BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)

[Gentle Climb]

Having read this thread right through, it is obvious that there are strong opinions from both sides of the cockpit door. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that I trust the two trained people who sit at the front to make the decisions. They know the full circumstances, they know the risks, they know the capabilities of the aircraft.

There occupation is to get me from A to B. It's isn't to tell me every minute details of the flight plan or what the current temperature of the engines is. I merely want to sit and sip a G & T and let the guys who are working do their job.

I make a decision to trust Boeing/Airbus/Cessna to work properly. I trust the operator to manage the aircraft and it's employees with a view to keeping me safe.

As long as the flightcrew get me where I want to go in less than two pieces, I will be happy.

Some of you need to get a life.

[woodpecker]

baengman

Can we just get a couple of facts right.

This Aircraft was not operating under ETOPS. ETOPS in my time stood for Extended Twin Operations.

Even if it was an ETOPS sector, (assuming it had been a 767 or 777), the shutdown was before entering the ETOPS segment of the flight so wouldnt have affected the figures.

Time will tell on this one, but having flown the 777 for BA I am very interested in the fuel system on the 747. On the 777 the fuel is burnt initially from the centre tank (down to a minimum level)and then from the remaining two wing tanks. What is the procedure on the 400?

How much fuel was left in this No 2 tank (which could not be used for whatever reason) that prompted a Pan call and if we are to believe one "spotter"(and I see no reason why not, I even started as a "spotter") who heard a Mayday call?

[Re-Heat]

It operates to ETOPS since BA 744s are maintained to ETOPS standards even though they are not required to be, since overall the costs of maintaining higher engineering standards allows greater operational availability for the fleet.

Don't know about the stats or being in ETOPS segment specifics though?

[baengman]

woodpecker
In the first instance this impacts ETOPS in the way that re heat mentioned, Even though it was not classed as an ETOPS sector or a/c, the B747 has the same basic engine as the B767 and as such any ifsd counts against the engine and hence impacts on the ETOPS rating.
As for the fuel, the no 2 tank had much the same as the no 4 which was 2.5 tons, as for fule feed, I am not a 747 guy but I believe that the centre and tail are used first and then the reserves then main tanks, the problem was that with the engine shut down, they were only able to get fuel out of the the no 2 tank using the over-ride pumps and they shut off at about 3 tons so they could get no more out. Yes I know there is a discrepancy in the figues but that is what the guys were looking into and will be for some time I guess.

[woodpecker]

baengman

Thanks for the info...

It will be rather embarrassing if, at just the time you need to get all the fuel out of a tank following a shutdown, an appreciable amount is "unusable" (assuming all the appropriate pumps were working correctly).

With regard to ETOPS, Maintrol used to class an ETOPS shutdown as one that occurred in an ETOPS segment of the flight, obviously things have changed.

However, I seems rather strange that an airline which wants to keep ETOPS "problems" to a minimum (in shutdown per sector figures) should include in the figures Non-ETOPS (non-twin) aircraft operating on Non-ETOPS flights!! After all there is twice the chance of a 747-400 suffering an IFSD compared to the (same engine equipped) 767!

[RatherBeFlying]

Landing with 5 tonnes total and 3 tonnes in tank 2 leaves 2 tonnes in the other main tanks.

2 tonnes is the Minimum Desired Landing Fuel in my manual less go around fuel.

Mimimum fuel in a tank is about 0.23 tonnes; so, I would be seriously disappointed that the override pumps failed to deliver that last 3.77 tonnes to the working engines.

The other nasty bit is that you discover this defect rather late in the game

Only in the inboard engine failure case are the override pumps called upon to empty tank 2 or 3. All engine operation does not call upon the 2/3 override pumps to take these tanks down so low.

And I do not see in my manuals or checklists a higher unuseable fuel figure for tanks 2/3 when they're not directly feeding their engine

[Triplefo]

As always some of what has been said here is true, some is close and some is way off the mark. (Even BAengman doesn't have all his facts correct). In addition some is just down right rude to the professional crew involved. They are all very competent operators who made a good many decisions. Please do not jump to conclusions.

[Paul Wilson]

Assuming the account by baengman is accurate, the crew were told to decend by ATC. I was under the impression that the Capt. was in ultimate control of the aircraft, could he have not declined the instruction from ATC? From what I have read and heard, if ATC was told that the aircraft was on 3 engines and needed to maintain as high a level as possible they would not have hesitated to help. If a higher level had been maintained the fuel issue might not have arose.

[penguin123]

As a simply paying passenger & member of BAEC (silver) I would like to say that IMHO & based on what baengman said ["Firstly, just after take off from LAX the number 2 engine surged, it was contained by the 3 man flight crew, shortly after that there was another surge with EGT hitting 1200 degrees. Lax control reported 20 ft flame from no 2 engine also"] I cannot understand why this flight didn't return to LAX as that would seem to me to be the safest & most prudent option?

If I was on this flight I would be seriously upset to hear that a decision was taken to continue the flight with 3 engines after the problem occurred so early in the flight - why take ANY risk when you are still so close to LAX?

I fly (flew?) BA because I believed their safety standards were higher than their competitors out of LAX but this now seems to longer be the case?

[M.Mouse]

I cannot understand why this flight didn't return to LAX as that would seem to me to be the safest & most prudent option?

While appreciating your concern the above statement begs the question why is that option prudent and safest?

If a poll was conducted amongst the world's operators of 4 engined aircraft and the question was 'What is your company policy after an engine surge and subsequent shutdown?' I think the answers would be illuminating.

The flight crew of a twin engined aircraft have an easier decision, with the loss of one engine, because there is only one option.

A 747 could lose a further engine en-route and still fly safely.

At some point one has to trust that the people tasked with overseeing flight safety have looked at the various scenarios with dispassionate, but highly informed and educated, knowledge and deemed it safe.

What many are guilty of here is saying that because an engine failed the flight is in grave danger and must land as soon as possible.

The reason this one is generating such shock and horror is because a further problem brought the matter to public attention.

Three very experienced flight crew operated to company SOPs, themselves approved by the CAA, and landed the aircraft safely at Manchester. I am not sure what more they should have been expected to do.

On a technical note, and to add some perspective, a surge will always look dramatic with fuel vapour igniting in the efflux from the engine, it looks very spectacular at night. The flame is momentary and is not in anyway similar to a fire. Also a temperature of 1200°C is 120°C hotter than the 20 sec. allowable overtemp of 1080°C applicable to the RR engines fitted to BA's fleet.

[BahrainLad]

After all there is twice the chance of a 747-400 suffering an IFSD compared to the (same engine equipped) 767!

Surely this is playing with around with probablities? An individual engine is not eight times more likely to fail if the aircraft has eight engines?

Or am I being thick this evening?

[spannersatcx]

I would be seriously disappointed that the override pumps failed to deliver that last 3.77 tonnes to the working engines

The override/jettison pumps aren't designed to get the last 3000kgs or so out, the reason being that you can not inadvertantly 'jettison' all the fuel out of the tank (now that would be embarassing).

From the maintenance manual -

The override/jettison pumps can lose their prime when operated dry (pump inlets not covered by fuel). At a nominal ground attitude (wings level 0.5 degrees nose down) the left override/jettison pump inlet will be uncovered when the fuel quantity in the center wing tank is approximately 7300 pounds (3300 kilograms). The right pump inlet will be uncovered at approximately 3550 pounds (1600 kilograms). The override/jettison pump inlets in the main tanks will be uncovered when the main tank fuel quantity is between 8600 and 10,600 pounds (3900 and 4800 kilograms)

[john8b]

cargo boy.......would the spotters please leave us alone

Hand Solo....The only suggestion of this comes from two spotters listening out on different frequencies

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I may be a spotter but it is I rumour and NEWS forum. It seems a raw nerve has been touched.
2. Two spotters, one was on 128.05 but didn`t mention when the Mayday was initiated, I HEARD the Mayday whilst the flight was on 121.35. Two hearing it indicates to me that it is FACT and I may be a spotter but there is certainly nothing wrong with my hearing

[catchup]

Some don't understand?

Doesn't matter. We do and that's what we are trained and paid for.

regards

[woodpecker]

BahrainLad

The point is ETOPS rules were put in place for twin operations.

The company went overboard to keep the IFSD figures to a minimum. The first acars to maintrol regarding a westbound trip that was returning to London was met with "had you entered the ETOPS area?"

At the time the "same" engines were being taken off the 400's and put on the 767's as the 400 engines were of a later mod state. All to keep the figures looking good.

My point is that the ETOPS rules were not put into place for the 400 and why include the "same" engines in the IFSD figures bearing in mind the 400 uses the "same" engine in different way. Much longer sectors than the 767 and run at higher thrust settings in the initial flight phase.

The point about IFSD is that a 400 has a greater chance of an IFSD than a twin. I was not talking about an individual engine but any engine.

[Beausoleil]

For what it's worth, as a passenger...

If it's something I'm going to notice anyway I'd rather hear the straight story than sit there wondering what the flame out the back of the engine was or why we're flying under 30,000 ft , or why the flight is so rough, or... I'm not that nervous a flier but unusual events can still get the adrenaline going. Tell me everything is ok and I'll believe you - say nothing and my imagination will fill in the blanks. Thanks to National Geographic lots of people know that if something serious goes wrong the pilots are too busy to inform the passengers.

To be clear, I'm just expressing a preference - not demanding a right to know.

Keep up the good work!

[Triplefo]

penguin123, as M. Mouse says why is the safest option? The a/c was overweight to make an immediate return to LAX and would have need to dump fuel. This of course takes time and in some cases it can take a lot of time. The crew would only not dump fuel if for example, the a/c had an uncontained fire and it was imperative to land ASAP. Once they had ascertained that the a/c was performing correctly, as they did before leaving the LAX area and was in no danger, electing to continue flight towards the UK presents no great problem. As BahrainLad says statistically having lost one engine you would be extremely unfortunate to lose another and therefore continued flight is acceptable on a 4 engined a/c. Rememeber they were on the west coast of the USA and had many hours of flight over land well known to them with multiple well equiped airfields enroute. This time also afforded them the opportunity to ensure that their Atlantic crossing could be made safely.

As M. Mouse says problems much later on in the flight have brought this to the publics attention. Many of the posters here are professional airline pilots with thousands of flying hours who are basically saying the same thing - continued flight was safe. Please give us all some credit for the jobs we have been trained to do. I'm sure you'd do the same to the solictor carrying out the conveyancing on a house purchase, the doctor prescribing medicines or the mechanic fixing that rusted brake pipe on your car!

[M.Mouse]

At the time the "same" engines were being taken off the 400's and put on the 767's as the 400 engines were of a later mod state. All to keep the figures looking good.

Factually incorrect.

767 engines were being exchanged for engines on the 747 for sound engineering reasons. Nothing to do with the 'mod. state'

The explanation is long and irrelevant to this thread or in fact to anybody outside the company.

[woodpecker]

Were you flying the 767 at the time Mickey ?

I was!

Was the mod state different?

It was!

[RatherBeFlying]

spannersatcx,

• Shutting down the affected engine should stop the fuel leak and preserve remaining fuel for operating engines.
• All remaining fuel can be used for the remaining engines through normal fuel management.

Fuel Leak (Suspected) in Flight Checklist

The amount the override/jettison pumps will leave unused in the inboard tanks in the case of an inboard engine shutdown should be shared with the flight crews. That's about another 200nm. that should be taken off the range for 3-engine cruise.