BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article

[jondc9]

dear pprune:

thank you for pointing that out. the flavor of the thread was starting to get a little USA vs. UK. I just wanted to make sure that those of the UK were not thinking the battle was US vs UK...just a difference of opinions.

My respect for all of these brave pilots who held the line in the sky over GB.


To Globaliser. All of the people I mention have been or are currently captains for major airlines in the US. While our 4 engine planes are now gone, their views as pilots are still valid. Each one of these pilots has at least 12thousand flying hours. (except the one I mentioned who felt that going on was just fine...she has 1200 hours, but a degree from stanford).

One pilot was the lead flight engineer instructor on the 747 (not 400 of course).

Making safety judgements does not depend on the number of engines.

Also, the article is quite clear that the FAA believes BA was operating an unairworthy aircraft over US airspace. It is interesting to note that the plane 's crew later declared a fuel emergency.

If the plane was airworthy, it could have taken off again from MAN, right?

Who will be the final judge on this thread? May 16 shall start the judging.

jon

[Danny]

jondc9, I feel I have to jump into the discussion at this stage because you have repeatedly been insinuating that your experience and knowledge of aviation somehow confers upon you the right to pontificate to those of us who actually have more experience than you on the B744. Now, I don't claim to have the same amount of experience on the type as someone like Rainboe or Hand Solo as I have only just completed my first year on the type, but I do have some experience of it, the systems, the rules and the kind of decisions that can be made by the crew in different abnormal scenarios. Also, I am not afraid of making my point anonymously so at least if I can vouch for some of the posters on this thread, I do know that they speak from experience and not solely theory as some on here do.

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.

Sadly, you once again show your status as a pontificator (as you admitted yourself that you sometimes offer your services as an expert commentator for live news feeds on aviation matters) and one who doesn't understand the old adage that 78.325% of all statistics are made up on the spot! If you'd actually read the original thread, there were some posts by an actual, real, live passenger on that flight right here on PPRuNe! The passenger actually poo pooed the press quotes about the panic and screaming of passengers on the flight and then went on to tell us all here that he was very happy that the crew decided to continue and that he would much prefer to continue towards his destination if the crew believed it was safe to do so as it would be so much more disruptive if they'd returned to LAX.

So, I'll give you statistic that isn't made up on the spot which once again shows us that your stats mean nothing and that your pontifications with no real substance behind them except that you are a pilot and have flown the QuadraPuff at some stage in your varied career... namely, that 100% of the passengers on the BA LAX-LHR flight under discussion that offered an opinion to those if us debating it here on PPRuNe actually preferred to continue on 3 engines towards their destination providing it was safe.

Sadly, your tone has changed over the weeks that I've been following this thread and now you actually try to offer us your great wisdom in all things flying but with much sarcasm and denigration. Well, from this B744 pilot who is not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity I'm afraid that your views and the attempts to try and persuade us that just because you think the crew did the wrong thing we should pay any more attention to you only proves that there are still a lot of people posting on here who have NO EXPERIENCE of the B744 or long haul ops who are incapable of just telling us how clever they are. You've made your point and I can respect that but to continually come on here and pontificate on this issue with no experience of actually having operated the aircraft or the kind of flying and routes being discussed just irritates those of who have done so and still do operate it.

OK, so you think they shouldn't have continued. Fine. Please stop trying to convince the rest of us that we should change our opinions. Many of us who do operate the B744 may not agree with their decision to continue but not a single one of us believes for a moment that they broke any rules. Every one of us would weigh up the options and then make a decision what to do. The various options have been discussed ad nauseam on here and every one of them had some validity, including the one to continue.

So, place your bets with your favourite bookie on who will eventually win the case, FAA or BA. My money is that it will run through at least two appeals and BA will come out on top. Just because some backroom FAA FIDO PPL examiner decided to make an anonymous statement to the media after this event, obviously someone just like jondc9 and the other 'experts' with no actual experience of the B744 or long range ops, probably no airline experience even, the FAA has to be seen making a stand on this. Well, if the many American pilots who post regularly on here don't have much regard for the FAA why do you think that the rest of us do after this petty fiasco and their stance on the issue.

As for the other debate on 'redundancy', yesterday, just after pushback, one of our 4 engine driven generators wouldn't come on line. We carried out the QRH and then referred to the MEL just to double check as we were still on the ground but 'officially' under our own power and decided to fly all the way from Las Vegas to London with only three generators. No doubt we have bruised the sensitivities of some 'experts' on here because if we'd eventually lost all 4 generators we'd have been putting everyones lives at risk. The B744 doesn't have a RAT or an APU that can be started in the air, unlike some ETOPS twins. Yes, commercial considerations were a part of the decision making process of whether to continue or go back to stand, go out of hours, put 450 pax up in hotels, wait for a replacement part or a fix. Three of us on the flight deck weighed up all the points, checked the manuals, spoke with an engineer and decided to continue. If any one of us wasn't happy then we wouldn't have gone, just like the crew of the BA flight.

So, please, make your point about whether you would have continued or not or whether you think the FAA are right or wrong and, based upon your experience of the B744 and long haul ops, those of us who do fly the type will form our own opinions of your points. Just don't try to convince us when we have already decided that your repeated efforts are little more than 'expertise' based on the fact that you have flown the 146 or that you have some airline experience on other types.

[jondc9]

I will make it clear:


I would have returned to LAX.

I mentioned the BAE146 as a plane that has 4 engines that I have personally flown on 3 engines (see post on 3 engine ferry). This was to indicate operationaly knowledge of 4 engine aircraft.

I have never flown a 747 of any type. Nor have I indicated that I have.

AS to your judgement of losing a generator and going on to KLAS, you were within your rights under your MEL I am sure.

I would have gone back to the gate and gotten it fixed.


You must be quite afraid to have your procedures and knowledge challenged by someone.

You all seem to be so defensive about this operation. It makes one wonder if you are just worried about losing this one in the FAA battle ahead.


I have done mainly short haul stuff. Each of my hours in the air was followed by a landing. Perhaps after ten of your hours in the air you got one landing...does this make me a bigger expert on landings than you?


I have already indicated that under your regulations and rules you may have legally proceeded to England. I do think that the FAA has a point though and it will be up to the process to decide the outcome. Perhaps, as I mentioned, a new regulation will come up after this incident.

Also, if you feel that someone with about 12,000 hours, a captain for a major airline in the USA on another boeing aircraft does not have the right to offer his opinion, say so. my ticket includes cfiimeiatp.

Since your probably never flew the Vulcan bomber (neither did I) would you think it improper to weigh in on a crash of the Vulcan in a thunderstorm on one of its earliest flights? I think any aviator could weigh in just fine thank you.


I am happy to pontificate. My background allows me to. I imagine yours would too, but you don't.

A forum is just that. A place to speak.


Again, so you are not confused.

I think the BA 747 in question should have returned to LAX.

I think the judgement of the pilot was wrong.

While 4 engine planes have certain regulatory rights, good judgment has precluded additional regulations. Certainly if the FAA loses this one, I will look for a new regulation to be created. I may proffer it myself.


Being a 747 pilot for BA does not make you correct. NOT being a 747 pilot doesn't make me incorrect.


Still waiting for those answers to the questions I posted earlier...especially the one where the Queen of England is aboard a 747 in the same situation. (our own president cancelled a helicopter flight due to radio problems...in a pinch they could have used a cellphone I suppose)


And tell me, is it your normal operating procedure to count on declaring a low fuel emergency at the end of a flight that has started so badly?


pontificatingly yours,

jon

[electricjetjock]

Pontificating

Jondc9

I think it is time you got off your soap box and had a lie down in a darkened room.

Fine IF you had been the commander (and that would be a big IF) you would have landed at LAX, (how you would have done it though is not discussed and NO I do NOT want you to discuss it), the experts who fly it, mostly say they would have done what the crew did, so get over it.

Your "availability" for being an expert commentator says it all!!! You can be a jack of all trades and master of none as the sayin goes.

In one of your previous posts, on another thread, did you state that you had flown over 100 types?

[BusyB]

I've resisted the temptation until now but have finally had to comment.
I've been a commercial pilot since 1974, 4yrs Classic 13yrs 747-400 amongst shorthaul & mediumhaul. Having worked for BA for 15yrs I am confident to say that if the crew decided to continue with the info available it was the correct decision.

Monday morning quarterbacks really p**s me off!!!

[Baywatcher]

Well said BusyB, I concurr with similar qualifications, but not BA!

[AIMS by IBM]

We have had BA management working for us as DFO; safety officer etc....actually the whole management is from the UK and the only thing they have achieved is to drive the whole operations into plain illegalty.


The nature of this is only comming to the surface by bits and pieces since there is so much confidentiality in the reports.


I hope the FAA gives BA the full load.

To quote Gen Swarzkoff:" I do not know why the Brits lose so many Tornado´s there is no reason to go low level over the desert we are master of the sky anyway"

I truey think the UK CAA has far too many ex military in their ranks and that in this case, they lost commom sense.

I have said it before on this tread; there is a differance between civil and military operations and believe me I am not impressed by some Brit that claims that BA has any credibility...those days are long gone.

[Baywatcher]

AIMS

Who cares about BA management as this really isn't the point.Just because you have taken on a "baddie" doesn't mean they are all tarred with the same brush.

Any long haul 747 pilot knows that if you lose an engine you can well continue according to the Flight manual / ops manual as it isn't an emergency! You make a decision at the time using certain perameters and decide to go on / or on route divert.

[carbonfibre]

arrrghhhh

To quote Gen Swarzkoff:" I do not know why the Brits lose so many Tornado´s there is no reason to go low level over the desert we are master of the sky anyway"

Thats a low statement considering he was running the show!!! Besides anybody can launch an attack from miles away.

Its already been said, the crew made a decision and went with that all factors considered, commercial will always take a part in any decision making process, but maybe thats why a lot of US airlines went to bankruptcy protection.

Already said 2 engines with 3 hrs divert, no commercial decision there!!!!!!!!
System redundency down to 50% not 75% maybe that should be challenged by the FAA also!! or the airlines still to powerful there too.

We should accept the fact a decision was made , we might not like it but no regulations were broken, how they can win a case on that i dont know.

[Liam Gallagher]

Originally Posted by jondc9

I will make it clear:
I have never flown a 747 of any type. Nor have I indicated that I have.
AS to your judgement of losing a generator and going on to KLAS, you were within your rights under your MEL I am sure.

I would have gone back to the gate and gotten it fixed.
jon

and then resigned the next day because it looked better on my CV than being fired.....because....

Eng don't have a spare IDG readily available and their initial best estimate is 6hours to locate, change and test the replacement IDG. Myself and the other pilots then leave the aircraft because we are out of hours. The other pilots, whilst supportive, let it be know they are happy to dispatch; I ignore them as I have 4 bars and they don't. Upon leaving the aircaft I notice the other pilots are on their mobile phones and involved in animated discussions. I worry not and smile politely to the traffic guy who has 381 people after his blood because they are not going to Vegas that night, thereby missing connections, meetings, births, deaths and weddings. Waking up the next morning to read the papers slagging off my airline because 381 people spent the night in the terminal because the 6 hour delay rolled gently into a 14 hour delay and a further 381 in Vegas have had their travel plans disrupted. Check my ansaphone, message cordially inviting me to explain to the Chief Pilot why I did not dispatch iaw the MEL and how I was unable to accept that Boeing can design, build and operate an aircraft for 35 years on studied, reasoned and govt sanctioned principles of redunancy and BA (and numerous other carriers) had operated said aircraft on those tested principles for the same; yet I somehow knew better. I explained to the now Chief Pilot that I only accept aircraft that are faultless and he suggested I work for someone else and wished me every success and said he looks forward to hearing which airline flies such aircraft......because as we all know there aint one!!

[sailing]

In jondc9's ideal world the MEL contains everything on the aircraft. If the light in the toilet doesn't work, you don't fly. Simple really, fewer awkward decisions for the skipper to make!

[Danny]

AS to your judgement of losing a generator and going on to KLAS, you were within your rights under your MEL I am sure.

I would have gone back to the gate and gotten it fixed.

Aha, you have finally confirmed to me and no doubt the great majority of us on here who are airline pilots that you do not have any real experience of airline operations. So, from now on, we can treat your opinions as just more of the same old drivel. We know you would not have continued on the BA flight and if you were with my airline you would have returned to stand with a single generator inop when downroute, returning to home base in a B744.

Now, kindly leave the discussion so that something new and that makes sense to us can be debated. Opinions, once made are fine. Repeatedly soapboxing on here with flawed opinions based on limited experience soon leave you with no credibility and degrade the thread as more and more of us feel the need to put you in your place which is as a voice over on CNN as they play endless repeat loops of some light aircraft with it's gear partially extended or some other drama on a quiet news day.

One thing is plainly obvious to us on here... you will never be in the position to make the decision whether to return to LAX whilst piloting a B744 if you shut down an engine or just lose one of four generators. 'Nuff said.

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by jondc9

To Globaliser. All of the people I mention have been or are currently captains for major airlines in the US. While our 4 engine planes are now gone, their views as pilots are still valid. Each one of these pilots has at least 12thousand flying hours. (except the one I mentioned who felt that going on was just fine...she has 1200 hours, but a degree from stanford).

One pilot was the lead flight engineer instructor on the 747 (not 400 of course).

Thank you.

As before, I will revert to listening to the views of those who operate or who have operated the 747-400, wherever they may be in the world.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by jondc9

I will make it clear:
I would have returned to LAX.
I mentioned the BAE146 as a plane that has 4 engines that I have personally flown on 3 engines (see post on 3 engine ferry). This was to indicate operationaly knowledge of 4 engine aircraft.
I have never flown a 747 of any type. Nor have I indicated that I have.
AS to your judgement of losing a generator and going on to KLAS, you were within your rights under your MEL I am sure.
I would have gone back to the gate and gotten it fixed.
You must be quite afraid to have your procedures and knowledge challenged by someone.
You all seem to be so defensive about this operation. It makes one wonder if you are just worried about losing this one in the FAA battle ahead.
I have done mainly short haul stuff. Each of my hours in the air was followed by a landing. Perhaps after ten of your hours in the air you got one landing...does this make me a bigger expert on landings than you?
I have already indicated that under your regulations and rules you may have legally proceeded to England. I do think that the FAA has a point though and it will be up to the process to decide the outcome. Perhaps, as I mentioned, a new regulation will come up after this incident.
Also, if you feel that someone with about 12,000 hours, a captain for a major airline in the USA on another boeing aircraft does not have the right to offer his opinion, say so. my ticket includes cfiimeiatp.
Since your probably never flew the Vulcan bomber (neither did I) would you think it improper to weigh in on a crash of the Vulcan in a thunderstorm on one of its earliest flights? I think any aviator could weigh in just fine thank you.
I am happy to pontificate. My background allows me to. I imagine yours would too, but you don't.
A forum is just that. A place to speak.
Again, so you are not confused.
I think the BA 747 in question should have returned to LAX.
I think the judgement of the pilot was wrong.
While 4 engine planes have certain regulatory rights, good judgment has precluded additional regulations. Certainly if the FAA loses this one, I will look for a new regulation to be created. I may proffer it myself.
Being a 747 pilot for BA does not make you correct. NOT being a 747 pilot doesn't make me incorrect.
Still waiting for those answers to the questions I posted earlier...especially the one where the Queen of England is aboard a 747 in the same situation. (our own president cancelled a helicopter flight due to radio problems...in a pinch they could have used a cellphone I suppose)
And tell me, is it your normal operating procedure to count on declaring a low fuel emergency at the end of a flight that has started so badly?
pontificatingly yours,
jon

Just to be clear, the FAA are not fining BA over 121.565 (Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting), the flight was operating under Part 129 whilst in the US airspace.
The are not challenging the crews decision under FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation), they allege BA violated 91.7(a) by operating an unairworthy aircraft.
For those not familiar with the FARs,

Sec. 91.7
Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

Please note, the FAA does not have a say if the aircraft was airworthy or not at the time, the airworthiness of the aircraft is determined by the state of registration, being the UK CAA. The FAA does not have a say, as the UK CAA have said the aircraft was airworthy.
To see public comments from the UK CAA on issue see this flight international article : http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/11/Navigation/195/205869/British+Airways+appeals+FAA+fine+over+2005+Boeing+747+engine +shutdown+'safety.html
To see the actual papers filed for this matter please see : http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...rchType=docket
The whole flight was legal in terms of ICAO Annex 6 International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes, Chapter 8 and Annex 8 Airworthiness of Aircraft.

[jondc9]

Why would I get off my soapbox when this argument is just getting good?


To the MEL watchers. My MELS do cover things like lights in the toilet...maybe your MEL needs more work. ( and the simplicity of the statement which covers this contingency is magnificent)


I flew one kind of plane that requires a special inspection light to be operating to check for an emergency gear down procedure. IT can be MEL'd while operating in daylight...so the day it broke we waited for the sun to come up and off we went.


To mr. generator man. Did Vegas have a spare IDG for you? And there are some pilots (none on this forum I am sure ;-) ) who might have known of the problem prior to pushback and waited for the plane to move under its own power one foot prior to putting the generator on line. Now of course the plane is underway and can continue with the generator offline.

(And your chief pilot would fire you? You must not be working for a fine UNION airline if your chief pilot would and could fire you for doing something that is on the safe side of flying.)

But none of you would do that , would you?


And as to airworthiness. Was the 747 in question airworthy on landing at MAN? Of course not, the engine was out! It needed repairs to return to standard airworthiness, didn't it?

I will take all the flack you guys can generate.


STILL waiting for the answers to questions asked earlier.

and yes, I have flown about 100 different kinds of airplanes, only a few of which required type ratings.

And believe it or not flying long haul 747's only interested me in the glory days of Pan Am. Those days are long gone. There are actually 747 jobs available that pay less than 737's. Take a pay cut to fly a 747? That makes great sense!


The lawyers will have a lot of fun on May 16th. Was the plane air worthy? What was the status of the MX logs? Why did the engine reportedly spew flames from the aft end? May we listen to the recordings between the maintenance people and the aircraft? (if recordings available)


Awaiting your next salvo!

jon

[Stoic]

Why weren't we fined?

In March 1977, on my second trip as a fully qualified 747 classic copilot, the aeroplane suffered a severe No 2 engine failure on the climb out from MIA back to LHR.

Mindful of the fact that we were in the business of safely getting our pax from MIA to LHR as expeditiously as possible, after consulting the Company and his flight crew, the captain elected to divert to JFK for best onward transmission of pax and the most suitable place to repair the a/c. God knows how many "suitable" airfields we passed on the way from MIA to JFK. Nobody (apart from one or two posters on this thread) would seriously suggest that we should have landed at one of them.

And that was 29 years ago when engines were relatively unreliable.

Strange thing, but the FAA didn't fine us!

Stoic

[GGV]

jondc9 you say

I will take all the flack you guys can generate

but how you say that just continues to demonstrate that you are not only opinionated, but also quite badly misinformed (and that is to be charitable). You are welcome to you opinions, but your grasp of a number of issues - not least your contrived response to the #4 generator example - suggest that you would probably argue with your own shadow.

Danny got it right, you have expressed your questionable opinions. Leave it at that. It is clear you will argue. What is not clear if you have the wit to stop and think for long enough to learn.

[jondc9]

stoic

let's put the FAA aside on this one. At least you stayed on this side of the atlantic and got repairs and took care of your passengers. I also see that you didn't have to declare a low fuel emergency.


I think the real question about this whole thing is OPTIONS.

IF you were in a 747 and thousands and thousands of miles from anyplace in the aviation ''first world'' continuing on 3 would be fine with me. (I think that was the spirit and intent of the regs.)


Got that, fine with me!


BUT, on the west coast of the USA I can think of many ''first world'' airports which were much closer than MAN England. Granted BA might have had to pay some extra money to take care of things in the USA instead of England...but then the money is the decision maker isn't it?

In your case, 29 years ago, I can think of a few airports, and I can see why JFK was your choice...but you didn't go another 3000 miles after JFK. Perhaps that is why the FAA didn't do anything.



Anyone remember the regs about takeoff alternates and the differences for the number of engines? But that is another subject.


j

[Danny]

jondc9, this is not about taking flak. This is the Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork and I will decide whether you will be allowed to continue wasting too much space on this forum. So far, you have not added one iota of new evidence that, in your 'opinion', the crew broke any rules. All we have is your 'jack of all trades' opinion which has been noted.

Repeatedly trying to stir up the debate on here with repetitive but uninformed accusations which have so far only served to confirm to those of us who DO operate the B744 that you are yet another of those 'armchair experts' who seem to think that experience sitting in hundred or so ultra-lights or obscure recreational aircraft, the QuadraPuff and a claim in your CV that you have commentated for Chicken Noodle News on aviation matters, does not confer on you the right to ignore my warnings that you are going nowhere with your arguments on here. I repeat, your 'opinion' has been noted and as far as I and the majority of my colleagues who DO fly the B744 for a living are concerned, your opinion is based on nothing more than the fact that you hold a flying licence and an over inflated ego. Repeatedly making the same point when the rest of us have moved on, particularly because your 'point' lacks credibility, means that I have decided you need to introduce something new to your argument because I need to save my bandwidth.

Yours sincerely,

Generator Man.

[alf5071h]

Some background reading for the FAA before the hearing:

ICAO Doc 9859 Safety Management Manual Chap 3
…. State civil aviation administrations are guided by:
a) A clear statement of their vision and mission (regarding safety);
b) A well understood and accepted set of:
1) Operating principles, such as delivering safe and efficient service consistent with public expectations and at reasonable cost; treating clients and employees with respect, etc.; and
2) Corporate values such as competence, openness, fairness, integrity, respect, responsiveness to client needs, etc.;
c) A statement of the Administration’s safety objectives; for example, reduce the probability and consequences of unsafe aviation occurrences, improve understanding throughout the aviation industry and general public of the State’s actual safety performance; and
d) Strategies for fulfilling their objectives; for example, reduction of safety risks to aviation through the identification of those operations that fall below accepted levels, encouraging their return to an acceptable level of safety or, if necessary, rescinding their certification.

but of course, this assumes that the FAA follow ICAO guidelines.
Thus, they could read the introduction to Aviation Safety: Dominant and minority culture obligations.

Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.