FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am told that the subject of this discussion made an assymetric landing on two engines.
A Pan call was made when a fuel delivery problem was unresolved ( the diversion decision ) and a Mayday when the second engine ceased on approach.
Am I right?
A Pan call was made when a fuel delivery problem was unresolved ( the diversion decision ) and a Mayday when the second engine ceased on approach.
Am I right?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earl,
Thanks for info,
To Barit,
After check, the source is Airbus maintenance manual (A340, GE engines)
Max. flight flight time after in flight engine shut-down for windmilling engine
7h if abnormal lubrification
9h if normal lubrification (pressure, quantity,..)
Now as you stated, exceding that is a risk of further engine damage not a safety concern as such.
Thanks for info,
To Barit,
After check, the source is Airbus maintenance manual (A340, GE engines)
Max. flight flight time after in flight engine shut-down for windmilling engine
7h if abnormal lubrification
9h if normal lubrification (pressure, quantity,..)
Now as you stated, exceding that is a risk of further engine damage not a safety concern as such.
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
redtruck, you were 'told' wrong. Another case of 'chinese whispers' with uneducated assumptions being made which result in some of the rubbish that is spouted here. As far as we are aware, the aircraft had ONE engine shut down, by the crew, just after take off. It landed with just ONE engine shut down. FYI, the B744 is certified to continue flight with only three engines operating. In this case, after weighing up all the many different factors, the crew elected to continue to their destination, LHR. However, due to being kept a lower levels than originally planned the crew decided that they would divert into MAN. Whilst approaching MAN they decided to declare a mayday due to the fact that they were unsure whether some of the fuel remaining was useable. By declaring a mayday they made sure that they had a priority approach. The alleged declaration of a mayday as opposed to a pan is debatable.
Others on this thread seem unable to differentiate between 'probabilities' and 'possibilities'. Piloting any aircraft is a balance between probabilities. Of course anything is possible. Of course another engine could possibly fail. Of course there could possibly be an explosive decompression. Of course there could possibly be rupture of a fuel tank and all remaining fuel could possibly drain away. Unfortunately, there is a minority of people posting on here who misinterpret 'possible' as 'probable' and immediately go into uncontrolled spasms of outrage and indignation before typing out some sort of invective against the crew of this flight based on ill-informed or worse, uneducated guesses.
In order to try and help those with the 'possible'/'probable' confusion problem, it may be worth noting that it is 'possible' that any and all engines on an a/c can fail. If you are of that mindset and unable to comprehend the probabilities of that happening then you ought not fly until they have produced a 10 or 20 engined aircraft. On the B744 in question, it was 'possible' that a second engine could either fail or require shutting down. What the crew did was weigh up the 'probability' of this happening and made a decision based on that probability and many other possibility/probability scenarios. Their conclusion was that it was probably OK to continue. At the end of the day they had to divert but their pax continued on to their destination with minimum disruption and after an engine change, the a/c was reusable. No one was hurt and no rules were broken. Someone from the FAA, probably seeking their 15 minutes of fame, entered the debate with misinformed comments and probably is now trying desperately to extricate a foot from their mouth. This is what happens when those without the necessary experience of what they are talking about engage mouth before fully understanding the subject.
I'm sure tha FAA as well as the CAA and any other aviation administration/authority have their fair share of people who are experts on all and every aspect of aviation... NOT! I think it would be fair to find out who the so called FAA spokesperson who made the comments that are currently at the heart of this debate, is. Is he/she experienced in long range B744 ops? Is he/she maybe just some back-office pen pusher? Is he/she an inspector of some kind? Maybe an inspector of airline, specifically B744 ops? Maybe just an inspector of light aircraft and training? It would help if the relevant experience of the person putting themselves in the limelight was known as it would help an awful lot when we sit here debating and pontificating.
Others on this thread seem unable to differentiate between 'probabilities' and 'possibilities'. Piloting any aircraft is a balance between probabilities. Of course anything is possible. Of course another engine could possibly fail. Of course there could possibly be an explosive decompression. Of course there could possibly be rupture of a fuel tank and all remaining fuel could possibly drain away. Unfortunately, there is a minority of people posting on here who misinterpret 'possible' as 'probable' and immediately go into uncontrolled spasms of outrage and indignation before typing out some sort of invective against the crew of this flight based on ill-informed or worse, uneducated guesses.
In order to try and help those with the 'possible'/'probable' confusion problem, it may be worth noting that it is 'possible' that any and all engines on an a/c can fail. If you are of that mindset and unable to comprehend the probabilities of that happening then you ought not fly until they have produced a 10 or 20 engined aircraft. On the B744 in question, it was 'possible' that a second engine could either fail or require shutting down. What the crew did was weigh up the 'probability' of this happening and made a decision based on that probability and many other possibility/probability scenarios. Their conclusion was that it was probably OK to continue. At the end of the day they had to divert but their pax continued on to their destination with minimum disruption and after an engine change, the a/c was reusable. No one was hurt and no rules were broken. Someone from the FAA, probably seeking their 15 minutes of fame, entered the debate with misinformed comments and probably is now trying desperately to extricate a foot from their mouth. This is what happens when those without the necessary experience of what they are talking about engage mouth before fully understanding the subject.
I'm sure tha FAA as well as the CAA and any other aviation administration/authority have their fair share of people who are experts on all and every aspect of aviation... NOT! I think it would be fair to find out who the so called FAA spokesperson who made the comments that are currently at the heart of this debate, is. Is he/she experienced in long range B744 ops? Is he/she maybe just some back-office pen pusher? Is he/she an inspector of some kind? Maybe an inspector of airline, specifically B744 ops? Maybe just an inspector of light aircraft and training? It would help if the relevant experience of the person putting themselves in the limelight was known as it would help an awful lot when we sit here debating and pontificating.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo boy
I think redtruck is confusing incidents. In the same general time period a Virgin A340-600 lost an engine, continued and lost another one due to fuel starvation and an architecture problem with the Airbus's auto fuel feed system
Not exactly a case of chinese whispers since they were both G reg aircraft essentially doing the samething (Continuing with a failed engine)
They did eventually get the engine back, but still....
Cheers
Wino
I think redtruck is confusing incidents. In the same general time period a Virgin A340-600 lost an engine, continued and lost another one due to fuel starvation and an architecture problem with the Airbus's auto fuel feed system
Not exactly a case of chinese whispers since they were both G reg aircraft essentially doing the samething (Continuing with a failed engine)
They did eventually get the engine back, but still....
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada and UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continuting on 3
Just to address one of the many aspects of this increasingly convoluted debate:
The problem of a second engine failure has been raised by several contributors to this and other threads. I'd like to point out that we wouldn't sit there in three-engine cruise with our fingers crossed, repeating "I hope I hope I hope another one doesn't go".
Sadly, the general public is often given the impression that this is how passenger aircraft are flown on a regular basis.
In this kind of flying, it is essential to keep a running game plan that covers critical failures. Where would you go right now if a passenger suffered a heart attack? If there was an uncontrolled fire onboard? If an engine failed? It's like defensive driving in a way - you don't just wait for a problem to hit you, you prepare for it in case it happens.
If you should find yourself flying a 747 on three engines, you MUST have a game plan that includes a subsequent failure on the same side, however unlikely. This isn't just a bit of theory - it's what pilots really do.
I only mention this because someone asked something like, "what if you were over high ground and had a second failure?".
You wouldn't be there, because you'd have looked at your two-engine performance and decided the Himalayas might be a fine place for Michael Palin, but not for a two-engined jumbo. And therefore you wouldn't fly over them on three.
Smudge
The problem of a second engine failure has been raised by several contributors to this and other threads. I'd like to point out that we wouldn't sit there in three-engine cruise with our fingers crossed, repeating "I hope I hope I hope another one doesn't go".
Sadly, the general public is often given the impression that this is how passenger aircraft are flown on a regular basis.
In this kind of flying, it is essential to keep a running game plan that covers critical failures. Where would you go right now if a passenger suffered a heart attack? If there was an uncontrolled fire onboard? If an engine failed? It's like defensive driving in a way - you don't just wait for a problem to hit you, you prepare for it in case it happens.
If you should find yourself flying a 747 on three engines, you MUST have a game plan that includes a subsequent failure on the same side, however unlikely. This isn't just a bit of theory - it's what pilots really do.
I only mention this because someone asked something like, "what if you were over high ground and had a second failure?".
You wouldn't be there, because you'd have looked at your two-engine performance and decided the Himalayas might be a fine place for Michael Palin, but not for a two-engined jumbo. And therefore you wouldn't fly over them on three.
Smudge
I remember the EL AL 747 went down because the flaps/hydraulics were damaged when the engines fell off?
Some FAA regional inspectors at what were/are called FSDOs, flew C-141s or C-130s. Others flew the Bandit (Emb-110) and Shorts 360 twin-turboprops, before they either left or decided to avoid the insecure, unstable world of US commercial flying, to search for a secure career with the government. As to how certain individuals reach the upper levels in either Oklahoma City or Wash D.C., I have no idea.
And those people I met briefly, in the 'good old days' long before 9/11.
And those people I met briefly, in the 'good old days' long before 9/11.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tooling around at low level seweking inspiration and endorsement....
On the subject of painting oneself into a corner, didn't the subject crew tool around West of LAX over the water at low level for about 20+ minutes whilst consulting their operating authority back in Heathrow?
Smarter personages would've departed enroute climbing and been making onwards progress (on the basis that you can always turn around and re-land later - if that turned out to be the decision from the BA Headshed). They could've also simultaneously delivered a fait accompli decision along the lines of: "Unless otherwise advised we will be re-routing Kennedy, ETA +4.5 hrs from now. Please organize onwards travel for my pax from there"
Tooling around at low-level over the ocean west of their departure point, burning the equivalent of 30 mins cruise gas, wasn't the brightest start to their day's sojourn. Fait accompli assertive decisions was what I learnt from captaincy. You rarely get overridden when you play it that way.
Smarter personages would've departed enroute climbing and been making onwards progress (on the basis that you can always turn around and re-land later - if that turned out to be the decision from the BA Headshed). They could've also simultaneously delivered a fait accompli decision along the lines of: "Unless otherwise advised we will be re-routing Kennedy, ETA +4.5 hrs from now. Please organize onwards travel for my pax from there"
Tooling around at low-level over the ocean west of their departure point, burning the equivalent of 30 mins cruise gas, wasn't the brightest start to their day's sojourn. Fait accompli assertive decisions was what I learnt from captaincy. You rarely get overridden when you play it that way.
Belgique,stop and think ********,you have to climb over the water before heading inland,the MSA is 12000 feet.Its bad enough departing lax on a good day with atc turning you towards the land too early,but they are slowly improving.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belgique
Perhaps you might have been assertive enough to set off across mountainous terrain on three engines without the necessary checks. However, this crew decided to "tool around" over the sea while Maintrol inspected all of their engines via the ACMS Datalink (a shutdown engine continues to send some data). Only when they had received confirmation from Maintrol that the three operating engines had no problems, and they had checked all of their safety altitudes and two-engine driftdown altitudes did they decide to continue.
I will leave others to decide who are the "smarter personages".
Airclues
Perhaps you might have been assertive enough to set off across mountainous terrain on three engines without the necessary checks. However, this crew decided to "tool around" over the sea while Maintrol inspected all of their engines via the ACMS Datalink (a shutdown engine continues to send some data). Only when they had received confirmation from Maintrol that the three operating engines had no problems, and they had checked all of their safety altitudes and two-engine driftdown altitudes did they decide to continue.
I will leave others to decide who are the "smarter personages".
Airclues
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt.KAOS sez:
They didn't just "fall off" - The inboard suffered a massive unbalance which broke the pylon structural fuse (per Boeing design intent), and the departing inboard unfortunately targeted the outboard.
HIGHLY unusual, but not unique. Another 747 freighter in SE Asia suffered a similar fate some years earlier.
But hardly relevant to the current discussion.
I remember the EL AL 747 went down because the flaps/hydraulics were damaged when the engines fell off?
HIGHLY unusual, but not unique. Another 747 freighter in SE Asia suffered a similar fate some years earlier.
But hardly relevant to the current discussion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
But hardly relevant to the current discussion.
The pylons broke because of corrosion and fatigue cracks and at the end one engine fell off and took the other one with it.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
BEagle: By that definition, it seems that the ba 744 crew must have considered themselves to be "threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance" IF they made a Distress call during their diversion to Manchester.
Hardly a 'something's not quite right' scenario.
Hardly a 'something's not quite right' scenario.
That doesn't sound to me like a cowboy crew who set off from the West Coast heedless of the dangers of the night.
Thread Starter
I don't believe for one moment that they were a 'cowboy crew'. But if they made a MAYDAY call for their diversion, by definition they must have been in a distress situation.
Which is not, as another poster implied, a 'something's not quite right' situation - but something infinitely more serious.
Which is not, as another poster implied, a 'something's not quite right' situation - but something infinitely more serious.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The El Al accident is not related to this situation, as has been stated already. But it is interesting all the same. The accident finally happened in that case because the crew, who had done a fine job getting the airplane to a point that a landing could have been made, became dissatisfied with the approach (perhaps they did not get the indications of landing gear they expected, or flap extensions, due to the failures in the hydraulic systems and pneumatics after the engine pylons had broken away, or perhaps the flying controls were not working as they usually did due to a loss of hydraulic pressure during landing gear extension) and they attempted a go around. The drag (gear would not retract, flap was slow to move etc) was too much and the technique used was incorrect (they tried to climb out before accelerating and cleaning up) with the result that the airplane entered a classic asymmetric roll and dive. Had they just continued the approach with whatever flap and gear they had, there is a good chance that we would be discussing an incident rather than an accident.
The 747 can be flown on two engines, even when heavy, provided the airspeed is controlled, drag minimized and recommended procedures followed.
The 747 can be flown on two engines, even when heavy, provided the airspeed is controlled, drag minimized and recommended procedures followed.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But when the crew were unsure at that particular time, they played safe to get a clean runway.
Two runway airport can't have both closed at the same time? 747 can't have all 4 fail together? Airbus Fly By wire will never fail?
Aviation history is full of things that were not supposed to happen, but did. People (hopefully) learn from the incidents, sometimes not quite fast enough, and the next time, they know how to deal with it.
Landing on 3, with a low but completely legal fuel level was not as such an issue. A late go around, on 3, with low fuel levels was not a good plan, so it was prepared for in accordance with the company procedures.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, its about making a command decision in light of the relevant facts.
The A/C is certified on 3, all guidelines and company policys where met, the captain would have weighed up all likely scenarios before making the jump and was fully supported by BA.
Its the "agenda " orientated individuals that are blowing this one out of proportion. I'm sure that given the same circumstance (and privlidge of a captain on 744 with BA) most pilots would make the same choice.
Im sure prestigous Airlines such as BA are not in the habit of appointing "cowboys" to fly multi million dollar A/C with pax
The A/C is certified on 3, all guidelines and company policys where met, the captain would have weighed up all likely scenarios before making the jump and was fully supported by BA.
Its the "agenda " orientated individuals that are blowing this one out of proportion. I'm sure that given the same circumstance (and privlidge of a captain on 744 with BA) most pilots would make the same choice.
Im sure prestigous Airlines such as BA are not in the habit of appointing "cowboys" to fly multi million dollar A/C with pax