BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
barryt, I am quite confident that within BA, if the Captain had decided to dump fuel and return to LAX, even if it had been against BA's wishes, he would not have been looking for another job. He would have had to explain why he did it, but saying, "Because I felt like it!", might not be a convincing argument.
Perhaps we should never take off because there is a chance that all of the fuel is contaminated and all 4 engines stop just as we complete the rotation. One engine failing does not actually increase the risk of the fuel being contaminated. Nothing in the system has changed - there is still just the same chance that the fuel is contaminated.
Perhaps we should never take off because there is a chance that all of the fuel is contaminated and all 4 engines stop just as we complete the rotation. One engine failing does not actually increase the risk of the fuel being contaminated. Nothing in the system has changed - there is still just the same chance that the fuel is contaminated.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barryt;
So you say that by utilising the redundant systems and the in built redundancy of the aircraft being able to fly on three engines is incorrect?
So why build in redundancy then if you are unwilling to use it?
Just a thought...
I am not a professional pilot, the aircraft I fly have minimal redundant systems (dual mags etc) which are there to be used, as required, by the POH and the flight schools SOP's.
As SLF I am really not interested in knowing the most minor details of the aircraft and its defect's at that point, I am more interested in knowing that I have two properly trained, motivated and alert people on the flight deck, with more of a regard for their own lives than mine, that also have the experience and empowerment to make the decisions to proceed or not.
Also, I haven't seen anywhere on this thread to confirm that the passengers were not informed as to the situation.... (Although I wait to be corrected on that one)
So you say that by utilising the redundant systems and the in built redundancy of the aircraft being able to fly on three engines is incorrect?
So why build in redundancy then if you are unwilling to use it?
Just a thought...
I am not a professional pilot, the aircraft I fly have minimal redundant systems (dual mags etc) which are there to be used, as required, by the POH and the flight schools SOP's.
As SLF I am really not interested in knowing the most minor details of the aircraft and its defect's at that point, I am more interested in knowing that I have two properly trained, motivated and alert people on the flight deck, with more of a regard for their own lives than mine, that also have the experience and empowerment to make the decisions to proceed or not.
Also, I haven't seen anywhere on this thread to confirm that the passengers were not informed as to the situation.... (Although I wait to be corrected on that one)
Rainboe : In no way am I insisting that I always be "informed" of what happens at the sharp end as the top posting suggests.
It seems you have taken on a rather arrogant approach to my comments and have adopted a very defensive approach to this issue, together with the chap in the top posting.
It won't go away, whether you like it or not sir. Nobody is accusing you, or fellow 747 drivers. There is still something fundamentally wrong with what happened and it smacks of the operator trying to minimize their costs at a potentially increased risk to passengers.
Please understand while you are in your ivory tower (being a 17 year 747 veteran and all) Rainboe that "Joe Public" is not always a moron and is entitled to voice his opinion. If that is a bit "prickly" for you, then that's too bad - "thou protesteth much!"
There by the grace of God go I (as a paying passenger)
pprecious : Use redunduncy by all means! But only when you HAVE to, or are FORCED to!
It seems you have taken on a rather arrogant approach to my comments and have adopted a very defensive approach to this issue, together with the chap in the top posting.
It won't go away, whether you like it or not sir. Nobody is accusing you, or fellow 747 drivers. There is still something fundamentally wrong with what happened and it smacks of the operator trying to minimize their costs at a potentially increased risk to passengers.
Please understand while you are in your ivory tower (being a 17 year 747 veteran and all) Rainboe that "Joe Public" is not always a moron and is entitled to voice his opinion. If that is a bit "prickly" for you, then that's too bad - "thou protesteth much!"
There by the grace of God go I (as a paying passenger)
pprecious : Use redunduncy by all means! But only when you HAVE to, or are FORCED to!
Guest
Posts: n/a
BarryT
Rainbow is not being arrogant nor defensive, he is replying as a professional in a highly specialised occupation.
Now neither you nor I are professionals in that field, so maybe we ought to leave comment on this thread to them, since the performance of airline crews over the years suggests that they know what they are doing.
Alternatively, you can always go across to Airliners.net and have a chat with the folks there.
The line you are taking strikes me as being similar to the tactics that might be used by an investigative journalist, confronting people with a load of speculative tosh and then accusing them of protesting too much when they comment.
You capitalisation technique is also reminiscent of Red Top subs.
Rainbow is not being arrogant nor defensive, he is replying as a professional in a highly specialised occupation.
Now neither you nor I are professionals in that field, so maybe we ought to leave comment on this thread to them, since the performance of airline crews over the years suggests that they know what they are doing.
Alternatively, you can always go across to Airliners.net and have a chat with the folks there.
The line you are taking strikes me as being similar to the tactics that might be used by an investigative journalist, confronting people with a load of speculative tosh and then accusing them of protesting too much when they comment.
You capitalisation technique is also reminiscent of Red Top subs.
Controversial, moi?
barryt
Could you explain why flying a 747 on three engines (with an ability to fly on two) is less safe than flying a twin engine 777?
Emotionally people are saying it is safest to dump fuel and land again. Fortunately SOPs are developed unemotionally and are based on careful and considered analysis.
As flight crew we have the ultimate say but one would have to have extremely compelling reasons to operate outside SOPs. An emotional impulse that it is safer to dump fuel and land would not fall into that bracket.
Three highly trained and experienced pilots with many thousands of hours were happy to continue within defined parameters, refined over many years by many highly experienced and qualified people, but you say it would have been safer not to.
Could you explain your background and qualifications which give you enough insight and experience to say that everybody else is wrong?
When ETOPS was first considered everybody was aghast that it was even considered. I didn't like the idea and said I would never do it. I now do at least 8 ETOPS sectors every month. The change of heart has come from observation, education and experience. That last numbers I saw showed that there are around 1,100 ETOPS sectors flown every 24 hours.
My emotional opposition to ETOPS was not grounded in reality. Similarly so many of the opinions posted on this thread.
It is worthy of note that nobody from any other major carrier operating 4 engined public transport has posted what there particular company philosphy is following an IFSD.
Could you explain why flying a 747 on three engines (with an ability to fly on two) is less safe than flying a twin engine 777?
Emotionally people are saying it is safest to dump fuel and land again. Fortunately SOPs are developed unemotionally and are based on careful and considered analysis.
As flight crew we have the ultimate say but one would have to have extremely compelling reasons to operate outside SOPs. An emotional impulse that it is safer to dump fuel and land would not fall into that bracket.
Three highly trained and experienced pilots with many thousands of hours were happy to continue within defined parameters, refined over many years by many highly experienced and qualified people, but you say it would have been safer not to.
Could you explain your background and qualifications which give you enough insight and experience to say that everybody else is wrong?
When ETOPS was first considered everybody was aghast that it was even considered. I didn't like the idea and said I would never do it. I now do at least 8 ETOPS sectors every month. The change of heart has come from observation, education and experience. That last numbers I saw showed that there are around 1,100 ETOPS sectors flown every 24 hours.
My emotional opposition to ETOPS was not grounded in reality. Similarly so many of the opinions posted on this thread.
It is worthy of note that nobody from any other major carrier operating 4 engined public transport has posted what there particular company philosphy is following an IFSD.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
barryt
I don't believe you always have to be an expert to know when something isn't right.
I'm in the same line of work and it seems clear to me that this flight went wrong at some point, the debate is where and how?
I don't believe you always have to be an expert to know when something isn't right.
I'm in the same line of work and it seems clear to me that this flight went wrong at some point, the debate is where and how?
I love the way everyone just assumes I am not a professional. Why? Because Rainboe says so?
What makes a professional anyway? Rainboe's attitude? (Which is akin to a kid being prodded and having a toy removed from him because he is about to break it).
You are possibly correct. I AM getting tired MYSELF now, of people with seemingly no common sense...
What makes a professional anyway? Rainboe's attitude? (Which is akin to a kid being prodded and having a toy removed from him because he is about to break it).
You are possibly correct. I AM getting tired MYSELF now, of people with seemingly no common sense...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth did they not go in to SNN or DUB??
I am one who certainly supports their decision to bring the a/c back to the UK, but I feel BA were being a little greedy to try and bypass Ireland.
At the end of the day - Anything could have occured that would have prompted a Go-Around, what would have their options been then?? The headlines could have been a lot worse!!
I am one who certainly supports their decision to bring the a/c back to the UK, but I feel BA were being a little greedy to try and bypass Ireland.
At the end of the day - Anything could have occured that would have prompted a Go-Around, what would have their options been then?? The headlines could have been a lot worse!!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three highly trained and experienced pilots with many thousands of hours were happy to continue within defined parameters,
If this is modern airmanship then give me the old fashioned kind.
In closing (I have to leave now) I would just like to say that in no way am I "blaming" or holding any of the crew responsible for what happened (so all you reporters out there take NOTE).
But something STILL doesn't feel right about the flight.
Cheers all.
But something STILL doesn't feel right about the flight.
Cheers all.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: south coast uk
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have over 10,000 hrs on all models of B747, mostly on the 744. During that time I've carried out 3+eng ferries, including across the Atlantic, and flown air-tests on 2+eng. The aircraft is safe and easy to fly in all configurations, provided that you have the knowledge and training to do so. There is nothing, from the sparse information here on Pprune, that would indicate that the crew carried out anything other than a text book operation. Barrack room lawyers please note!
We are very fortunate to have so many experts available to us here on Pprune. It seems a shame that most of them push a pen for a living.
We are very fortunate to have so many experts available to us here on Pprune. It seems a shame that most of them push a pen for a living.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said on page 2, IFSD Continuation Policy has been discussed at length on PPRuNe and so I don't intend to go through it all again. 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.
As GS states, all of the 5t on board was usable by opening the crossfeel valves and using the normal fuel pumps in tank 2. 5t is more that you might have after a diversion from somewhere like LHR due to weather etc. A go-around, radar vectored circuit and landing will use about 2t (I did it a few weeks ago). As we all know, the JAR-OPS rules about reserve and alternate fuel are very different for a two-runway airfield than for a one-runway airfield (once again this has been discussed many times here on PPRuNe), so it would seem sensible to overfly a single runway airfield and continue to EGCC.
If anyone is not happy with this then I suggest that you only fly on two-engined aircraft. That way you can ensure that you will land after an IFSD. However you might be airbourne for three hours on ONE engine before you do so.
Airclues
As GS states, all of the 5t on board was usable by opening the crossfeel valves and using the normal fuel pumps in tank 2. 5t is more that you might have after a diversion from somewhere like LHR due to weather etc. A go-around, radar vectored circuit and landing will use about 2t (I did it a few weeks ago). As we all know, the JAR-OPS rules about reserve and alternate fuel are very different for a two-runway airfield than for a one-runway airfield (once again this has been discussed many times here on PPRuNe), so it would seem sensible to overfly a single runway airfield and continue to EGCC.
If anyone is not happy with this then I suggest that you only fly on two-engined aircraft. That way you can ensure that you will land after an IFSD. However you might be airbourne for three hours on ONE engine before you do so.
Airclues
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BarryT, you refuse to accept the explanations given to you by pilots who are experienced on type so all I can suggest is that you put in the time, effort and money to complete a course for your Air Transport Pilots Licence and then book yourself on a B744 type rating course. Once you have those qualifications under your belt you will be in a position to explain why you are so sure that what the crew did was wrong. In the meantime, perhaps you will leave us to discuss the more technical aspects of this case. You have made your point.
As for Stan Wooley
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us all to your B744 experience or expertise. As has been pointed out, 5t of mostly useable fuel is not "bog all" and the reasons for the mayday have already been stated. WE are the first to complain when the media sensationalise what are in fact normal SOP's so why shouldn't we do the same when someone who purports to be a professional pilot is no better? It never ceases to amaze how the comforting cloak of anonimity brings out the worst in people. 
Perhaps some of the lay people out there need explaining about the difference between engine failure and engine severe vibration, separation or fire as there seems to be some confusion about why this engine was shut down because of a surge and not because of a contained or uncontained failure. The again, we had to cover all that as part of our licence qualification and subsequent type rating processes and that didn't happen overnight!
As for Stan Wooley
Yeah and land on a MAYDAY with bog all fuel and no Go-Around capability !!
Perhaps some of the lay people out there need explaining about the difference between engine failure and engine severe vibration, separation or fire as there seems to be some confusion about why this engine was shut down because of a surge and not because of a contained or uncontained failure. The again, we had to cover all that as part of our licence qualification and subsequent type rating processes and that didn't happen overnight!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt A & others
As a frequent traveller, your point about the pax being delivered safely and close to their final destination strikes a chord with me and your recognition of the "system" of different skills that supported this is also well made.
Having delivered some consulting assignment for an operational area within a big airline and seen a glimpse of your world, it seems to me that the problem with some people on here is that they do not realise how well proven SOPs are and how seriously safety is taken within airline flight ops.
Neither do they realise that if a MAYDAY was called, due to SOP requirement, it is not because the aeroplane was about to plunge to its doom, but rather because the aircraft manufacturer, authorities or the airline decided that this is the best way to mitigate the risk profile at that stage of flight, thus making it a non sensational event, just the implementation of safety planning.
I started my 10 months of work with an open mind and came away convinced that I am very safe in 8F!
As a frequent traveller, your point about the pax being delivered safely and close to their final destination strikes a chord with me and your recognition of the "system" of different skills that supported this is also well made.
Having delivered some consulting assignment for an operational area within a big airline and seen a glimpse of your world, it seems to me that the problem with some people on here is that they do not realise how well proven SOPs are and how seriously safety is taken within airline flight ops.
Neither do they realise that if a MAYDAY was called, due to SOP requirement, it is not because the aeroplane was about to plunge to its doom, but rather because the aircraft manufacturer, authorities or the airline decided that this is the best way to mitigate the risk profile at that stage of flight, thus making it a non sensational event, just the implementation of safety planning.
I started my 10 months of work with an open mind and came away convinced that I am very safe in 8F!
Danny
Perhaps some of the lay people out there need explaining about the difference between engine failure and engine severe vibration, separation or fire as there seems to be some confusion about why this engine was shut down because of a surge and not because of a contained or uncontained failure. The again, we had to cover all that as part of our licence qualification and subsequent type rating processes and that didn't happen overnight!
Perhaps some of the lay people out there need explaining about the difference between engine failure and engine severe vibration, separation or fire as there seems to be some confusion about why this engine was shut down because of a surge and not because of a contained or uncontained failure. The again, we had to cover all that as part of our licence qualification and subsequent type rating processes and that didn't happen overnight!
The study includes recommendations from the manufacturers on what are the most common signatures and how to deal with them