FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GGV,
Yes, I agree. I would go further and say ".....that all, or the majority, of US carriers leaving LAX fail to meet some aspect of the FARs" on occasion.
Take a look at the FAA enforcement database; it is full of household names. Of course that doesn't mean to say it's right, and definitely doesn't excuse people from not being au-fait with the regulations of the state they are flying in.
I guess the issue in my head is, if they had loaded fuel as calculated by 14CFR121.645, would they have made London, landing with fuel reserves greater than that required by the CAA.
Yes, I agree. I would go further and say ".....that all, or the majority, of US carriers leaving LAX fail to meet some aspect of the FARs" on occasion.
Take a look at the FAA enforcement database; it is full of household names. Of course that doesn't mean to say it's right, and definitely doesn't excuse people from not being au-fait with the regulations of the state they are flying in.
I guess the issue in my head is, if they had loaded fuel as calculated by 14CFR121.645, would they have made London, landing with fuel reserves greater than that required by the CAA.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bermondseya, you really need to go back over the two threads to assess the range of different responses/answers to the fuel issue. Your assessment seems too trite by far to me. If this was always about the diverson due to the fuel situation you should simply have tackled that matter.
What you chose to discuss was the applicability of the FARs and you now are agreeing that most carriers, including U.S. carriers, don't meet the FARs leaving LAX. We are now into minutiae and the nuance of difference. I really don't think that this is productive a way to go. You also imply that pilots should be familiar with the laws of every state over which they fly - I suggest that this is nonsense.
All I have to say is that any assertion that the FAA have a "slam dunk" case against BA is just plain wrong. This is not quite as "black or white" as some seem to think.
What you chose to discuss was the applicability of the FARs and you now are agreeing that most carriers, including U.S. carriers, don't meet the FARs leaving LAX. We are now into minutiae and the nuance of difference. I really don't think that this is productive a way to go. You also imply that pilots should be familiar with the laws of every state over which they fly - I suggest that this is nonsense.
All I have to say is that any assertion that the FAA have a "slam dunk" case against BA is just plain wrong. This is not quite as "black or white" as some seem to think.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GGV,
I agreed with your first post, I disagree with your second.
You mention minutiae, afraid I don't consider fuel calculations minutiae, they are a 'very big thing'. Lets see whether the FAA thinks to too.
I think any foreign airmen operating in US airspace should be 'au fait' with FAR 129, that is not well received here by some, so be it. I suspect the FAA will agree with me. I have several extremely boring books on my shelf which cover regulations in states I do not hold a certificate yet in which I fly, I commend FAR/AIM to you to peruse at your leisure when in the cruise.
I've read the threads on the fuel management in the flight and have no public opinion on that. I merely wonder whether the BA flight would have made London because maybe if it had, we wouldn't have had all this fuss.
I agreed with your first post, I disagree with your second.
You mention minutiae, afraid I don't consider fuel calculations minutiae, they are a 'very big thing'. Lets see whether the FAA thinks to too.
I think any foreign airmen operating in US airspace should be 'au fait' with FAR 129, that is not well received here by some, so be it. I suspect the FAA will agree with me. I have several extremely boring books on my shelf which cover regulations in states I do not hold a certificate yet in which I fly, I commend FAR/AIM to you to peruse at your leisure when in the cruise.
I've read the threads on the fuel management in the flight and have no public opinion on that. I merely wonder whether the BA flight would have made London because maybe if it had, we wouldn't have had all this fuss.
"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?"
This is folly. The US has a number of different arms of the US military that operate with different baseline philosophies as alluded to in the quote. There is no one standard that would allow the author to make the quote with any degree of accuracy.
If the author would like to back the claim up, I be intersted in seeing the argument.
This is folly. The US has a number of different arms of the US military that operate with different baseline philosophies as alluded to in the quote. There is no one standard that would allow the author to make the quote with any degree of accuracy.
If the author would like to back the claim up, I be intersted in seeing the argument.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bermondseya:
Following your argument to its logical conclusion.
Say I fly from London to Bombay. I fly over probably 10 - 15 different countries. I would need to be au-fait with every countries minutia of there equivalent of the FAA, and comply with each and every countries individual needs.
Well this clearly does not happen. Nor does it happen for US aircraft flying into Europe, or European aircraft flying into the USA.
So if you think when I lose an engine over Kazakhstan, that my first concern is to delve into some mythical library that my Jumbo has, and consider my next action is, according to Kazakhstan regs, you must be living in cloud barking land.
I have regulations that are approved by the CAA. That is whom I am answerable to. If the FAA don't like what the CAA have agreed, then let them talk about it.
To say that "foreign airmen operating in US airspace should be 'au fait' with FAR 129" Is just stupid. If it was correct I would have to be au fait with the regulations of every country in the world that I fly over. And as a BA longhaul pilot that is virtually every country in the world.
L337
Following your argument to its logical conclusion.
Say I fly from London to Bombay. I fly over probably 10 - 15 different countries. I would need to be au-fait with every countries minutia of there equivalent of the FAA, and comply with each and every countries individual needs.
Well this clearly does not happen. Nor does it happen for US aircraft flying into Europe, or European aircraft flying into the USA.
So if you think when I lose an engine over Kazakhstan, that my first concern is to delve into some mythical library that my Jumbo has, and consider my next action is, according to Kazakhstan regs, you must be living in cloud barking land.
I have regulations that are approved by the CAA. That is whom I am answerable to. If the FAA don't like what the CAA have agreed, then let them talk about it.
To say that "foreign airmen operating in US airspace should be 'au fait' with FAR 129" Is just stupid. If it was correct I would have to be au fait with the regulations of every country in the world that I fly over. And as a BA longhaul pilot that is virtually every country in the world.
L337
Last edited by L337; 20th May 2005 at 15:07.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original truism is mine, West Coast, and I may be dumb, but I ain't dumb enough to try to back that one up with actual evidence. Just repeating bits of conversation I had recently with a chap down at the local RAF base. In any case, I'm sure there's some sort of philosophical HLA or QSTAG or whatnot. If not, there's got to be a good joke based on one, complete with classic caricatures of Americans and those foreigners who think English is their mother tongue.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As West Coast above has so aptly pointed out, the various military cultures (US vs UK) has absolutely nothing to do with the differing civil air carrier regulations/operating procedures.
To claim otherwise is to be severly misinformed.
Now then, if we look at the heart of the BA 3-engine diversion, it is quite clear that the BA flight in question was operated by the Commander in conformity with the applicable UK CAA regulations and also in conformity with the laid down BA standard practises.
To state otherwise, and in addition, to insist that while in US airspace, each foreigh air carrier must operate as though they were a 14CFR121 US air carrier, is simply complete and utter nonsense.
14CFR129 notwithstanding.
If I were the concerned BA Commander in question, and I had made the same decision to continue onwards to the UK instead of diverting to a suitable North American airfield, I would likewise expect full and complete support for my decision in the UK, both BA and the CAA.
Full marks for the Brits for supporting the concerned Commander, as clearly, he was in his authority for doing so.
However, from my perspective (a very long time in heavy 3/4 engine jet transports), the idea of continuing a very long intercontinental flight with one engine shut down/failed, when that shut down/failure had occured very close to the departure airport is, in my opinion, unwise.
Even though the regulations under which I was operating might allow me to continue in the above scenario, I would decline to do so in the interests of passenger safety.
Also, if I then decided to continue anyway, and a further situation should develop enroute, which necessitated an off-route diversion, and I stuffed it up and bent the bird, I would find it really hard to justify my decision to 'press on'.
And, so too would the investigation commitee that would surely follow.
To claim otherwise is to be severly misinformed.
Now then, if we look at the heart of the BA 3-engine diversion, it is quite clear that the BA flight in question was operated by the Commander in conformity with the applicable UK CAA regulations and also in conformity with the laid down BA standard practises.
To state otherwise, and in addition, to insist that while in US airspace, each foreigh air carrier must operate as though they were a 14CFR121 US air carrier, is simply complete and utter nonsense.
14CFR129 notwithstanding.
If I were the concerned BA Commander in question, and I had made the same decision to continue onwards to the UK instead of diverting to a suitable North American airfield, I would likewise expect full and complete support for my decision in the UK, both BA and the CAA.
Full marks for the Brits for supporting the concerned Commander, as clearly, he was in his authority for doing so.
However, from my perspective (a very long time in heavy 3/4 engine jet transports), the idea of continuing a very long intercontinental flight with one engine shut down/failed, when that shut down/failure had occured very close to the departure airport is, in my opinion, unwise.
Even though the regulations under which I was operating might allow me to continue in the above scenario, I would decline to do so in the interests of passenger safety.
Also, if I then decided to continue anyway, and a further situation should develop enroute, which necessitated an off-route diversion, and I stuffed it up and bent the bird, I would find it really hard to justify my decision to 'press on'.
And, so too would the investigation commitee that would surely follow.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An international crew is required to comply with country of registration rules at all times. They are also required to comply with ICAO rules when in international airspace. They are also required to comply with the rules for the territory or state over which they are flying.
How does the average crew do this? From my experience, particularly with Asian airlines, is that they don't (many do not cover this in training nor do they provide copies of relevant regulations (such as in the Jep) for the crew to refer to enroute).
Does this ignorance provide protection for the crew? No it doesn't. How many of you are aware that you will be subject to jail and/or seriously big fines for offences relating to paperwork and skill errors in many countries in Asia particularly? Do you think the argument "hey I did not know that!" will cut you any slack?
When flying to or over other countries, such as the US, Australia, NZ and such, the permission to do so for your airline will have been negotiated and approved, and one of the documents that you, as crew, need to know about and read is the Operations Specifications(s). It should cover the major requirements of routes, aids, airplane registrations and especially fuel requirements. when you have an Ops Spec it overrides the regulations as printed in that country's regs, and might very well be more restricting.
It is up to the carrier to advise their crew of the requirements of the Ops Specs, but as I said, many carriers fail to do that. Does that protect you? ("hey, I wasn't told!"). No, it does not.
If the BA crew was not in conflict with the CAA regs, ICAO, the FARs or their own Ops Specs, they are fireproof. If they had not done as they did, then they might have had to answer to the airline for why they did not, and justify the costs and inconvenience. It is an engine this time, but the same problem could be caused by any mechanical defect and so long as the decision is backed up by procedures, experience, common sense and consultation (CRM) when applicable, why lose any sleep over it? The captain is paid the big bucks for this very reason.
You don't like it? Get the rules changed.
How does the average crew do this? From my experience, particularly with Asian airlines, is that they don't (many do not cover this in training nor do they provide copies of relevant regulations (such as in the Jep) for the crew to refer to enroute).
Does this ignorance provide protection for the crew? No it doesn't. How many of you are aware that you will be subject to jail and/or seriously big fines for offences relating to paperwork and skill errors in many countries in Asia particularly? Do you think the argument "hey I did not know that!" will cut you any slack?
When flying to or over other countries, such as the US, Australia, NZ and such, the permission to do so for your airline will have been negotiated and approved, and one of the documents that you, as crew, need to know about and read is the Operations Specifications(s). It should cover the major requirements of routes, aids, airplane registrations and especially fuel requirements. when you have an Ops Spec it overrides the regulations as printed in that country's regs, and might very well be more restricting.
It is up to the carrier to advise their crew of the requirements of the Ops Specs, but as I said, many carriers fail to do that. Does that protect you? ("hey, I wasn't told!"). No, it does not.
If the BA crew was not in conflict with the CAA regs, ICAO, the FARs or their own Ops Specs, they are fireproof. If they had not done as they did, then they might have had to answer to the airline for why they did not, and justify the costs and inconvenience. It is an engine this time, but the same problem could be caused by any mechanical defect and so long as the decision is backed up by procedures, experience, common sense and consultation (CRM) when applicable, why lose any sleep over it? The captain is paid the big bucks for this very reason.
You don't like it? Get the rules changed.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the exception of the takeoff, BA 268 may be considered a three engine ferry in all of its operational aspects, to suggest otherwise is a puerile attempt at deception.
The FAA defines the three engine ferry as;
“a ferry flight of a four-engine airplane or a turbine-engine-powered airplane equipped with three engines, with one engine inoperative, to a base for the purpose of repairing that engine subject to the following”
The regs go on to list the various conditions, stipulations and limitations under which said flight may be operated. Relevant to this discussion are;
(i) Limiting the operating weight on any ferry flight to the minimum necessary for the flight plus the necessary reserve fuel load;
(ii) Inspection procedures for determining the operating condition of the operative engines.
(iii) Persons other than required flight crewmembers shall not be carried during the flight.
The question that begs to be asked here is, when the rules are so restrictive (with good reason) for a planned three engine operation, why would they then be completely disregarded for an unplanned one. The easy answer is, of course, for the purpose of saving the company money. V1 is a magically productive airspeed.
The 744 is a very capable aeroplane. In this case, however, BA268 has clearly illustrated the extent to which the limits of those capabilities are being exploited by those charged with the financial health of the company, to the detriment of previously established safety margins. This flight represents a quantum leap in that trend, the exclamatory demonstrated by the well-developed error chain, the resultant Mayday call and coasting into Manchester on fumes, short of destination.
The practice of carrying dead engines and live passengers over long distances is, in my opinion, a most unwise one.
The FAA defines the three engine ferry as;
“a ferry flight of a four-engine airplane or a turbine-engine-powered airplane equipped with three engines, with one engine inoperative, to a base for the purpose of repairing that engine subject to the following”
The regs go on to list the various conditions, stipulations and limitations under which said flight may be operated. Relevant to this discussion are;
(i) Limiting the operating weight on any ferry flight to the minimum necessary for the flight plus the necessary reserve fuel load;
(ii) Inspection procedures for determining the operating condition of the operative engines.
(iii) Persons other than required flight crewmembers shall not be carried during the flight.
The question that begs to be asked here is, when the rules are so restrictive (with good reason) for a planned three engine operation, why would they then be completely disregarded for an unplanned one. The easy answer is, of course, for the purpose of saving the company money. V1 is a magically productive airspeed.
The 744 is a very capable aeroplane. In this case, however, BA268 has clearly illustrated the extent to which the limits of those capabilities are being exploited by those charged with the financial health of the company, to the detriment of previously established safety margins. This flight represents a quantum leap in that trend, the exclamatory demonstrated by the well-developed error chain, the resultant Mayday call and coasting into Manchester on fumes, short of destination.
The practice of carrying dead engines and live passengers over long distances is, in my opinion, a most unwise one.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know the details of this flight, but.
Belive Boeing and CAA think it was/is reasonable for said flight to continue.
When crew found LHR comprised by fuel or other, they made a fine decision to use another airport and use correct radio calls to ensure aircraft was safe.
A very well done to those pilots/captain......
Belive Boeing and CAA think it was/is reasonable for said flight to continue.
When crew found LHR comprised by fuel or other, they made a fine decision to use another airport and use correct radio calls to ensure aircraft was safe.
A very well done to those pilots/captain......
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the exception of the takeoff, BA 268 may be considered a three engine ferry
If the engine failure had occured over London and landed at LHR then, by your definition, it becomes a ferry flight - puerile.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bugg smasher
A peurile attempt at deception .... really?
What you are saying is that any B747 with an engine failure that does not land at the nearest suitable airport is, in consequence, a three-engined ferry. Are you really telling me that there are no U.S. carriers that have failed to land a 747 at the nearest suitable airfield? I suspect that there are U.S. carriers that have indeed been guilty of such operational decisions. In fact, I think it will be easy to find lots of examples. Any comment?
With the exception of the takeoff, BA 268 may be considered a three engine ferry in all of its operational aspects, to suggest otherwise is a puerile attempt at deception.
What you are saying is that any B747 with an engine failure that does not land at the nearest suitable airport is, in consequence, a three-engined ferry. Are you really telling me that there are no U.S. carriers that have failed to land a 747 at the nearest suitable airfield? I suspect that there are U.S. carriers that have indeed been guilty of such operational decisions. In fact, I think it will be easy to find lots of examples. Any comment?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote " If the BA crew was not in conflict with the CAA regs, ICAO, the FARs or their own Ops Specs, they are fireproof."
They were just that.
And as BA have a FAR Part 129 Foreign Carrier Certificate, their Operations Manual (which contains procedures for continued flight on the 744 after an engine failure) was submitted to and approved by the FAA.
AS I have just posted the crew carried out a procedure perfectly in compliance with their Operations Manual, which was itself approved by both the CAA and FAA.
End of subject PLEASE.
They were just that.
And as BA have a FAR Part 129 Foreign Carrier Certificate, their Operations Manual (which contains procedures for continued flight on the 744 after an engine failure) was submitted to and approved by the FAA.
AS I have just posted the crew carried out a procedure perfectly in compliance with their Operations Manual, which was itself approved by both the CAA and FAA.
End of subject PLEASE.
beerdrinker
I think that the issue between the crew and the FAA is that it is the responsibility of the crew to demonstrate compliance with the specific reg
This may be a simple as answering to the satisfaction of the FAA a few questions about reasoning.
If they were to not answer these questions to the satisfaction of the FAA then they and their employer's published procedures may be found in non-compliance.
I have been saying since day one that it is not for us as mere mortals to judge the issue of compliance.
I think that the issue between the crew and the FAA is that it is the responsibility of the crew to demonstrate compliance with the specific reg
This may be a simple as answering to the satisfaction of the FAA a few questions about reasoning.
If they were to not answer these questions to the satisfaction of the FAA then they and their employer's published procedures may be found in non-compliance.
I have been saying since day one that it is not for us as mere mortals to judge the issue of compliance.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lompaseo,
Check PM's
411A
"However, from my perspective (a very long time in heavy 3/4 engine jet transports), the idea of continuing a very long intercontinental flight with one engine shut down/failed, when that shut down/failure had occured very close to the departure airport is, in my opinion, unwise.
Even though the regulations under which I was operating might allow me to continue in the above scenario, I would decline to do so in the interests of passenger safety."
In many respects I would agree with you but a 744 is a different beast compared with a 747 Classic. I have operated both. Remember that the week after the LAX incident the same aircraft had a totally different (in othe words totally unrelated) engine shut down problem ex SIN and the decision to continue was made and the flight operated successfully on 3 engines to LHR.
It is an approved company procedure that works and has worked with no (that is zero) problems for many years. It is not a new policy and BA have completed many continue towards destination flights after an engine failure on their 744\'s.
BUT and a big BUT, on the day it is the responsibility (and this is in the BA procedures) of the Captain and his Flight Crew to be satisfied that the flight may be continued safely bearing in mind all possibilities.
On this occasion the crew did this.
They did have a fuel problem very late in flight (I gather it was a cross feed problem) and dealt with that quite properly by diverting into MAN. It was a problem that was not a issue early in the flight abd only manifested itself virtually within minutes of TOD for LHR. They reacted quite properly.
Check PM's
411A
"However, from my perspective (a very long time in heavy 3/4 engine jet transports), the idea of continuing a very long intercontinental flight with one engine shut down/failed, when that shut down/failure had occured very close to the departure airport is, in my opinion, unwise.
Even though the regulations under which I was operating might allow me to continue in the above scenario, I would decline to do so in the interests of passenger safety."
In many respects I would agree with you but a 744 is a different beast compared with a 747 Classic. I have operated both. Remember that the week after the LAX incident the same aircraft had a totally different (in othe words totally unrelated) engine shut down problem ex SIN and the decision to continue was made and the flight operated successfully on 3 engines to LHR.
It is an approved company procedure that works and has worked with no (that is zero) problems for many years. It is not a new policy and BA have completed many continue towards destination flights after an engine failure on their 744\'s.
BUT and a big BUT, on the day it is the responsibility (and this is in the BA procedures) of the Captain and his Flight Crew to be satisfied that the flight may be continued safely bearing in mind all possibilities.
On this occasion the crew did this.
They did have a fuel problem very late in flight (I gather it was a cross feed problem) and dealt with that quite properly by diverting into MAN. It was a problem that was not a issue early in the flight abd only manifested itself virtually within minutes of TOD for LHR. They reacted quite properly.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
\\\In many respects I would agree with you but a 744 is a different beast compared with a 747 Classic. I have operated both. Remember that the week after the LAX incident the same aircraft had a totally different (in othe words totally unrelated) engine shut down problem ex SIN and the decision to continue was made and the flight operated successfully on 3 engines to LHR.\\\
OK, Beerdrinker, we seem to have found some common ground.
Now, le's examine just a bit more closely.
As all 4-engine jet transports are certificated to the same set of regulations (as indeed are 3-engine jets as well), just what makes the B744 so much better with regards to continuing on three, better than the Classic (as you mentioned) or other 3/4 engine types?
In addition, the SIN-LHR flight you mentioned had far more diversion airports available, so to compare the two referenced operations is apples to oranges, in my opinion.
Thirdly, the original intent of the regulations regarding continued flight (3/4 engine types) with an engine shut down/failed, was the cruise altitude/enroute case...not a shut down/failute on (or just after) departure.
Seems to this old hand that Murphy's law will find a place to strike one day...and the results might well not be pretty.
OK, Beerdrinker, we seem to have found some common ground.
Now, le's examine just a bit more closely.
As all 4-engine jet transports are certificated to the same set of regulations (as indeed are 3-engine jets as well), just what makes the B744 so much better with regards to continuing on three, better than the Classic (as you mentioned) or other 3/4 engine types?
In addition, the SIN-LHR flight you mentioned had far more diversion airports available, so to compare the two referenced operations is apples to oranges, in my opinion.
Thirdly, the original intent of the regulations regarding continued flight (3/4 engine types) with an engine shut down/failed, was the cruise altitude/enroute case...not a shut down/failute on (or just after) departure.
Seems to this old hand that Murphy's law will find a place to strike one day...and the results might well not be pretty.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
950kg for taxi sounds a lot in the -10.
As an e.g. the -400 burns (at idle) 50kg/min for taxi.
1200kg for a tight circuit is about right, but that is assuming a 1500' circuit.
2 tons would be a more realistic amount assuming you get good vectors, and #1
As an e.g. the -400 burns (at idle) 50kg/min for taxi.
1200kg for a tight circuit is about right, but that is assuming a 1500' circuit.
2 tons would be a more realistic amount assuming you get good vectors, and #1
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have the access to the facts as to how American airlines actually operate the 744 in a similar situation. Do they to a man land ASAP or is it as it should be for the commander on the day to make a reasoned decision?