the flight deck of all my flights.
As an outsider (former professional pilot) peering in to Prune I see disaray, failure to communicate, dissension and d*ck waving!
I don't care if all 4 are running, if I see this behaviour around an aircraft, I'm not getting on it !!
Regards,
Paul.
(Going to put my hard hat on now)
