FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are national regulators impartial?
The disagreement between the FAA and CAA over the recent LAX BA747 engine surge incident places the spotlight on such agency's impartiality. The language used by the FAA here ;"careless and reckless" is strong stuff. Would they have directed such language at a US carrier? there are plenty of documented cases of US airliners which didn't land immediately after losing an engine.
The US government in particular seems happy to wield the big stick at non-US carriers -example 1. The BA and Air France flights cancelled over the skymarshall issue -example 2, the Latin American airlines pursued by the US tax authorities. Is it perhaps the case that overseas airlines are a soft target for any zealous Federal official?
The US government in particular seems happy to wield the big stick at non-US carriers -example 1. The BA and Air France flights cancelled over the skymarshall issue -example 2, the Latin American airlines pursued by the US tax authorities. Is it perhaps the case that overseas airlines are a soft target for any zealous Federal official?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>In cruise shortly after level off a engine is shut down for precautionary reasons due to a loss of quantity on oil. FLight continues ontowards destination.
According to this first-hand account, they turned around about 54nm from NAS with MIA 110nm away. MIA was VMC, and NAS would have been below minimums at their ETA, as it turns out.
http://flytristar.tripod.com/article/art10.html
Additionally, you made the statement in an earlier message on this thread something to the effect that this EAL incident changed the ability to continue after after an engine failure/shutdown. With all due respect, this EAL incident occured in 1983, and the Part 121.565 excerpts several have cited are from present-day (22 years later), and I see nothing in the current 121.565 that has changed anything as far as the crew of a 3- or 4-engined aircraft -not- being able to continue (in lieu of landing at the nearest suitable airport as required of a twin) -assuming- all the items in 121.565(b)(1-6) are considered.
Otherwise, I agree with the points you've made...
According to this first-hand account, they turned around about 54nm from NAS with MIA 110nm away. MIA was VMC, and NAS would have been below minimums at their ETA, as it turns out.
http://flytristar.tripod.com/article/art10.html
Additionally, you made the statement in an earlier message on this thread something to the effect that this EAL incident changed the ability to continue after after an engine failure/shutdown. With all due respect, this EAL incident occured in 1983, and the Part 121.565 excerpts several have cited are from present-day (22 years later), and I see nothing in the current 121.565 that has changed anything as far as the crew of a 3- or 4-engined aircraft -not- being able to continue (in lieu of landing at the nearest suitable airport as required of a twin) -assuming- all the items in 121.565(b)(1-6) are considered.
Otherwise, I agree with the points you've made...
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careless and reckless is the standard charge that the FAA follows any other charge with.
Do a google search on "Careless and reckless" and you will be astonished how many times that comes up.
You are charged with violating flight and duty rest regulations, they charge you with the rest reg, and then they charge you with "Careless and reckless" as well. This is how things are done in the US courts.
Fighting with the FAA is so much fun because you fight by THEIR RULES in THEIR ARENA...
Cheers
Wino
Do a google search on "Careless and reckless" and you will be astonished how many times that comes up.
You are charged with violating flight and duty rest regulations, they charge you with the rest reg, and then they charge you with "Careless and reckless" as well. This is how things are done in the US courts.
Fighting with the FAA is so much fun because you fight by THEIR RULES in THEIR ARENA...
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado USA
Age: 68
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the CAA can insist that US crews flying US reg aircraft must abide the rule requiring F/Os to be type rated whilst in UK airspace. Surely it is only reasonable to expect the FAA to demand BA stick to the FAA book whilst in US airspace?
V1
V1
Wino,
Using the FAR 91.13a argument, dumping of fuel, or overweight, out of trim landing could also lead to a charge under FAR 91.13a.
The aircraft is certified under a UK TCDS, based on a FAA one, UK registered, the UK flight manual states that one (1) engine failure is not an emergency, dumping of fuel for a retrun to LAX could also result in a charge under FAR 91.13a and other environmental laws.
The FAA would have to prove that it would have not been careless and reckless to dump fuel when no emergency exists, given that 8 percent of dumped fuel reaches the ground.
The FAA would have to prove that it would have not been careless and reckless whilst in US airspace (not Canadian or others) the aircraft would not have exceeded UK TCDS/flight manual limits (as that is the state to which it is registered and certified) for maximum landing weight and CofG, again stressing that no emergency existed.
Given that the NTSB file states "On February 20, 2005, a British Airways Boeing 757-400, registration G-BNLG, experienced an engine failure shortly after takeoff from Los Angeles International Airport, called PAN, and request to divert to Manchester, United Kingdom. The point of intended landing was Heathrow International Airport, London, United Kingdom. There were no injuries to the 370 persons on board and the airplane landed safely.
The incident is being investigated by the United Kingdom's Air Accident Investigation Branch.", the FAA would have to prove how the crew were "careless and reckless" in US airspace, when the NTSB have already said the aircraft landed safely with no injuries.
The PAN was not declared in US airspace, the aircraft is not US flagged, what happened outside US airspace is of no concern to the FAA.
Once the aircraft is out of US airspace, the FAA rules no longer apply.
Using the FAR 91.13a argument, dumping of fuel, or overweight, out of trim landing could also lead to a charge under FAR 91.13a.
The aircraft is certified under a UK TCDS, based on a FAA one, UK registered, the UK flight manual states that one (1) engine failure is not an emergency, dumping of fuel for a retrun to LAX could also result in a charge under FAR 91.13a and other environmental laws.
The FAA would have to prove that it would have not been careless and reckless to dump fuel when no emergency exists, given that 8 percent of dumped fuel reaches the ground.
The FAA would have to prove that it would have not been careless and reckless whilst in US airspace (not Canadian or others) the aircraft would not have exceeded UK TCDS/flight manual limits (as that is the state to which it is registered and certified) for maximum landing weight and CofG, again stressing that no emergency existed.
Given that the NTSB file states "On February 20, 2005, a British Airways Boeing 757-400, registration G-BNLG, experienced an engine failure shortly after takeoff from Los Angeles International Airport, called PAN, and request to divert to Manchester, United Kingdom. The point of intended landing was Heathrow International Airport, London, United Kingdom. There were no injuries to the 370 persons on board and the airplane landed safely.
The incident is being investigated by the United Kingdom's Air Accident Investigation Branch.", the FAA would have to prove how the crew were "careless and reckless" in US airspace, when the NTSB have already said the aircraft landed safely with no injuries.
The PAN was not declared in US airspace, the aircraft is not US flagged, what happened outside US airspace is of no concern to the FAA.
Once the aircraft is out of US airspace, the FAA rules no longer apply.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, OK, I pushed it a bit... But it has been a while and I do not have performance figures for the airplane on two engines, indeed I am not aware of any. I am basing my opinion on the sim, which of course might not be accurate since there is no regulatory requirement to even prove a rate of climb etc on two. However if the sim is not too far off, a light 747 on two engines is more than capable of a gradient of climb close to a twin, including a go-around, provided the drag and airspeed are managed properly, and there is no particular handling problem, even when the two failed are on the same side. There is a difference of around 130,000 Kg between max takeoff weight and landing weight after all. Of course I did not claim the twin was also at a light weight!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<They wound up short of fuel and landed short. Elegant proof of a violation of B2>> Do you have proof of that Wino? Would you care to tell us what the "Fuel Remaining" was after landing at Manchester? The only thing I've read so far is that the crew decided to land at Manchester because they "feared" it was running low on fuel.... Doesn't mean they "were" low on fuel.... (Also I like the "they landed short" comment)
<<because of traffic congestion, Ergo a violation of B4>> Really? So approx 5 hrs out of entering Oceanic you'd know the requested Flt levels of all flts heading for Europe from the East Coast? So let's say they get their Oceanic now and can't get the Flt level their re-analysis was based on, are you saying they didn't re-evaluate the situation with Dispatch? Do you know what their alternates were along the crossing?
Not taking anybody's side here, but would like to know where you get your facts and numbers. What's the point of just saying they "violated" such or such reg without being able to back it up?
Cheers
<<because of traffic congestion, Ergo a violation of B4>> Really? So approx 5 hrs out of entering Oceanic you'd know the requested Flt levels of all flts heading for Europe from the East Coast? So let's say they get their Oceanic now and can't get the Flt level their re-analysis was based on, are you saying they didn't re-evaluate the situation with Dispatch? Do you know what their alternates were along the crossing?
Not taking anybody's side here, but would like to know where you get your facts and numbers. What's the point of just saying they "violated" such or such reg without being able to back it up?
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careless and Reckless operation of an aircraft is a catch-all idiotic charge that the FAA needs to ditch. Some time ago I supplied USALPA with material to assist a captain who'd been so charged. He'd responded to an altitude clearance meant for someone else, simultaneous transmission, and which caused some loss of separation. The FAA pulled his ticket for 3 months. He appealed but the 'civil' judge agreed with FAA. European pilots ought to be very thankful that, in this neck of the woods, the system allows the filing of a Mandatory Occurrence Report to end the matter - full stop, from which everyone learns. Wake up FAA!
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShotOne
FlyAmerica policy allows foreign carrier traffic on US airline codeshare IIRC. So if AA has a codeshare on a BA flight, a travel ban applying to BA would have an impact.
FlyAmerica policy allows foreign carrier traffic on US airline codeshare IIRC. So if AA has a codeshare on a BA flight, a travel ban applying to BA would have an impact.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems pretty "careless and reckless" for the FAA to describe the aircraft as a 757-400. I wonder how many of that type they certified?
Or it could be that the FAA thought that it was a 757 in which case I would fully agree with their reasoning.
"Ready Fire Aim" another toe blown off; nine to go.
Or it could be that the FAA thought that it was a 757 in which case I would fully agree with their reasoning.
"Ready Fire Aim" another toe blown off; nine to go.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, sky9, don't know the difference between FAA and NTSB eh?
Amazing the number of gundeck lawyers around here, can't say I'd want any of them defending me.
The decision to continue was a judgement call made by the captain, it started looking a little too close for his taste when he got closer to destination so he decided to go to an alternate. Don't know the crew should be penalized for this but it would not be bad idea to discuss it and learn from it.
Maybe 6 of 10 of us would have made the same choice in the same situation, maybe not, but at least everybody is talking about it, some from a position of some knowledge and experience and maybe some of that will be useful to somebody someday in a similar situation. As I used to say to the beancounters that demanded cost justification through flying hour substitution for buying flight simulators if I use this trainer to teach one pilot one thing one time that allows him to bring the aircraft back in more or less one piece I just paid for the whole life cycle cost of the trainer.
Amazing the number of gundeck lawyers around here, can't say I'd want any of them defending me.
The decision to continue was a judgement call made by the captain, it started looking a little too close for his taste when he got closer to destination so he decided to go to an alternate. Don't know the crew should be penalized for this but it would not be bad idea to discuss it and learn from it.
Maybe 6 of 10 of us would have made the same choice in the same situation, maybe not, but at least everybody is talking about it, some from a position of some knowledge and experience and maybe some of that will be useful to somebody someday in a similar situation. As I used to say to the beancounters that demanded cost justification through flying hour substitution for buying flight simulators if I use this trainer to teach one pilot one thing one time that allows him to bring the aircraft back in more or less one piece I just paid for the whole life cycle cost of the trainer.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ojay's post, page 2, sums it up really. Spot on.
I too have considerable experience on the 744, including continuing once on 3 effectively (oil high temp - normal at idle, continued to HKG....closely watching alternates, etc). Pushing it a bit, yeah, but seemed the right decision at the time, as the motor was still there if we needed it.
With one out completely, yes - still legal to go on if oil press at windmill, etc. But as Ojay said, if you lose another....well, doodoo is right. About 10,000ft stab alt and 10 tonnes per hour at 360 kts true, as I recall for average weights (help me- it's been ten years).
I hope this BA crew are not disciplined in any way - IMHO they broke no rules - best of all they have raised a wonderful discussion item for all. The split on these forums is a good example - about 50/50 for/against.
I too have considerable experience on the 744, including continuing once on 3 effectively (oil high temp - normal at idle, continued to HKG....closely watching alternates, etc). Pushing it a bit, yeah, but seemed the right decision at the time, as the motor was still there if we needed it.
With one out completely, yes - still legal to go on if oil press at windmill, etc. But as Ojay said, if you lose another....well, doodoo is right. About 10,000ft stab alt and 10 tonnes per hour at 360 kts true, as I recall for average weights (help me- it's been ten years).
I hope this BA crew are not disciplined in any way - IMHO they broke no rules - best of all they have raised a wonderful discussion item for all. The split on these forums is a good example - about 50/50 for/against.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"He appealed but the 'civil' judge agreed with FAA. European pilots ought to be very thankful that, in this neck of the woods, the system allows the filing of a Mandatory Occurrence Report to end the matter - full stop, from which everyone learns. Wake up FAA!"
In the USA we have a similar program, forget, it's called the 'NASA report form'
Serves the same purpose, more or less.
Been around for quite sometime and every professional pilot I know carries one around in his flight kit.
In the USA we have a similar program, forget, it's called the 'NASA report form'
Serves the same purpose, more or less.
Been around for quite sometime and every professional pilot I know carries one around in his flight kit.
Telephone conversation overheard recently at the FAA office:
FAA: "...and we think this was reckless flying and will be taking further measures."
BA: "Oh. Didn't realise operating our 747s as designed was so dangerous. Better swap them for Airbuses."
FAA: "Errm... Right... As you were then. No need to mention this again, really... Oh! Look! A tree!"
BA: "
"
FAA: "...and we think this was reckless flying and will be taking further measures."
BA: "Oh. Didn't realise operating our 747s as designed was so dangerous. Better swap them for Airbuses."
FAA: "Errm... Right... As you were then. No need to mention this again, really... Oh! Look! A tree!"
BA: "
"
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry folks, but that is NOT the international standard.
Hasn't been for many decades.
If you're concerned about safety, there are MANY more fruitful areas for your concern.
Hasn't been for many decades.
If you're concerned about safety, there are MANY more fruitful areas for your concern.
How about in a 6 engine aircraft (B36, B49), or an 8 engined one (B52)? How many engines do you want? We're allowed to be 217mins from a runway on ONE engine, what's wrong with flying on THREE?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
right, not
I have close to 10,000 hours on the Boeing 747 Classic. I am amazed at the simple-mindedness of most of the responses to this topic in other threads and the start of this new one. I am sure a lot of them are made by people who are totally clueless in regards to operating quads and take their bias in operating twins or worse no real aircraft into their opinions on this subject. Currently I fly the Boeing 767-300ER, the decision making process is greatly simplified when it comes to an engine failure on this aircraft (the obvious being land at nearest suitable airport). In a quad your options don’t boil down to only this decision, you can take into account all the complex operating conditions you find yourself in and make a reasonable decision to continue to your destination.
I have no opinion on the BA flight from LAX. I will leave that to all the chair warmers who have an apparent infinite amount of time to consider all the complex issues and combine this with their great experience to come to a reasoned decision. All the factors involved in this case are too varied to even attempt to discuss here and no one on this forum has these facts. I am totally comfortable with the idea that “landing at the nearest suitable airport” is not the only (or even the safest) way to go. On my Africa flights I would love to have some more options on the 767 compared to setting it down in some of the lovely places down there.
Personally I have had to shut down an engine on two occasions on the Boeing 747 Classic. Both happened during cruise. On one occasion we had three hours left on our flight to our original destination (it occurred at 30W), on the other occasion it occurred with six hours left in our flight to our original destination. Both failures were clearly related to only the engine that we shut down, and on both occasions we continued to our planned destination. I was absolutely comfortable with the decisions made on these flights. Of course one of the considerations is the probability of an additional failure but these things also have to be kept in perspective. If you can’t do this simple thing I don’t think you would have a very comfortable existence in our business.
So I will leave the philosophizing to the very knowledgeable chair warmers that I sometimes read on pprune. In the end it might even bring with it more rules and regulations from our civil servants who think they have a winner in this subject (just what this business needs). In the meantime I don’t have any options worth mentioning and will “land at nearest suitable airport”, but only because it says so in the rulebook for my aircraft and for a twin it is a very sensible thing to do. I miss the 747.
Regards O.
I have no opinion on the BA flight from LAX. I will leave that to all the chair warmers who have an apparent infinite amount of time to consider all the complex issues and combine this with their great experience to come to a reasoned decision. All the factors involved in this case are too varied to even attempt to discuss here and no one on this forum has these facts. I am totally comfortable with the idea that “landing at the nearest suitable airport” is not the only (or even the safest) way to go. On my Africa flights I would love to have some more options on the 767 compared to setting it down in some of the lovely places down there.
Personally I have had to shut down an engine on two occasions on the Boeing 747 Classic. Both happened during cruise. On one occasion we had three hours left on our flight to our original destination (it occurred at 30W), on the other occasion it occurred with six hours left in our flight to our original destination. Both failures were clearly related to only the engine that we shut down, and on both occasions we continued to our planned destination. I was absolutely comfortable with the decisions made on these flights. Of course one of the considerations is the probability of an additional failure but these things also have to be kept in perspective. If you can’t do this simple thing I don’t think you would have a very comfortable existence in our business.
So I will leave the philosophizing to the very knowledgeable chair warmers that I sometimes read on pprune. In the end it might even bring with it more rules and regulations from our civil servants who think they have a winner in this subject (just what this business needs). In the meantime I don’t have any options worth mentioning and will “land at nearest suitable airport”, but only because it says so in the rulebook for my aircraft and for a twin it is a very sensible thing to do. I miss the 747.
Regards O.
