FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
I know I'm not qualified to make statements on this subject because the aircraft I fly is not a 747-400 but I did read an article in the June Aviation International News by John Goglia, a former member of the board of the NTSB. I can't find the article on the net but I'll put a couple of quotes here. I hope it hasnt already been posted here.
"....soon after, the crew was notified that debris had been found on the departure runway."
"There are just too many possible failures caused by the high speed ejection of engine parts to contonue past a suitable landing location. Let's not forget that even if the crew went back into the cabin to look at the engine, not all of the powerplant is visible and the potential for hidden damage is real."
"my concern is that the corporate culture of the airlines has allowed increased risk to become the norm"
"Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is safe."
I don't think the fact that twins cross the ocean is relevant to his arguments.
"....soon after, the crew was notified that debris had been found on the departure runway."
"There are just too many possible failures caused by the high speed ejection of engine parts to contonue past a suitable landing location. Let's not forget that even if the crew went back into the cabin to look at the engine, not all of the powerplant is visible and the potential for hidden damage is real."
"my concern is that the corporate culture of the airlines has allowed increased risk to become the norm"
"Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is safe."
I don't think the fact that twins cross the ocean is relevant to his arguments.
Last edited by punkalouver; 27th Jan 2006 at 03:43.
Lets look at this argument from a different view point....if the crew had decided to dump fuel and return to LAX...or continue to Lost Wages....or turned north to SFO while dumping fuel and landed.....no matter what the rules, regs, policies, SOP's, Checklist....or the Purser said.....would we be having this discussion.
The aircraft would have been safely on the ground in the minimum amount of time....with some added costs to the airline and some minor inconvenience to the passengers.
But there would have been no fuss....some highly upset management types maybe....but safey would not have been compromised or perceived to have been compromised in any way.
Besides....it would have meant more time by the swimming pool at the hotel at company expense.
The aircraft would have been safely on the ground in the minimum amount of time....with some added costs to the airline and some minor inconvenience to the passengers.
But there would have been no fuss....some highly upset management types maybe....but safey would not have been compromised or perceived to have been compromised in any way.
Besides....it would have meant more time by the swimming pool at the hotel at company expense.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And had a certain american twin operator not been agitating with its pet senators we wouldn't be hearing about it either. The aircraft got safely on the ground at Manchester. Had the crew had the information BA has now given to its 744 pilots they'd have got it on the ground without the need to declare any sort of emergency and there'd have been no fuss whatsoever. This has been done to death. Now if John Goglia doesn't think continuing on three is safe, did he lobby to revoke the 744s certification to fly on three when he was at the NTSB? If not, why not?
First I've heard of debris on the runway - is this correct.
Also - anyone have any info on the state of the engine when it got to LHR and what servicing was required?
As an aside - NTSB has gotten on some pretty silly horses lately - the video camera in the cockpit being one example.
Also - anyone have any info on the state of the engine when it got to LHR and what servicing was required?
As an aside - NTSB has gotten on some pretty silly horses lately - the video camera in the cockpit being one example.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
"Now if John Goglia doesn't think continuing on three is safe, did he lobby to revoke the 744s certification to fly on three when he was at the NTSB? If not, why not?"
Perhaps because the NTSB doesn't certify aircraft. The FAA does. The NTSB investigates acciidents and from what I hear they are quite busy so they probably don't run around studying the details of 744 certification unless a specific issue arises.
He never said continueing on three is unsafe. I believe his emphasis is that after leaving debris on the runway, it was unsafe to continue.
He said at the end "I do not believe that the decisions made during this flight are examples of the highest form of inegrity that the travelling public has come to expect"
Perhaps a new question should go out to 744 pilots or really anyone. If after facing a similar situation you were told that 'debris' had been found on the runway that you just took off from, would you continue?
Perhaps because the NTSB doesn't certify aircraft. The FAA does. The NTSB investigates acciidents and from what I hear they are quite busy so they probably don't run around studying the details of 744 certification unless a specific issue arises.
He never said continueing on three is unsafe. I believe his emphasis is that after leaving debris on the runway, it was unsafe to continue.
He said at the end "I do not believe that the decisions made during this flight are examples of the highest form of inegrity that the travelling public has come to expect"
Perhaps a new question should go out to 744 pilots or really anyone. If after facing a similar situation you were told that 'debris' had been found on the runway that you just took off from, would you continue?
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been noted earlier. First I have heard of Debris on Runway. Also it was my understanding that the engine failed on the climb out. So if that was the case, difficult to leave debris on the runway.
L337
L337
I thought the record for the highest number of trans atlantic OEI flights goes to concord....all this fuss over one flight in a 744.
DC8, 707, connie, B52, P3, 747 classic, A340, concord etc all are very happy flying OEI...
How many OEI trans atlantic flights or long haul flights in the past decade ... 100, 200, 300 ? anyone got some real figures to put this into perspective...would not be surprised BA could have one a month with the size of their fleet and the hours they do.
This same aircraft did two OEI long haul flights in the span of a month...
DC8, 707, connie, B52, P3, 747 classic, A340, concord etc all are very happy flying OEI...
How many OEI trans atlantic flights or long haul flights in the past decade ... 100, 200, 300 ? anyone got some real figures to put this into perspective...would not be surprised BA could have one a month with the size of their fleet and the hours they do.
This same aircraft did two OEI long haul flights in the span of a month...
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail utterly to see the problem. You shut one down, then you have to look at continuing on three. Which assumes you will have to accept another degree of failure, e.g. another engine failure. So either it is a beaut day, no high ground coming anywhere near your two engine limit - in a 400 it is going to have to be something pretty spectacular, the Himalayas - and there are aerodromes all the way you can divert into more or less at short notice, and you have fuel to destination plus reserves; or the high ground is above you on two, or another failure will leave you a long way from safety on two, or you don't have the fuel. In the later cases, land somewhere. Soon. In the former, keep going; and if it goes bad, dive into one of the suitable funk holes you had in mind all along. Into the pub, into the bar, and start on the paper work. Stock, standard, normal.
What else is new?
What else is new?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Expat
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without having read all the previous pages (gosh it'll take me days) I can just mention the following from the A340 FCOM (Engine Shutdown Procedure FCOM3.02.70p4) Flying more than 7 hours with an egine failed may damage it. Now this is only mentioned as an advisory so crew know the effects of windmilling on a shutdown engine. If the engine was lost due damage then obviously this advisory comment does not apply.
Like everything in aviation there is no black or white only shades or gray but personally I fail to see the purpose of not continueing if there are on-route airfields available should something else occure.
Like everything in aviation there is no black or white only shades or gray but personally I fail to see the purpose of not continueing if there are on-route airfields available should something else occure.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been discussing the scenario again and it has brought up the point of what the international standards say (Annex 6);
5.2.9 En route — one power-unit inoperative. The
aeroplane shall be able, in the event of the critical power-unit
becoming inoperative at any point along the route or planned
diversions therefrom, to continue the flight to an aerodrome at
which the Standard of 5.2.11 can be met, without flying below
the minimum flight altitude at any point.
5.2.10 En route — two power-units inoperative. In the
case of aeroplanes having three or more power-units, on any
part of a route where the location of en-route alternate
aerodromes and the total duration of the flight are such that the
probability of a second power-unit becoming inoperative must
be allowed for if the general level of safety implied by the
Standards of this chapter is to be maintained, the aeroplane
shall be able, in the event of any two power-units becoming
inoperative, to continue the flight to an en-route alternate
aerodrome and land.
That seem to say that 1 out continue to any aerodrome where a safe landing can be made including the destination but for 2 out go to enroute alternate.
If everyone who had an engine fail early in flight on a 4 engine aircraft diverted asap then why would ICAO have a need for the above paragraph 5.2.10?
------
Debris on the runway?
Ask for clarification of exactly what the debris is.
Why turn back simply cause the fire crew spilled their big macs on the way back to the station?
Regards,
DFC
5.2.9 En route — one power-unit inoperative. The
aeroplane shall be able, in the event of the critical power-unit
becoming inoperative at any point along the route or planned
diversions therefrom, to continue the flight to an aerodrome at
which the Standard of 5.2.11 can be met, without flying below
the minimum flight altitude at any point.
5.2.10 En route — two power-units inoperative. In the
case of aeroplanes having three or more power-units, on any
part of a route where the location of en-route alternate
aerodromes and the total duration of the flight are such that the
probability of a second power-unit becoming inoperative must
be allowed for if the general level of safety implied by the
Standards of this chapter is to be maintained, the aeroplane
shall be able, in the event of any two power-units becoming
inoperative, to continue the flight to an en-route alternate
aerodrome and land.
That seem to say that 1 out continue to any aerodrome where a safe landing can be made including the destination but for 2 out go to enroute alternate.
If everyone who had an engine fail early in flight on a 4 engine aircraft diverted asap then why would ICAO have a need for the above paragraph 5.2.10?
------
Debris on the runway?
Ask for clarification of exactly what the debris is.
Why turn back simply cause the fire crew spilled their big macs on the way back to the station?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That seem to say that 1 out continue to any aerodrome where a safe landing can be made including the destination but for 2 out go to enroute alternate.
With a single post on a rumour bulletin board DFC appears to have invalidated ETOPS! !!
Why turn back simply cause the fire crew spilled their big macs on the way back to the station?
That would be the crew that you can count on risking their lives to pull you out of a fiery inferno?
With a single post on a rumour bulletin board DFC appears to have invalidated ETOPS! !!
Why turn back simply cause the fire crew spilled their big macs on the way back to the station?
That would be the crew that you can count on risking their lives to pull you out of a fiery inferno?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a load of fuss about a big zero!
The flight landed safely after the crew had evaluated the situation, made a decision and acted in a thoroughly professional manner.
The American mischief making in the field of aviation has to stop. This is not an argumant about aviation, it is an argument about politics and the sooner the publicity hungry Washington lobbyists get their heads onto another issue the better we will all be.
The flight landed safely after the crew had evaluated the situation, made a decision and acted in a thoroughly professional manner.
The American mischief making in the field of aviation has to stop. This is not an argumant about aviation, it is an argument about politics and the sooner the publicity hungry Washington lobbyists get their heads onto another issue the better we will all be.
Bengerman
You must have failed to read the hundreds of posts in this thread from qualified pilots who certainly had differing opinions on the technical merits of the decision making by this crew.
I don't see how americanism and politics are the drivers behind this division of views.
Of course I remain open to new arguments on the subject of this thread but I haven't seen any in the last months.
You must have failed to read the hundreds of posts in this thread from qualified pilots who certainly had differing opinions on the technical merits of the decision making by this crew.
I don't see how americanism and politics are the drivers behind this division of views.
Of course I remain open to new arguments on the subject of this thread but I haven't seen any in the last months.
Loma,
Having read the numerous posts and being current on the type in question, can you tell me at which point in the flight were safety margins significantly eroded? That is, at which point in the flight did a failure of another system or power plant place the aircraft in a situation where terrain clearance could not be maintained or a diversion to a suitable airfield be made without adequate fuel reserves?
I would ask you to keep your answer within the bounds of fact and away from what you have gleaned from the National Enquirer.
Having read the numerous posts and being current on the type in question, can you tell me at which point in the flight were safety margins significantly eroded? That is, at which point in the flight did a failure of another system or power plant place the aircraft in a situation where terrain clearance could not be maintained or a diversion to a suitable airfield be made without adequate fuel reserves?
I would ask you to keep your answer within the bounds of fact and away from what you have gleaned from the National Enquirer.
"were safety margins significantly eroded?"
Just passing through, and only a two holer driver, so its more of a question. With respect to his fuel state, I understand they landed short of the destination with a load that might be considered low. Yes/no?
Just passing through, and only a two holer driver, so its more of a question. With respect to his fuel state, I understand they landed short of the destination with a load that might be considered low. Yes/no?
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast:
They were not at destination. So not easy to give you a reply of Yes/ No.
22 page thread, and you can't be bothered to even skim the thread, let alone read it.
L337
They were not at destination. So not easy to give you a reply of Yes/ No.
22 page thread, and you can't be bothered to even skim the thread, let alone read it.
L337
They landed at a suitable alternate with a fuel state which was entirely consistent with normal operations. The declaration of an emergency was largely down to a misappreciation of the fuel management needed to land with "balanced tanks"- hardly a life or death situation!
Loma,
Having read the numerous posts and being current on the type in question, can you tell me at which point in the flight were safety margins significantly eroded? That is, at which point in the flight did a failure of another system or power plant place the aircraft in a situation where terrain clearance could not be maintained or a diversion to a suitable airfield be made without adequate fuel reserves?
Having read the numerous posts and being current on the type in question, can you tell me at which point in the flight were safety margins significantly eroded? That is, at which point in the flight did a failure of another system or power plant place the aircraft in a situation where terrain clearance could not be maintained or a diversion to a suitable airfield be made without adequate fuel reserves?
Flap62
So you mean you didn't even bother to do a search on my name to see where I stand on these arguments.
tch tch
Maybe if you were to do a point by point rebuttal we both wouldn't have to resort to reading only the headlines from National Enquirer.