BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
It is also forgotten here that they would have had more fuel if ATC hadnt stuffed up their level across the atlantic. Only the other day a flight from the west coast to LHR was having fuel temp problems (too cold) and the only way they could getATC to understand was to declare a PAN and descend and go faster,otherwise they would have been left way up high. Oh , and l have recently returned from SFO in a 400 and l would have continued towards LHR depending on the engine failure.Note we say towards,there are plenty of places to go if things change.
And another thing,as a result of this incident,crews spent time on the next sim check going through odd fuel configurations ,something that has never been made clear reading the sketchy manuals.I wonder how many 400 operators have done the same thing.That part of the sim detail was excellent.
And another thing,as a result of this incident,crews spent time on the next sim check going through odd fuel configurations ,something that has never been made clear reading the sketchy manuals.I wonder how many 400 operators have done the same thing.That part of the sim detail was excellent.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right L377, all fuel is available for use.
The only difference is the non-normal configuration of the pumps and cross feeds if any of the main tanks has less then 1T of fuel remaining.
I understand that the crew had doubts about whether the fuel in the main tank associated with the shutdown engine was usable or not. Since then, I believe all crew have received a briefing on how to use this fuel to run the live engines via cross-feeds earlier in the flight so that the tanks are approximately balanced on arrival. However, this is just to reduce any trim drag due to the imbalance and not any fuel feed issues.
All crew have also been shown in the simulator that the aircraft will run all 4 engines quite comfortably with a main tank empty if all main pumps are on and all cross-feeds open. This of course would apply on 3 engines as well.
Boeing designed the aircraft so that any engine can receive fuel from any combinations of main tanks making all fuel usable.
The only difference is the non-normal configuration of the pumps and cross feeds if any of the main tanks has less then 1T of fuel remaining.
I understand that the crew had doubts about whether the fuel in the main tank associated with the shutdown engine was usable or not. Since then, I believe all crew have received a briefing on how to use this fuel to run the live engines via cross-feeds earlier in the flight so that the tanks are approximately balanced on arrival. However, this is just to reduce any trim drag due to the imbalance and not any fuel feed issues.
All crew have also been shown in the simulator that the aircraft will run all 4 engines quite comfortably with a main tank empty if all main pumps are on and all cross-feeds open. This of course would apply on 3 engines as well.
Boeing designed the aircraft so that any engine can receive fuel from any combinations of main tanks making all fuel usable.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
Quote
'I can think of far better targets for the FAA to be aiming at - O'Hare for example, with 3 very recent near-accidents to think about.......'
I would suggest that O'Hare has become that way by constantly pushing the boundaries of what is sensible, driven by commercial pressure.
Quote
'I think you will find that this crew did more safety-related planning & re-planning in one flight than most crews will do in a year (or more!)......'
Yet they still ended up landing after declaring an emergency.........
I didn't know airmanship was type specific?
I'd rather sit behind a Captain with BEAGLE's attitude than many others displayed on this thread, over-conservative possibly but isn't that what we're always told is right? If in doubt take the safe option? If there was no doubt that night why all the extra planning?
The fact that they ended up in some confusion about the fuel state of the A/C merely highlights the problem with putting yourself in situations you have not seen before, in an aircraft with degraded capability.
In my opinion it's clear that whatever thought processes went on among all those involved,safety was not top of their list!If they were dumping fuel the Captain had already decided to return to land - who or what changed his mind?The guys onboard have probably only ever had one engine failure and it has been the subject of newspaper articles, forum debate and criticism from the FAA. Good decision? Not for me.
Quote
'I can think of far better targets for the FAA to be aiming at - O'Hare for example, with 3 very recent near-accidents to think about.......'
I would suggest that O'Hare has become that way by constantly pushing the boundaries of what is sensible, driven by commercial pressure.
Quote
'I think you will find that this crew did more safety-related planning & re-planning in one flight than most crews will do in a year (or more!)......'
Yet they still ended up landing after declaring an emergency.........
I didn't know airmanship was type specific?
I'd rather sit behind a Captain with BEAGLE's attitude than many others displayed on this thread, over-conservative possibly but isn't that what we're always told is right? If in doubt take the safe option? If there was no doubt that night why all the extra planning?
The fact that they ended up in some confusion about the fuel state of the A/C merely highlights the problem with putting yourself in situations you have not seen before, in an aircraft with degraded capability.
In my opinion it's clear that whatever thought processes went on among all those involved,safety was not top of their list!If they were dumping fuel the Captain had already decided to return to land - who or what changed his mind?The guys onboard have probably only ever had one engine failure and it has been the subject of newspaper articles, forum debate and criticism from the FAA. Good decision? Not for me.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they were dumping fuel the Captain had already decided to return to land - who or what changed his mind?
At no stage, ever, has it been suggested, or did they, start dumping fuel.
L337
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337
Actually if you followed the link in the second post on this thread(by Mike Jenvey) it WAS suggested they were heading out to sea to dump fuel!!
Everything you disagree with is rubbish isn't it?
Actually if you followed the link in the second post on this thread(by Mike Jenvey) it WAS suggested they were heading out to sea to dump fuel!!
Everything you disagree with is rubbish isn't it?
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They headed out to sea. No mountains there. The safe option.
Actually if you read the two huge threads here and here you would get your facts correct.
To suggest they began to dump, and
is rubbish.
I don't disagree with you, It is a matter of fact. They did not begin to, or did they dump fuel.
If you write rubbish it is rubbish.
Actually if you read the two huge threads here and here you would get your facts correct.
To suggest they began to dump, and
who or what changed his mind?
I don't disagree with you, It is a matter of fact. They did not begin to, or did they dump fuel.
If you write rubbish it is rubbish.
Last edited by L337; 5th Apr 2006 at 09:08.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on a minute.
You said..........'At no stage, ever, has it been suggested, or did they, start dumping fuel.
As I said in my earlier post it WAS suggested in the article in the link.I also said .........IF............they were dumping fuel.
You were wrong. Get over it!
You said..........'At no stage, ever, has it been suggested, or did they, start dumping fuel.
As I said in my earlier post it WAS suggested in the article in the link.I also said .........IF............they were dumping fuel.
You were wrong. Get over it!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear in mind that once fuel jettison has started it will be dumping approx 2T of fuel per minute. Normal reserve and diversion fuel for somewhere like LHR in good weather may be around 7T - 8T. Add on a few tons of contingency fuel would mean they would normally arrive at LHR with about 11T. If they had commenced fuel jettison within 5 minutes they would not have enough fuel to make LHR!
I am sure they would not have commenced fuel jettison, cancelled it and then elected to continue to LHR.
I am sure they would not have commenced fuel jettison, cancelled it and then elected to continue to LHR.
Guest
Posts: n/a
After having read this thread, as a passenger, I had to register on this forum because I know understand why so many people have a fear of flying and prefer to take trains or drive cars. Some of the real world pilots here have such a condescending, impertinent way of speaking and such an over-self-confidence that I would not like to have them as pilots on a flight I am on. I simply would not trust them to be safe pilots and I would not like to be a passenger on a British Airways flight ever again, that´ s for sure!
If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight and I only would have hoped that BA would have been fined a much larger sum!
If pilots are such heroes and have no problems with "unusual situations" why do they switch off the wrong engine (British Midland, 1989), begin a takeoff without having the permission to do it (KLM, Tenerife, 1977), stall
airplanes (Birgenair, 1996/ Northwest Orient, 1974/BEA, 1972), fly until they run out of fuel (Avianca, 1990/Antillian Airlines, 1970), land with retracted landing gear(Contintental Airlines, 1996), forget to configure
flaps for departure (Northwest Airlines, 1987), land at the wrong airport or do other crazy things. The list is endless. Often an accident is initiated by a seemingly irrelevant incident.
In short: a little bit more caution and modesty would be much appreciated by the poor passengers. I don´t like pilots to play with MY life! I like cautious pilots who would rather return to the depature airport than try to save their company some money!
If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight and I only would have hoped that BA would have been fined a much larger sum!
If pilots are such heroes and have no problems with "unusual situations" why do they switch off the wrong engine (British Midland, 1989), begin a takeoff without having the permission to do it (KLM, Tenerife, 1977), stall
airplanes (Birgenair, 1996/ Northwest Orient, 1974/BEA, 1972), fly until they run out of fuel (Avianca, 1990/Antillian Airlines, 1970), land with retracted landing gear(Contintental Airlines, 1996), forget to configure
flaps for departure (Northwest Airlines, 1987), land at the wrong airport or do other crazy things. The list is endless. Often an accident is initiated by a seemingly irrelevant incident.
In short: a little bit more caution and modesty would be much appreciated by the poor passengers. I don´t like pilots to play with MY life! I like cautious pilots who would rather return to the depature airport than try to save their company some money!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive my ignorance but...
Could they be sure that "the fuel in the main tank associated with the shutdown engine" wasn't the cause of the shutdown?
Could they be sure that "the fuel in the main tank associated with the shutdown engine" wasn't the cause of the shutdown?
Some of the real world pilots here have such a condescending, impertinent way of speaking and such an over-self-confidence that I would not like to have them as pilots on a flight I am on.
If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Hand Solo
Sadly thats total b*****s and merely serves to demonstrate your lack of understanding of jet aircraft or the rules of the air.
Obviously declaring an emergency is just big fun for you.
You don´t have to be an expert to KNOW that it is safer to fly on an airplane with all 4 engines running than to be on one with one engine shut off (if it had been safer this way, Boeing certainly would have constructed the 747 in such a way that three engines are "real ones" and one is a dummy)! So there MUST be a decreased level of safety (even if this situation might still be considered to be "safe enough" by some authorities)!
Perhaps you are the kind of person who insists on a full run down of how your surgeon will perform an operation and make misguided suggestions as to how you think it should be done better? You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's in any way factually correct. Which it isn't.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey The Passenger,
The reason that some may sound condescending to you is that we are fed up to the back teeth with the press and passengers who think that they know something about flying second guessing our every move.
This is our profession. We take pride in doing it well. NOTHING that these guys did was unprofessional or unsafe. Some days you end up declaring an emergency - that's the way that flying is.
How about I come to your place of work and critique everything that you do - even though I may understand little of what you do.
Don't fly with us - you will not be missed.
The reason that some may sound condescending to you is that we are fed up to the back teeth with the press and passengers who think that they know something about flying second guessing our every move.
This is our profession. We take pride in doing it well. NOTHING that these guys did was unprofessional or unsafe. Some days you end up declaring an emergency - that's the way that flying is.
How about I come to your place of work and critique everything that you do - even though I may understand little of what you do.
Don't fly with us - you will not be missed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Ricky Whizz
Hey The Passenger,
The reason that some may sound condescending to you is that we are fed up to the back teeth with the press and passengers who think that they know something about flying second guessing our every move.
The reason that some may sound condescending to you is that we are fed up to the back teeth with the press and passengers who think that they know something about flying second guessing our every move.
This is our profession. We take pride in doing it well. NOTHING that these guys did was unprofessional or unsafe. Some days you end up declaring an emergency - that's the way that flying is.
You have a strange point of view calling "flying a Boeing 747 thousands of miles in an 'unairworthy condition'" (according to U.S. government documents/International Herald Tribune) "professional" and "safe"!
So why was BA fined $25000 then - for flying "professional" and "safe"???
Don't fly with us - you will not be missed.
Last edited by the passenger; 5th Apr 2006 at 12:05.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, of dear. 'the passenger' doesn't like our attitudes when we treat them on this forum condescendingly. Well, what do you expect when you and others whose only real experience of our job is sitting down the back yet you feel it necessary to come on here and tell us how it should have been handled based solely on your very limited knowledge of what is involved.
Yes, we treat you like the fool you are on here because you spectacularly fail to understand the intricacies of our job. Spouting off a list of aircraft disasters by itself is not indicative of anything. Apart from the fact that we all learn from others mistakes, you would do well to put those disasters into the overall context of the actual number of flights, hours and aircraft worldwide and then look at the accident statistics.
Personally, none of us could really care less that you will not fly BA anymore or any other airline for than matter. If your IQ is so abysmally low to realise that it is statistically much safer to travel by air, especially with an airline like BA, then you deserve to put yourself at more risk by using less safe airlines. I think it's called natural selection and your living in the shallow end of the gene pool shows itself by your silly post on here.
No pilot discussing this incident on here is "playing with your life" and they certainly don't do so when on the job. If your ignorance fails to let you understand that then you'd better be prepared for your ego to severely battered on here. It's like lambs to the slaughter some days. On the one hand it fair game and a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. On the other it's cringingly painful to have to read the utter tripe that some opinionated nosey people write on here.
Yes, we treat you like the fool you are on here because you spectacularly fail to understand the intricacies of our job. Spouting off a list of aircraft disasters by itself is not indicative of anything. Apart from the fact that we all learn from others mistakes, you would do well to put those disasters into the overall context of the actual number of flights, hours and aircraft worldwide and then look at the accident statistics.
Personally, none of us could really care less that you will not fly BA anymore or any other airline for than matter. If your IQ is so abysmally low to realise that it is statistically much safer to travel by air, especially with an airline like BA, then you deserve to put yourself at more risk by using less safe airlines. I think it's called natural selection and your living in the shallow end of the gene pool shows itself by your silly post on here.
No pilot discussing this incident on here is "playing with your life" and they certainly don't do so when on the job. If your ignorance fails to let you understand that then you'd better be prepared for your ego to severely battered on here. It's like lambs to the slaughter some days. On the one hand it fair game and a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. On the other it's cringingly painful to have to read the utter tripe that some opinionated nosey people write on here.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The passenger (hopefully not for much longer).
The fine is a 'proposal' numbskull and it's being contested.
I hope that you take more care in reading any documents that relate to your work - as I am sure that you would expect us to.
The Newspaper is reporting (not commenting) and the FAA is fishing (for a way out of their own mistake).
The fine is a 'proposal' numbskull and it's being contested.
I hope that you take more care in reading any documents that relate to your work - as I am sure that you would expect us to.
The Newspaper is reporting (not commenting) and the FAA is fishing (for a way out of their own mistake).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bolton,Lancs,UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337
Nowhere in my post did I say that they did not have enough fuel, but you
have to agree that the crew were treating the situation as such.
I have to say that your reaction to any criticism of the crew (even from people qualified to do so) is not very constructive or professional.
E.F.
Nowhere in my post did I say that they did not have enough fuel, but you
have to agree that the crew were treating the situation as such.
I have to say that your reaction to any criticism of the crew (even from people qualified to do so) is not very constructive or professional.
E.F.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by arewenearlythereyet?
...
Personally, none of us could really care less that you will not fly BA anymore or any other airline for than matter. If your IQ is so abysmally low to realise that it is statistically much safer to travel by air, especially with an airline like BA, then you deserve to put yourself at more risk by using less safe airlines...
Personally, none of us could really care less that you will not fly BA anymore or any other airline for than matter. If your IQ is so abysmally low to realise that it is statistically much safer to travel by air, especially with an airline like BA, then you deserve to put yourself at more risk by using less safe airlines...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by the passenger
If pilots are such heroes and have no problems with "unusual situations"
why do they switch off the wrong engine (British Midland, 1989),
begin a takeoff without having the permission to do it (KLM, Tenerife, 1977)
stall airplanes (Birgenair, 1996/ Northwest Orient, 1974/BEA, 1972),
I like cautious pilots who would rather return to the depature airport than try to save their company some money!
J.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that this was a flight-deck forum called
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots
Now I'm not a professional pilot and as such I have very little to contribute to this particular forum. As a very frequent flier and an amateur pilot I do like to have an idea of what's going on at the pointy end of the tube and for that reason I read many of the threads here, and whatever I may feel or think, I do not have the training or experience to question the decisions made by the crew. I would be less than impressed if a B744 captain questioned my professional decisions, and the same should hold true for the rest of us.
By all means have a discussion about this, but use the appropriate forum to do so.
ab
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots
Now I'm not a professional pilot and as such I have very little to contribute to this particular forum. As a very frequent flier and an amateur pilot I do like to have an idea of what's going on at the pointy end of the tube and for that reason I read many of the threads here, and whatever I may feel or think, I do not have the training or experience to question the decisions made by the crew. I would be less than impressed if a B744 captain questioned my professional decisions, and the same should hold true for the rest of us.
By all means have a discussion about this, but use the appropriate forum to do so.
ab