FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If same event occured this week with a BA744 outer LAX or similar heading home to LHR. watts the plan now.?
)
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOVES
...in case one of such a situation would have arisen at the Non Returning Point,
I try to figure out some:
- A second engine failure
- Smoke/fire on board (electrical, from the air conditioning, in a toilet...)
- Depressurization
- Fuel temperature low
- Cracked Windshield
You name others...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Line Maintenace Engineer of mine told me to add:
...The same engine ceisure (not impossible due to the engine overtemperature during T.O., and possible bearing/s damage, and/or probable consequences to the lubricating system...
(ZEKE where are You?)
Would they been able to avoid sharks?
Fly safe
DOVE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOVES
...in case one of such a situation would have arisen at the Non Returning Point,
I try to figure out some:
- A second engine failure
- Smoke/fire on board (electrical, from the air conditioning, in a toilet...)
- Depressurization
- Fuel temperature low
- Cracked Windshield
You name others...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Line Maintenace Engineer of mine told me to add:
...The same engine ceisure (not impossible due to the engine overtemperature during T.O., and possible bearing/s damage, and/or probable consequences to the lubricating system...
(ZEKE where are You?)
Would they been able to avoid sharks?
Fly safe
DOVE
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, I love pprune bicker fests, and, as the two separate threads attest, this little story is the perfect storm for this BBS, with its large UK membership.
So we've got:
FAA vs. CAA
Boeing vs. Airbus
Long-Haul vs. Short-Haul
Simpilots vs. Aviation Professionals
Non-pilots vs. Pilots
Pax vs. Pilots
Pencil-Pushers vs. Cockpit-Monkeys
US vs. UK.
BA vs. other carriers
...just to name a few.
Well, maybe I can do a little janitorial work.
Factually Incorrect
The "20 minutes burning fuel, stooging about": the track posted to the original thread showed that, in fact, the aircraft climbed out over the ocean, and crossed back when it had achieved the minimum altitude to do so. So sure, the decision to continue may have been debated, but every indication so far shows that, even before the decision was made, the aircraft climbed out as if such a decision had been made.
New EU rules: As silly as they may be, they wouldn't have applied in either case.
"Economics never played a factor; safety was the primary concern": If this were true, all flights would be cancelled because of the risk of injury/death incurred in the drive to the airport. Economics always plays a factor.
Now some other fun bits:
US vs. UK military cultures: since the regs involved often derive from military practices, anyone else wonder how much the US "if it ain't in the book, you can't do it" vs. UK "if it isn't prohibited in the book, you can do it" philosophies might affect the different attitudes towards the investigations?
Possibility vs. Probability: this is the "conspiracy theory" fallacy. Conspiracy Theorists argue to possibility, and then claim that is what happened, using accusations of cover ups and self-interest (you BA Nigels protecting yer own) to discard more probable scenarios. As anyone with an interest in aviation knows, Commercial Airliner accidents attract conspiracy theorists, and not just because they are spectacular news items. Commercial Aviation incidents are so frequently the result of a series of improbable and technically bewildering events, that the most probable explanation is itself pretty darn rare. Aviation safety is done such that accidents occur from the most improbable combination of circumstances; then conspiracy theorists come in and cook up even more unlikely ones.
So, sure, anyone can posit a sequence of improbable circumstances that will result in an unsuccessful outcome to a flight.
Manchester: I did some research for the previous thread; Manchester is in the (lower end of the) top thirty busiest airports in the world. It also has by my calculations the most spotters per movement of any major airport. Declaring an emergency into Manchester is a sure way to get press exposure.
Actual vs. Perceived Risk: Many of the arguments here can be boiled down to these two. Actual risk is pretty darn important, but from a Public Relations viewpoint, Perceived Risk is critical. With this flight, BA lost the PR battle, and I'm willing to bet, lost in revenue far more than the cost of a diversion. Whether there was actually any bad airmanship involved can be debated; but the incident definitely created a public impression of perceived risk in the incident, and no amount of arguing can change that.
Unrelated events: the declared emergency and the diversion into MAN were not unrelated to the engine shutdown; while there may have been no actual danger, the suspicion of unusable fuel that triggered the call was caused by the unique condition of flying with an engine shut down.
This sort of phenomenon is not uncommon with complex systems: when you deviate from the normal mode of operation, further unanticipated events are going to occur with increased frequency. That this fact doesn't make operating on backup systems inherently unsafe is not a reason to deny its existence.
So is it inherently unsafe to operate in a non-normal mode for 12 hours? Should the aviation authorities investigate a Mayday call that is related to a situation the crew knew about a continent earlier? In this case, can anything be learned, besides most people are full of hot air, and don't divert to MAN?
So we've got:
FAA vs. CAA
Boeing vs. Airbus
Long-Haul vs. Short-Haul
Simpilots vs. Aviation Professionals
Non-pilots vs. Pilots
Pax vs. Pilots
Pencil-Pushers vs. Cockpit-Monkeys
US vs. UK.
BA vs. other carriers
...just to name a few.
Well, maybe I can do a little janitorial work.
Factually Incorrect
The "20 minutes burning fuel, stooging about": the track posted to the original thread showed that, in fact, the aircraft climbed out over the ocean, and crossed back when it had achieved the minimum altitude to do so. So sure, the decision to continue may have been debated, but every indication so far shows that, even before the decision was made, the aircraft climbed out as if such a decision had been made.
New EU rules: As silly as they may be, they wouldn't have applied in either case.
"Economics never played a factor; safety was the primary concern": If this were true, all flights would be cancelled because of the risk of injury/death incurred in the drive to the airport. Economics always plays a factor.
Now some other fun bits:
US vs. UK military cultures: since the regs involved often derive from military practices, anyone else wonder how much the US "if it ain't in the book, you can't do it" vs. UK "if it isn't prohibited in the book, you can do it" philosophies might affect the different attitudes towards the investigations?
Possibility vs. Probability: this is the "conspiracy theory" fallacy. Conspiracy Theorists argue to possibility, and then claim that is what happened, using accusations of cover ups and self-interest (you BA Nigels protecting yer own) to discard more probable scenarios. As anyone with an interest in aviation knows, Commercial Airliner accidents attract conspiracy theorists, and not just because they are spectacular news items. Commercial Aviation incidents are so frequently the result of a series of improbable and technically bewildering events, that the most probable explanation is itself pretty darn rare. Aviation safety is done such that accidents occur from the most improbable combination of circumstances; then conspiracy theorists come in and cook up even more unlikely ones.
So, sure, anyone can posit a sequence of improbable circumstances that will result in an unsuccessful outcome to a flight.
Manchester: I did some research for the previous thread; Manchester is in the (lower end of the) top thirty busiest airports in the world. It also has by my calculations the most spotters per movement of any major airport. Declaring an emergency into Manchester is a sure way to get press exposure.
Actual vs. Perceived Risk: Many of the arguments here can be boiled down to these two. Actual risk is pretty darn important, but from a Public Relations viewpoint, Perceived Risk is critical. With this flight, BA lost the PR battle, and I'm willing to bet, lost in revenue far more than the cost of a diversion. Whether there was actually any bad airmanship involved can be debated; but the incident definitely created a public impression of perceived risk in the incident, and no amount of arguing can change that.
Unrelated events: the declared emergency and the diversion into MAN were not unrelated to the engine shutdown; while there may have been no actual danger, the suspicion of unusable fuel that triggered the call was caused by the unique condition of flying with an engine shut down.
This sort of phenomenon is not uncommon with complex systems: when you deviate from the normal mode of operation, further unanticipated events are going to occur with increased frequency. That this fact doesn't make operating on backup systems inherently unsafe is not a reason to deny its existence.
So is it inherently unsafe to operate in a non-normal mode for 12 hours? Should the aviation authorities investigate a Mayday call that is related to a situation the crew knew about a continent earlier? In this case, can anything be learned, besides most people are full of hot air, and don't divert to MAN?
Thread Starter
"US vs. UK military cultures: since the regs involved often derive from military practices, anyone else wonder how much the US "if it ain't in the book, you can't do it" vs. UK "if it isn't prohibited in the book, you can do it" philosophies might affect the different attitudes towards the investigations?"
As opposed to the French military culture: "What book?"
As told to me by an Airbus test crew which included both German and French members!
As opposed to the French military culture: "What book?"
As told to me by an Airbus test crew which included both German and French members!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just SLF, but I am wondering:
I've looked at the Great Circle for LAX-LHR, and although most of the route isn't over water, much of it would appear to be over some rather inhospitable areas in Northern Canada. Are there many suitable places for a 744 to divert to along that route once a flight has passed a few hundred miles north of the US/Canada border?
I've looked at the Great Circle for LAX-LHR, and although most of the route isn't over water, much of it would appear to be over some rather inhospitable areas in Northern Canada. Are there many suitable places for a 744 to divert to along that route once a flight has passed a few hundred miles north of the US/Canada border?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great Circle Route is only one consideration
The primary consideration for the route of flight seems to be flight time. I will use the route Rome to New York as an example. I have seen our company's flight planning software take us as far south as 43 degrees North, coasting out of Europe over Santiago, Spain. This was due to very unfavorable winds over the great circle route.
While this was an extreme, it is an example that long distance routes can vary hundreds of miles in an effort to save 15 minutes flight time.
The LAX-LHR route could vary significantly from week to week.
While this was an extreme, it is an example that long distance routes can vary hundreds of miles in an effort to save 15 minutes flight time.
The LAX-LHR route could vary significantly from week to week.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the thread topic
To claim, as a few have, that BA is not subject to FAA regulations whilst in FAA airspace is assinine. FAA regulations are very pertinent to G-reg ops when in US airspace. ICAO conventions also accept that regulatory bodies might have their own slant on things, but if there s any difference between "regulation of the aircraft" and "regulation of the airspace" the more restrictive will apply. Just like US planes have to carry an ADF when flying airways in the UK, unless permission not to is granted by the CAA.
BA could reasonably be expected to be a Part 121 carrier, so I draw the attention of the assembled masses to 14CFR121.645
Do G-reg operations always comply with this FAR when departing an FAA airport? What about the "redispatch" after the engine was shutdown still in FAA airspace? If not, shouldn't the FAA be required to get involved?
(PS It's not uncommon for LAX-LHR flights to be routed as far south as BOS when winds dictate)
BA could reasonably be expected to be a Part 121 carrier, so I draw the attention of the assembled masses to 14CFR121.645
(b) For any certificate holder conducting flag or supplemental
operations outside the 48 contiguous United States and the District of
Columbia, unless authorized by the Administrator in the operations
specifications, no person may release for flight or takeoff a turbine-
engine powered airplane (other than a turbo-propeller powered airplane)
unless, considering wind and other weather conditions expected, it has
enough fuel--
(1) To fly to and land at the airport to which it is released;
(2) After that, to fly for a period of 10 percent of the total time
required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the
airport to which it was released;
(3) After that, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate
airport specified in the flight release, if an alternate is required;
and
(4) After that, to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 1,500 feet
above the alternate airport (or the destination airport if no alternate
is required) under standard temperature conditions.
(c) No person may release a turbine-engine powered airplane (other
than a turbo-propeller airplane) to an airport for which an alternate is
not specified under Sec. 121.621(a)(2) or Sec. 121.623(b) unless it has
enough fuel, considering wind and other weather conditions expected, to
fly to that airport and thereafter to fly for at least two hours at
normal cruising fuel consumption.
operations outside the 48 contiguous United States and the District of
Columbia, unless authorized by the Administrator in the operations
specifications, no person may release for flight or takeoff a turbine-
engine powered airplane (other than a turbo-propeller powered airplane)
unless, considering wind and other weather conditions expected, it has
enough fuel--
(1) To fly to and land at the airport to which it is released;
(2) After that, to fly for a period of 10 percent of the total time
required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the
airport to which it was released;
(3) After that, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate
airport specified in the flight release, if an alternate is required;
and
(4) After that, to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 1,500 feet
above the alternate airport (or the destination airport if no alternate
is required) under standard temperature conditions.
(c) No person may release a turbine-engine powered airplane (other
than a turbo-propeller airplane) to an airport for which an alternate is
not specified under Sec. 121.621(a)(2) or Sec. 121.623(b) unless it has
enough fuel, considering wind and other weather conditions expected, to
fly to that airport and thereafter to fly for at least two hours at
normal cruising fuel consumption.
(PS It's not uncommon for LAX-LHR flights to be routed as far south as BOS when winds dictate)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bermondseya I operated non-U.S. aircraft to and from the U.S.A. for years and I never read the FARs or took them into direct consideration. What I did take into consideration were the regulations of the state of registry of the aircraft and certain supplementary information relevant to Canadian, U.S., Shanwick, etc. airspace and other issues).
The minimum requirements for most things in aviation are determined by the ICAO Annexes. National regulations meet, or exceed, those requirements. Otherwise "differences are filed" with ICAO. (Hence it is that the FAR fuel requirements you cite bear a considerable similarity to those of many other countries and will be readily recognised by most of us).
You say:
Does this mean that you have fully infomed yourself about the regulations of all countries over which you have flown?
It is simply incorrect (even assinine) to suggest that:
And as regards the question
I was not aware of any "redispatch" - I thought the flight continued to its destination after a decision was made. This comment of your really underlines, once again, the two different operating cultures and philosophies at the heart of this endless debate.
The minimum requirements for most things in aviation are determined by the ICAO Annexes. National regulations meet, or exceed, those requirements. Otherwise "differences are filed" with ICAO. (Hence it is that the FAR fuel requirements you cite bear a considerable similarity to those of many other countries and will be readily recognised by most of us).
You say:
To claim, as a few have, that BA is not subject to FAA regulations whilst in FAA airspace is assinine.
It is simply incorrect (even assinine) to suggest that:
BA could reasonably be expected to be a Part 121 carrier.
What about the "redispatch" after the engine was shutdown
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
delwy,
Forgive me for failing to respond to your points as I don't find them relevant or helpful I suppose the question(s) still stand. Does BA comply with the fuel regulations laid down by the governing authority of a country where BA operates its planes? If it doesn't, then why be surprised if the FAA get involved.
Forgive me for failing to respond to your points as I don't find them relevant or helpful I suppose the question(s) still stand. Does BA comply with the fuel regulations laid down by the governing authority of a country where BA operates its planes? If it doesn't, then why be surprised if the FAA get involved.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bermonseya, let me put the point more simply:
1. Airlines and their pilots operate according to the rules of the country of registry (and hence of licence issue).
2. You can test this proposition by asking if you have aquainted yourself with the rules and requirements of all countries other than the country(ies) which issued you with your licence(s).
Q. 2 is just my way of trying to point out that you are setting a standard of compliance to the FARs for BA that applies to no other airline (including the one you, presumably, fly for). Put simply, the only relevant Authority for BA is the U.K. CAA. However, like the Authority of any country, the FAA can deal with a foreign counterpart in order to sort out issues such as have arisen in this case, in which there is a difference in operating philosophies.
1. Airlines and their pilots operate according to the rules of the country of registry (and hence of licence issue).
2. You can test this proposition by asking if you have aquainted yourself with the rules and requirements of all countries other than the country(ies) which issued you with your licence(s).
Q. 2 is just my way of trying to point out that you are setting a standard of compliance to the FARs for BA that applies to no other airline (including the one you, presumably, fly for). Put simply, the only relevant Authority for BA is the U.K. CAA. However, like the Authority of any country, the FAA can deal with a foreign counterpart in order to sort out issues such as have arisen in this case, in which there is a difference in operating philosophies.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
bermondseya: BA could reasonably be expected to be a Part 121 carrier ...
Too mean to buy a long personal title
bermondseya: I refer you to Article 11 of the Chicago Convention.
Applicability of air regulations
Subject to the provisions of this Convention, the laws and regulations of a contracting State relating to the admission to or departure from its territory of aircraft engaged in international air navigation, or to the operation and navigation of such aircraft while within its territory, shall be applied to the aircraft of all contracting States without distinction as to nationality, and shall be complied with by such aircraft upon entering or departing from or while within the territory of that State.
Subject to the provisions of this Convention, the laws and regulations of a contracting State relating to the admission to or departure from its territory of aircraft engaged in international air navigation, or to the operation and navigation of such aircraft while within its territory, shall be applied to the aircraft of all contracting States without distinction as to nationality, and shall be complied with by such aircraft upon entering or departing from or while within the territory of that State.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Globaliser,
Two issues.
1) Article 12 says foreign aircraft are subject to the regulations of any local airspace they may find themselves in. As BA's regulator, the UK CAA is required to ensure BA complies with the FARS.
2) 14CFR129 covers foreign air carriers, which what BA is within US airspace.
14CFR 121 specifies the regulations which a US regulated 'scheduled air carrier' (like United) must comply with.
My point, probably not exactly stated precisely, is that BA is the equivalent animal to United (a part 121 carrier). Therefore as far as operations and standards are concerned, I am arguing that BA will be held to the same standards as a US part 121 carrier by the FAA.
Hope that helps
Two issues.
1) Article 12 says foreign aircraft are subject to the regulations of any local airspace they may find themselves in. As BA's regulator, the UK CAA is required to ensure BA complies with the FARS.
2) 14CFR129 covers foreign air carriers, which what BA is within US airspace.
14CFR 121 specifies the regulations which a US regulated 'scheduled air carrier' (like United) must comply with.
My point, probably not exactly stated precisely, is that BA is the equivalent animal to United (a part 121 carrier). Therefore as far as operations and standards are concerned, I am arguing that BA will be held to the same standards as a US part 121 carrier by the FAA.
Hope that helps
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Your logic suggests that the CAA should require BA to adhere to the FARs which relate to BA. As BA is a Part 129 carrier when it is within US airspace, that means the CAA should, if anything, require BA to adhere to Part 129.
And as BA is a Part 129 carrier, wouldn't Part 129 be what the FAA would require BA to comply with, if the FAA has any jurisdiction at all in the matter?
So wouldn't it be better to have a look to see what Part 129 says?
<still confused>
And as BA is a Part 129 carrier, wouldn't Part 129 be what the FAA would require BA to comply with, if the FAA has any jurisdiction at all in the matter?
So wouldn't it be better to have a look to see what Part 129 says?
<still confused>
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well then, the relationship between FAR 129, which governs operations by foreign air carriers in the US, and FAR 121 is contained in:
“Sec. 129.19
Air traffic rules and procedures.
(a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the navigational and communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other procedures, of the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
(b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure that each of its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this section and shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely according to applicable rules and procedures.
(c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices, procedures, and other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air carriers for the areas to be operated in.”
The “practices, procedure, and other requirements prescribed” can be generally considered to be those applicable to US air carriers, which are regulated under FAR 121.
Thus, flight procedures for air carriers’ aircraft while within US airspace are essentially the same for US flag carriers and foreign flag carriers.
To use an analogy, consider a foreign carrier whose home regulations do not deal with prohibited areas. Such a carrier’s aircraft would still be shot down if it aimed for Capital Hill. This may look like a silly example, but the analogy is valid.
Globaliser:
-------------------------------------------
if the FAA has any jurisdiction at all in the matter?
------------------------------------------
That’s really a silly statement. For the FAA not to have jurisdiction in operations within US airspace, there would need to be a bilateral agreement between the US and the UK that the US can exert no influence whatever on operations of BA in the US. Really!
“Sec. 129.19
Air traffic rules and procedures.
(a) Each pilot must be familiar with the applicable rules, the navigational and communications facilities, and the air traffic control and other procedures, of the areas to be traversed by him within the United States.
(b) Each foreign air carrier shall establish procedures to assure that each of its pilots has the knowledge required by paragraph (a) of this section and shall check the ability of each of its pilots to operate safely according to applicable rules and procedures.
(c) Each foreign air carrier shall conform to the practices, procedures, and other requirements prescribed by the Administrator for U.S. air carriers for the areas to be operated in.”
The “practices, procedure, and other requirements prescribed” can be generally considered to be those applicable to US air carriers, which are regulated under FAR 121.
Thus, flight procedures for air carriers’ aircraft while within US airspace are essentially the same for US flag carriers and foreign flag carriers.
To use an analogy, consider a foreign carrier whose home regulations do not deal with prohibited areas. Such a carrier’s aircraft would still be shot down if it aimed for Capital Hill. This may look like a silly example, but the analogy is valid.
Globaliser:
-------------------------------------------
if the FAA has any jurisdiction at all in the matter?
------------------------------------------
That’s really a silly statement. For the FAA not to have jurisdiction in operations within US airspace, there would need to be a bilateral agreement between the US and the UK that the US can exert no influence whatever on operations of BA in the US. Really!
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who let the pedants out? Now we have 'barrack room' lawyers arguing over the minutae of FAA regs. I'm sure we're all going to stop and read the FAR's the next time we have to shut down an engine on a B744 before deciding whether we can continue or not. 
We've already had one poster who managed to succinctly put it all into a nutshell. But no, now we have 'bermondseya' digging a hole for himself by placing his own interpretation on the regs. We've already had 'Doves' and 'Crash & Burn' try to enlighten us with their wisdom (NOT) and now here's bermondseay twisting flawed logic.
I'll repeat the quote that I beleive defines the difference between the FAA and the CAA attitudes: "US vs. UK military cultures: since the regs involved often derive from military practices, anyone else wonder how much the US "if it ain't in the book, you can't do it" vs. UK "if it isn't prohibited in the book, you can do it" philosophies might affect the different attitudes towards the investigations?"
Some cultures require very strict guidelines and others are allowed to use their common sense.
Why, oh why, do we have to have all the 'armchair experts' come out of the woodwork with their 'points' that are immediately shown to be flawed. Make your point and then just sit back and let others make theirs instead of trying to defend every comment with a new post, especially when it is proven that you are wrong in the first place.
We've already had one poster who managed to succinctly put it all into a nutshell. But no, now we have 'bermondseya' digging a hole for himself by placing his own interpretation on the regs. We've already had 'Doves' and 'Crash & Burn' try to enlighten us with their wisdom (NOT) and now here's bermondseay twisting flawed logic.
I'll repeat the quote that I beleive defines the difference between the FAA and the CAA attitudes: "US vs. UK military cultures: since the regs involved often derive from military practices, anyone else wonder how much the US "if it ain't in the book, you can't do it" vs. UK "if it isn't prohibited in the book, you can do it" philosophies might affect the different attitudes towards the investigations?"
Some cultures require very strict guidelines and others are allowed to use their common sense.
Why, oh why, do we have to have all the 'armchair experts' come out of the woodwork with their 'points' that are immediately shown to be flawed. Make your point and then just sit back and let others make theirs instead of trying to defend every comment with a new post, especially when it is proven that you are wrong in the first place.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning Cargo Boy.
I still wait to be proven wrong, perhaps you can do it by concentrating on the issue and not the individuals?
I think I found the answer to my question, and it's that BA procedures specify less fuel than calculated using 14CFR121.645. Unless you can tell me otherwise that is, I suspect you know the answer to the question. What fuel is on board on entering FAA jurisdiction coming the other way? Don't bother with that one, I'm just thinking out loud.
So, as FAA most certainly has jurisdiction over foreign air carriers operating within FAA airspace, lets see what comes of it.
I still wait to be proven wrong, perhaps you can do it by concentrating on the issue and not the individuals?
I think I found the answer to my question, and it's that BA procedures specify less fuel than calculated using 14CFR121.645. Unless you can tell me otherwise that is, I suspect you know the answer to the question. What fuel is on board on entering FAA jurisdiction coming the other way? Don't bother with that one, I'm just thinking out loud.
So, as FAA most certainly has jurisdiction over foreign air carriers operating within FAA airspace, lets see what comes of it.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bermondseya, if you are correct I figure that all, or the majority, of foreign carriers leaving LAX fail to meet some aspect of the FARs. (Very few utilise dispatchers in the manner familiar to U.S. carriers, with all that this implies).
On the other hand, I suspect that all U.S. carriers fail to meet certain local requirements in many other countries. But, I will bet you that all meet the minimum ICAO requirements and that those have been incorporated in some way into the laws of the country operating the aircraft and licensing the crew. Is that not the fundamental logic that underpins the international aviation system?
On the other hand, I suspect that all U.S. carriers fail to meet certain local requirements in many other countries. But, I will bet you that all meet the minimum ICAO requirements and that those have been incorporated in some way into the laws of the country operating the aircraft and licensing the crew. Is that not the fundamental logic that underpins the international aviation system?