BA 747 Engine Fire
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
Would guess in hindsight question about fuel and pax was not perfect in said conditions.
With regards to the Engines fitted, I like to travel when I see PW4000 or those CF6-80 fitted to the pylons, am talking about dash 400 or 767, when I travel on 777/330 and others, belive RR is Perfect.
Maybe RR have fixed -400/767 problems now.
With regards to the Engines fitted, I like to travel when I see PW4000 or those CF6-80 fitted to the pylons, am talking about dash 400 or 767, when I travel on 777/330 and others, belive RR is Perfect.
Maybe RR have fixed -400/767 problems now.
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
From Today's "The Australian";
" Cracks appear in British airline safety
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
January 02, 2006
A STRING of midair incidents involving British Airways, one of the three European airlines servicing Australia, has raised questions about widespread safety problems at the airline.
A report by Britain's Air Accident Investigation Branch found BA jets suffered mid-air failures because of "systemic" problems with the carrier's maintenance.
After inquiries into four mid-air incidents, investigators said safety problems could be "widespread within the organisation", The Sunday Times newspaper in London revealed yesterday.
Investigators warned that shoddy work practices appeared to be accepted as the norm by some BA maintenance staff.
The newspaper listed a series of incidents, including a door that ripped off a Boeing 777 at 6000 feet.
The door gouged the plane's fuselage and narrowly missed a couple walking below when it hit the ground.
In another incident, fuel gushed out of a plane that had just taken off from Heathrow Airport, leaving a two-kilometre vapour trail, because screws and a cap that should have plugged a hole were left inside the tank.
And the pilots of a Boeing 757 were forced to put on oxygen masks and land as their cabin filled with oil fumes. It was later confirmed that engineers put too much oil in the jet.
Maintenance workers in late 2003 also forgot to properly reattach two wing panels on a Paris-bound Boeing 757 that then responded abnormally to the flight controls.
As the captain prepared to land and the autopilot was disconnected, the plane started drifting to the right, forcing the pilot to take corrective action.
And investigators said the failure to check the wing panels were installed did not appear to be an isolated incident.
"Ineffective supervision of maintenance staff had allowed working practices to develop that had compromised the level of airworthiness control and had become accepted as the norm," they said.
"Maintenance errors were not the result of wilful negligence, or any desire to perform a less-than-satisfactory job, but the result of a combination of systemic issues that had increased the probability of an error being committed."
The criticism from the AAIB is unprecedented for an airline that has claimed a reputation for having one of the best-maintained fleets in the world.
Although BA has recently relied increasingly on codeshare flights with Qantas to get its passengers to and from Australia, it still flies its own planes to Melbourne and Sydney.
A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said yesterday the Australian regulator was unaware of the report and was unlikely to take action.
He said CASA would leave any action to the British regulator, which it recognised as the competent authority.
A Qantas spokeswoman could not say whether the airline had work done on its aircraft by British Airways Engineering, BA's maintenance section.
However, BA told The Sunday Times it took the safety report "very seriously" and had addressed the problems in its maintenance processes.
"British Airways prides itself on safety and recognises that we are always ready to learn from incidents and encourage open transparent reporting," said the airline's head of safety, Captain Rod Young.
The airline now has only 6000 engineers, compared with 9500 in 1995, despite its fleet remaining at a similar size to 10 years ago, with 288 aircraft. "
" Cracks appear in British airline safety
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
January 02, 2006
A STRING of midair incidents involving British Airways, one of the three European airlines servicing Australia, has raised questions about widespread safety problems at the airline.
A report by Britain's Air Accident Investigation Branch found BA jets suffered mid-air failures because of "systemic" problems with the carrier's maintenance.
After inquiries into four mid-air incidents, investigators said safety problems could be "widespread within the organisation", The Sunday Times newspaper in London revealed yesterday.
Investigators warned that shoddy work practices appeared to be accepted as the norm by some BA maintenance staff.
The newspaper listed a series of incidents, including a door that ripped off a Boeing 777 at 6000 feet.
The door gouged the plane's fuselage and narrowly missed a couple walking below when it hit the ground.
In another incident, fuel gushed out of a plane that had just taken off from Heathrow Airport, leaving a two-kilometre vapour trail, because screws and a cap that should have plugged a hole were left inside the tank.
And the pilots of a Boeing 757 were forced to put on oxygen masks and land as their cabin filled with oil fumes. It was later confirmed that engineers put too much oil in the jet.
Maintenance workers in late 2003 also forgot to properly reattach two wing panels on a Paris-bound Boeing 757 that then responded abnormally to the flight controls.
As the captain prepared to land and the autopilot was disconnected, the plane started drifting to the right, forcing the pilot to take corrective action.
And investigators said the failure to check the wing panels were installed did not appear to be an isolated incident.
"Ineffective supervision of maintenance staff had allowed working practices to develop that had compromised the level of airworthiness control and had become accepted as the norm," they said.
"Maintenance errors were not the result of wilful negligence, or any desire to perform a less-than-satisfactory job, but the result of a combination of systemic issues that had increased the probability of an error being committed."
The criticism from the AAIB is unprecedented for an airline that has claimed a reputation for having one of the best-maintained fleets in the world.
Although BA has recently relied increasingly on codeshare flights with Qantas to get its passengers to and from Australia, it still flies its own planes to Melbourne and Sydney.
A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said yesterday the Australian regulator was unaware of the report and was unlikely to take action.
He said CASA would leave any action to the British regulator, which it recognised as the competent authority.
A Qantas spokeswoman could not say whether the airline had work done on its aircraft by British Airways Engineering, BA's maintenance section.
However, BA told The Sunday Times it took the safety report "very seriously" and had addressed the problems in its maintenance processes.
"British Airways prides itself on safety and recognises that we are always ready to learn from incidents and encourage open transparent reporting," said the airline's head of safety, Captain Rod Young.
The airline now has only 6000 engineers, compared with 9500 in 1995, despite its fleet remaining at a similar size to 10 years ago, with 288 aircraft. "
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
It did NOT catch fire!
The IP and LP turbine has failed. The 30 ft??!! (or 30 mile
) flames or whatever were the result of the surging and subsequent turbine failure.
The fire bottle . . . . YES only ONE was used, would appear to have been precautionary and no disc failed. The HPT appears on the face to be intact.
All the same it is an interesting failure of what is normally a very robust engine.
The IP and LP turbine has failed. The 30 ft??!! (or 30 mile
) flames or whatever were the result of the surging and subsequent turbine failure.The fire bottle . . . . YES only ONE was used, would appear to have been precautionary and no disc failed. The HPT appears on the face to be intact.
All the same it is an interesting failure of what is normally a very robust engine.
Controversial, moi?
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
With regards to the Engines fitted, I like to travel when I see PW4000 or those CF6-80 fitted to the pylons, am talking about dash 400 or 767, when I travel on 777/330 and others, belive RR is Perfect.
Maybe RR have fixed -400/767 problems now.
Maybe RR have fixed -400/767 problems now.
For the benefit of those of us who only fly the things can you supply and explain the statistics that you base your decisions on?
Which area of engine design and maintenance are you involved in?
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
Originally Posted by M.Mouse
joetom
For the benefit of those of us who only fly the things can you supply and explain the statistics that you base your decisions on?
Which area of engine design and maintenance are you involved in?
For the benefit of those of us who only fly the things can you supply and explain the statistics that you base your decisions on?
Which area of engine design and maintenance are you involved in?
Opinions can be soft or hard (data based and/or feelies).
I certainly wouldn't expect somebody would try to explain why they feel someway except while laying on a couch.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
The problem is trying to have a technical discussion when what appears to be flightsim pilots with the ability to manage a take off and landing on a computer involve themselves in technical matters under discussion here like Joetom with his daft, garbled and meaningless statements!
The problem with anonymous forums is people can pass themselves off as airline pilots! What nonsense they say can actually do damage of its own! We have seen people who know nothing involving themselves in jettison threads here and elsewhere. It is very important for these people to say on what basis they speak.
The problem with anonymous forums is people can pass themselves off as airline pilots! What nonsense they say can actually do damage of its own! We have seen people who know nothing involving themselves in jettison threads here and elsewhere. It is very important for these people to say on what basis they speak.
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
Exactly Rainboe! Got it in one! Now as a seasoned perfesionul, please tell us all why the pilot didn't pull the "engine jettison" handle?
There are any number of reasons the thing could have failed, NGV's, blades, etc, etc. Question is when was the last borescope inspection and what was the state of the module versus BA's limits? You will have to wait for the experts.
There are any number of reasons the thing could have failed, NGV's, blades, etc, etc. Question is when was the last borescope inspection and what was the state of the module versus BA's limits? You will have to wait for the experts.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: at work
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
Having flown BA numerous times, and actually working at LHR on Full Emergencys, all I can do is to take my hat off to the flight and cabin crew who clearly did a great job gettin that a/c on the ground ASAP. The passengers must have said something and unless that is controlled quickly, it can become more of a danger than the suspected fire on board.
From a ground Ops point of view, an over-weight a/c is not a major problem. We will just simply close off the periminter roads surrounding LHR incase it doesn't manage to stop in time. The likely hood of that happening at LHR with the length of our runways, is slim, but we take no chances.
FE
From a ground Ops point of view, an over-weight a/c is not a major problem. We will just simply close off the periminter roads surrounding LHR incase it doesn't manage to stop in time. The likely hood of that happening at LHR with the length of our runways, is slim, but we take no chances.
FE
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
Originally Posted by 411A
Hmmm, considering past big airways modus operandi, I'm surprised they didn't just keep going on with three...
411A is it possible your wallet just fell out and caused the engine problem?
These boys and girls did a great job!
Alls well that ends well...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: bedlam
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
A collegue from BA ops told me the day BEFORE this event, ANOTHER BA B744had to 3x engine ferry JFK-CWL with an engine problem @ JFK.
Got 1/2 way across the pond and fumes/smoke were reported in the cockpit. From what I heard, aircraft continued to CWL as there were nil pax aboard, loadings from JFK that night were low and pax transferred to other flights.
Got 1/2 way across the pond and fumes/smoke were reported in the cockpit. From what I heard, aircraft continued to CWL as there were nil pax aboard, loadings from JFK that night were low and pax transferred to other flights.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
The engine jettison handle was removed recently on the grounds of economy, as were the flight crews ejection seats!
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
ALLDAYDELI
I suggest that you treat future information from your 'colleague from BA ops' with suspicion. The flight that diverted to Cardiff was a positioning flight with full cabin crew, two staff passengers and 18 tons of cargo (covered in full on a previous thread). It was not a 3-engine ferry, as neither cabin crew, cargo or passengers are allowed to be carried on these flights.
Airclues
I suggest that you treat future information from your 'colleague from BA ops' with suspicion. The flight that diverted to Cardiff was a positioning flight with full cabin crew, two staff passengers and 18 tons of cargo (covered in full on a previous thread). It was not a 3-engine ferry, as neither cabin crew, cargo or passengers are allowed to be carried on these flights.
Airclues
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: bedlam
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
Airclues sir.
I trawled some older threads and indeed the event which I refer to has been covered. It was clear to me from the informant that it was a positioning/ferry flight, no live traffic. What I will say is that his information is usually 100% spot on.
I trawled some older threads and indeed the event which I refer to has been covered. It was clear to me from the informant that it was a positioning/ferry flight, no live traffic. What I will say is that his information is usually 100% spot on.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
<<These boys and girls did a great job!>>
Yes, I expect they did, Scotsflyingboy, and of course my previous was in the category of...
It's a joke, son
But I suppose this was lost on a few.
Wallet...ah, no, as it might well be rather empty shortly as my company is about to purchase a JetStar...the Lockheed variety.
Nothing but the best for us, you understand....
Yes, I expect they did, Scotsflyingboy, and of course my previous was in the category of...
It's a joke, son
But I suppose this was lost on a few.
Wallet...ah, no, as it might well be rather empty shortly as my company is about to purchase a JetStar...the Lockheed variety.
Nothing but the best for us, you understand....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Twyford, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
Quote
The airline now has only 6000 engineers, compared with 9500 in 1995, despite its fleet remaining at a similar size to 10 years ago, with 288 aircraft. "
Unquote
In line with BA's Outsourcing policies, I would surmise that this would be because some contract work is done by Overseas and UK Engineering contractors, who are Non BA direct Employees.
But the statistic looks good in the Daily Mail.!
The airline now has only 6000 engineers, compared with 9500 in 1995, despite its fleet remaining at a similar size to 10 years ago, with 288 aircraft. "
Unquote
In line with BA's Outsourcing policies, I would surmise that this would be because some contract work is done by Overseas and UK Engineering contractors, who are Non BA direct Employees.
But the statistic looks good in the Daily Mail.!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BA 747 Engine Fire
In June 1995, amongst other types BA operated 33 B737-200s, 31 B747-100 and 200 aircraft, 6 DC10 and 6 L1011s, not forgetting 6 Concordes: As an educated guess I would say that these fleet types required 33 to 50% more maintenance than today’s more modern fleet.
Add in to the equation a number of line stations that have been out-sourced, the closure of the Manchester maintenance hangar, selling the engine overhaul facility in Wales and the overall sum 9500 down to 6000 looks quite reasonable!
Add in to the equation a number of line stations that have been out-sourced, the closure of the Manchester maintenance hangar, selling the engine overhaul facility in Wales and the overall sum 9500 down to 6000 looks quite reasonable!