FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jez
I've been doing cargo 747 for the past ten years, South American company, flown the 747 with just two burners, great fun.
There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but the thing is....You never get old bold pilots..
Dazdaz
There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but the thing is....You never get old bold pilots..
Dazdaz
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NC USA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read this thread since it's inception.
As a passenger, I would be incensed to find a flight continued after an engine failed, whether it was a 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 or other number engined aircraft. Apparently, the regulations don't define the difference between "you can do it, or should you do it?"
I wouldn't embark on a drive across west Texas with one cylinder of my car's engine inoperative, or one tire known to have a slow leak- and the consequences on the road of complete shutdown are a lot less.
I agree with 411A- who has the job experience- it's just plain imprudent.
How much more inconvenient for the passengers was the diversion to MAN vs. returning?
The engines are what make it go- that's fairly basic.
As a passenger, I would be incensed to find a flight continued after an engine failed, whether it was a 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 or other number engined aircraft. Apparently, the regulations don't define the difference between "you can do it, or should you do it?"
I wouldn't embark on a drive across west Texas with one cylinder of my car's engine inoperative, or one tire known to have a slow leak- and the consequences on the road of complete shutdown are a lot less.
I agree with 411A- who has the job experience- it's just plain imprudent.
How much more inconvenient for the passengers was the diversion to MAN vs. returning?
The engines are what make it go- that's fairly basic.
Charles Darwin-
The pilot with whom I just tonight finished a two-day trip, flew the eight-engine B-52, then the MC-130 (special ops), the T-37, T-44 and recently a twin-turbofan 'classic' civilian transport. Now he flies the C-130 J "Hurricane Hunter" as a hobby.
I'll ask him about a flight with seven engines in the B-52. By the way, to practice rapid descents, they rolled into a 90-degree bank (with speedbrakes?) and let the nose fall for quite a descent! Along with the C-130J (in which he is type-rated: L-382), the B-52 has no Flight Engineer, so I will ask him about the decision to continue a very long flight in either plane with one or two engines shutdown (on the "BUFF").
Would a long flight in a three-engine 'classic' 747 have an advantage over a flight in the 747-400, knowing that you have a third crewmember who is highly trained in managing multiple, complex systems? With a compound problem in a two-pilot aircraft, one pilot flies and coordinates with both [1] ATC (for a lower altitude etc?) and [2] Dispatch, while the only other pilot up front must correctly deal with two or more sets of procedures-both having various decision points, at which the problems must be carefully evaluated with no important steps incorrectly followed or forgotten?
Let's not forget about coordinating with the [3] Lead Purser or [4] other cabin crewmembers. 
The pilot (brand-new FO or Captain? ) who does these checklists (often not 'cut and dried'.... at all..) should keep about a fourth of his attention on what the flying/'handling' pilot is doing, especially if they are not just flying straight and level.
Would the automation on a 744 or A-340 etc and EICAS/COM/ECAM procedures also quickly tell you your new 3-engine cruise altitude and fuel at destination airport?
The pilot with whom I just tonight finished a two-day trip, flew the eight-engine B-52, then the MC-130 (special ops), the T-37, T-44 and recently a twin-turbofan 'classic' civilian transport. Now he flies the C-130 J "Hurricane Hunter" as a hobby.
I'll ask him about a flight with seven engines in the B-52. By the way, to practice rapid descents, they rolled into a 90-degree bank (with speedbrakes?) and let the nose fall for quite a descent! Along with the C-130J (in which he is type-rated: L-382), the B-52 has no Flight Engineer, so I will ask him about the decision to continue a very long flight in either plane with one or two engines shutdown (on the "BUFF").
Would a long flight in a three-engine 'classic' 747 have an advantage over a flight in the 747-400, knowing that you have a third crewmember who is highly trained in managing multiple, complex systems? With a compound problem in a two-pilot aircraft, one pilot flies and coordinates with both [1] ATC (for a lower altitude etc?) and [2] Dispatch, while the only other pilot up front must correctly deal with two or more sets of procedures-both having various decision points, at which the problems must be carefully evaluated with no important steps incorrectly followed or forgotten?
Let's not forget about coordinating with the [3] Lead Purser or [4] other cabin crewmembers. The pilot (brand-new FO or Captain? ) who does these checklists (often not 'cut and dried'.... at all..) should keep about a fourth of his attention on what the flying/'handling' pilot is doing, especially if they are not just flying straight and level.Would the automation on a 744 or A-340 etc and EICAS/COM/ECAM procedures also quickly tell you your new 3-engine cruise altitude and fuel at destination airport?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge NOBODY has responded to at least three different posts over the past weeks asking for one of the contributors here to indicate what U.S. carriers generally do after an engine failure on the B744.
The reply, it seems to me, is generally fudged on the few occasions that the question is not ignored. So let me try to put it in a different manner. I have the clear and distinct impression that U.S. carriers operating B747 aircraft simply do NOT as a matter of practice land at the nearest suitable airport, but instead go to an airport meeting a wider range of requirements. However, I don't have the time to go look at the raw information and I am simply asking for clarification (as I did some ten posts above).
I presume the reluctance to concede the point is that once it is conceded then we are into "shades of grey" argument that the absolutists don't like.
The reply, it seems to me, is generally fudged on the few occasions that the question is not ignored. So let me try to put it in a different manner. I have the clear and distinct impression that U.S. carriers operating B747 aircraft simply do NOT as a matter of practice land at the nearest suitable airport, but instead go to an airport meeting a wider range of requirements. However, I don't have the time to go look at the raw information and I am simply asking for clarification (as I did some ten posts above).
I presume the reluctance to concede the point is that once it is conceded then we are into "shades of grey" argument that the absolutists don't like.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the automation on a 744 or A-340 etc and EICAS/COM/ECAM procedures also quickly tell you your new 3-engine cruise altitude and fuel at destination airport?
(weight, fuel, optimum level, and drift down altitude and speed for engine failure) every 10 t or so.
Today, the 'mighty' computer will gives you the same info. within seconds.
Anyway, you can always take the plain old book and find this information very easily.
Fuel at destination is maybe a little more tricky, with book computing, but you have a lot of time to check two times your computation with the other crewmember before taking the decision.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
OldAg84: How much more inconvenient for the passengers was the diversion to MAN vs. returning?
As SLF, I would have remained entirely happy with flying on this aircraft. (Including what seems to me to have been the precautionary and in fact unnecessary Mayday.)
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
Delwy, I suspect that you know the answer to your own question, as do the FAA licenced operators of the type. 
How many times does it have to be repeated to all you non B744 experienced pilots that the QRH for the B744 DOES NOT mention anything about "Land at the nearest suitable airport" for a single engine shut down!
There are other scenarios on the QRH that don't involve a single engine shut down that do mandate a land asap but shutting down a single engine does not!
Why oh why do we still have our opinionated SLF pontificating about this incident with their dumb comparisons between a flat tyre or a non-firing cylinder on their car? It's one thing to have the discussion between people with at least some experience of operating large multi-engined jet turbine aircraft, even if we agree to disagree on some aspects but to have to put up with inane twaddle from 'Mr Angry of (Texas/Purley/add your own)' just demeans the quality of debate. Whilst we had 411A make a reasonable comment a few posts back when it was mentioned that the only real difference of opinion was whether some of us would continue or not for up to 10 hours with an engine shut down, he has gone on to spoil it with his sarcastic tone once again in his last post. Now we have 'Mr Angry' telling us he thinks 411A "has the job experience" whereas we all know it was all gained long before the current generation of modern heavy jets and certainly none of it on the B744.
The point is that the crew had the option of continuing or returning or diverting immediately. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Whichever decision was taken was made after considering the multitude of factors that are inevitably involved. None of the decisions were 'wrong' and they were all allowable under the rules. All we have here is a bunch of opinionated 'armchair experts' voicing off their flawed opinions about a situation they have no experience with. It just bothers me when we have uninformed cr@p being spouted by self opinionated know-it-alls.
How many times does it have to be repeated to all you non B744 experienced pilots that the QRH for the B744 DOES NOT mention anything about "Land at the nearest suitable airport" for a single engine shut down!
There are other scenarios on the QRH that don't involve a single engine shut down that do mandate a land asap but shutting down a single engine does not!Why oh why do we still have our opinionated SLF pontificating about this incident with their dumb comparisons between a flat tyre or a non-firing cylinder on their car? It's one thing to have the discussion between people with at least some experience of operating large multi-engined jet turbine aircraft, even if we agree to disagree on some aspects but to have to put up with inane twaddle from 'Mr Angry of (Texas/Purley/add your own)' just demeans the quality of debate. Whilst we had 411A make a reasonable comment a few posts back when it was mentioned that the only real difference of opinion was whether some of us would continue or not for up to 10 hours with an engine shut down, he has gone on to spoil it with his sarcastic tone once again in his last post. Now we have 'Mr Angry' telling us he thinks 411A "has the job experience" whereas we all know it was all gained long before the current generation of modern heavy jets and certainly none of it on the B744.
The point is that the crew had the option of continuing or returning or diverting immediately. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Whichever decision was taken was made after considering the multitude of factors that are inevitably involved. None of the decisions were 'wrong' and they were all allowable under the rules. All we have here is a bunch of opinionated 'armchair experts' voicing off their flawed opinions about a situation they have no experience with. It just bothers me when we have uninformed cr@p being spouted by self opinionated know-it-alls.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting that the Jumbo is built in the US and it's initial certifacation is done by the FAA. I believe the operations manuals for each and every operator have to approved by the manufacturer, Boeing and by proxy are also approved by the FAA.
In other cases, the L1011 for example the CAA had some restrictions on operating that type that the FAA didn't have.
Seems to me the FAA is more or less disagreeing with itself!!
In other cases, the L1011 for example the CAA had some restrictions on operating that type that the FAA didn't have.
Seems to me the FAA is more or less disagreeing with itself!!
Last edited by 6feetunder; 23rd May 2005 at 13:54.
Thread Starter
Whilst 'land at nearest aerodrome' would indeed be over the top, perhaps 'review remaining flight time and fuel at destination when operating over uninhabited regions' or similar weasel words might not?
Interesting that the old, experienced and retired folk (411A, 3 experienced ba skippers and others) all say "East coast US, perhaps. Extended over water, not me, sir!"
Which is also my view.
But let's see what the FAA and CAA sort out between them, shall we?
Interesting that the old, experienced and retired folk (411A, 3 experienced ba skippers and others) all say "East coast US, perhaps. Extended over water, not me, sir!"
Which is also my view.
But let's see what the FAA and CAA sort out between them, shall we?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
\\\Seems to me the FAA is more or less disagreeing with itself!!\\\
Really don't see how, 6feetunder.
The FAA's position is rather clear...IE: continued flight with an engine shutdown/failed (on 3/4 engine types) is perfectly OK provided that is at least as safe as a diversion, or return.
Now, while it is quite true that I do not operate for a US carrier, I have spent a rather long time with an overseas carrier that operates to 14CFR121 standards...by the book.
In so doing, I have had two inflight shutdowns with three engine types.
One was enroute, about two hours to destination, and the flight was indeed continued to destination.
The other was 10 minutes after takeoff, and altho I had sufficient fuel to destination (in spades, as we were tankering due to cost considerations), a return was carried out, without further discussion. Altho in this case I would have been quite within my authority to continue, it would not make all that much sense...indeed, I would have considered it quite imprudent.
So, there you have it.
Both aviation regulatory authorties concerned here generally agree with regards to flight continuation, however some Commanders (and perhaps differing company policies) offer a clue as to their thinking.
The Commander concerned makes the call, and provided it is within company and regulatory guidelines, should not be called on the carpet to explain himself.
Others however, with a lot of experience under their belt, might respectfully have different views.
Really don't see how, 6feetunder.
The FAA's position is rather clear...IE: continued flight with an engine shutdown/failed (on 3/4 engine types) is perfectly OK provided that is at least as safe as a diversion, or return.
Now, while it is quite true that I do not operate for a US carrier, I have spent a rather long time with an overseas carrier that operates to 14CFR121 standards...by the book.
In so doing, I have had two inflight shutdowns with three engine types.
One was enroute, about two hours to destination, and the flight was indeed continued to destination.
The other was 10 minutes after takeoff, and altho I had sufficient fuel to destination (in spades, as we were tankering due to cost considerations), a return was carried out, without further discussion. Altho in this case I would have been quite within my authority to continue, it would not make all that much sense...indeed, I would have considered it quite imprudent.
So, there you have it.
Both aviation regulatory authorties concerned here generally agree with regards to flight continuation, however some Commanders (and perhaps differing company policies) offer a clue as to their thinking.
The Commander concerned makes the call, and provided it is within company and regulatory guidelines, should not be called on the carpet to explain himself.
Others however, with a lot of experience under their belt, might respectfully have different views.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
But that surely is the point; it's up the the commander on the day taking into account all factors to make a decision based on the facts in front of him and for his management to support him. That surely is what makes the job worthwhile.
What concerns me is a tendency on PPRuNe for other pilots to take a "black and white" stand on issues which really are shades of grey.
Lets stop slagging our collegues off for doing their jobs, you never see solicitors taking cheap shots at each other. We should learn from them.
But that surely is the point; it's up the the commander on the day taking into account all factors to make a decision based on the facts in front of him and for his management to support him. That surely is what makes the job worthwhile.
What concerns me is a tendency on PPRuNe for other pilots to take a "black and white" stand on issues which really are shades of grey.
Lets stop slagging our collegues off for doing their jobs, you never see solicitors taking cheap shots at each other. We should learn from them.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect, I don't agree - this thread has been remarkably free from any 'slagging off' or critisism of the crew involved in the incident that precipitated it. Experienced and professional airmen are always reluctant to directly criticise; and I for one have thoroughly enjoyed reading the opinions of most of the contributors.
The few instances of 'slagging off' have come from those defending the wisdom - in principal - of an intercontinental flight with an engine shut down that culminated in an emergency being declared.
Healthy debate is always welcome and I encourage those such as Cargo Boy to persuade the likes of me that, for instance, the absence of 'land at the nearest suitable airport' in a QRH drill automatically means that the best course of action is to press on. There's often a bit more to it than that old son... but please don't take it as a slag off!
The few instances of 'slagging off' have come from those defending the wisdom - in principal - of an intercontinental flight with an engine shut down that culminated in an emergency being declared.
Healthy debate is always welcome and I encourage those such as Cargo Boy to persuade the likes of me that, for instance, the absence of 'land at the nearest suitable airport' in a QRH drill automatically means that the best course of action is to press on. There's often a bit more to it than that old son... but please don't take it as a slag off!
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bullshot
I quote one (no names)
"Altho 'legal' under British civil aviation regulations, it was, as someone mentioned some time ago...absolutely, positively
stupid.
Bypassing suitable enroute diversion airports is NEVER a good idea, when flight safety is considered.
And, strangly enough, that is the exact point.
BA threw flight safety straight out the window, in preference to commercial considerations.
Sadly, BA should know better.
Even more sadly....they don't."
I would add that he has since moderated his views slightly.
I quote one (no names)
"Altho 'legal' under British civil aviation regulations, it was, as someone mentioned some time ago...absolutely, positively
stupid.
Bypassing suitable enroute diversion airports is NEVER a good idea, when flight safety is considered.
And, strangly enough, that is the exact point.
BA threw flight safety straight out the window, in preference to commercial considerations.
Sadly, BA should know better.
Even more sadly....they don't."
I would add that he has since moderated his views slightly.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's called giving the concerned Commander the benefit of the doubt, sky9...although 'not a very bright decision' would fit the situation quite necely...
Strangely enough, some seem to agree...
Strangely enough, some seem to agree...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411 I am confused (which I agree is not difficult)
[I]I have spent a rather long time with an overseas carrier that operates to 14CFR121 standards... by the book
Is this the same airline operating 3 engine aircraft that you referred to as absolute cowboys, pencil whipping everything in the log, in other posts or a different one
[I]I have spent a rather long time with an overseas carrier that operates to 14CFR121 standards... by the book
Is this the same airline operating 3 engine aircraft that you referred to as absolute cowboys, pencil whipping everything in the log, in other posts or a different one
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NC USA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo Boy- OK, so I'm an armchair expert, I'll give you that- I was just stating a simple comparision- that I, personally, wouldn't want to continue a long journey when I know a component of the equipment I'm operating, which is normally required, is not functioning. I've got over a million miles on many different airlines- I've never gotten upset when a flight is delayed because of a safety or maintainence issue. It happens.
Apparently, because I'm not an aviator, just a paying customer, I'm not entitled to my opinion or even a perspective. Of course, I get the same condescending attitudes from the staff at most of the airlines I fly. Which is why, in spite of my love for aviation- albiet from my armchair; I'm flying as little as possible and driving as much as I can and as far as I can tolerate. I suppose it's just as well you fly cargo.
That's all I'll say, and I'll try not to post again.
Apparently, because I'm not an aviator, just a paying customer, I'm not entitled to my opinion or even a perspective. Of course, I get the same condescending attitudes from the staff at most of the airlines I fly. Which is why, in spite of my love for aviation- albiet from my armchair; I'm flying as little as possible and driving as much as I can and as far as I can tolerate. I suppose it's just as well you fly cargo.
That's all I'll say, and I'll try not to post again.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline in question was SV, Tshirt, and so far as I could see, nothing there was pencil-whipped.
Quite the contrary, in fact, very well maintained aircraft, and well trained crews, from my perspective.
Quite the contrary, in fact, very well maintained aircraft, and well trained crews, from my perspective.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
delwy,
Please do not misread me. Many flights, including ones I have operated, have experienced engine failures that resulted in a landing, not at nearest suitable, but at nearest reasonable, all factors being taken into account after the appropriate and well-considered (hopefully) gnashing of crewmember teeth.
What I find so striking about this particular flight is that the financial factor appears to have heavily outweighed all other considerations, a trend I have been concerned about for some years now at the carrier I work for. As 411A so rightly states, the aeroplane may be able to do it, but should it?
BA is a highly respected airline operation, one I would not have the slightest hesitation whatsoever to board my wife and children. I would not wish it upon BA’s pilots, or anyone else’s for that matter, to be strong-armed into ceding cockpit authority to those whose agendas lie elsewhere in the greater scheme of things.
That authority once lost, delwy, how can we honestly lay any further claim to the privileges of the certificates we have fought so hard to hold and to keep; the phrase ‘pilot in command’ loses all real and effective meaning.
As I have previously stated in an earlier post, I do not agree with the decisions made by the commander of BA268. I do, however, support him fully in his personal, and apparently well-informed decision to continue.
It was his call, he brought the metal home in one piece; other than the next round is on me, little else need be said. The BA spin doctors are in charge of the rest.
Please do not misread me. Many flights, including ones I have operated, have experienced engine failures that resulted in a landing, not at nearest suitable, but at nearest reasonable, all factors being taken into account after the appropriate and well-considered (hopefully) gnashing of crewmember teeth.
What I find so striking about this particular flight is that the financial factor appears to have heavily outweighed all other considerations, a trend I have been concerned about for some years now at the carrier I work for. As 411A so rightly states, the aeroplane may be able to do it, but should it?
BA is a highly respected airline operation, one I would not have the slightest hesitation whatsoever to board my wife and children. I would not wish it upon BA’s pilots, or anyone else’s for that matter, to be strong-armed into ceding cockpit authority to those whose agendas lie elsewhere in the greater scheme of things.
That authority once lost, delwy, how can we honestly lay any further claim to the privileges of the certificates we have fought so hard to hold and to keep; the phrase ‘pilot in command’ loses all real and effective meaning.
As I have previously stated in an earlier post, I do not agree with the decisions made by the commander of BA268. I do, however, support him fully in his personal, and apparently well-informed decision to continue.
It was his call, he brought the metal home in one piece; other than the next round is on me, little else need be said. The BA spin doctors are in charge of the rest.
Well, I'm just humble SLF, and thus pretty dumb and not entitled to an opinion, though I do pay your wages. However, assuming the pilot has done his sums correctly, I cannot for the life of me see why a 747 on three (once in the air) is inherently more dangerous than a 767 on two.
From my perspective it is significant that the BA pilot called a Mayday and diverted when it was looking marginal and he had no time to figure it out: he kept going when he had the time to think it through and take advice. And his management backed him in both cases. Doesnt sound like a guy under management pressure to me!
One of the reasons I like BA is the strong suspicion that the pilots are there own men (or women) and won't take much crap from anyone. The flip side of being arrogant.......
From my perspective it is significant that the BA pilot called a Mayday and diverted when it was looking marginal and he had no time to figure it out: he kept going when he had the time to think it through and take advice. And his management backed him in both cases. Doesnt sound like a guy under management pressure to me!
One of the reasons I like BA is the strong suspicion that the pilots are there own men (or women) and won't take much crap from anyone. The flip side of being arrogant.......