BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sailing:
Hi! I guess we should come up with something here. Risk Assesment...something like "its ok for your daughter to be on a 4 engine plane with one out" and safety is: "I think you should go back to LAX with MY DAUGHTER on the plane".
While I understand the concept of risk and all that jazz, consider: Recently FEDEX wanted to be able to defer the whiskey compass on their planes flying over the ocean.
happily, this was denied.
With all the modern gadgets would it be ok? sure! But why? Just to make someone a tiny bit richer?
The world of the bean counter has been encroaching into our profession a little bit too much. I have no calculus for this statement...just call it a hunch after 30 plus years as a pilot.
The same hunches have allowed me to spot missing rivets from 50 feet away. And spoilers that were so bowed that when measured were out of tolerance.
By the way, I flew for one airline that did have a few seats facing "backwards" and Mr. Unsafe at any speed ( ralphy naider) even complemented our airline for this.
Have you ever watched a plane crash into the ground? I've seen it 3 times. One stall spin after a brand new engine was installed into a bonanza. Another when a C152 piloted by a very inexperienced pilot came in so fast that he tore off the nose gear ( conveniently illustrating the warning I had just given aC177 pilot about wheelbarrowing!)
Lastly, I watched as the smoke came up from a DC9 crashing in a violent Microburst at KCLT.
Two of these crashes, I had time to say to those nearby that trouble was a coming!
Instead of using a bizarre calculus to rationalize risk, its time to speak up and get things SAFER not more commercial! But that's just a hunch.
oh well,
jon
Hi! I guess we should come up with something here. Risk Assesment...something like "its ok for your daughter to be on a 4 engine plane with one out" and safety is: "I think you should go back to LAX with MY DAUGHTER on the plane".
While I understand the concept of risk and all that jazz, consider: Recently FEDEX wanted to be able to defer the whiskey compass on their planes flying over the ocean.
happily, this was denied.
With all the modern gadgets would it be ok? sure! But why? Just to make someone a tiny bit richer?
The world of the bean counter has been encroaching into our profession a little bit too much. I have no calculus for this statement...just call it a hunch after 30 plus years as a pilot.
The same hunches have allowed me to spot missing rivets from 50 feet away. And spoilers that were so bowed that when measured were out of tolerance.
By the way, I flew for one airline that did have a few seats facing "backwards" and Mr. Unsafe at any speed ( ralphy naider) even complemented our airline for this.
Have you ever watched a plane crash into the ground? I've seen it 3 times. One stall spin after a brand new engine was installed into a bonanza. Another when a C152 piloted by a very inexperienced pilot came in so fast that he tore off the nose gear ( conveniently illustrating the warning I had just given aC177 pilot about wheelbarrowing!)
Lastly, I watched as the smoke came up from a DC9 crashing in a violent Microburst at KCLT.
Two of these crashes, I had time to say to those nearby that trouble was a coming!
Instead of using a bizarre calculus to rationalize risk, its time to speak up and get things SAFER not more commercial! But that's just a hunch.
oh well,
jon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tasman Sea
Age: 66
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jon, I understand you want the best for your daughter, I'm sorry you had to watch those crashes (I pulled my best mates body out of one to try and get his pax out alive, but what has that to do with the discussion?), but that doesn't change the fact that safety is compromised for profit, and profit is reduced to gain safety. It is a balance, and always will be, and yes, we should be vigilant that the accountants do not override the safety experts.
Safety comes at a price, and obviously the experiment with rear facing seats you mentioned was too expensive in terms of lack of passenger approval, so was discontinued. Safety has suffered, but are you trying to change seat configuration now?
You obviously consider the 747 flight continuing on 3 was not an acceptable safety risk, yet your 3 engine ferry was OK, because no pax were involved. Are people on the ground who were put at (a tiny) risk worth less than those in the air?
In all these real and imaginary scenarios someone is making a decision on the risks involved, just as we all do when we decide what speed to drive down the highway.
It's interesting that you rate your risk assessment that that flight was unsafe, as more valid than the opinion of the world's aviation authorities who approve continuing flight on 3, and the opinion of the flight crew who were in possession of all the facts at the time.
May the number of your landings equal your takeoffs!
sailing.
Safety comes at a price, and obviously the experiment with rear facing seats you mentioned was too expensive in terms of lack of passenger approval, so was discontinued. Safety has suffered, but are you trying to change seat configuration now?
You obviously consider the 747 flight continuing on 3 was not an acceptable safety risk, yet your 3 engine ferry was OK, because no pax were involved. Are people on the ground who were put at (a tiny) risk worth less than those in the air?
In all these real and imaginary scenarios someone is making a decision on the risks involved, just as we all do when we decide what speed to drive down the highway.
It's interesting that you rate your risk assessment that that flight was unsafe, as more valid than the opinion of the world's aviation authorities who approve continuing flight on 3, and the opinion of the flight crew who were in possession of all the facts at the time.
May the number of your landings equal your takeoffs!
sailing.
I am wondering what the situation would have been if the involved parties were the other way around (a US registered and operated airline flying from the UK to the US on 3 engines and CAA investigating the matter). The question covers the authorities as well as PPRuNeRs.
Also (this has been referred to before) what would have been the case if the aircraft involved was operated by the national airline of a country with a not so well regulated industry.
BTW I like the argument about having one dear on the aircraft.
Also (this has been referred to before) what would have been the case if the aircraft involved was operated by the national airline of a country with a not so well regulated industry.
BTW I like the argument about having one dear on the aircraft.
Yaw Damper: "Never Leave Home Without It"
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 49
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the 90 ties we went to Boeing to discuss our SOP.
In the back of my mind was a non-augmented crew that had to deal with a failure after a long flight at a critical moment.
I said let’s keep it simple and conservative and look at the statistical failure rate of key components. In the end they liked the idea of not using the full redundancy capability in our SOP since it would happen only once in 10 years that we would throw away some revenue.
The regulations told use we could do certain things in one country and not so in another.
I tried to keep the box of Pandora of endless technical discussions, that can not be solved by regulations closed, until the commercial department find out what we were doing.
They wanted to sail too close to the shoreline and got caught.
My previous Airline had set more stringent criteria and sometimes our performance with the same aircraft as the competition was much lower and we left some payload behind.
Until the day that the unfortunate happened, we looked at out calculations and said: “Thank god that we did it that way, since we would NOT have been covered by the regulations in order to survive"
Surely in court we would have been able to defend ourselves, but that is not enough nor is it the issue.
Big Airlines are at a commercial war with each other but we are not soldiers.
Boeing actually liked the idea, some called it lateral thinking.
Also, Airbus made a statement in Flight International: “In case of an engine failure on a four engine Aircraft you take the safest course of action”
In the end it's all about money, lawers and politics.
Maybe we should look at Airline safety the other way around and put in the spotlight those that are conservative and give them a rating for it, that is what audits should be all about.
In the back of my mind was a non-augmented crew that had to deal with a failure after a long flight at a critical moment.
I said let’s keep it simple and conservative and look at the statistical failure rate of key components. In the end they liked the idea of not using the full redundancy capability in our SOP since it would happen only once in 10 years that we would throw away some revenue.
The regulations told use we could do certain things in one country and not so in another.
I tried to keep the box of Pandora of endless technical discussions, that can not be solved by regulations closed, until the commercial department find out what we were doing.
They wanted to sail too close to the shoreline and got caught.
My previous Airline had set more stringent criteria and sometimes our performance with the same aircraft as the competition was much lower and we left some payload behind.
Until the day that the unfortunate happened, we looked at out calculations and said: “Thank god that we did it that way, since we would NOT have been covered by the regulations in order to survive"
Surely in court we would have been able to defend ourselves, but that is not enough nor is it the issue.
Big Airlines are at a commercial war with each other but we are not soldiers.
Boeing actually liked the idea, some called it lateral thinking.
Also, Airbus made a statement in Flight International: “In case of an engine failure on a four engine Aircraft you take the safest course of action”
In the end it's all about money, lawers and politics.
Maybe we should look at Airline safety the other way around and put in the spotlight those that are conservative and give them a rating for it, that is what audits should be all about.
Last edited by AIMS by IBM; 19th Apr 2006 at 08:59.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sailing:
let us look at the 3/4 engine question another way. with my 3 engine ferry you indicate a slightly higher risk for innocents on the ground and you are right...so too the risk for the BA flight's innocents on the ground .
Now, "what if" the passengers on the BA 747 had been asked the question:
Shall we continue for a dozen hours with one engine out all the way to England or return right away to Los Angeles?
The question could have been further complicated by sub questions:
Shall we take a chance on weather condtions in England or land in known beautiful conditions in Los Angeles?
Shall we take a chance of putting you up in a hotel for the night in Los Angeles or the possibility of putting you up anyplace along the way, including smaller cities?
Will you trust your fine flight crew more while well rested to land shortly after takeoff or after a dozen hours in flight with added anxiety?
I would bet that the passengers would choose to go back to LAX.
They didn't get to vote on the actual flight...but speaking of profits how many passengers has BA lost from cautious passengers over this? I know I would no longer place BA in such high esteem when asked by non pilot passengers for an airline reccomendation.
You speak of aviation authorities making decisions. Consider the calculus on this one: In 1998 a large Newspaper in the USA had headlines about something called "Air Rage". Detailed information about weaknesses of cockpit doors were discussed on page one of this paper. Aviation authorities did nothing...fast forward to 9/11/01. If pilots had stayed behind hardened/locked doors on 9/11 how many people would have died?
I have dealt with FAA types including the deputy administrator and the Head of the FAA. I spoke the last time (before 9/11) with Jane Garvey and indicted the old thinking about security was a waste of time (among other safety items)
Profit vs safety?
The true cost of any decision may never be known. Why not drop Cat 1 decision height to 100 feet? That would save money, wouldn't it? Why not lower the flying hours required to hold an ATP to 500 hours?
Simply put, the decision to continue to England on 3 engines was not as safe as returning to LAX.
Simply put,imho our industry should put safety first.
And all airlines should hold the highest level of safety. Alas only reregulation would allow for this.
cheers
jon
let us look at the 3/4 engine question another way. with my 3 engine ferry you indicate a slightly higher risk for innocents on the ground and you are right...so too the risk for the BA flight's innocents on the ground .
Now, "what if" the passengers on the BA 747 had been asked the question:
Shall we continue for a dozen hours with one engine out all the way to England or return right away to Los Angeles?
The question could have been further complicated by sub questions:
Shall we take a chance on weather condtions in England or land in known beautiful conditions in Los Angeles?
Shall we take a chance of putting you up in a hotel for the night in Los Angeles or the possibility of putting you up anyplace along the way, including smaller cities?
Will you trust your fine flight crew more while well rested to land shortly after takeoff or after a dozen hours in flight with added anxiety?
I would bet that the passengers would choose to go back to LAX.
They didn't get to vote on the actual flight...but speaking of profits how many passengers has BA lost from cautious passengers over this? I know I would no longer place BA in such high esteem when asked by non pilot passengers for an airline reccomendation.
You speak of aviation authorities making decisions. Consider the calculus on this one: In 1998 a large Newspaper in the USA had headlines about something called "Air Rage". Detailed information about weaknesses of cockpit doors were discussed on page one of this paper. Aviation authorities did nothing...fast forward to 9/11/01. If pilots had stayed behind hardened/locked doors on 9/11 how many people would have died?
I have dealt with FAA types including the deputy administrator and the Head of the FAA. I spoke the last time (before 9/11) with Jane Garvey and indicted the old thinking about security was a waste of time (among other safety items)
Profit vs safety?
The true cost of any decision may never be known. Why not drop Cat 1 decision height to 100 feet? That would save money, wouldn't it? Why not lower the flying hours required to hold an ATP to 500 hours?
Simply put, the decision to continue to England on 3 engines was not as safe as returning to LAX.
Simply put,imho our industry should put safety first.
And all airlines should hold the highest level of safety. Alas only reregulation would allow for this.
cheers
jon
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by jondc9
They didn't get to vote on the actual flight...but speaking of profits how many passengers has BA lost from cautious passengers over this?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jondc9
Now, "what if" the passengers on the BA 747 had been asked the question:
Shall we continue for a dozen hours with one engine out all the way to England or return right away to Los Angeles?
Shall we continue for a dozen hours with one engine out all the way to England or return right away to Los Angeles?
It is interesting to see that most of the opposition to their decision to continue the flight to London seems to come from those who have either little or no experience of Long Range Operations in 4-engine jets. Within the group who have that experience, there may be some differences of opinion but we should remember that no-one except the crew themselves know all the facts. Most of the more alarmist conjecture about "what might have happened" has come from the least experienced and really serves this thread no useful or constructive purpose.
I have been in similar situations to this crew and, in the circustances as I understand them, I believe they were not unsafe to continue as they did. In my view, those that disagree with this Commander's professional decision to continue the flight need to support that disagreement with similar professional reasoning - not scaremongering - or, with respect, just keep quiet.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sailing
...Flying over populated areas on 3 rather than 4 increases the risk to people on the ground. The risk is miniscule, but it exists...
The flight is obviously not as 'safe' on 3 as on 4, but it is a minor and acceptable risk.
IMHO, the interesting topic to discuss is not the safety of this flight, it is why the FAA reacted the way it did.
The flight is obviously not as 'safe' on 3 as on 4, but it is a minor and acceptable risk.
IMHO, the interesting topic to discuss is not the safety of this flight, it is why the FAA reacted the way it did.
If the FAA or CAA were more stringent than what is commercially practical, we would have NO commercial aviation.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aims
Now let me see according to your profile you were born in April 1975 so you must have been in your early 20's at the time.
Again according to your profile you have no Pilots Licence.
Should we really take your seriously? If so go and amend your profile (or stay on the MSFS).
Back in the 90 ties we went to Boeing to discuss our SOP.
Again according to your profile you have no Pilots Licence.
Should we really take your seriously? If so go and amend your profile (or stay on the MSFS).
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the States,the Captain would have his ticket revoked.It amazes me that so many here have expressed support for the decision that this Captain took.
Electing to continue a 5000nm flight following a surge/stall IFSD can not be condoned under any circumstances.BA's denial that commercial considerations played any part is frankly a lie.
The regulation concerned does not support such a decision and anyone who believes that it does is purposely misconstruing the intent of the regulation to suit their commercial requirements.Regulators cant regulate for good common sense or sound judgement;they assume that an airline pilot has plenty of that to begin with.
Electing to continue a 5000nm flight following a surge/stall IFSD can not be condoned under any circumstances.BA's denial that commercial considerations played any part is frankly a lie.
The regulation concerned does not support such a decision and anyone who believes that it does is purposely misconstruing the intent of the regulation to suit their commercial requirements.Regulators cant regulate for good common sense or sound judgement;they assume that an airline pilot has plenty of that to begin with.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim,
"In the States, the captain would have his ticket revoked.."
Very authoritative post. Who do you fly for and what is that airline's policy on 4-engined aircraft flying passed their nearest suitable div with an engine inop. Obviously, without such information your post is somewhat less authoritative and more bolleaux...... and this thread doesn't need anymore bolleaux...
"In the States, the captain would have his ticket revoked.."
Very authoritative post. Who do you fly for and what is that airline's policy on 4-engined aircraft flying passed their nearest suitable div with an engine inop. Obviously, without such information your post is somewhat less authoritative and more bolleaux...... and this thread doesn't need anymore bolleaux...
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
Just a couple of years back, a detail we practised on this self same 747 model simulator was max weight take-off with engine failure after V1, followed by second engine failure (on same side) during flap retraction. No problem! The 747 handles it quite happily! What we had this day was a single benign engine failure during the climb- the 747 in fact happily steamed on its way, with plenty of capacity for a second failure in cruise, and even a third failure would have left capacity to get to a runway, though I imagine go-around capability might be a bit compromised!
JONDC9- I would believe your 'outrage' if I saw you making sensible criticism of flying a 777 across the Pacific wastes, and the infliction of entrusting 250 peoples lives to one engine, high power, for over three hours! Come on- don't be shy.....which aeroplane would you rather have been on?
As formerly one of the crew of this very aeroplane and airline, for 8 years on the 747-400, and 10 years on the 747-100/200 before that, with 8 years twin engine 737, for this crew on this aeroplane, I can say commercial considerations and company pressure (which were non-existent in this case) were zero factor. They carried out what they considered, and I fully agree with, was the safest and most expeditious course of action, exactly what I would have done, because the world's most experienced long haul airline has a flight continuation policy that all BA crew accept, for a 4 engined airliner with plenty of power, is safe. Fuel jettison and return is more hazardous than what took place, diverting a thousand miles off course to JFK would not have solved the problem. The philosophy with a twin is very different, and a lot of twin pilots cannot apparently get their heads around the difference. BA does not fly a twin over 3 hours of single engine time away from an airfield over the Pacific as the FAA is happy for United to do. If we want to talk about risk assessment, again, I know which aeroplane I would far rather be on
JONDC9- I would believe your 'outrage' if I saw you making sensible criticism of flying a 777 across the Pacific wastes, and the infliction of entrusting 250 peoples lives to one engine, high power, for over three hours! Come on- don't be shy.....which aeroplane would you rather have been on?
As formerly one of the crew of this very aeroplane and airline, for 8 years on the 747-400, and 10 years on the 747-100/200 before that, with 8 years twin engine 737, for this crew on this aeroplane, I can say commercial considerations and company pressure (which were non-existent in this case) were zero factor. They carried out what they considered, and I fully agree with, was the safest and most expeditious course of action, exactly what I would have done, because the world's most experienced long haul airline has a flight continuation policy that all BA crew accept, for a 4 engined airliner with plenty of power, is safe. Fuel jettison and return is more hazardous than what took place, diverting a thousand miles off course to JFK would not have solved the problem. The philosophy with a twin is very different, and a lot of twin pilots cannot apparently get their heads around the difference. BA does not fly a twin over 3 hours of single engine time away from an airfield over the Pacific as the FAA is happy for United to do. If we want to talk about risk assessment, again, I know which aeroplane I would far rather be on
Last edited by Rainboe; 20th Apr 2006 at 10:20.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rananim
In the States,the Captain would have his ticket revoked.It amazes me that so many here have expressed support for the decision that this Captain took.
The regulation concerned does not support such a decision and anyone who believes that it does is purposely misconstruing the intent of the regulation to suit their commercial requirements.
The regulation concerned does not support such a decision and anyone who believes that it does is purposely misconstruing the intent of the regulation to suit their commercial requirements.
This might help to support your allegation. However if you cannot do this I am afraid your post remains little more than uninformed bluster.
Originally Posted by Rananim
In the States,the Captain would have his ticket revoked.It amazes me that so many here have expressed support for the decision that this Captain took.
Electing to continue a 5000nm flight following a surge/stall IFSD can not be condoned under any circumstances.BA's denial that commercial considerations played any part is frankly a lie.
The regulation concerned does not support such a decision and anyone who believes that it does is purposely misconstruing the intent of the regulation to suit their commercial requirements.Regulators cant regulate for good common sense or sound judgement;they assume that an airline pilot has plenty of that to begin with.
Electing to continue a 5000nm flight following a surge/stall IFSD can not be condoned under any circumstances.BA's denial that commercial considerations played any part is frankly a lie.
The regulation concerned does not support such a decision and anyone who believes that it does is purposely misconstruing the intent of the regulation to suit their commercial requirements.Regulators cant regulate for good common sense or sound judgement;they assume that an airline pilot has plenty of that to begin with.
My read is that this is nothing more than unbased opinion without the benefit of fact.
What we need in this thread is a running summary or poll of for or against. That way we could clean up the remaining thread and reserve it for new facts.
lomapaseo
A "poll, for or against" no, no, no...............not unless the only people you are polling are current on the 744 - and yes I know some will say that smacks of arrogance and "the pilot knows best" . I'm past caring - this thread shoukd have been killed months ago.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by wiggy
I'm past caring - this thread shoukd have been killed months ago.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are there ridculous statements about being more/less safe. It's like being slightly pregnant. If you want to be more safe then don't takeoff at all in case the wings drop off at FL350.
FACT If the worse case scenario - second engine failure, had happened at the worst point, then the aircraft would still have been capable of landing safely.
Does it get any safer than that in this situation ????
And just why are the FAA looking into this, outside their jurisdiction - Commercial pressure from Boeing to push twins...
FACT If the worse case scenario - second engine failure, had happened at the worst point, then the aircraft would still have been capable of landing safely.
Does it get any safer than that in this situation ????
And just why are the FAA looking into this, outside their jurisdiction - Commercial pressure from Boeing to push twins...
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
Because......well some people need it spelled out in black and white. Let's see where we start......have you noticed how very few 747-400s are operated by US airlines? It was the US airlines that really pioneered twin ops across large expanses of water. Suddenly it became perfectly acceptable for twins to fly ETOPs all over.....but wait!......ETOPs started 'disadvantaging' US airlines against foreigners flying all those lovely big 747s into the States! The FAA, ever willing to look after US airlines interests (as all the aviation authorities obviously are keen to look after national interests) therefore has a vested interest that 747s now (remember Boeing are hardly selling any now, and none to US operators) have no advantage over 777s (which everybody wants) and 767s in over water ops. So, in the case of a single, uncomplicated engine failure, it is to US airlines interests if every jet, twin and 4 engined, has to obey the same silly rule- silly for a 747, but dead sensible for a 777 or 767, of scuttling for the nearest runway!
I'm still amazed at their nerve trying to fine BA for continuing with one engine out on a 747 when they have accepted that the United 777 can fly on one for 3 hours and 8 minutes to a diversion airfield. When politics sticks its nose into safety issues, we should then be concerned. Meanwhile, we know what is safe in an aeroplane that has this sort of redundancy built in, and the flight continuation policy remains unchanged, despite thunder from across the Atlantic that we are trying to gain 'an unfair advantage' because foreign airlines operate a aeroplane with more redundancy!
I'm still amazed at their nerve trying to fine BA for continuing with one engine out on a 747 when they have accepted that the United 777 can fly on one for 3 hours and 8 minutes to a diversion airfield. When politics sticks its nose into safety issues, we should then be concerned. Meanwhile, we know what is safe in an aeroplane that has this sort of redundancy built in, and the flight continuation policy remains unchanged, despite thunder from across the Atlantic that we are trying to gain 'an unfair advantage' because foreign airlines operate a aeroplane with more redundancy!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in recent posts much hsa been made about the FAA and two engine planes...let me tell you the FAA has a long way to go to actually have my respect.
have any of you looked at the airport at Midway Island? (not to be confused with Chicago Midway, though both are a tiny bit too small for my tastes).
Can you imagine flying a heavy 777 on one engine to Midway Island, at night and actually having a need for major crash fire rescue equipment and hospital?
Rotsa Ruck.
Would I rather cross a major ocean with 4 engines instead of 2? YES.
When are two engine planes better than 4 engine planes? Sometimes the power to weight ratio a takeoff is better in the twins and there might be a small edge in windshear/microburst recovery.
Why is the FAA picking on BA? Let me just put it this way, I don't know...but I do know that if you asked every passenger on that plane what makes more sense, flying to england with 25% of your engines dead or returning to LAX, I would wager that returning to LAX would be the winner amongst passengers.
I guess you can't regulate or teach good judgement (though one study suggested that it could be taught).
by the way, many fines are never paid and the FAA doesn't do squat.
I think this thread has run its course. Good luck to us all.
jon
have any of you looked at the airport at Midway Island? (not to be confused with Chicago Midway, though both are a tiny bit too small for my tastes).
Can you imagine flying a heavy 777 on one engine to Midway Island, at night and actually having a need for major crash fire rescue equipment and hospital?
Rotsa Ruck.
Would I rather cross a major ocean with 4 engines instead of 2? YES.
When are two engine planes better than 4 engine planes? Sometimes the power to weight ratio a takeoff is better in the twins and there might be a small edge in windshear/microburst recovery.
Why is the FAA picking on BA? Let me just put it this way, I don't know...but I do know that if you asked every passenger on that plane what makes more sense, flying to england with 25% of your engines dead or returning to LAX, I would wager that returning to LAX would be the winner amongst passengers.
I guess you can't regulate or teach good judgement (though one study suggested that it could be taught).
by the way, many fines are never paid and the FAA doesn't do squat.
I think this thread has run its course. Good luck to us all.
jon
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jondc9
...but I do know that if you asked every passenger on that plane what makes more sense, flying to england with 25% of your engines dead or returning to LAX, I would wager that returning to LAX would be the winner amongst passengers.
I guess you can't regulate or teach good judgement (though one study suggested that it could be taught).
I guess you can't regulate or teach good judgement (though one study suggested that it could be taught).
Give us a break, jondc9. You, like so many others on this thread, have failed to offer sound professional reasoning why the flight should not have continued and, without such reasoned argument, I find the insinuation in your comment that "I guess you can't regulate or teach good judgement" particularly objectionable from a professionable point of view.
I do agree with you on one point - this thread has run its course.