BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GS-Alpha,
Appreciate your thought process, but your explanation does not fit with some of the available evidence i.e a MAN engineer said there were 5.2 tonnes on board: 2.6 in No 2, and another 2.6 in No 4. (This is from memory as I don't want to trawl through the thread).
If you have been reading this forum for more than a few months you will remember the many threads where BA fuel policy has been discussed, with several expressing concern that one day they will need to call MAYDAY to get in. Well it's happened. I'm very surprised it should happen at the end of a flight where fuel burn is known to be higher. Your explanation seems to suggest the flight crew were somehow surprised by a warning, surely if you can explain what happened after the event, they should be expected to have the knowledge to anticipate this too?
Cheers
Appreciate your thought process, but your explanation does not fit with some of the available evidence i.e a MAN engineer said there were 5.2 tonnes on board: 2.6 in No 2, and another 2.6 in No 4. (This is from memory as I don't want to trawl through the thread).
If you have been reading this forum for more than a few months you will remember the many threads where BA fuel policy has been discussed, with several expressing concern that one day they will need to call MAYDAY to get in. Well it's happened. I'm very surprised it should happen at the end of a flight where fuel burn is known to be higher. Your explanation seems to suggest the flight crew were somehow surprised by a warning, surely if you can explain what happened after the event, they should be expected to have the knowledge to anticipate this too?
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bermondseya,
No problem, I'll take a look at baeng's post for you, in fact here is everything quoted about the fuel remaining...
I got involved with this thread because I take pride in the company I work for, and I was not happy with the tone from some of the passengers on here with regards to whether their safety is ever put at risk in such circumstances.
I hope I am clear when I say that I have NO knowledge of this incident except for what I have read here. My initial post was written to try to explain that all of the 'facts' posted here do not in ANY way suggest that safety was ever in question, or that the pilots, air traffic, or maintrol etc, screwed up in any way.
With regards to whether the pilots should have know what was going to happen - why do you suspect they did not? Do you have any evidence of this? I mentioned the FUEL QTY LOW checklist. They did not necessarily wait for the EICAS prompt. They may well have anticipated it and discussed the relevant checklist well in advance? What evidence is there that they did not anticipate it? Policy is to declare a PAN if the aircraft might land without reserve fuel. A MAYDAY is declared when it will.
As I have said, they more than likely did NOT declare a MAYDAY due to the possibility of landing with less than reserve fuel, because 5 tonnes is ABOVE reserve! In fact baeng's post doesn't even suggest a MAYDAY was called, although some other poster's who were listening to radio did.
If a MAYDAY was called, where is your evidence that it was due to landing with below reserve fuel? It was more than likely regarding the requirement to avoid high pitch levels as mentioned in the checklist. This incidentally does not mean they could not go around, just that they could not do a full energy go-around. They could quite easily break off the approach and fly a gradual climb. But they wanted to avoid a full energy go-around, such as would be required for a discontinued approach at the very late stages. Hence the information that they would not be going around. In this way, the runway would have been kept sterile for the latter part of the approach.
I really cannot see what all of this fuss is about? My guess would be that the crew did a fantastic job throughout. I certainly have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise
No problem, I'll take a look at baeng's post for you, in fact here is everything quoted about the fuel remaining...
Before you all start screaming and shouting that I am a spotter, I am not, I am a BA engineer working at Manchester who was on shift when the aircraft arrived at Man. 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. The decision was made to shut down the engine and contact LHR Maintrol and after acars message, the decision was made to carry on to LHR as they had enough fuel.
Upon crossing the pond the a/c was told by atc to descend and in doing so the fuel burn increased. The decision was made to come to MAN as they did not have enough fuel left to reach LHR, this was because of a problem getting fuel from trhe number 2 main tank.
The aircraft did declare a PAN and informed the tower at MAN that they would not be doing a go around. It arrived safely at MAN with no injuries to pax or crew. The aircraft was certainly not overweight as it landed with 5 tonnes of fuel onboard.
Upon crossing the pond the a/c was told by atc to descend and in doing so the fuel burn increased. The decision was made to come to MAN as they did not have enough fuel left to reach LHR, this was because of a problem getting fuel from trhe number 2 main tank.
The aircraft did declare a PAN and informed the tower at MAN that they would not be doing a go around. It arrived safely at MAN with no injuries to pax or crew. The aircraft was certainly not overweight as it landed with 5 tonnes of fuel onboard.
I hope I am clear when I say that I have NO knowledge of this incident except for what I have read here. My initial post was written to try to explain that all of the 'facts' posted here do not in ANY way suggest that safety was ever in question, or that the pilots, air traffic, or maintrol etc, screwed up in any way.
With regards to whether the pilots should have know what was going to happen - why do you suspect they did not? Do you have any evidence of this? I mentioned the FUEL QTY LOW checklist. They did not necessarily wait for the EICAS prompt. They may well have anticipated it and discussed the relevant checklist well in advance? What evidence is there that they did not anticipate it? Policy is to declare a PAN if the aircraft might land without reserve fuel. A MAYDAY is declared when it will.
one day they will need to call MAYDAY to get in
If a MAYDAY was called, where is your evidence that it was due to landing with below reserve fuel? It was more than likely regarding the requirement to avoid high pitch levels as mentioned in the checklist. This incidentally does not mean they could not go around, just that they could not do a full energy go-around. They could quite easily break off the approach and fly a gradual climb. But they wanted to avoid a full energy go-around, such as would be required for a discontinued approach at the very late stages. Hence the information that they would not be going around. In this way, the runway would have been kept sterile for the latter part of the approach.
I really cannot see what all of this fuss is about? My guess would be that the crew did a fantastic job throughout. I certainly have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise
Guest
Posts: n/a
Zak, Chippy
Please read the post again.
I think that you are inserting a comma where the poster did not and thus misunderstanding the sentence.
Believe that he is referring to the fact that 3 engined flight burns more fuel than 4 engined flight.
Please read the post again.
I think that you are inserting a comma where the poster did not and thus misunderstanding the sentence.
Believe that he is referring to the fact that 3 engined flight burns more fuel than 4 engined flight.
Mea Culpa
I got concerned that the override/jettison pumps were the only way to get fuel from tanks 2/3 to the other engines.
Jack's a dull boy, GS-ALPHA, Danny et al. have rightly pointed out that the fuel left behind by the override/jettison pumps will still get to the remaining engines.
Examination of the fuel system schematic -- something I should have done first -- shows that the boost pumps in any tank can feed any engine.
Thank you, gentlemen, for the information -- I learned something.
Jack's a dull boy, GS-ALPHA, Danny et al. have rightly pointed out that the fuel left behind by the override/jettison pumps will still get to the remaining engines.
Examination of the fuel system schematic -- something I should have done first -- shows that the boost pumps in any tank can feed any engine.
Thank you, gentlemen, for the information -- I learned something.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flash8
You are correct, but there is no evidence that this point was reached? With two runways available at Manchester, the crew will have put reserve fuel (plus a bit of buffer probably), into the FMS. (This is in fact Reserves fuel now - note the S, because no diversion is necessary because of the two runways). This figure could have been about 4 tonnes or slightly less, and they will have burnt a bit taxying in anyway.
You are correct, but there is no evidence that this point was reached? With two runways available at Manchester, the crew will have put reserve fuel (plus a bit of buffer probably), into the FMS. (This is in fact Reserves fuel now - note the S, because no diversion is necessary because of the two runways). This figure could have been about 4 tonnes or slightly less, and they will have burnt a bit taxying in anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JJflyer
You are correct, that at the end of a flight, jet transport aircraft carry "very little fuel."
At the end of a diversion, they tend to carry even less.
And your point is........?
You are correct, that at the end of a flight, jet transport aircraft carry "very little fuel."
At the end of a diversion, they tend to carry even less.
And your point is........?
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
I've ended up with less than that after shutdown....without a Mayday, which incidently was perfectly correctly given in this case. The Mayday did not mean 'we're going down, save us!!!!' (extra exclamations added for maximum dramatic effect). It meant 'we are possibly going to land with below Reserve fuel'- Reserve fuel being something below 4.5 tons.
I really feel that the crew did extremely well for many hours under trying conditions with everything 'to the book'. It enrages me that uninformed and ignorant of aviation procedures people are crawling out of the woodwork with their daft 'shoot from the hip' opinions and so easily criticising professionals who have made a damn good job of a trying event. It is seriously making me consider the wisdom of entering into discussions in an open forum with people who don't know what they are talking about. Why do they need to express themsolves so objectionably in a Professional Pilots Forum?
and 4468 made a perfectly sensible point above!
I really feel that the crew did extremely well for many hours under trying conditions with everything 'to the book'. It enrages me that uninformed and ignorant of aviation procedures people are crawling out of the woodwork with their daft 'shoot from the hip' opinions and so easily criticising professionals who have made a damn good job of a trying event. It is seriously making me consider the wisdom of entering into discussions in an open forum with people who don't know what they are talking about. Why do they need to express themsolves so objectionably in a Professional Pilots Forum?
and 4468 made a perfectly sensible point above!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If so can you expand on your fatuous statement?
1. Inanely foolish and unintelligent; stupid.
Coming from one Pilot to another that seems a rather cruel remark (perhaps, just in the heat of the moment) .... there is no doubt that if anyone wants to start a heated debate then the subject of IFSD's is sure to oblige)
.... JJ's almost a "2000 posts" man so he can't be all that bad 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gone from the FL sun to the desert Oasis
Age: 60
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious if you take that this happened to a BA flight out of the picture, and substitute another carrier, for instance KE or CI, which have had a perceived history of cockpit problems, on the same agenda, do you get the same reaction. Would they be praising the crew for "plodding on" or chastizing them for
reckless decisions?
reckless decisions?
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 now we are moving on from what this BA crew did to what would be the reaction if someone else did it? It's all getting a little twisted and hard to follow, isn't it? Would you like to expand on what you perceive as their 'history of cockpit problems' and what that means and what point you are going to try and make out of it? If we are going to wonder down peculiar tracks, we might as well thread creep completely!
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the model of 747, 5 tons is very little fuel
Airclues
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gone from the FL sun to the desert Oasis
Age: 60
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Rainbo,
I'm not looking to trash anyone here.
BA is a respected world class airline. KE or CI have had
recent problems of approaches below minimums, take offs on wrong runways etc as well as past accidents, that resulted in changes in their cockpit environment. I'm only saying, if it
was a carrier that has had recurrement problems that operated a 3 engine Trans Atlantic flight under the same circumstances, would the reaction be the same on forums such as this.
Perception is a good part of reality...
I'm not looking to trash anyone here.
BA is a respected world class airline. KE or CI have had
recent problems of approaches below minimums, take offs on wrong runways etc as well as past accidents, that resulted in changes in their cockpit environment. I'm only saying, if it
was a carrier that has had recurrement problems that operated a 3 engine Trans Atlantic flight under the same circumstances, would the reaction be the same on forums such as this.
Perception is a good part of reality...
Controversial, moi?
Cambridge Dictionary:
fatuous = stupid, not correct, or not carefully thought about
QED
The statement was meaningless and used in a way that implied a very low fuel state i.e. a fatuous statement
fatuous = stupid, not correct, or not carefully thought about
QED
The statement was meaningless and used in a way that implied a very low fuel state i.e. a fatuous statement