BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
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
The step forward
Just immagine what a step forward it could be if the court would decide that "The redundancy can not be used for commercial reasons only"
What would happen to the industry?
Look at all the side effects it would have. Has it the potential to increase safety?
Clearly it would eliminate some operators that do not take maintenance seriously or do not have the funds to do so. Or their local CAA to have a decent oversight.
It would give just credit to those that are cautious and make it difficult to those that try to get away with anything. How many cases do we know where the error was clear but they got away with it.
The day BA does this with an A 380 you will see public opinion all over the place without asking for it.
Reality is not defined solely as "The opinion of one or more experts"
The question that the FAA and other CAA have to answer is simple:
"There are strict airworthiness certification rules the manufacturor has to meet when building an airliner. These criteria take care of the likelyhood of failures. The redundancy is there so the crew can stay in control.
Why did we not regulate the way this redundancy should be used in a way that removes differant interpretations?"
As a consequance it is now a matter of the courts and as such a matter of the general public that is reprsented by a judge. In essance this judge is now reprersenting the passengers that were on board of this flight.
The problem is NOT that the FAA wants to build a case to favour Boeing. The problem may be that the UK and the USA are civilised contries that have those systems build into their democracy. Should we not look at those that haven´t and use this oppurtunity?
In the context of one CAA pointing the finger to another:
Isn´t ICAO opening that door right now by publishing their audits publicaly in the near future.
What if we (Europe) would solve the Flight Time Duty time issue by just accepting the USA sytem and form one block by demanding carriers from outside this block to meet those rules if they want to have acces to that airspace?
ICAO can not do it by themselves nor can the United Nations on another level. Let´s use our strenght and make things better.
What would happen to the industry?
Look at all the side effects it would have. Has it the potential to increase safety?
Clearly it would eliminate some operators that do not take maintenance seriously or do not have the funds to do so. Or their local CAA to have a decent oversight.
It would give just credit to those that are cautious and make it difficult to those that try to get away with anything. How many cases do we know where the error was clear but they got away with it.
The day BA does this with an A 380 you will see public opinion all over the place without asking for it.
Reality is not defined solely as "The opinion of one or more experts"
The question that the FAA and other CAA have to answer is simple:
"There are strict airworthiness certification rules the manufacturor has to meet when building an airliner. These criteria take care of the likelyhood of failures. The redundancy is there so the crew can stay in control.
Why did we not regulate the way this redundancy should be used in a way that removes differant interpretations?"
As a consequance it is now a matter of the courts and as such a matter of the general public that is reprsented by a judge. In essance this judge is now reprersenting the passengers that were on board of this flight.
The problem is NOT that the FAA wants to build a case to favour Boeing. The problem may be that the UK and the USA are civilised contries that have those systems build into their democracy. Should we not look at those that haven´t and use this oppurtunity?
In the context of one CAA pointing the finger to another:
Isn´t ICAO opening that door right now by publishing their audits publicaly in the near future.
What if we (Europe) would solve the Flight Time Duty time issue by just accepting the USA sytem and form one block by demanding carriers from outside this block to meet those rules if they want to have acces to that airspace?
ICAO can not do it by themselves nor can the United Nations on another level. Let´s use our strenght and make things better.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
"...Just immagine (sic) what a step forward it could be if the court would decide that "The redundancy can not be used for commercial reasons only..""
Hey Mr Engineer, design me an aircraft than can fly on 2 engines, but is fitted with 4, so that if 1 fails we can recover the plane to a more suitable airfield and still have adequate redundancy. Hey Mr Airplane operator, shan't bother, some clown on pprune reckons it is an improvement that you cant use redundancy for commercial benefit. OK Mr Engineer give me a 2 engine aircraft with no redundancy, with no back up air, hydraulics and electrical...that'll save me a fortune....horrah G&T's all round.....
Nice thinking...how has Boeing and Airbus and BA and VS, CX, QF, NZ got it so wrong all these years.....
I note Rananin hasn't replied to my post of the 20th so I have taken the liberty of rewording his post of the same date....
"I don't fly the -400, nor am I familiar with the manner in which US carriers operate them, however I reckon that in the States, the Captain would have had his ticket pulled...blah..blah...unsubstantiated rhetoric...shallow comments blah....
Doncha just love folks who post a diatribe and then finish with "this thread has run its course".....if its run its course why are you posting???
"...Just immagine (sic) what a step forward it could be if the court would decide that "The redundancy can not be used for commercial reasons only..""
Hey Mr Engineer, design me an aircraft than can fly on 2 engines, but is fitted with 4, so that if 1 fails we can recover the plane to a more suitable airfield and still have adequate redundancy. Hey Mr Airplane operator, shan't bother, some clown on pprune reckons it is an improvement that you cant use redundancy for commercial benefit. OK Mr Engineer give me a 2 engine aircraft with no redundancy, with no back up air, hydraulics and electrical...that'll save me a fortune....horrah G&T's all round.....
Nice thinking...how has Boeing and Airbus and BA and VS, CX, QF, NZ got it so wrong all these years.....
I note Rananin hasn't replied to my post of the 20th so I have taken the liberty of rewording his post of the same date....
"I don't fly the -400, nor am I familiar with the manner in which US carriers operate them, however I reckon that in the States, the Captain would have had his ticket pulled...blah..blah...unsubstantiated rhetoric...shallow comments blah....
Doncha just love folks who post a diatribe and then finish with "this thread has run its course".....if its run its course why are you posting???
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
Originally Posted by Liam Gallagher
Quote
Hey Mr Engineer, design me an aircraft than can fly on 2 engines, but is fitted with 4, so that if 1 fails we can recover the plane to a more suitable airfield and still have adequate redundancy. Hey Mr Airplane operator, shan't bother, some clown on pprune reckons it is an improvement that you cant use redundancy for commercial benefit. OK Mr Engineer give me a 2 engine aircraft with no redundancy, with no back up air, hydraulics and electrical...that'll save me a fortune....horrah G&T's all round.....
Nice thinking...how has Boeing and Airbus and BA and VS, CX, QF, NZ got it so wrong all these years.....
Hey Mr Engineer, design me an aircraft than can fly on 2 engines, but is fitted with 4, so that if 1 fails we can recover the plane to a more suitable airfield and still have adequate redundancy. Hey Mr Airplane operator, shan't bother, some clown on pprune reckons it is an improvement that you cant use redundancy for commercial benefit. OK Mr Engineer give me a 2 engine aircraft with no redundancy, with no back up air, hydraulics and electrical...that'll save me a fortune....horrah G&T's all round.....
Nice thinking...how has Boeing and Airbus and BA and VS, CX, QF, NZ got it so wrong all these years.....
I think I am only raising a hypothesis that may be usefull.
Would you fly a concord or A 380 across the pond if fuel allowed you to do so with 1 engine out. Both have 4 engines and enough redundancy I hope.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My word what utter drivel you post! A hypothesis that might be useful? To whom? All it would do is ground the entire air transport industry.
"Got two packs boss but one is U/S, MEL says we can go with the other".
"Not any more you can't. Redundancy is not to be used for commercial purposes"
And what is this nonsense about BA trying something with an A380? Do you think there will be any substantial difference between flying an A380 on 3 and a B747 on 3?
Such a ludicrous policy would not 'give credit to those who are cautious', it would give credit to those who operate twins over quads, which is the whole point of the FAAs machinations. The airlines who operate quads are already more cautious by having twice as many engines as the twins. Where's the credit for that?
Anyway how come you now include yourself in Europe? The UK FTLs are far superior to the USA ones which allow crew to be flogged for hours on end. Remember the Little Rock accident. If the USA want a standard block of FTLs then they are welcome to use our safer ones.
"Got two packs boss but one is U/S, MEL says we can go with the other".
"Not any more you can't. Redundancy is not to be used for commercial purposes"
And what is this nonsense about BA trying something with an A380? Do you think there will be any substantial difference between flying an A380 on 3 and a B747 on 3?
Such a ludicrous policy would not 'give credit to those who are cautious', it would give credit to those who operate twins over quads, which is the whole point of the FAAs machinations. The airlines who operate quads are already more cautious by having twice as many engines as the twins. Where's the credit for that?
Anyway how come you now include yourself in Europe? The UK FTLs are far superior to the USA ones which allow crew to be flogged for hours on end. Remember the Little Rock accident. If the USA want a standard block of FTLs then they are welcome to use our safer ones.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish the USA would adopt some of the UK's standards.
I wish every airline in the world was operated at the highest standards.
I wish every pilot, mechanic, f/a, dispatcher and the whole lot were protected by whistleblower legislation so that they could speak out without fear of losing their job.
AS to the person who objects to my views about asking the passengers vs. experienced aircraft commander etc:
What if the aircraft commander misjudged the reason for the engine failure?
Why did the aircraft commander's calculations miss being able to land at LHR?(and don't give me ATC...he could have declared an emergency)
How on earth would one be MORE well rested at the end of a transatlantic flight to cope with a 3 engine landing than at the start?
As everyone knows on this forum, transporting an engine to LAX (if they didn't already have one) is a relatively easy process by lashing it on to the wing of a 747.
Like the supreme court of the USA once said, (paraphrased) I can't define pornography, but I know what it is when I see it... so too good judgement in flying, I can't define it but I know when it is lacking... flying from LAX to LHR with one engine dead isn't good judgement.
j
I wish every airline in the world was operated at the highest standards.
I wish every pilot, mechanic, f/a, dispatcher and the whole lot were protected by whistleblower legislation so that they could speak out without fear of losing their job.
AS to the person who objects to my views about asking the passengers vs. experienced aircraft commander etc:
What if the aircraft commander misjudged the reason for the engine failure?
Why did the aircraft commander's calculations miss being able to land at LHR?(and don't give me ATC...he could have declared an emergency)
How on earth would one be MORE well rested at the end of a transatlantic flight to cope with a 3 engine landing than at the start?
As everyone knows on this forum, transporting an engine to LAX (if they didn't already have one) is a relatively easy process by lashing it on to the wing of a 747.
Like the supreme court of the USA once said, (paraphrased) I can't define pornography, but I know what it is when I see it... so too good judgement in flying, I can't define it but I know when it is lacking... flying from LAX to LHR with one engine dead isn't good judgement.
j
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the aircraft commander misjudged the reason for the engine failure theres two co-pilots who can make their own decision. The crew woud not have continued without the agreement of all three pilots. Plus there's a whole load of engineers at the end of the satphone who can analyse the engine too. Flying a 747 is not a one man show.
Who said the aircraft commander missed being able to land at LHR? IIRC the intention was to go to MAN fairly early. You are obviously not familiar with re-clearance operations on long range flights. This is no different to a practice a 747 might use on 4 engines when tight on fuel. Not going to make London from Hong Kong? Plan on Helsinki. Think you'll make LHR when you get to HEL? Then plan on going to Copenhagen. Looking like you'll make LHR with reserve fuel? Then continue. If not then divert.The fact that they elected to go to MAN rather than LHR suggests rather better judgement than you give them credit for.
If you want to transport an extra engine to LAX then you don't just 'lash it on' and go. Have you any idea what fifth pod carriage does to fuel burn and range?
I'm afraid with every post you are just demonstrating the paucity of your knowledge not just of the 747-400 but also of long range operations and of the conduct of this particular flight. I'm afraid you are out of your depth on this one so please let it drop.
Who said the aircraft commander missed being able to land at LHR? IIRC the intention was to go to MAN fairly early. You are obviously not familiar with re-clearance operations on long range flights. This is no different to a practice a 747 might use on 4 engines when tight on fuel. Not going to make London from Hong Kong? Plan on Helsinki. Think you'll make LHR when you get to HEL? Then plan on going to Copenhagen. Looking like you'll make LHR with reserve fuel? Then continue. If not then divert.The fact that they elected to go to MAN rather than LHR suggests rather better judgement than you give them credit for.
If you want to transport an extra engine to LAX then you don't just 'lash it on' and go. Have you any idea what fifth pod carriage does to fuel burn and range?
I'm afraid with every post you are just demonstrating the paucity of your knowledge not just of the 747-400 but also of long range operations and of the conduct of this particular flight. I'm afraid you are out of your depth on this one so please let it drop.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saaaaaaffffhampton
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine out
Im only a lowly fATPL and as far as I can see the aircraft commander made a decision, the safety was judged to have not been compromised and would assume that this was discussed with the F/O to the continuation of the flight.
One can only assume that all the relevant calculations were made, including divert inline with over the water flights and that minimums were carried to the destination. Also the MEL would have been consulted and probably there ops
Im sure the 747 could have diverted on 2 engines, I reguarly fly to US on twin jet ops (as a passenger) but the loss of 1 engine is a concern but not a panic as I am sure the eventuality was covered in there planning.
If that was done, what is the problem!!
Excuse me if it seems ignorant, I have read the posts start to end !!
One can only assume that all the relevant calculations were made, including divert inline with over the water flights and that minimums were carried to the destination. Also the MEL would have been consulted and probably there ops
Im sure the 747 could have diverted on 2 engines, I reguarly fly to US on twin jet ops (as a passenger) but the loss of 1 engine is a concern but not a panic as I am sure the eventuality was covered in there planning.
If that was done, what is the problem!!
Excuse me if it seems ignorant, I have read the posts start to end !!
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
Not ignorant at all, and the experienced 747-400 pilots are equally as frustrated as you that all the distilled experience of longhaul ops by expert 4 engine flyers is being overriden by this American desire that any engine failure should cause a diversion (because it has to in a 777!). We have armchair experts here who apparently know better than the worlds most experienced longhaul airline (BA) in how to conduct safe long range ops under a range of failure/weather/fuel shortage scenarios. According to their logic, if a B52 lost an engine (out of it's eight!), it should land at the nearest airfield! Some people bring to this discussion the benefit of their extensive twin/trijet ops- even trijet ops are subtely different.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear hand solo:
I read your post with great interest. In fact you have proven to me that you have NEVER been in the cockpit of a commercial transport plane (well maybe the pilot let you look around for your birthday when you were small).
Just to make sure that I have not lost my mind, I've checked with 5 other airline transport pilots that I know, combined aviation experience about 120 YEARS. They all are persuaded that the decision to continue was based on MONEY! Yes, the almighty Pound Sterling.
More than one of these very experienced pilots has used the term , "WEAK SISTER" or "COMPANY MAN" to describe the PIC of said aircraft. Allowing the decision makers in a nice comfortable concrete structure thousands of miles away in England to analyze an engine.
PLEASE! (this is a popular expression of disbelief, roughly equivalent of GIVE ME A BREAK!)
YOUR own post indicates that YOU seem to place money as a very high decision making factor. Read your own quote about what 5th pod carriage does to fuel consumption and range. Only someone who places money first would write that.
You indicate that the two copilots made their own decision and that the plane would not have continued unless they all agreed.
You must be living in a fantasy world or don't have a clue about CRM or why it came into existence.
You indicate that I don't know about long haul operations. I have listed my flying experience elsewhere on this forum. Yours however seems to be lacking. I am fully aware of such concepts as re-releasing enroute as you have described.
So the crew knew early on that they wouldn't be going to London. Fine. Now you have to expose the passengers to all that fun English motor traffic to get them home.
The one pilot (actually more of an engineer, who has never made one penny as an airline pilot) I spoke with who agrees with the crew about continuing to England gave this logic.
"During WW2, B17's would have an engine shot out over Germany and they would continue back to England rather than land right away ( or should I say REICHT away) in BERLIN>"
Last time I checked, Los Angeles was a friendly place for British Pilots! Let me know if this has changed (gangs aside).
In the world of engineers everything is well thought out and goes as predicted. IF that were reality, Murphy would never have come up with his laws.
You must be an engineer Hand Solo. Perhaps using your mighty degree to analyze the flight characteristics of Golf Balls.
I recall a 3 engine L1011 losing all three engines due to a common maintenance defect. This EASTERN airlines plane managed a safe landing in MIAMI after restarting one engine which caught on fire crossing the threshold of the runway.
NO, this could never happen in a British Airways 747 could it?
Except a BA 747 did lose thrust on all 4 engines flying into a Volcanic cloud. It was the pilots that got them going again to a safe landing, not a bunch of engineers at the other end of a "satphone".
The decision to continue to England was based on MONEY and not the safety, comfort or well being of the passengers.
No, Mr. Solo, time for YOU TO GIVE THIS A REST.
regards
jon
PS. Don't think for a minute that I don't respect many British Pilots. D.P. Davies would probably have much to say on this subject were he still with us (please inform me if he still is, but his health was failing back in 1985)
I read your post with great interest. In fact you have proven to me that you have NEVER been in the cockpit of a commercial transport plane (well maybe the pilot let you look around for your birthday when you were small).
Just to make sure that I have not lost my mind, I've checked with 5 other airline transport pilots that I know, combined aviation experience about 120 YEARS. They all are persuaded that the decision to continue was based on MONEY! Yes, the almighty Pound Sterling.
More than one of these very experienced pilots has used the term , "WEAK SISTER" or "COMPANY MAN" to describe the PIC of said aircraft. Allowing the decision makers in a nice comfortable concrete structure thousands of miles away in England to analyze an engine.
PLEASE! (this is a popular expression of disbelief, roughly equivalent of GIVE ME A BREAK!)
YOUR own post indicates that YOU seem to place money as a very high decision making factor. Read your own quote about what 5th pod carriage does to fuel consumption and range. Only someone who places money first would write that.
You indicate that the two copilots made their own decision and that the plane would not have continued unless they all agreed.
You must be living in a fantasy world or don't have a clue about CRM or why it came into existence.
You indicate that I don't know about long haul operations. I have listed my flying experience elsewhere on this forum. Yours however seems to be lacking. I am fully aware of such concepts as re-releasing enroute as you have described.
So the crew knew early on that they wouldn't be going to London. Fine. Now you have to expose the passengers to all that fun English motor traffic to get them home.
The one pilot (actually more of an engineer, who has never made one penny as an airline pilot) I spoke with who agrees with the crew about continuing to England gave this logic.
"During WW2, B17's would have an engine shot out over Germany and they would continue back to England rather than land right away ( or should I say REICHT away) in BERLIN>"
Last time I checked, Los Angeles was a friendly place for British Pilots! Let me know if this has changed (gangs aside).
In the world of engineers everything is well thought out and goes as predicted. IF that were reality, Murphy would never have come up with his laws.
You must be an engineer Hand Solo. Perhaps using your mighty degree to analyze the flight characteristics of Golf Balls.
I recall a 3 engine L1011 losing all three engines due to a common maintenance defect. This EASTERN airlines plane managed a safe landing in MIAMI after restarting one engine which caught on fire crossing the threshold of the runway.
NO, this could never happen in a British Airways 747 could it?
Except a BA 747 did lose thrust on all 4 engines flying into a Volcanic cloud. It was the pilots that got them going again to a safe landing, not a bunch of engineers at the other end of a "satphone".
The decision to continue to England was based on MONEY and not the safety, comfort or well being of the passengers.
No, Mr. Solo, time for YOU TO GIVE THIS A REST.
regards
jon
PS. Don't think for a minute that I don't respect many British Pilots. D.P. Davies would probably have much to say on this subject were he still with us (please inform me if he still is, but his health was failing back in 1985)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rainboe:
interesting indeed about the B52 scenario...but even us non 747 jet pilots know that you don't land at the NEAREST airfield, you land at the nearest suitable airfield.
to me losing an engine in a B52 is worth recovering to a fine friendly airfield that could provide security and mx for the specialized stuff the B52 carries (read a nuclear bomb, etc).
as in my previous post, air force flying might dictate a course of action commercial flying might not.
interesting indeed about the B52 scenario...but even us non 747 jet pilots know that you don't land at the NEAREST airfield, you land at the nearest suitable airfield.
to me losing an engine in a B52 is worth recovering to a fine friendly airfield that could provide security and mx for the specialized stuff the B52 carries (read a nuclear bomb, etc).
as in my previous post, air force flying might dictate a course of action commercial flying might not.
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
I can confirm that Hand Solo is not only a current very experienced BA pilot, but exceedingly ugly and has a way with the birds.
You just don't listen. We've told you again and again that there was no company pressure on the crew- if any single one of the 3 pilots up there was not happy with the decision, they would have diverted. I would have done exactly what they did- I was one of them for 8 years on the 747, and I was certainly no respecter of management (and it may surprise you I was volubly so), but the decision was sound, and hardly any BA pilot will disagree, and hang any management or commercial dictates. Money was irrelevant. It all went into a pot and a mixture of alternates, safety, passenger considerations, repairs gave a decision to continue as near London as possible as the most valid. That is what they are paid for. Believe it or not, we do not have the American Dispatcher system where the crews are told what to do inflight. On that aeroplane, the Captain takes responsibility. You may have flown 146s, but that is not '4 engine long range ops' as in 747, with its enormous range of weights. Your '5 pilots' probably know no better than the next man! What is their experience (no- I don't need you to tell me!)
We're saying the same things over and over because you regard yourself as knowing better, despite never having operated routes like LAX-LHR (that's a 'short' one- we do far longer.) The CAA is happy with the flight. It still followed FAA regulations. The FAA does not have a leg to stand on- their stupid fine will be fought in court. They have other axes to grind.
You just don't listen. We've told you again and again that there was no company pressure on the crew- if any single one of the 3 pilots up there was not happy with the decision, they would have diverted. I would have done exactly what they did- I was one of them for 8 years on the 747, and I was certainly no respecter of management (and it may surprise you I was volubly so), but the decision was sound, and hardly any BA pilot will disagree, and hang any management or commercial dictates. Money was irrelevant. It all went into a pot and a mixture of alternates, safety, passenger considerations, repairs gave a decision to continue as near London as possible as the most valid. That is what they are paid for. Believe it or not, we do not have the American Dispatcher system where the crews are told what to do inflight. On that aeroplane, the Captain takes responsibility. You may have flown 146s, but that is not '4 engine long range ops' as in 747, with its enormous range of weights. Your '5 pilots' probably know no better than the next man! What is their experience (no- I don't need you to tell me!)
We're saying the same things over and over because you regard yourself as knowing better, despite never having operated routes like LAX-LHR (that's a 'short' one- we do far longer.) The CAA is happy with the flight. It still followed FAA regulations. The FAA does not have a leg to stand on- their stupid fine will be fought in court. They have other axes to grind.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe:
So glad you are chiming in!
I am also glad you are all so experienced in long haul operations. It also seems great that the same plane had another engine problem just 3 weeks later.
British Airways must be quite proud.
As to the fine points of the regulations, you are correct. Fly anywhere you want on a 3 engine operating 747. all quite legal.
BUT it is situations like this that will someday give us the following regulations.
All 4 engine long haul jets that suffer failure of 25% of their powerplants that are within sight of a suitable airfield shall land at said airfield for repairs unless that airfield is under attack or unable to be used because of : earthquake, large mayonaise jars on the runway or any of the following reasons, see appendix A.
At one time I would have gladly given BA high praise and told passengers that it was one of the few foreign airlines that I had respect for.
Not now.
I am glad hand solo has his way with the birds, though his online name would indicate otherwise.
BA, direct descendent of BOAC, the airline that made history with the COMET, the Concorde and automatic landings with the Trident. The airline that should be looked up to for many reasons too numerous to mention...has lost my respect.
I wonder if you would have continued across the pond on a VC10 with one engine out? ;-)
But nimrods aside...
And if so many people were pleased with this situation, why is the FAA bothering with a case they are sure to lose? Even if they lose, perhaps the other pilots faced with this situation in the future will acti differently if only to avoid the bother this might cause again.
So glad you are chiming in!
I am also glad you are all so experienced in long haul operations. It also seems great that the same plane had another engine problem just 3 weeks later.
British Airways must be quite proud.
As to the fine points of the regulations, you are correct. Fly anywhere you want on a 3 engine operating 747. all quite legal.
BUT it is situations like this that will someday give us the following regulations.
All 4 engine long haul jets that suffer failure of 25% of their powerplants that are within sight of a suitable airfield shall land at said airfield for repairs unless that airfield is under attack or unable to be used because of : earthquake, large mayonaise jars on the runway or any of the following reasons, see appendix A.
At one time I would have gladly given BA high praise and told passengers that it was one of the few foreign airlines that I had respect for.
Not now.
I am glad hand solo has his way with the birds, though his online name would indicate otherwise.
BA, direct descendent of BOAC, the airline that made history with the COMET, the Concorde and automatic landings with the Trident. The airline that should be looked up to for many reasons too numerous to mention...has lost my respect.
I wonder if you would have continued across the pond on a VC10 with one engine out? ;-)
But nimrods aside...
And if so many people were pleased with this situation, why is the FAA bothering with a case they are sure to lose? Even if they lose, perhaps the other pilots faced with this situation in the future will acti differently if only to avoid the bother this might cause again.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My my, what an Angry Young Man our jondc9 friend is becoming !!
... and so sarcastic ...
... and a bit short on facts, too - I don't recall that BOAC ever flew the Trident ... ?? Better ask one of the Few about that, I guess ... their lovely old Groundgripper ...
I also seem to recall that the VC10 (aka KTNC Mk1) was actually more economical on fuel on three engines, than four ... but never mind, I'm sure he doesn't want to be confused with the facts, as his mind is already made up ...
Thought for the day ... 'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt ...
... and so sarcastic ...
... and a bit short on facts, too - I don't recall that BOAC ever flew the Trident ... ?? Better ask one of the Few about that, I guess ... their lovely old Groundgripper ...
I also seem to recall that the VC10 (aka KTNC Mk1) was actually more economical on fuel on three engines, than four ... but never mind, I'm sure he doesn't want to be confused with the facts, as his mind is already made up ...
Thought for the day ... 'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt ...
stilljustanothernumber
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the night sky
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you people waste your time arguing with plane spotters? It's time pprune access was restricted to those with at least a PPL. Or maybe we should make more use of the BALPA forum!
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
I am also glad you are all so experienced in long haul operations. It also seems great that the same plane had another engine problem just 3 weeks later.
British Airways must be quite proud.
British Airways must be quite proud.
Yes a VC10 may have continued. As pointed out, it was more economical on three. We even had a periscope to stick out through the fuselage in front of the fin to inspect the engines. I recall it was great fun (and rather sobering) to look at the fin and tailplane waggling about during training dutch rolls (that used to reach 90 degrees- we were real men then!).
Sure BA may have 'lost your respect'. That's because you don't understand the problem and how to handle it in a plane like the Jumbo. Avoid them. They will not miss you. You still haven't answered the question- a 747 LAX-LHR on three, or a 777 across the Pacific on one for 3 hours 8 minutes.....which one cowboy? Is the second really acceptable? Ask the FAA why they are creating so much bluster on the first when they authorise the second.
Last edited by Rainboe; 22nd Apr 2006 at 22:35.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh jumbo driver
angry...how can you tell my emotional state without the use of the emoticon?
I feel sorry for the BA pilot in question and those of his defenders.
And if it was BEA and not BOAC flying the trident, I do apologize. They all became part of BA didn't they?
And the VC10 business. you guys just love to bring fuel efficiency and money into this don't you? What I meant and what others might infer was that since the engines are next to each other (2 on either side) that what caused one to quit might just cause the other to have problems.
I recall on dark and stormy night that a VC10 managed to lose all of its generators and that very worthwhile organization, the RAF had to come up and guide it to safety. How could they all quit????
Rainboe, you asked which I would prefer the 747 on 3 or the 777 on one. Of course the 747 on 3.
And if the 747 was 4000 miles from london or so, already over the ocean with no land nearby, sure go ahead and continue. If over Africa with thunderstorms at every airport, london here I come.
But, and perhaps this is the hard thing to get over. Your plane was minutes from a perfectly good airport.
Rainboe, yes the American Airlines DC10 was a heck of a crash. American has taken it on the chin about using a forklift to place the engine on the wing. And they were wrong and some 270 people died from it.
Funny how you guys don't mention that L1011 I mentioned before. All rolls royce engines on that one. simple "o" ring. ooops.
I wonder, if the Queen was on a BA 747 and they had lost the engine in the same way, if a landing at LAX or any of a number of airports in southern california would have been in order?
Yes, you are all "long haul" epxerts. And I hope your planes all fly safely without a glitch for the next 100 years.
And since you all seem to know British Airways so well, would you please post the answers to the following questions:
What caused the engine failure?
What caused the engine failure some 3 weeks later on the same plane?
How much will BA spend to defend their actions in any court proceedings that the FAA starts?
Didn't ''they'' say that the Titanic was unsinkable?
I still think BA should have gone back to LAX. Would you guys have made fun of the pilot in question if he had gone back to LAX?
jon
:-) all smiles!
And don't dare make this a bit about the USA vs. the UK. I have too much respect for the brave "FEW" who saved the world from hitler to ever say anything bad about England.
angry...how can you tell my emotional state without the use of the emoticon?
I feel sorry for the BA pilot in question and those of his defenders.
And if it was BEA and not BOAC flying the trident, I do apologize. They all became part of BA didn't they?
And the VC10 business. you guys just love to bring fuel efficiency and money into this don't you? What I meant and what others might infer was that since the engines are next to each other (2 on either side) that what caused one to quit might just cause the other to have problems.
I recall on dark and stormy night that a VC10 managed to lose all of its generators and that very worthwhile organization, the RAF had to come up and guide it to safety. How could they all quit????
Rainboe, you asked which I would prefer the 747 on 3 or the 777 on one. Of course the 747 on 3.
And if the 747 was 4000 miles from london or so, already over the ocean with no land nearby, sure go ahead and continue. If over Africa with thunderstorms at every airport, london here I come.
But, and perhaps this is the hard thing to get over. Your plane was minutes from a perfectly good airport.
Rainboe, yes the American Airlines DC10 was a heck of a crash. American has taken it on the chin about using a forklift to place the engine on the wing. And they were wrong and some 270 people died from it.
Funny how you guys don't mention that L1011 I mentioned before. All rolls royce engines on that one. simple "o" ring. ooops.
I wonder, if the Queen was on a BA 747 and they had lost the engine in the same way, if a landing at LAX or any of a number of airports in southern california would have been in order?
Yes, you are all "long haul" epxerts. And I hope your planes all fly safely without a glitch for the next 100 years.
And since you all seem to know British Airways so well, would you please post the answers to the following questions:
What caused the engine failure?
What caused the engine failure some 3 weeks later on the same plane?
How much will BA spend to defend their actions in any court proceedings that the FAA starts?
Didn't ''they'' say that the Titanic was unsinkable?
I still think BA should have gone back to LAX. Would you guys have made fun of the pilot in question if he had gone back to LAX?
jon
:-) all smiles!
And don't dare make this a bit about the USA vs. the UK. I have too much respect for the brave "FEW" who saved the world from hitler to ever say anything bad about England.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case anyone missed this :
BA appeals US FAA fine for operating 747 in 'unworthy state' after engine shutdown
British Airways (BA) has appealed a US Federal Aviation Administration claim that the carrier operated an aircraft “in an unairworthy condition” when it allowed a captain to continue a Boeing 747-400 flight from Los Angeles to London Heathrow after one of its four engines was shut down shortly after takeoff.
The two sides are scheduled to meet on May 16 in Washington, DC, when a US Department of Transportation (DoT) arbitration judge will hear the UK carrier’s defence against a January ruling that fines the airline $25,000 for the infraction.
BA says the airline believes it acted within US laws when it decided to allow a 19 February 2005 flight to continue its journey to London after Los Angeles air traffic control observed flames from the aircraft’s number two engine during take-off. The aircraft’s captain shutdown the engine and proceeded with the flight on three engines until declaring a fuel emergency and diverting to Manchester airport on the UK's northwest coast.
“British Airways operated the…aircraft with only three engines, bypassing numerous suitable alternate airfields in the USA and Canada before proceeding across the North Atlantic ocean,” says the FAA in its ruling.
“By reason of the above, British Airways operated an aircraft in the United States in an unairworthy condition,” the regulator adds.
Should the DoT judge rule against BA, the airline can then appeal the decision directly to FAA administrator Marion Blakey. A further appeal can then be made to US Court of Appeals.
==========
perhaps we should wait for May 16 to come and go before we continue this thread?
jon
BA appeals US FAA fine for operating 747 in 'unworthy state' after engine shutdown
British Airways (BA) has appealed a US Federal Aviation Administration claim that the carrier operated an aircraft “in an unairworthy condition” when it allowed a captain to continue a Boeing 747-400 flight from Los Angeles to London Heathrow after one of its four engines was shut down shortly after takeoff.
The two sides are scheduled to meet on May 16 in Washington, DC, when a US Department of Transportation (DoT) arbitration judge will hear the UK carrier’s defence against a January ruling that fines the airline $25,000 for the infraction.
BA says the airline believes it acted within US laws when it decided to allow a 19 February 2005 flight to continue its journey to London after Los Angeles air traffic control observed flames from the aircraft’s number two engine during take-off. The aircraft’s captain shutdown the engine and proceeded with the flight on three engines until declaring a fuel emergency and diverting to Manchester airport on the UK's northwest coast.
“British Airways operated the…aircraft with only three engines, bypassing numerous suitable alternate airfields in the USA and Canada before proceeding across the North Atlantic ocean,” says the FAA in its ruling.
“By reason of the above, British Airways operated an aircraft in the United States in an unairworthy condition,” the regulator adds.
Should the DoT judge rule against BA, the airline can then appeal the decision directly to FAA administrator Marion Blakey. A further appeal can then be made to US Court of Appeals.
==========
perhaps we should wait for May 16 to come and go before we continue this thread?
jon
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by jondc9
Just to make sure that I have not lost my mind, I've checked with 5 other airline transport pilots that I know, combined aviation experience about 120 YEARS. They all are persuaded that the decision to continue was based on MONEY! Yes, the almighty Pound Sterling.
But could you please do me this indulgence? Please can you tell us which airliner types those airline transport pilots fly?
Originally Posted by jondc9
In case anyone missed this :
BA appeals US FAA fine for operating 747 in 'unworthy state' after engine shutdown
...
perhaps we should wait for May 16 to come and go before we continue this thread?
BA appeals US FAA fine for operating 747 in 'unworthy state' after engine shutdown
...
perhaps we should wait for May 16 to come and go before we continue this thread?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jondc9
Off topic, but not a precedent:
When you talk about the few, please don't ever ever think it was all down to England.
Losses of the few were:
RAF and other commonwealth - 339
Fleet Air Arm - 9
Ozzies - 14
Kiwis - 11
Canucks - 20
Springboks - 9
Americans - 1
Poles - 29
Czechs - 8
Belgians - 6
The first 348 are not necessarily all English, trust me.
Off topic, but not a precedent:
And don't dare make this a bit about the USA vs. the UK. I have too much respect for the brave "FEW" who saved the world from hitler to ever say anything bad about England.
Losses of the few were:
RAF and other commonwealth - 339
Fleet Air Arm - 9
Ozzies - 14
Kiwis - 11
Canucks - 20
Springboks - 9
Americans - 1
Poles - 29
Czechs - 8
Belgians - 6
The first 348 are not necessarily all English, trust me.