BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only reiterate what the general feeling this side of the pond is;your BA pilot was too clever by far and should have got his skinny ass on the ground and damn well checked the condition of his aircraft.This was no precautionary IFSD due low oil half way across the pond.Stoic's attempt to draw parallels with a '77 case are puzzling;I see no similarities between the two whatsoever.
The FAA are naturally upset;firstly,by the Captain's cynical interpretation of the reg and secondly,by the reaction of the CAA who I suppose are hamstringed.I guess you have politics your side of the pond too.
I can understand BA pilots coming on this forum and defending their colleague;loyalty is a good attribute.However,an airline pilot's most solemn duty is the care of his passengers and crew.You never ever let commercial pressure come between you and that tenet.Just what were the passengers thinking when the Captain tried to explain that he was continuing to London after they had just seen no.2 engine disintegrate on takeoff?Their fear is very real and it must be part of the equation.
The FAA are naturally upset;firstly,by the Captain's cynical interpretation of the reg and secondly,by the reaction of the CAA who I suppose are hamstringed.I guess you have politics your side of the pond too.
I can understand BA pilots coming on this forum and defending their colleague;loyalty is a good attribute.However,an airline pilot's most solemn duty is the care of his passengers and crew.You never ever let commercial pressure come between you and that tenet.Just what were the passengers thinking when the Captain tried to explain that he was continuing to London after they had just seen no.2 engine disintegrate on takeoff?Their fear is very real and it must be part of the equation.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
danny
if you are in charge of pprune, take me off if you like. but then it is not a forum, it is a rah rah group for BA. Disagree and lose posting status. Fine.
as for the "my mel" and me being medically grounded, I was refering to the MEL's I used to use when actively flying. do you understand?
And to Vulcan bomber man... the entire point was does it matter what kind of plane it was if the decision to land in a thunderstorm caused it to crash? can any pilot discuss thunderstorm flying? Robert Buck wrote "Weather Flying" while doing research in a B17...would that limit his views because the plane in question was a Vulcan bomber?
By your standards, yes!
So by your standards the only people to comment on this 747 problem isn't a pilot, but a BA 747-400 pilot.
And Rules open to interpretation? Well, let's just put it this way...AL Capone went to jail on income tax evasion charges, not for the other dasterdly works he accomplished. Now some of you won't understand this reference...but maybe if you think about it perhaps careless and reckless might be a hard charge to prove with current regulations, but approaching it from a different angle might still prove its point.
And back to the generator question. Is it possible your airline is encouraging pilots to "carry" lame airplanes? Perhaps the inbound crew just mentioned problems with the generator to the outbound crew and didn't want to write it up. The outbound crew with a wink and a nod waited for the plane to move before MEL'ng it.
Tell me that you have never heard of such a thing happening. Go on. Tell me.
I am still waiting for the answers to the questions posed:
would you have returned to LAX if the Queen was on your 747-400?
what was the final report on what caused the engine problem?
is declaring a low fuel emergency part of BA's normal procedures?
what caused the same plane to have an engine problem some 3 weeks later?
You mentioned more evidence about breaking rules. Answer the question about fuel and declaring a low fuel emergency. Would this pilot have had to declare a low fuel emergency if he had returned to LAX?
Danny, you spoke of my inflated ego. Isn't it time that someone make the case that this pilot made a mistake in judgement? If I am the only one doing it, how is that an indication of inflated ego? It is time however to acknowledge the role money had in the decision making process.
And for shear debating, you take my case and I will take yours...shall we do it that way?
j
if you are in charge of pprune, take me off if you like. but then it is not a forum, it is a rah rah group for BA. Disagree and lose posting status. Fine.
as for the "my mel" and me being medically grounded, I was refering to the MEL's I used to use when actively flying. do you understand?
And to Vulcan bomber man... the entire point was does it matter what kind of plane it was if the decision to land in a thunderstorm caused it to crash? can any pilot discuss thunderstorm flying? Robert Buck wrote "Weather Flying" while doing research in a B17...would that limit his views because the plane in question was a Vulcan bomber?
By your standards, yes!
So by your standards the only people to comment on this 747 problem isn't a pilot, but a BA 747-400 pilot.
And Rules open to interpretation? Well, let's just put it this way...AL Capone went to jail on income tax evasion charges, not for the other dasterdly works he accomplished. Now some of you won't understand this reference...but maybe if you think about it perhaps careless and reckless might be a hard charge to prove with current regulations, but approaching it from a different angle might still prove its point.
And back to the generator question. Is it possible your airline is encouraging pilots to "carry" lame airplanes? Perhaps the inbound crew just mentioned problems with the generator to the outbound crew and didn't want to write it up. The outbound crew with a wink and a nod waited for the plane to move before MEL'ng it.
Tell me that you have never heard of such a thing happening. Go on. Tell me.
I am still waiting for the answers to the questions posed:
would you have returned to LAX if the Queen was on your 747-400?
what was the final report on what caused the engine problem?
is declaring a low fuel emergency part of BA's normal procedures?
what caused the same plane to have an engine problem some 3 weeks later?
You mentioned more evidence about breaking rules. Answer the question about fuel and declaring a low fuel emergency. Would this pilot have had to declare a low fuel emergency if he had returned to LAX?
Danny, you spoke of my inflated ego. Isn't it time that someone make the case that this pilot made a mistake in judgement? If I am the only one doing it, how is that an indication of inflated ego? It is time however to acknowledge the role money had in the decision making process.
And for shear debating, you take my case and I will take yours...shall we do it that way?
j
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
Rananim- it was a surge, nothing more or less, just a surge. Not unusual in big fans. I've had loads, some you can relight, some you cannot. The rules change. Just a surge, meaning that a pressure relief valve inside the compressor did not operate when it should have and the engine hiccupped. It coughs out some sparks and maybe an instantaneous flame along with an EGT rise. Sometimes it corrects itself and carries on happily, other times the EGT keeps rising and it has to be shutdown, but it is no big deal. It did not 'disintegrate'. If you are going to comment here, you must read and understand all the events that happened and not gloss them up for Hollywood.
A shame that yet another thread gets taken over by a transatlantic slanging match. It's out of order and quite unnecessary. Maybe someone mistook criticism of the FAA's role as a swipe at 'Mom and Apple Pie'? As far as the comments about Tornados getting shot down, we are immensely proud of those guys- they were getting shot down because the runway disruption weapon they use means flying low along the runway dropping bomblets all along it. Dangerous in the extreme- not dropping a remote weapon from 15,000', but the RAF was always proud to get up close and personal.
Jondc9-
1- If I was carrying the Queen, exactly the same decision would have been taken by me.
2- It was a surge, nothing more, as far as I know.
3- Obviously not. It was a later fuel interpretation problem- read back about it, nothing to do with the immediate decision to continue
4- We are not aware what the later problem was. Strongly suspect engineering installation- it happens occasionally, like the Eastern Tristar oil problem you brought up.
You simply do not believe the Captain had complete authority on the day- US airlines don't operate like that. Believe we are not swayed by commercial considerations if conflicts with safety. You simply can't accept that, so why don't we stop batting it back and forth?
A shame that yet another thread gets taken over by a transatlantic slanging match. It's out of order and quite unnecessary. Maybe someone mistook criticism of the FAA's role as a swipe at 'Mom and Apple Pie'? As far as the comments about Tornados getting shot down, we are immensely proud of those guys- they were getting shot down because the runway disruption weapon they use means flying low along the runway dropping bomblets all along it. Dangerous in the extreme- not dropping a remote weapon from 15,000', but the RAF was always proud to get up close and personal.
Jondc9-
1- If I was carrying the Queen, exactly the same decision would have been taken by me.
2- It was a surge, nothing more, as far as I know.
3- Obviously not. It was a later fuel interpretation problem- read back about it, nothing to do with the immediate decision to continue
4- We are not aware what the later problem was. Strongly suspect engineering installation- it happens occasionally, like the Eastern Tristar oil problem you brought up.
You simply do not believe the Captain had complete authority on the day- US airlines don't operate like that. Believe we are not swayed by commercial considerations if conflicts with safety. You simply can't accept that, so why don't we stop batting it back and forth?
I have no interest in getting involved in the main debate but Rainboe makes a very valid point.
US pilots can't even fa*t without the authority of a despatcher. The concept of a British captain being able to make his own decisions is unheard of in the US of A.
I first came across this phenomena when I was in Transport Command. We used to arrive on USAF bases and were immediately asked for our TDYs. I believe that these were written instructions given to each captain within which it was explained exactly what he could do and what he could not do.
When I explained that me and my crew were loose in HMS Belfast for 18 days on our way around the world and that HM did not require me to carry such instructions. Furthermore, I was expected to know what to do and what not to do without reference to Buckingham Palace every time I wanted to go flying.
Later in life, I spent more than 3 years based at JFK as a DC-10 captain working for a Part 121 operator. I found the FAA re-clearance flight plan system ridiculous beyond words but went along with the charade. However, I did find it extremely strange being in a situation where I could only reclear from 50W to CYQX to KBOS etc etc by discussing the matter with someone in MIA whereas I could do the job myself under Part 135 with just as many passengers on board and with no interference.
The fact is that US pilots are simply not used to being allowed out on their own.
US pilots can't even fa*t without the authority of a despatcher. The concept of a British captain being able to make his own decisions is unheard of in the US of A.
I first came across this phenomena when I was in Transport Command. We used to arrive on USAF bases and were immediately asked for our TDYs. I believe that these were written instructions given to each captain within which it was explained exactly what he could do and what he could not do.
When I explained that me and my crew were loose in HMS Belfast for 18 days on our way around the world and that HM did not require me to carry such instructions. Furthermore, I was expected to know what to do and what not to do without reference to Buckingham Palace every time I wanted to go flying.
Later in life, I spent more than 3 years based at JFK as a DC-10 captain working for a Part 121 operator. I found the FAA re-clearance flight plan system ridiculous beyond words but went along with the charade. However, I did find it extremely strange being in a situation where I could only reclear from 50W to CYQX to KBOS etc etc by discussing the matter with someone in MIA whereas I could do the job myself under Part 135 with just as many passengers on board and with no interference.
The fact is that US pilots are simply not used to being allowed out on their own.
Last edited by JW411; 23rd Apr 2006 at 18:39.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jondc9, you really don't seem to get it, do you? Whether the Queen, the pilots children or Uncle Tom Cobbly were on board is irrelevant in this debate. What you, a pilot with no B744 or long haul heavy jet experience would have done is returned to LAX. Fine. Accepted. What I or any other B744 pilot would have done is irrelevant. Some of us would have returned, others would have gone east and reviewed the situation and maybe diverted to JFK and some others may have continued further towards their destination.
The points being raised here are about the FAA making the decision to fine the airline because of the way they decided to interpret the regulations. So far, no one has been able to show that the regs were broken.
The B744 didn't lose an engine in some catastrophic failure. It suffered a surge at about 100' after take off with an EGT over temp (Max 1185?C) and low fluctuating RPM. ATC reported flames from the engine exhaust. The crew actioned the engine surge checklist but the engine continued to surge above idle and they decided to shut down the engine. They then consulted with their Maintrol and the decision was made to continue to LHR. What happened later is a totally separate issue and was due to being unable to get their planned oceanic level and not part of the initial reason this debate was resurrected.
You seem to be under the impression that I work for BA. Well, I don't, probably because my height to weight ratio didn't fit their HR matrix.
However, if you want to raise the 'generator' problem then at least have the decency to try and comprehend the fact that a B744, a four engined airliner, will have different systems and redundancies than anything you have ever flown. The B744 is able to dispatch with only 3 operative generators. We actually lost one after engine start so didn't even have to consult the MEL but we did anyway. The QRH just tells you to attempt one reset. It doesn't mention anything else. Maybe you had to land at the nearest airfield if you lost a generator on aircraft you have flown but on the B744 it is only a pilot awareness item.
Your lack of long haul, heavy aircraft operations once again shines through when you refer to "carrying a lame aircraft" and a nod and a wink to the inbound crew. Have you any idea of the turnaround time for a B744 on long haul ops? The inbound crew are long gone by the time we get to the aircraft and we rely on the Tech Log and the ground engineer for information on any carried defects. Oh my gawd! I mentioned 'defects'! Believe it or not, we are actually allowed to carry defects and the reason for that, believe it or not, is actually commercial expediency.
So, once again we learn that had you ever completed a B744 type rating and been employed by a B744 operator as a pilot, you would disrupt an operation when it was otherwise safe to continue and the manuals permitted continued operation. You would cost your company hundreds of thousands of dollars to put up your pax in hotels overnight as well as the knock on effects because you decided that operating with only three generators was just too unsafe. You didn't work for one of the US majors in chapter 11 did you?
Says a lot about why you have never done a B744 type rating then doesn't it!
To even raise the issue about the same airframe having another (different) engine problem a few weeks later only serves to show a total lack of understanding, so why raise it?
Your questions are irrelevant. The Queen on board? She doesn't fly with my airline but if she did the crew would still consider all the options and I'm sure Betty would respect their decisions too.
As for 'the final report on what caused the engine problem'... it doesn't matter. The crew carried out the QRH, talked with Maintrol who are able to read all the engine parameters and give any advice as necessary and nowhere was it written that they had to land at the nearest suitable airport because the B744 has so much redundancy with its systems.
On this side of the pond there is no such thing as 'a low fuel emergency'. If you ever had experience of long rage ops over here and you called a 'low fuel emergency' you would be told that unless you declared a mayday nothing would happen. All you need is the magic word 'mayday' and you get full attention and priority. If you need a sterile runway, for whatever reason, call a mayday and you can get it. There may be some extra paperwork later but it is the best way to handle the situation if you are unsure about the amount of useable fuel available.
At the end of the day, the pilot didn't make a mistake in judgement. In your opinion he did but then we all know how knowledgeable you are on B744 systems and long haul ops. The pilot made a decision based on all known factors, including the regulations, the limitations and performance of his a/c, the commercial problems and many other things. His decision to continue was based on his knowledge and experience of safe commercial operations for one of the biggest B744 operators in the world.
Each one of us would have reached a decision based on many factors, some which those with no B744 or long haul experience would not have considered, and whatever decision we reached would have been based on safety and commercial requirements, in that order.
As far as ego is concerned, try reading between the lines. We all know you think the pilot made a bad judgement call because of your 'experience' flying the B744 and your experience of long haul heavy jet ops. Those of us with less experience than you of the B744 keep pointing out why your argument is flawed and you keep coming back on here raising points on such diverse topics such as Al Capone and the Vulcan Bomber to mention a few, in some apparent attempt to persuade us that you are correct in your belief that the pilot made a bad error of judgement in deciding to continue the flight.
I think I'd better stop here or I'll be breaching my own rules of debate by letting this keep on going around in circles. Heck, I'll even let you have the last word but I've no doubt that others will not let it rest. Here's my opinion of your opinion:
Your opinion that the pilot made a bad judgement call is based on ignorance of the facts and appears to be solely based on the fact that you feel the need to voice an opinion because you have had a pilots licence at some time or other.
My opinion, however, is that the pilot did what he believed was best for everyone and that he made his decision based on all the facts that were available at the time. In addition, he did not endanger anyone or break any rules. It was neither the right or the wrong decision.
I base my opinion on the fact that I am current on the B744 and long haul ops and the fact that I have a copy of the ASR and the CMC Engine Exceedance Report. I don't base it on the fact that I have flown some obscure aircraft type that in no way resembles a B744 or that I have an artistic streak that makes me feel as though I am an expert commentator for Chicken Noodle News.
Over to you (if you must!)
The points being raised here are about the FAA making the decision to fine the airline because of the way they decided to interpret the regulations. So far, no one has been able to show that the regs were broken.
The B744 didn't lose an engine in some catastrophic failure. It suffered a surge at about 100' after take off with an EGT over temp (Max 1185?C) and low fluctuating RPM. ATC reported flames from the engine exhaust. The crew actioned the engine surge checklist but the engine continued to surge above idle and they decided to shut down the engine. They then consulted with their Maintrol and the decision was made to continue to LHR. What happened later is a totally separate issue and was due to being unable to get their planned oceanic level and not part of the initial reason this debate was resurrected.
You seem to be under the impression that I work for BA. Well, I don't, probably because my height to weight ratio didn't fit their HR matrix.
However, if you want to raise the 'generator' problem then at least have the decency to try and comprehend the fact that a B744, a four engined airliner, will have different systems and redundancies than anything you have ever flown. The B744 is able to dispatch with only 3 operative generators. We actually lost one after engine start so didn't even have to consult the MEL but we did anyway. The QRH just tells you to attempt one reset. It doesn't mention anything else. Maybe you had to land at the nearest airfield if you lost a generator on aircraft you have flown but on the B744 it is only a pilot awareness item.Your lack of long haul, heavy aircraft operations once again shines through when you refer to "carrying a lame aircraft" and a nod and a wink to the inbound crew. Have you any idea of the turnaround time for a B744 on long haul ops? The inbound crew are long gone by the time we get to the aircraft and we rely on the Tech Log and the ground engineer for information on any carried defects. Oh my gawd! I mentioned 'defects'! Believe it or not, we are actually allowed to carry defects and the reason for that, believe it or not, is actually commercial expediency.
So, once again we learn that had you ever completed a B744 type rating and been employed by a B744 operator as a pilot, you would disrupt an operation when it was otherwise safe to continue and the manuals permitted continued operation. You would cost your company hundreds of thousands of dollars to put up your pax in hotels overnight as well as the knock on effects because you decided that operating with only three generators was just too unsafe. You didn't work for one of the US majors in chapter 11 did you?
Says a lot about why you have never done a B744 type rating then doesn't it!
To even raise the issue about the same airframe having another (different) engine problem a few weeks later only serves to show a total lack of understanding, so why raise it?
Your questions are irrelevant. The Queen on board? She doesn't fly with my airline but if she did the crew would still consider all the options and I'm sure Betty would respect their decisions too.
As for 'the final report on what caused the engine problem'... it doesn't matter. The crew carried out the QRH, talked with Maintrol who are able to read all the engine parameters and give any advice as necessary and nowhere was it written that they had to land at the nearest suitable airport because the B744 has so much redundancy with its systems.
On this side of the pond there is no such thing as 'a low fuel emergency'. If you ever had experience of long rage ops over here and you called a 'low fuel emergency' you would be told that unless you declared a mayday nothing would happen. All you need is the magic word 'mayday' and you get full attention and priority. If you need a sterile runway, for whatever reason, call a mayday and you can get it. There may be some extra paperwork later but it is the best way to handle the situation if you are unsure about the amount of useable fuel available.
At the end of the day, the pilot didn't make a mistake in judgement. In your opinion he did but then we all know how knowledgeable you are on B744 systems and long haul ops. The pilot made a decision based on all known factors, including the regulations, the limitations and performance of his a/c, the commercial problems and many other things. His decision to continue was based on his knowledge and experience of safe commercial operations for one of the biggest B744 operators in the world.
Each one of us would have reached a decision based on many factors, some which those with no B744 or long haul experience would not have considered, and whatever decision we reached would have been based on safety and commercial requirements, in that order.
As far as ego is concerned, try reading between the lines. We all know you think the pilot made a bad judgement call because of your 'experience' flying the B744 and your experience of long haul heavy jet ops. Those of us with less experience than you of the B744 keep pointing out why your argument is flawed and you keep coming back on here raising points on such diverse topics such as Al Capone and the Vulcan Bomber to mention a few, in some apparent attempt to persuade us that you are correct in your belief that the pilot made a bad error of judgement in deciding to continue the flight.
I think I'd better stop here or I'll be breaching my own rules of debate by letting this keep on going around in circles. Heck, I'll even let you have the last word but I've no doubt that others will not let it rest. Here's my opinion of your opinion:
Your opinion that the pilot made a bad judgement call is based on ignorance of the facts and appears to be solely based on the fact that you feel the need to voice an opinion because you have had a pilots licence at some time or other.
My opinion, however, is that the pilot did what he believed was best for everyone and that he made his decision based on all the facts that were available at the time. In addition, he did not endanger anyone or break any rules. It was neither the right or the wrong decision.
I base my opinion on the fact that I am current on the B744 and long haul ops and the fact that I have a copy of the ASR and the CMC Engine Exceedance Report. I don't base it on the fact that I have flown some obscure aircraft type that in no way resembles a B744 or that I have an artistic streak that makes me feel as though I am an expert commentator for Chicken Noodle News.
Over to you (if you must!)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The odds, gentlemen....?
Five will get you ten that BA will not do this same episode once again, if they get the chance.
Was it a good idea?
Depends on your perspective, but for myself, as a long time long haul guy (12 hours+), a tad misplaced.
Was it in conformity with the CAA regulations?
Yes, apparently.
Was it in conformity with BA procedures at the time of the occurance?
Quite likey, it seems.
The FAA?
Barking up the wrong tree.
BA has to follow the CAA (and BA) laid down procedures, and regulations.
So then, FULL STOP.
Apparently the crew concerned did so, now full stop again.
End of discussion.
Was it a good idea?
Depends on your perspective, but for myself, as a long time long haul guy (12 hours+), a tad misplaced.
Was it in conformity with the CAA regulations?
Yes, apparently.
Was it in conformity with BA procedures at the time of the occurance?
Quite likey, it seems.
The FAA?
Barking up the wrong tree.
BA has to follow the CAA (and BA) laid down procedures, and regulations.
So then, FULL STOP.
Apparently the crew concerned did so, now full stop again.
End of discussion.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite, 411A. Off-thread, but on the topic of our currently-silent jondc9. Does anyone else on here see an uncanny likeness between him and one of the characters described in 'Fate is the Hunter'?
The author described a pilot who didn't quite ring true with his comments or actions and was ultimately exposed as being a fraud.
We've had one or two of those on PPRuNe before over the years!
As I have an LAX next week, 411A, I'll give you a thought if we have a surge on departure and decide to implement the in-flight continuation policy!
The author described a pilot who didn't quite ring true with his comments or actions and was ultimately exposed as being a fraud.
We've had one or two of those on PPRuNe before over the years!
As I have an LAX next week, 411A, I'll give you a thought if we have a surge on departure and decide to implement the in-flight continuation policy!
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
Here we go again!
Five will get you ten that BA will not do this same episode once again, if they get the chance.Oh yes they will, because it is the right procedure
Was it a good idea? Yes
Depends on your perspective, but for myself, as a long time long haul guy (12 hours+), a tad misplaced. Your experience was Tristar (3 eng- not such a good idea) and 707 (not in the same league as a modern 747-400)
Was it in conformity with BA procedures at the time of the occurance? Yes
Quite likey, it seems. Yes, and they are STILL BA Procedures
The FAA? Who cares? They are more interested in getting the 747 to conform to 777 restrictions
Barking up the wrong tree. Who brought trees into this?
BA has to follow the CAA (and BA) laid down procedures, and regulations.
So then, FULL STOP.No- carry on as before, no change. The FAA does not rule aviation.
Five will get you ten that BA will not do this same episode once again, if they get the chance.Oh yes they will, because it is the right procedure
Was it a good idea? Yes
Depends on your perspective, but for myself, as a long time long haul guy (12 hours+), a tad misplaced. Your experience was Tristar (3 eng- not such a good idea) and 707 (not in the same league as a modern 747-400)
Was it in conformity with BA procedures at the time of the occurance? Yes
Quite likey, it seems. Yes, and they are STILL BA Procedures
The FAA? Who cares? They are more interested in getting the 747 to conform to 777 restrictions
Barking up the wrong tree. Who brought trees into this?
BA has to follow the CAA (and BA) laid down procedures, and regulations.
So then, FULL STOP.No- carry on as before, no change. The FAA does not rule aviation.
411a
Sorry you are wrong on the odds. More like 5 will get you several thousand BA will not do this again. Simply not worth the aggro and the press. Next time it will be a pit stop at JFK. They might do it on another (read no FAA involved) route but not over the land of the free. I have no problem what so ever with the crews call but no way will BA get themselves into this cesspool again.
20driver
PS - I'll bet all those BA troopers who got to see scenic whateverstan last week wish they'd had an engine surge versus a bogus warning light.
PPS - Bet the next BA QRH says no diversion to MAN unless one wing leaves the vicinity.
Sorry you are wrong on the odds. More like 5 will get you several thousand BA will not do this again. Simply not worth the aggro and the press. Next time it will be a pit stop at JFK. They might do it on another (read no FAA involved) route but not over the land of the free. I have no problem what so ever with the crews call but no way will BA get themselves into this cesspool again.
20driver
PS - I'll bet all those BA troopers who got to see scenic whateverstan last week wish they'd had an engine surge versus a bogus warning light.
PPS - Bet the next BA QRH says no diversion to MAN unless one wing leaves the vicinity.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jondc9
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?
From memory the crew had almost real time diagnostics from BA operations on the status of the aircraft systems, the results of the diagnostics (which was a healthy aircraft) would have influenced the commanders decision.
I am not aware if the crew felt they could not restart the engine again later in flight if required. Unlike Danny I don’t have the full details of the problem with the powerplant. Some powerplant problems where crews decide to do a precautionary shutdown can be returned to service without replacement of the powerplant, an engineering inspection is all that was required.
From memory the 744 FCOM has charts for flights up to 14 hrs OEI.
Flight on 3 engines is not unairworthy, the 747 is actually FAA approved for takeoff and flight on 3 engines, and flight with 5 engines (one engine bolted to the wing and blanked off if it has the required internal structure on the wing). BA recently flew a 744 empty from SIN-DXB-LHR on three engines, two long flights, and two takeoffs on three engines.
At no time did the BA crew deviate from any FAA (and UK CAA) approved flight manual limitations, or FCOM procedures, or company SOPs.
Please note, under FAR 91.7, which BA are being fined under, only the PIC has the say if the aircraft is airworthy.
Originally Posted by Mike Jenvey
The FAA’s rules state: “If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines [fails or is shut down] the pilot in command may proceed to an airport he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport.”
Originally Posted by alf5071h
Unless specifically authorized everything else is forbidden.
Numerous US flagged aircraft have made either north pacific or atlantic crossings OEI, the perception now is that since most US carriers are not operating quads, the operation on quads long haul with OEI provides a unfair advantage to foreign carriers.
In this case the BA flight is dammed if they do, and dammed if they don’t. If they wanted to return to LAX, they would have to dump fuel. To dump fuel you need to be in a state of urgency or distress. To land overweight they would need to be in a state of urgency or distress. An engine shutdown on the 744 does not render the aircraft into a state of urgency or distress, no emergency exists.
I am of the view that BA could not have landed the aircraft in a reasonable time whilst in US airspace without breaking another rule.
I am very puzzled why in the FAA they mention Canadian airports. The Canadians have not said any rules was broken in their airspace, the FAA seems like they are trying to dictate how non-US carriers not only carry out their operations in US airspace, but airspace of other ICAO contracting states.
Zeke,
"Flight on 3 engines is not unairworthy, the 747 is actually FAA approved for takeoff and flight on 3 engines, "
Are we not being a little bit cute here? I presume you are referring to a three engine ferry. The fare paying public would not be on board.
In fact, at my company, by contract, the line pilot is not required to do three engine ferries. Those are done by management pilots.
"Flight on 3 engines is not unairworthy, the 747 is actually FAA approved for takeoff and flight on 3 engines, "
Are we not being a little bit cute here? I presume you are referring to a three engine ferry. The fare paying public would not be on board.
In fact, at my company, by contract, the line pilot is not required to do three engine ferries. Those are done by management pilots.
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
It's not because you can do it that you use the possibility.
It's clear that there are other perspectives then only the technical ones, but those too are part of the reality and perception.
The benefit of a statement like: "we could do it but we didn't" has a bigger impact then what happens now.
A bit of the line of this tread but in the same context of public perception would be: " We went into IRAK to go and get back the WMD that we sold to him" it would make the issue more publicaly acceptable.
Sorry to make this step on the side, no political intention, just a note on how things may be percieved.
It's clear that there are other perspectives then only the technical ones, but those too are part of the reality and perception.
The benefit of a statement like: "we could do it but we didn't" has a bigger impact then what happens now.
A bit of the line of this tread but in the same context of public perception would be: " We went into IRAK to go and get back the WMD that we sold to him" it would make the issue more publicaly acceptable.
Sorry to make this step on the side, no political intention, just a note on how things may be percieved.
Last edited by AIMS by IBM; 24th Apr 2006 at 14:42.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London, New York, Paris, Munich
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few points.
1) To suggest the loss of engine at LAX and the MAYDAY at MAN due fuel are unrelated is incorrect. Had they not lost the engine, they would have made LHR.
2) When talking about 747-400 operational safety, I agree that pilots with little experience of 747-400 operations should defer to those that have this experience. Should those 747-400 pilots who are (sometimes rudely) demanding this of others, keep quiet about the operational safety of Pacific ETOPS? - as to my knowledge, BA or any other UK airline doesn't fly that way
As an aside, I have no doubt that if BA was able to get permission to operate LAX-SYD, and they wanted to do it in a 777, the CAA would rubber stamp their application without much ado After all, politics works on both sides of the pond.
3) Looks like the FAA are exercising jurisdiction over what happens in their airspace after all.
4) It's not only about the engines, it's about the fuel. In my opinion, mainly about the fuel. How much exactly did they have departing LAX?
5) All this bluster about the FARS about continuing on three is shown to be missing the point. It's about operating an aircraft in an unairworthy condition.
How does the FAA define unairworthy?
http://tinyurl.com/8a4l3 may help,
It is noted that this mentions "U.S. TYPE CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT", but the FAA are going to be using this as a guide to what they allow in their airspace. Part b makes reference to 'fluid leaks', the conclusion I draw is that there has to be sufficient "fluid" for the plane to be airworthy. Was there sufficient fuel on board to make LHR while it was in US airspace? When did they decide to head for MAN? Was this in US airspace?
Just ideas to be thrown out, just trying to work out how the FAA are thinking, I could easily be wrong, but it's far more interesting than the hamster wheel this thread has become.
As for this thread, I am most impressed by what skiesfull has to say, I tell you there was a lot of trash to wade through to find it.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=114
It's the fuel management, not the engine management, stupid.
Perhaps all our nonsense discussion on this site is moot. A reasonably recent court decision says the FAA can make it up as they go along, see Garvey, FAA vs. NTSB and Richard Lee Merrill. Perhaps some lawyer can comment on this case? Personally, I'd like to see the FAA get a bloody nose re the Merrill case. If BA can take this to the highest courts and get Merrill overturned it will be a good thing. That's not the same as saying BA deserve to win.
Posted in the spirit of good debate
1) To suggest the loss of engine at LAX and the MAYDAY at MAN due fuel are unrelated is incorrect. Had they not lost the engine, they would have made LHR.
2) When talking about 747-400 operational safety, I agree that pilots with little experience of 747-400 operations should defer to those that have this experience. Should those 747-400 pilots who are (sometimes rudely) demanding this of others, keep quiet about the operational safety of Pacific ETOPS? - as to my knowledge, BA or any other UK airline doesn't fly that way
As an aside, I have no doubt that if BA was able to get permission to operate LAX-SYD, and they wanted to do it in a 777, the CAA would rubber stamp their application without much ado
After all, politics works on both sides of the pond.3) Looks like the FAA are exercising jurisdiction over what happens in their airspace after all.
4) It's not only about the engines, it's about the fuel. In my opinion, mainly about the fuel. How much exactly did they have departing LAX?
5) All this bluster about the FARS about continuing on three is shown to be missing the point. It's about operating an aircraft in an unairworthy condition.
How does the FAA define unairworthy?
http://tinyurl.com/8a4l3 may help,
9. INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM “AIRWORTHY” FOR U.S. TYPE-CERTIFICATED
AIRCRAFT. The term “airworthy” is not defined in Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.), or in
14 CFR; however, a clear understanding of its meaning is essential for use in the agency’s airworthiness
certification program. Below is a summary of the conditions necessary for the issuance of an
airworthiness certificate. A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that must
be met for an aircraft to be considered “airworthy.” 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c) and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b),
and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an airworthiness certificate:
a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is considered attained when the
aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications,
and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type certificate (STC) and
field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.
b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the
aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing,
fluid leaks, and tire wear.
NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would be
considered unairworthy. Aircraft that have not been issued a TC must meet the
requirements of paragraph 9b above.
AIRCRAFT. The term “airworthy” is not defined in Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.), or in
14 CFR; however, a clear understanding of its meaning is essential for use in the agency’s airworthiness
certification program. Below is a summary of the conditions necessary for the issuance of an
airworthiness certificate. A review of case law relating to airworthiness reveals two conditions that must
be met for an aircraft to be considered “airworthy.” 49 U.S.C. § 44704(c) and 14 CFR § 21.183(a), (b),
and (c) state that the two conditions necessary for issuance of an airworthiness certificate:
a. The aircraft must conform to its TC. Conformity to type design is considered attained when the
aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications,
and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type certificate (STC) and
field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.
b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the
aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing,
fluid leaks, and tire wear.
NOTE: If one or both of these conditions are not met, the aircraft would be
considered unairworthy. Aircraft that have not been issued a TC must meet the
requirements of paragraph 9b above.
Just ideas to be thrown out, just trying to work out how the FAA are thinking, I could easily be wrong, but it's far more interesting than the hamster wheel this thread has become.
As for this thread, I am most impressed by what skiesfull has to say, I tell you there was a lot of trash to wade through to find it.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=114
It's the fuel management, not the engine management, stupid.
Perhaps all our nonsense discussion on this site is moot. A reasonably recent court decision says the FAA can make it up as they go along, see Garvey, FAA vs. NTSB and Richard Lee Merrill. Perhaps some lawyer can comment on this case? Personally, I'd like to see the FAA get a bloody nose re the Merrill case. If BA can take this to the highest courts and get Merrill overturned it will be a good thing. That's not the same as saying BA deserve to win.
Posted in the spirit of good debate
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
I stand by you but I was not very sure and still am not.
You leave with a minimum amount of fuel as per dispatch release regulations.
This contains a certain amount of contingency that in my opinion is not intended also to be used to cover the one engine out case.
Now once airborne I am not too sure if this still stands.
For me it may have been a factor of uncertenty that may balance the scale in favour of an early landing.
Not ASAP but in accordance of proper time management , burn off etc...
ETOPS fuel planning covers this....so maybe we need some regs that do the same for the non twins in civil ops.
You leave with a minimum amount of fuel as per dispatch release regulations.
This contains a certain amount of contingency that in my opinion is not intended also to be used to cover the one engine out case.
Now once airborne I am not too sure if this still stands.
For me it may have been a factor of uncertenty that may balance the scale in favour of an early landing.
Not ASAP but in accordance of proper time management , burn off etc...
ETOPS fuel planning covers this....so maybe we need some regs that do the same for the non twins in civil ops.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bermondseya
I saw the bit about the spirit of good debate, but your points have already been covered many times elsewhere.
The crew always had enough fuel for LHR. They diverted to MAN for another reason - they thought that at a late stage some fuel which was useable, was in fact unuseable.
This point has been made by BA insiders ad infinitum
I saw the bit about the spirit of good debate, but your points have already been covered many times elsewhere.
The crew always had enough fuel for LHR. They diverted to MAN for another reason - they thought that at a late stage some fuel which was useable, was in fact unuseable.
This point has been made by BA insiders ad infinitum