FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Around and about
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skol
I was saying that I felt your argument did not add up, not the fuel figures. Just an opinion. My original question was based on trying to see if you had a new perspective, while avoiding a repeat of issues and argumentation already well rehearsed on the two threads. As I say you are welcome to your opinion, but since you are clearly willing to get into another fuel argurment here let me just say that to do so is to suggest that the crew involved set off with insufficient fuel and that your figures are better. I beg to disagree.
To my mind this suggests that you have not fully read the two threads, and may have missed the topic heading on this thread - which is the perspectival differences between the CAA and FAA on operational decision making, as illustrated by the differing points of view on this particular event.
I was saying that I felt your argument did not add up, not the fuel figures. Just an opinion. My original question was based on trying to see if you had a new perspective, while avoiding a repeat of issues and argumentation already well rehearsed on the two threads. As I say you are welcome to your opinion, but since you are clearly willing to get into another fuel argurment here let me just say that to do so is to suggest that the crew involved set off with insufficient fuel and that your figures are better. I beg to disagree.
To my mind this suggests that you have not fully read the two threads, and may have missed the topic heading on this thread - which is the perspectival differences between the CAA and FAA on operational decision making, as illustrated by the differing points of view on this particular event.
Controversial, moi?
Correct, contingency fuel is for unexpected contingencies. .For most airlines this is around 2%, which leaves a 7% deficit. For a -400 LAX-LHR that adds up to an additional 9000kg burn assuming no dawdling or holding. What doesn''t add up?
Try reading the surfeit of postings on the subject (this and the previous thread). Distill the facts from the speculation and you will quickly realise why many of us groaned when you started pontificating.
Quite what relevance crossing the Atlantic as few as 20 times per year has is also puzzling.
Skol,
I see you've joined the ranks of the monday morning quarterbacks.
If we use your logic you and your airline must be much more dangerous with a mere 2% contingency when compared with all the others that carry more!
I see you've joined the ranks of the monday morning quarterbacks.
If we use your logic you and your airline must be much more dangerous with a mere 2% contingency when compared with all the others that carry more!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: S23 28.8 W046 37.8
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What doesn't add up? Your assumption that most airlines carry around 2% contingency for a start.
Here we work with 10% and the lowest I have seen was 5% with a JAROPS operator.
Cheers
Salz
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole thread comes down to, and can be summed up as....
"You have no right to question the actions of a BA pilot because.....it's a BA pilot's action!".
Nothing more...
...and no amount of experience (including in the same type and along those routes) and objectivity put forth in even the most cogent terms will sway those holding this god-complex/hero-worship streak if it's used to support an opinion to the contrary.
Given the same set of circumstances, a U.S. crew making the same decision would be labeled "cowboys", and a third-world airline crew "incompetent", by those defending it now because their assumptions and pre-conceived notions regarding professionalism, conduct, and training would still apply. There is NO doubt...none... that this would be their opinion.
It's not based on objectivity...it's deeply emotional and ingrained, notwithstanding the psuedo-logical facade and feeble attempts at justification....ingrained that contrarian views shan't be considered because there is no right to even air them in the first place. Doing so is exceeding one's Station (if you believe in that sort of thing), so silencing them is a matter of honor and duty, not aviation.
The aeronautical trappings of numbers-swapping and comparing procedural differences doesn't disguise the fact that this whole thread reeks of it.
A BA crew making an inferior choice?.....sorry, but you have about as much chance of persuading them that the queen sucks.
"You have no right to question the actions of a BA pilot because.....it's a BA pilot's action!".
Nothing more...
...and no amount of experience (including in the same type and along those routes) and objectivity put forth in even the most cogent terms will sway those holding this god-complex/hero-worship streak if it's used to support an opinion to the contrary.
Given the same set of circumstances, a U.S. crew making the same decision would be labeled "cowboys", and a third-world airline crew "incompetent", by those defending it now because their assumptions and pre-conceived notions regarding professionalism, conduct, and training would still apply. There is NO doubt...none... that this would be their opinion.
It's not based on objectivity...it's deeply emotional and ingrained, notwithstanding the psuedo-logical facade and feeble attempts at justification....ingrained that contrarian views shan't be considered because there is no right to even air them in the first place. Doing so is exceeding one's Station (if you believe in that sort of thing), so silencing them is a matter of honor and duty, not aviation.
The aeronautical trappings of numbers-swapping and comparing procedural differences doesn't disguise the fact that this whole thread reeks of it.
A BA crew making an inferior choice?.....sorry, but you have about as much chance of persuading them that the queen sucks.
Last edited by AMF; 31st May 2005 at 00:44.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a non-BA pilot who feels that the matter is far from being easy to sort out "objectively" I have to first say that I agree with the decision of the BA captain and crew.
To my mind AMF's post is just a declaration of prejudice on the part of those with whom he disagrees - which declaration he then uses to trot out his own rather self-revealing prejudices.
The post is unwise, unworthy and unsupported by any sign of any effort to assess the evidence or produce an argument. Posting such prejudical drivel itself shows a lack of judgment and says much more about the author that anything else.
To my mind AMF's post is just a declaration of prejudice on the part of those with whom he disagrees - which declaration he then uses to trot out his own rather self-revealing prejudices.
The post is unwise, unworthy and unsupported by any sign of any effort to assess the evidence or produce an argument. Posting such prejudical drivel itself shows a lack of judgment and says much more about the author that anything else.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a quick look on Expedia for flights from LAX to LHR. The airlines that operate it are BA, Virgin, Air New Zealand, American Airlines and United.
Would someone tell me what aircraft type is operated by each airline on the route; it might throw some light on the FAA case.
Would someone tell me what aircraft type is operated by each airline on the route; it might throw some light on the FAA case.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots that undertake missions like this one should ensure they have a watertight family trust. In any airline there seems to be a collection of individuals who are convinced beyond doubt that their employer will go into bat for them if they make a mess of things while trying to help the company out, when quite the opposite is true.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF
A poor reading of the thread I might add...
If you re-read the thread you will see the more intelligent posts state that there is probably no "right" or "wrong", it is the call of guy on the day, who will no doubt be influenced not only by his experience and training, but the various rules & regs under which he operates.
For you to criticise people supporting the crew on the day is as wrong as anybody here who says the crew was definitely wrong.
FYI, what the crew did was 100% iaw a documented company procedure in the regulator's approved manual. It is a procedure that has been used countless times in the past, and has not been altered 1 jot since the incident in question, and has in fact been used since the incident... just didn't generate 30 odd pages of hysteria.
So all I am saying is you have no right to state the crew was "wrong", unless you know the exact circumstances under which the decision was made... and I doubt you know the BA (CAA approved) manuals word for word.
Just my pov...
This whole thread comes down to, and can be summed up as....
"You have no right to question the actions of a BA pilot because.....it's a BA pilot's action!".
"You have no right to question the actions of a BA pilot because.....it's a BA pilot's action!".
If you re-read the thread you will see the more intelligent posts state that there is probably no "right" or "wrong", it is the call of guy on the day, who will no doubt be influenced not only by his experience and training, but the various rules & regs under which he operates.
For you to criticise people supporting the crew on the day is as wrong as anybody here who says the crew was definitely wrong.
FYI, what the crew did was 100% iaw a documented company procedure in the regulator's approved manual. It is a procedure that has been used countless times in the past, and has not been altered 1 jot since the incident in question, and has in fact been used since the incident... just didn't generate 30 odd pages of hysteria.
So all I am saying is you have no right to state the crew was "wrong", unless you know the exact circumstances under which the decision was made... and I doubt you know the BA (CAA approved) manuals word for word.
Just my pov...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Nigel, if I read your post correctly.....
An inability to make a value judgment on the actions of another crew (if it's a BA crew) is an indicator of "intelligence".
Because someone disagreeing doesn't know the "exact circumstances", they are wrong. However, those supporting the actions of this crew are right, notwithstanding they also don't know "the exact circumstances".
The crew and supporters are "right", because the BA manual apparently flawlessly guides any crew to the best decision in any circumstance in matters of what even you admit is a Judgement Call.
My, my, what a book. I always knew "the book" includes procedures and standards, but now matters of Judgment as well? Of course, can it be "Judgement" if the book, in fact, covers it? You seem to regard it as the same thing.
Are prudence, risk management, and public relations covered with so much completeness as well?
But what do I know?......I'm just a cowboy who figures that 11-hour, degraded performance, 3-engine ferry flights should be operated without paying passengers. The technicality of barely breaking ground before becoming so doesn't really sway my value judgement, given viable alternative, more conservative courses of action.
I must have a yellow streak, and obviously need one of those Books that has all the answers.
An inability to make a value judgment on the actions of another crew (if it's a BA crew) is an indicator of "intelligence".
Because someone disagreeing doesn't know the "exact circumstances", they are wrong. However, those supporting the actions of this crew are right, notwithstanding they also don't know "the exact circumstances".
The crew and supporters are "right", because the BA manual apparently flawlessly guides any crew to the best decision in any circumstance in matters of what even you admit is a Judgement Call.
My, my, what a book. I always knew "the book" includes procedures and standards, but now matters of Judgment as well? Of course, can it be "Judgement" if the book, in fact, covers it? You seem to regard it as the same thing.
Are prudence, risk management, and public relations covered with so much completeness as well?
But what do I know?......I'm just a cowboy who figures that 11-hour, degraded performance, 3-engine ferry flights should be operated without paying passengers. The technicality of barely breaking ground before becoming so doesn't really sway my value judgement, given viable alternative, more conservative courses of action.
I must have a yellow streak, and obviously need one of those Books that has all the answers.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Current schedules
sky9: I had a quick look on Expedia for flights from LAX to LHR. The airlines that operate it are BA, Virgin, Air New Zealand, American Airlines and United.
Would someone tell me what aircraft type is operated by each airline on the route; it might throw some light on the FAA case.
Would someone tell me what aircraft type is operated by each airline on the route; it might throw some light on the FAA case.
British Airways 744 (6 x per week)
Air New Zealand 744 (daily)
Virgin Atlantic 744 (daily)
British Airways 744 (daily)
United 777 (daily)
American Airlines 777 (daily)
American Airlines 777 (daily)
Virgin Atlantic 343 (daily)
British Airways 744 (daily)
Air New Zealand 744 (daily)
Virgin Atlantic 744 (daily)
British Airways 744 (daily)
United 777 (daily)
American Airlines 777 (daily)
American Airlines 777 (daily)
Virgin Atlantic 343 (daily)
British Airways 744 (daily)
United 777 (daily)
Virgin Atlantic 744 (daily)
British Airways 744 (daily)
British Airways 744 (daily)
United 777 (daily)
Virgin Atlantic 744 (daily)
British Airways 744 (daily)
British Airways 744 (daily)
United 777 (daily)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF...
I have never said the crew were "right"... I do not think I, nor anyone really, can categorically say they were " right" or "wrong".
What I can say is on the day they took a decision, iaw their Regulator Approved procedures, and followed it through.
What I do have, unlike you (?), is access to those procedures. They (quite correctly) give the crew discretion as to whether they consider the procedure appropriate "on the day". The list of further, and ongoing, checks, is quite comprehensive, and no doubt was complied with.
The events at the other end of the flight were completely separate and not under discussion here...
What I, and others object to, is your ongoing criticism of the crew...
The "book" you refer to is probably 2 pages. The judgement is partially in the drawing up of the "book", ensuring the regulator approves said "book", and then, and most importantly, the crew's judgement on the day as to whether the "book" is appropriate, applicable, and whether they are happy with it.
You OTOH, seem to believe the "book" is wrong (your right), but then go on to repeatedly criticise the crew becuase they do not share your belief that their company/CAA procdures are incorrect in principle.
Assuming you are a commerical pilot (?), would you want me to come in and tell you that your company's and National Authority's procedures were b*llocks, and that any of your company's pilots (including you) following the procedures were therefore incompetent.
Prudence and Risk Mgmt are inherent of commercial operations - else we would not fly. PR does not come into the pilots remit...
Your concern with the principle of continuing after a single engine failure is a view you are entitled to. My gripe with you is that you (and others) are unable to comprehend others may have alternative viewpoints... but more importantly, please direct your disdain, not to individual crew members, but to the regulator who has repeatedly confirmed they are 100% content with these SOPs.
NoD
I have never said the crew were "right"... I do not think I, nor anyone really, can categorically say they were " right" or "wrong".
What I can say is on the day they took a decision, iaw their Regulator Approved procedures, and followed it through.
What I do have, unlike you (?), is access to those procedures. They (quite correctly) give the crew discretion as to whether they consider the procedure appropriate "on the day". The list of further, and ongoing, checks, is quite comprehensive, and no doubt was complied with.
The events at the other end of the flight were completely separate and not under discussion here...
What I, and others object to, is your ongoing criticism of the crew...
My, my, what a book. I always knew "the book" includes procedures and standards, but now matters of Judgment as well? Of course, can it be "Judgement" if the book, in fact, covers it? You seem to regard it as the same thing.
You OTOH, seem to believe the "book" is wrong (your right), but then go on to repeatedly criticise the crew becuase they do not share your belief that their company/CAA procdures are incorrect in principle.
Assuming you are a commerical pilot (?), would you want me to come in and tell you that your company's and National Authority's procedures were b*llocks, and that any of your company's pilots (including you) following the procedures were therefore incompetent.
Are prudence, risk management, and public relations covered with so much completeness as well?
Your concern with the principle of continuing after a single engine failure is a view you are entitled to. My gripe with you is that you (and others) are unable to comprehend others may have alternative viewpoints... but more importantly, please direct your disdain, not to individual crew members, but to the regulator who has repeatedly confirmed they are 100% content with these SOPs.
NoD
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel.....
The fact that you try and assert that "The events at the other end of the flight were completely separate and not under discussion here" doesn't change that fact that you cannot separate them in reality when you're actually flying an airplane. Degraded performance/higher fuel burns do indeed have causal relevance as to whether any aircraft arrives at it's destination, with enough fuel, or (as the case was here) short of both.
It's telling that this assertion must be repeated ad naseum by those pretending there was no better course of action to the crew. Trying to frame a debate with this invalid premise...that the decision didn't affect the outcome...is ludicrous. Once again, this is pseudo-logic. Aristotle wouldn't approve, my friend.
Aerodynamic principles and time/fuel/distance constraints are axiomatic, and the increasing chance of forecasts being erroneous the further out you rely on them (say, 11 hours) are givens that any professional pilot is aware of and should consider in any plan of action. The same goes for ATC requirements that may work against you.
It's no wonder you must insist that the outcome isn't relevant, otherwise you're left with.....
The crew purposely choosing a course of action that left them short on distance and fuel.....
or....
The crew making a mistake by ignoring variables that they are paid not to ignore, not planning for the worst, and merely hoping for the best.
Either way it's not good, or what passengers expect. That's what a few decades' worth of cowboying around carrying pax tells me anyway.
As I said, if it weren't a BA crew involved, this would be the critisism and focus of debate. Certainly nobody would be pretending that the decision didn't affect the outcome, or there wasn't a better course of action that could've been taken.
The fact that you try and assert that "The events at the other end of the flight were completely separate and not under discussion here" doesn't change that fact that you cannot separate them in reality when you're actually flying an airplane. Degraded performance/higher fuel burns do indeed have causal relevance as to whether any aircraft arrives at it's destination, with enough fuel, or (as the case was here) short of both.
It's telling that this assertion must be repeated ad naseum by those pretending there was no better course of action to the crew. Trying to frame a debate with this invalid premise...that the decision didn't affect the outcome...is ludicrous. Once again, this is pseudo-logic. Aristotle wouldn't approve, my friend.
Aerodynamic principles and time/fuel/distance constraints are axiomatic, and the increasing chance of forecasts being erroneous the further out you rely on them (say, 11 hours) are givens that any professional pilot is aware of and should consider in any plan of action. The same goes for ATC requirements that may work against you.
It's no wonder you must insist that the outcome isn't relevant, otherwise you're left with.....
The crew purposely choosing a course of action that left them short on distance and fuel.....
or....
The crew making a mistake by ignoring variables that they are paid not to ignore, not planning for the worst, and merely hoping for the best.
Either way it's not good, or what passengers expect. That's what a few decades' worth of cowboying around carrying pax tells me anyway.
As I said, if it weren't a BA crew involved, this would be the critisism and focus of debate. Certainly nobody would be pretending that the decision didn't affect the outcome, or there wasn't a better course of action that could've been taken.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF
When it comes to putting forward an argument, supported by clarity and logical connections in what it is you have to say, you are hardly a model for the rest of us. After all, you started with a declaration of prejudice which was used as a means of expressing your own prejudices. I see lots of assertions since then, but little elucidation.
Not only do I not see much entitlement to invoke Aristotle, but I think I have to say that Bart Simpson wouldn't approve, my friend.
Once again, this is pseudo-logic. Aristotle wouldn't approve, my friend.
Not only do I not see much entitlement to invoke Aristotle, but I think I have to say that Bart Simpson wouldn't approve, my friend.