FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amused at the varmint opinion said with such emotion, yet when questioned no logic follows instead just more varmint abuse. I imagine Busy B and L337 have never had the opportunity witness any proceedings in a court of law. Whilst I appreciate you have an opinion and that you feel so emotional about what is correct and what is not, without the under-pinning logic you would last mill-seconds under cross examination.
Busy B, I was going to say you did not answer my question, but on reflection you have in a roundabout way, you said you were not going to answer but shot from the hip anyway in a sophomoric manner. Thank you for your input; you have given an interesting insight into what though I am unsure, you fail to give any reasonable logic, which is actually quite amusing. Thank you once again for making me laugh.
Incidentally, I find any illogical addition funny at best it indicates a level of understanding that encourages the fare paying passenger to seek an alternative mode of transport - Arrogance or ignorance I am sure that is what they are thinking so go on do your best show the public the extremities of your intelligence but give them a chance tell them who you work for.
Whilst the outcome was successful, the decisions taken up to that point I find hard to accept. I asked the question does BA think they are God; of course the crew knew that the actual wind at their level and for the remaining flight was going be advantageous, the traffic at Manchester was not going to cause a problem, that not one item of traffic was going to declare an emergency ahead of them at the most critical point and that the runways were in no way going to be blocked next you will be telling me they have a crystal ball in some compartment in the flight deck or they have satcom direct to God. As I said, at best they could say it was unlikely, but they could not guarantee it, was it worth it... I think the previous post says it all, the authorities have made a decision on this subject.
Thanks Irish Steve.
Busy B, I was going to say you did not answer my question, but on reflection you have in a roundabout way, you said you were not going to answer but shot from the hip anyway in a sophomoric manner. Thank you for your input; you have given an interesting insight into what though I am unsure, you fail to give any reasonable logic, which is actually quite amusing. Thank you once again for making me laugh.
Incidentally, I find any illogical addition funny at best it indicates a level of understanding that encourages the fare paying passenger to seek an alternative mode of transport - Arrogance or ignorance I am sure that is what they are thinking so go on do your best show the public the extremities of your intelligence but give them a chance tell them who you work for.
Whilst the outcome was successful, the decisions taken up to that point I find hard to accept. I asked the question does BA think they are God; of course the crew knew that the actual wind at their level and for the remaining flight was going be advantageous, the traffic at Manchester was not going to cause a problem, that not one item of traffic was going to declare an emergency ahead of them at the most critical point and that the runways were in no way going to be blocked next you will be telling me they have a crystal ball in some compartment in the flight deck or they have satcom direct to God. As I said, at best they could say it was unlikely, but they could not guarantee it, was it worth it... I think the previous post says it all, the authorities have made a decision on this subject.
Thanks Irish Steve.
Last edited by Crash and Burn; 12th May 2005 at 22:22.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By jove, I've got it! Crash & Burn is aviation's version of 'Mr Logic' - the well-known VIZ cartoon character who spouts logically correct drivel ad infinitum...then gets lamped in the final frame by his astonished colleagues...
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash and Burn
It would be so sad if you were to arrive in the US with plenty of fuel (although probably only two engines) and then be hurt in a LAHSO incident. (LAHSO are banned for UK airlines by the CAA).
Airclues
If this sort of culture were allowed to continue, I would rather fly westbound with a North American carrier
Airclues
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jeez, LAHSO 
In my innocence as a low hour PPL, I accepted a LAHSO at Nantucket, little realising that this meant cross runway ops.
Having managed LAHSO, my suprise at a commuter thundering across my line of sight (albeit well clear) made me realise that it was not a good idea to accept a clearance without total understanding.
All itneeds is a misjudgement, especially with heavy metal
In my innocence as a low hour PPL, I accepted a LAHSO at Nantucket, little realising that this meant cross runway ops.
Having managed LAHSO, my suprise at a commuter thundering across my line of sight (albeit well clear) made me realise that it was not a good idea to accept a clearance without total understanding.
All itneeds is a misjudgement, especially with heavy metal
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Airclues:
I'd forgotten that! Got his middle stump I think. Interestingly the FAA LAHSO webpage is maintained by a Ms. Pontius. Wonder if she has a license? 
Crash and Burn:
I'm not quite sure why you think the FAA should be sticking its oar in. The problems which lead to the decision to divert occured several hours out of FAA-controlled airspace. The only decision the FAA could possibly examine was the initial one to continue on three, and I (1) haven't heard anything resembling a sensible argument for that being a bad, wrong, or illegal decision, especially considering the backup the crew had from BA management and engineering etc. in the decision-making process.
As far as I can recall it wasn't the Aussies who hung Glen Stewart out to dry...
(1) Disclaimer: I have zero experience of longhaul 747 ops. But I've spoken to several who have.
R1
LAHSO are banned for UK airlines by the CAA
Crash and Burn:
I'm not quite sure why you think the FAA should be sticking its oar in. The problems which lead to the decision to divert occured several hours out of FAA-controlled airspace. The only decision the FAA could possibly examine was the initial one to continue on three, and I (1) haven't heard anything resembling a sensible argument for that being a bad, wrong, or illegal decision, especially considering the backup the crew had from BA management and engineering etc. in the decision-making process.
As far as I can recall it wasn't the Aussies who hung Glen Stewart out to dry...
(1) Disclaimer: I have zero experience of longhaul 747 ops. But I've spoken to several who have.
R1
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding all that
Having agonized about getting to Manchester a little short of gas and then having to achieve instant notoriety by admitting their fuel conundrum, one must still observe that it's all back-plottable to their earlier decision.
Notwithstanding the 3 engine climb gradient and the mountains East of LAX, those lofty heights aren't that tall that the crew couldn't have flown a standard SID, still out-climbed the mountains AND done their MAIN TROLLING and Ops HQ agonizations enroute whilst flying their best climb gradient.
Tooling around West of LAX at low-level with hefty power on the three good donks (for Maintrol's assessment) for in excess of 20 minutes before setting heading still adds up to a large tonnage of fuel wasted (that would have come in handy later).
Asserting otherwise with blusterful dismissal just denies the facts.
Notwithstanding the 3 engine climb gradient and the mountains East of LAX, those lofty heights aren't that tall that the crew couldn't have flown a standard SID, still out-climbed the mountains AND done their MAIN TROLLING and Ops HQ agonizations enroute whilst flying their best climb gradient.
Tooling around West of LAX at low-level with hefty power on the three good donks (for Maintrol's assessment) for in excess of 20 minutes before setting heading still adds up to a large tonnage of fuel wasted (that would have come in handy later).
Asserting otherwise with blusterful dismissal just denies the facts.
"then be hurt in a LAHSO incident. (LAHSO are banned for UK airlines by the CAA)"
A competent pilot should have no problem executing them day in and day out. If the pilot is not sure of his or the aircrafts ability you always have the option to say no.
A competent pilot should have no problem executing them day in and day out. If the pilot is not sure of his or the aircrafts ability you always have the option to say no.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Airclues
I have flown as PIC in the US under various part of the FARs, the LAHSO procedure is discretionary; I agree with you, there is a risk associated with poor judgement and execution. I have never had the situation where I felt that I would arrive at the intersection at the same time as another aircraft – but I agree there is that chance.
In the UK, we have the 'Land-after' procedure, which could also be poorly judged and executed. The difference between this and LAHSO is that with LAHSO, you can easily detect a contant relative bearing and get out of the situation before it develops. Land-after however, if the chap on the ground grinds to a halt and you happen to be close to the ground ATC will be shouting at the chap to expedite his vacation. In addition, there are a number of airfields within the UK that issue a landing clearance when the departuring aircraft is still on the runway but has travelled, I believe 2000 metres. This is based on the assumption that the aircraft departing has actually passed V1, but a declaration for the aircraft in question has not been made.
Ranger One
Thanks for posting, I was under the impression that the FAA did not like the decision made and no doubt believe they are not only acting in the interests of US nationals. From the details I have read the original failure occured within US airspace and this would have the FAA a strong case for arguing their point.
Dagger Dirk
Excellent point.
I have flown as PIC in the US under various part of the FARs, the LAHSO procedure is discretionary; I agree with you, there is a risk associated with poor judgement and execution. I have never had the situation where I felt that I would arrive at the intersection at the same time as another aircraft – but I agree there is that chance.
In the UK, we have the 'Land-after' procedure, which could also be poorly judged and executed. The difference between this and LAHSO is that with LAHSO, you can easily detect a contant relative bearing and get out of the situation before it develops. Land-after however, if the chap on the ground grinds to a halt and you happen to be close to the ground ATC will be shouting at the chap to expedite his vacation. In addition, there are a number of airfields within the UK that issue a landing clearance when the departuring aircraft is still on the runway but has travelled, I believe 2000 metres. This is based on the assumption that the aircraft departing has actually passed V1, but a declaration for the aircraft in question has not been made.
Ranger One
Thanks for posting, I was under the impression that the FAA did not like the decision made and no doubt believe they are not only acting in the interests of US nationals. From the details I have read the original failure occured within US airspace and this would have the FAA a strong case for arguing their point.
Dagger Dirk
Excellent point.
Last edited by Crash and Burn; 14th May 2005 at 17:32.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg to differ. With Land After there is only one other aircraft to identify - that which is already on the runway. The clearance is only issued when the leading aircraft is a specified distance down the runway, giving you an initial idea of the minimum landing distance available and advance warning of what you'll be doing if your brakes fail, ie turning off the runway. That minimum distance is in no way contingent upon the performance of the leading aircraft. Now compare with LAHSO, when you are required to identify a single aircraft approaching the intersecting runway, when you are unsure of its exact position, when the visibility may be poor and when it may be on a constant relative bearing, thus even harder to pinpoint. Your landing distance is now contingent upon the performance of the other aircraft and his complete and accurate comprehension of and compliance with the LAHSO instructions. It offers little room for error and provides no formal seperation in the event of both aircraft choosing to go around. Give me Land After anyday.
To err is human.
Now to address some of C&Bs points:
No, I'd be of the opinion that the crew behind had a problem and I did not so I would do my damndest to assist. just like I have been willing to enter the hold at Glasgow to allow an urgent but slower air ambulance ahead of me. One day it might happen to you and you'll be grateful for the help.
I don't know where you fly to C&B but you obviously consider MAN a 'busy' airport. I don't think it comes anywhere close being a truly busy airport and would be far more comfortable with the level of traffic there than at LHR or JFK. I am also far more comfortable with traffic levels at airfields with 2 usable runways. Belfast may have two runways, but how big? The difference in fuel between Belfast and MAN is truly negligible rather less than the accuracy of the fuel gauges.
Never assume - check! If you don't trust the flight plan winds get an accurate update from Gander or other traffic. Surely you don't think they just plugged the winds in and sat back for 6 hours waiting to see what happened?
Keep what a secret? Landing with fuel above reserves? Perhaps you did not read my earlier comment? FUEL ABOVE RESERVES. Neither the CAA nor BA require you to declare an emergency if you land with fuel above reserves. 5T is quite likely above reserves on an LAX. After a visual circuit you would probably have 3T left. 5T gives you enough time for a radar circuit and a long talking to ATC to ensure they fully understand the position. Believe me these things happen with reasonable regularity at LHR and the CAA are fully aware of the situation. Sometimes, with the best will in the world, people get caught out.
Neither. You appear to assume the crew ignored all your concerns. They didn't. They considered them closely and decided they had a different view from you. Three very experienced long haul pilots decided they had a different view from you. Why are you right and they wrong?
They didn't. They left themselves with several chances. It was only a late problem that reduced them to what they considered possibly one chance, although in reality it wasn't.
A competent pilot should have no problem executing them day in and day out
Now to address some of C&Bs points:
if you were the aircraft ahead and you heard the aircraft behind stating a requirement for a sterile runway, which would obviously mean that you would be required by ATC to execute a missed approach; I am sure your opinion would be that the crew behind 'pressed on'
you were flying an aircraft in a similar situation that you would assume the traffic to be insignificant to have any effect on the outcome
I have seen some significant differences from that forecasted. I feel very uneasy about assumptions that can have such significant knock-on effects
As for landing with 5 tons of fuel onboard without declaring an emergency, I cannot believe you would keep this a secret, I cannot imagine what you are saying is SOP. Plus you haven't answered my question. How much fuel would be left in the tanks after a missed approach into a visual circuit? The reason why I think this is important is obvious - what about a second chance if something should go wrong.
f you have a choice of landing without making a fuss or pressing on and ignore at least what would be my concerns (outlined above), would you label yourself ignorant or arrogant
‘why did I pass suitable aerodromes and leave yourself with just one chance’ – was it really that necessary?
Last edited by Hand Solo; 13th May 2005 at 14:23.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo - Thanks, yep are opinions are different. However, I never said assume, in fact I said exactly the same as you, never assume from that point on I mentioned my particular concerns.
On the subject of keeping the fuel state a secret - someone mentioned there is no policy within the UK and that there is no requirement to say anything to ATC; that is not entirely true. Within the UK the only published way to get priority over anyone else is to make an Urgent or Distress call to ATC. I believe the history behind this relates to cue jumping many years ago. I know of a number of operators, including the one I work for, if we are in a position where we estimate a landing below reserve then SOPs dictates we make an Urgent call (ie Pan). Once through the reserve make a Distress call (ie Mayday).
Similarly to you, I would also get out of the way if the chap behind was in trouble, but that was not what I was getting at; I was getting at what you would be thinking. If the chap behind only made his initial warning, a Distress call at 3000 feet (10 mile final) would you consider that normal aviation practice bearing in mind the length of time the situation had been developing?
Question, was an Urgent call made prior to that point, if not how did the crew know that ATC were in a position to sort out the traffic for them. Manchester International is busy enough without having to compare it with the two busiest airports of the UK. By involving ATC earlier in the scenario, seems a logical idea; you would improve your chances of success – after all a distress call was actually made. After that, it is a debate as to when you make an Urgent or Distress call.
The debate could go on and on into a complete circle. I appreciate Manchester has two runways but a distress call was made. If you concede that Belfast was equally a valid option, then somewhere hours before is just as valid, but would a distress call have been necessary. If a distress call was not made we probably not have heard of it and this interesting debate would not have occurred.
You point out this sort of thing happens regularly and where there is an abundance of options, we could argue a safe stance but only for reasonable alternates. Although try to explain all the complexities of this to a member of public; I am sure they would be speechless for a time then go straight to the most important point, how can you guarantee another aircraft is not doing exactly the same thing and do the people who control them know precisely what is going on? – To a layperson the enigma of diverting.
It is all a matter of opinion.
On the subject of keeping the fuel state a secret - someone mentioned there is no policy within the UK and that there is no requirement to say anything to ATC; that is not entirely true. Within the UK the only published way to get priority over anyone else is to make an Urgent or Distress call to ATC. I believe the history behind this relates to cue jumping many years ago. I know of a number of operators, including the one I work for, if we are in a position where we estimate a landing below reserve then SOPs dictates we make an Urgent call (ie Pan). Once through the reserve make a Distress call (ie Mayday).
Similarly to you, I would also get out of the way if the chap behind was in trouble, but that was not what I was getting at; I was getting at what you would be thinking. If the chap behind only made his initial warning, a Distress call at 3000 feet (10 mile final) would you consider that normal aviation practice bearing in mind the length of time the situation had been developing?
Question, was an Urgent call made prior to that point, if not how did the crew know that ATC were in a position to sort out the traffic for them. Manchester International is busy enough without having to compare it with the two busiest airports of the UK. By involving ATC earlier in the scenario, seems a logical idea; you would improve your chances of success – after all a distress call was actually made. After that, it is a debate as to when you make an Urgent or Distress call.
The debate could go on and on into a complete circle. I appreciate Manchester has two runways but a distress call was made. If you concede that Belfast was equally a valid option, then somewhere hours before is just as valid, but would a distress call have been necessary. If a distress call was not made we probably not have heard of it and this interesting debate would not have occurred.
You point out this sort of thing happens regularly and where there is an abundance of options, we could argue a safe stance but only for reasonable alternates. Although try to explain all the complexities of this to a member of public; I am sure they would be speechless for a time then go straight to the most important point, how can you guarantee another aircraft is not doing exactly the same thing and do the people who control them know precisely what is going on? – To a layperson the enigma of diverting.
It is all a matter of opinion.
Last edited by Crash and Burn; 15th May 2005 at 14:05.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 little questions..?
Although I have enjoyed the debate immensely with lots of interesting facts coming to light, could the educated amongst you please answer these 2 questions as succinctly as possible? If a British registered 747 left LAX tomorrow - (in light of the event under discussion), bound for LHR and lost an engine immediately after take-off (isolated incident).
1) Would the crew endeavour to plan for landing at LHR as filed?
a. Have airlines ‘discussed this with you.
2) Have there been any ‘policy’ changes by British airlines in response to this event. (Handling procedures / limits / restrictions, etc.)
(These aren’t trick questions and there is nothing contentious in the scenario)
Many Thanks
001
1) Would the crew endeavour to plan for landing at LHR as filed?
a. Have airlines ‘discussed this with you.
2) Have there been any ‘policy’ changes by British airlines in response to this event. (Handling procedures / limits / restrictions, etc.)
(These aren’t trick questions and there is nothing contentious in the scenario)
Many Thanks
001
With Land After ....................................... The clearance is only issued when the leading aircraft is a specified distance down the runway ..........
I suggest you are confusing "Land After", with "After the Landed, Cleared to Land", which is only issued when the leading aircraft has passed a specified distance along the runway.
The conditions for "Land After" do not include any 'specified distance' - the responsibility for separation transfers entirely to the accepting pilot.
Sorry if this sounds 'picky', but the two are very different!
Last edited by spekesoftly; 15th May 2005 at 09:46.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land After Clearance
AIP Gen 3-3-6 Para 6.4 details the special landing procedures that may be used at London Heathrow, London Gatwick (except for Runway 08L/26R at London Gatwick), London Stansted (Land after Departure only) and Manchester (Land after Departure only) when the specific weather, runway surface and other criteria detailed in the AIP are met.
When the runway-in-use is temporarily occupied by other traffic, landing clearance will be issued to an arriving aircraft provided that, at the time the aircraft crosses the threshold of the runway-in-use, specific separation distances will exist:
In the case of London Heathrow and London Gatwick, the separation required is:
(i) Landing following landing - The preceding landing aircraft will be clear of the runway-in-use or will be at least 2,500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
(ii) Landing following departure - The departing aircraft will be airborne and at least 2,000 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use, or if not airborne, will be at least 2,500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
Different criteria apply to the other airports.
http://www.chirp.co.uk/new/Downloads/html/FB59.htm
AIP Gen 3-3-6 Para 6.4 details the special landing procedures that may be used at London Heathrow, London Gatwick (except for Runway 08L/26R at London Gatwick), London Stansted (Land after Departure only) and Manchester (Land after Departure only) when the specific weather, runway surface and other criteria detailed in the AIP are met.
When the runway-in-use is temporarily occupied by other traffic, landing clearance will be issued to an arriving aircraft provided that, at the time the aircraft crosses the threshold of the runway-in-use, specific separation distances will exist:
In the case of London Heathrow and London Gatwick, the separation required is:
(i) Landing following landing - The preceding landing aircraft will be clear of the runway-in-use or will be at least 2,500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
(ii) Landing following departure - The departing aircraft will be airborne and at least 2,000 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use, or if not airborne, will be at least 2,500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
Different criteria apply to the other airports.
http://www.chirp.co.uk/new/Downloads/html/FB59.htm
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAW001
1- As this incident highlights, unlikely with planned 'destination' fuel; but with any diversion it is, Captain/Crew, Airline and most importantly, fuel dependant.
(a)– That is the job of the UK Civil Aviation Authority as the regulator.
2- As per 1 (a), plus Unsure/Unlikely.
Great questions and I would suggest a chat with the CAA if you want more information on what is actually happening.
Great debate!
1- As this incident highlights, unlikely with planned 'destination' fuel; but with any diversion it is, Captain/Crew, Airline and most importantly, fuel dependant.
(a)– That is the job of the UK Civil Aviation Authority as the regulator.
2- As per 1 (a), plus Unsure/Unlikely.
Great questions and I would suggest a chat with the CAA if you want more information on what is actually happening.
Great debate!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode7 posted 3rd May 2005 With regards all the banter about BA continuing to fly to avoid compensation - this should put an end to it
EU Passenger Rights- Denied Boarding Compensation
New Denied Boarding Compensation legislation (261/2004) came into effect on the 17th of February this year and updated existing legislation on the rights of payment to air passengers if they are denied boarding. .......
EU Passenger Rights- Denied Boarding Compensation
New Denied Boarding Compensation legislation (261/2004) came into effect on the 17th of February this year and updated existing legislation on the rights of payment to air passengers if they are denied boarding. .......
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=174719
Cheers,
I have already made my contribution to this subject and I have no wish to make any further comment (for now) on the main topic but I am very interested in the comment made recently that a B747-400 only uses 1200 kgs of fuel making a visual circuit.
Can anyone out there who regularly makes visual circuits in real B747-400s (not the simulator) confirm this figure?
Having once had to make a go-around at JFK in a DC-10 it took 4000 kgs to get back on the ground.
Indeed, the taxi fuel allowed on the loadsheet of the DC-10 just to get to the threshold was normally getting on for 950 kgs (1300 kgs at JFK and ORD) so the notion of doing a G/A, PRGU, leaving the slats out, flaps for circuit, down wind, gear down etc etc and only burning 1200 kgs leaves me full of huge admiration for the efficiency of Mr Rolls Royce's engines.
I would also be interested to know when (if ever) the crew involved actually did a quick visual circuit in the real aeroplane.
Before you start firing back, I DO spend a lot of my time flying visual circuits in the real aeroplane for we do not have a zero-time simulator.
Can anyone out there who regularly makes visual circuits in real B747-400s (not the simulator) confirm this figure?
Having once had to make a go-around at JFK in a DC-10 it took 4000 kgs to get back on the ground.
Indeed, the taxi fuel allowed on the loadsheet of the DC-10 just to get to the threshold was normally getting on for 950 kgs (1300 kgs at JFK and ORD) so the notion of doing a G/A, PRGU, leaving the slats out, flaps for circuit, down wind, gear down etc etc and only burning 1200 kgs leaves me full of huge admiration for the efficiency of Mr Rolls Royce's engines.
I would also be interested to know when (if ever) the crew involved actually did a quick visual circuit in the real aeroplane.
Before you start firing back, I DO spend a lot of my time flying visual circuits in the real aeroplane for we do not have a zero-time simulator.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, I was discussing this incident with 3 extremely experienced ex-ba 744 captains on Tuesday. All agreed upon the course of action they would have taken - a diversion to New York.
Carrying dead engines over twelve hour sectors is a bean-counter’s procedure.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been running a long time time.....
Question.....If same event occured this week with a BA744 outer LAX or similar heading home to LHR. watts the plan now.?
Answers on a postcard please.?
Question.....If same event occured this week with a BA744 outer LAX or similar heading home to LHR. watts the plan now.?
Answers on a postcard please.?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lack of comprehension
It's so amazing how folks even in the industry (let alone those on the fringes) cannot distinguish what constitutes engine-out ferry, and what constitutes engine failure after V1, and how drastically they differ, and WHY.
Let the flight crews handle this, please. Sometimes 'tis better to remain silent and appear a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Let the flight crews handle this, please. Sometimes 'tis better to remain silent and appear a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.