BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article

[CR2]

OK, time has come, once again, to issue a warning to our self appointed 'experts' who in fact have never, ever, flown a B744 and quite probably, never, ever, flown a commercial airliner, never mind a jet. One particular poster in particular seems hell bent on trying to teach those us who do fly heavy jets and the B744 in particular, how to suck eggs.

If you want to appear knowledgeable on these forums then do not try to tell us how to operate, fly and handle abnormal situations. Austrian Simon in particular seems fixated on trying to teach us how to handle a B744 in a cross-wind with two engines out on the same side. Well, let me tell you AS, unless you are an experienced B744 pilot and I'm willing to wager that you aren't, please wind your neck in a notch or two as you are irritating the majority of us who do fly the B744.

Whilst there are differing opinions on what any of us who fly the B744 would have done under the same circumstances, I don't think any of us would deny that the B744 having a non-catastrophic engine failure at any stage after V1 is not quite the same as having the same problem in a twin engined aircraft. I have again looked through my QRH for the B744 and nowhere does it say land at the nearest suitable airport for an engine failure. Have you any idea of the redundancy available in a B744?

So, please stop wittering on about losing a second engine or climb gradients on two engines. As long as the aircraft still has three engines running it is certified for continued flight. Whether you would want to is another matter and as you will probably only ever be a passenger in one, you will have to rely on the professionalism of the crew and the back up they receive from their operations department, which in BA, is probably one of the best.

Experience of Microsoft Flight Simulator or even having been given a joyride once or twice in a real simulator does not confer on you any 'expertise' worthy of posting irritating pontifications on here. When you've at least qualified to fly a twin engined jet and have a bit of experience behind you, then you will be given the respect you deserve when you post your opinions about how to handle the situation on here. Qualify to fly the aircraft in question, the B744, then you will be listened to and your arguments will have the necessary weight of experience behind them. Until then, please refrain from posting your opinions based on a joyride in a sim.

I think Danny's post from a couple of pages ago needs re-airing.

[GearDown&Locked]

[pedant mode on]

("Engines Running Or Passengers Swimming").

ETOPS - Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming

You should use the "correct" terminology, as an expert in air travel you claim to be.

[pedant mode stby]

GD&L

[the passenger]

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. 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.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...obability.html

by Peter Ladkin, University of Bielefeld

[GearDown&Locked]

by Peter Ladkin, University of Bielefeld

Does he fly 747s too?

[exvicar]

Without soliciting another complete diatribe from the passenger, just wondering how you would feel if you had been a passenger on the longest ETOPS diversion. I believe it was 3 hours 6 minutes on one engine across the Pacific. For me, I'll take the 3 engined BA 747 everytime. Well done BA.

[RogerIrrelevant69]

alemaobaiano

Totally, completely, entirely agree. In same boat as you (CPL holder with rapidly decaying currency) and have read some serious drivel here from the Flight Sim community.

Jesus H Chr!st, stop arguing with the real pilots!

[the passenger]

Originally Posted by exvicar

Without soliciting another complete diatribe from the passenger, just wondering how you would feel if you had been a passenger on the longest ETOPS diversion. I believe it was 3 hours 6 minutes on one engine across the Pacific.

Very, very bad!

[thomay]

Nah, nah, would y’all please not respond in this heated manner to this agent provocateur? Who knows what kind of organization is behind him/her, or who else might be reading this thread and use it against aviation, now or later.

Not responding is not the right thing to do either, but when we respond, please just do it in the coolest possible manner (and references to IQ look/feel/sound, and are inappropriate) . He is only waiting for us to start fuming and then will continue to stoke the fire.

Some people just are afraid of flying. Period. To pilots, this is a fear we cannot bring ourselves to comprehend, but it is widespread in the public, in various degrees of severity. Of course, people like “the passenger” are not helping any with their irrational panicky ways of putting things, but that irrationality is a factor that we in the aviation industry have to cope with, no matter what.
Unfortunately, “we are professionals and we know what we are doing; and now let us do our job” (although true and the only way to do this and any business for that matter) is not helping those uncomfortable with flying. We have to take the those pax that are uncomfortable serious and make the best effort to put them at ease (which has nothing to do with sugarcoating/hiding facts), then go fly.

So please, as much as “the passenger” and others here get on your nerves, just keep a cool head and act/write accordingly. After all, that is what you do in the cockpit as well when the proverbial starts to hit the fan.

Dear “the passenger” (and this is a little bit off the original thread, but intended to broaden your horizon a bit): It is funny medical procedures came up on this thread. Let us compare the two fields of occupation for a bit.

Of course, dear “the passenger”, you also are a little bit irritated that I “diagnosed” your behavior as an irrational fear. But do a search on the number of “deaths by airline”, in the US and Europe (we know too that Africa is not the safest place to fly). Shockingly low, isn’t it? 80’000 deaths p/y in hospitals in the US alone, figures for Europe are not even available (maybe you can find them and give us the numbers). Yet a lot of people fear to go flying -- if that is not irrational, then what?

BTW, why don’t you please tell us whether you are affiliated with a news outlet/law firm/think tank/etc. Thanks. Another BTW: BA really is the most experienced and sophisticated operator of the B 742/3/4.

[GearDown&Locked]

well, I'll bite just once more.

Since when do you have to fly 747s to make statistical comparisons?

You're right, you don't. OTOH statistics are what they are, just numbers, and their meaning is completely different depending on who is viewing.

You can't question a 'profi' the way he's doing things; thats what they're trained to death for. Likewise you can't question a heart surgeon about the way he does his operations.

If you cannot understand this things your job must be really really really boring and does not involve any type of risk taking... sorry

GD&L

[skiesfull]

My observations for what it's worth as a 20 year "veteran" of the Boeing 747(all types) are as follows:-
The aircraft and crew were JAA licensed and BA operate within the USA as FAR compliant.
Given the same circumstances, I would also have continued to destination, unless my crew (inc. cabin crew) and passengers expressed serious concerns, having observed the effects of the engine surge. Indeed, I have on 2 occasions cotinued the flight in similar circumstances - legally and safely.
My criticism of the crew would be this:- they were either naive or inexperienced on this particular routing, to assume that they would achieve every optimum altitude for maximum fuel-efficiency as the flight would cross the Atlantic on a random track against the NA track system at that time of day, when a lower than desired flight level is more often than not,only available;-
and, their knowledge and management of the fuel system was deficient.
Other than that, the flight was completed safely, albeit to an alternate and I think that The Boeing Aircraft Co. may be seeking urgent clarification from the FAA regarding their new 4-engined B747-8 and it's operation following an in-flight engine shutdown. If the non-normal QRH is to have "land at nearest suitable airfield) added following completion of the engine shutdown checklist then Boeing and Airbus may as well abandon their 4-engine production lines!
P.s. one doesn't "loose" an engine, one "loses" an engine.
As for 2-engine go-arounds, it has been possible since the early days of the 747-100, just more exciting then!

[d246]

For Gawds sake put an end to this nonsence.

[Danny]

Done!

That's enough diversion from this topic. If you want to debate the pros and cons of heart surgery verus ETOPS and 3 engine performance on the B744 with a bit of MS Flight Sim expertise thrown in for good luck, feel free to start an appropriate thread in the Safety forum. The deleted posts have been reinstated there.

[Jumbo Driver]

Originally Posted by GearDown&Locked

[pedant mode on]
Quote:
("Engines Running Or Passengers Swimming").

ETOPS - Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming
You should use the "correct" terminology, as an expert in air travel you claim to be.
[pedant mode stby]
GD&L

My Pedant Mode ON

GearDown&Locked You raise an interesting point.

I think you will find that EROPS (Extended Range OPerationS) existed before ETOPS and that ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine OPerationS) is therefore merely a later "subset" of EROPS. Thus, in connection with a 744 operation (albeit on 3-engines), perhaps EROPS is correct, after all.

My Pedant Mode back to STBY

[overstress]

I really am almost to the point of slapping my brow in frustration at the likes of 'the passenger'. I can understand the ignorance in this case, however, as even some fellow professionals who have flown 4-engined types don't seem to follow. Even when national flight safety committee 'clears' the incident, some still don't get it!

It's all the fault of the movies.

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by the passenger

In short: a little bit more caution and modesty would be much appreciated by the poor passengers. I donīt 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 you are just a passenger, like I am, then I have this question to ask of you:-

Do you think that it is always safer to land the aircraft than to continue on three engines?

I know virtually nothing about flying aircraft of any size, but one thing I have learned from reading the other very long thread on this topic is that the answer to that question is "no".

If you think the answer is "yes", may I please suggest that you learn a bit about flying from the experts here before revisiting your opinion. Otherwise it is, in fact, you who would be guilty of the arrogance which you currently ascribe to others.

[XL5]

It's all the fault of the movies

says overstress.

I think there was a movie in the 70s along similar lines called Carry On Regardless. Sid James played the captain with Kenneth Williams as the CSD and Barbara Windsor as a rather coarse and vulgar trolley dolly whose top kept springing off as she threw the peanuts about. I could be mistaken though as my memory isn't what it once was.

Do you think that it is always safer to land the aircraft than to continue on three engines?

asks Globaliser. What goes up eventually comes down, the three engine landing cannot be postponed indefinitely, the question is as to whether or not an ocean should have been crossed prior to making said inevitable landing. Not all would have made the same decision. But no harm done, and they all lived happily ever after.

[stilton]

I was travelling through the Hawaiian islands on holiday a few years ago, and, while connecting through the Kona airport on the Big island of Hawaii I noticed a United 777 on the apron with the cowling open on one of the engines.

Didn't think much about, it at the time I thought that, perhaps UA had direct flights there from the mainland.

It was only when I returned home some time later I discovered that Aircraft had just completed the longest single engine divert in the history of ETOPS operations.

Over three hours on one engine is, by any definition an uncomfortable experience, and in this case with absolutely no options.

In contrast, this crew and aircraft had numerous options, performance and redundancy remaining with real time engineering analysis and support to enhance their decision making.

This comes down to a philisophical difference in attitude towards 3 0r 4 engine aircraft in the states by the FAA unfortunately fueled by the media hysterics in their coverage of this 'near disaster'

As was mentioned earlier, twin operations are much more prevalent here, and the collective memory and knowledge of when 3 or 4 donks ruled the skies here seems to have died a sad death.

Comparing the 777 in the earlier incident to the magnificent 747 in the latter non incident I know which aircraft I would have preferred to be on.

[BEagle]

ETOPS is irrelevant in this debate.

It is quite reasonable for passengers to express their opinions, positive or negative, about travelling in a particular situation.

The 744 has excellent system redundancy. But after the loss of an engine on take-off, it has no further 'thrust redundancy' for a protracted flight to a destination some 4700 miles away.

It boils down to risk management. Whether passengers are prepared to accept the same level of managed risk on similar occasions to the one in question is a material consideration. For if they lose confidence and vote with their feet, there won't be any such similar incidents - because there won't be an airline.

Diversions are expensive. But nothing like as expensive as accidents.

[exvicar]

Surely it still has 'thrust redundancy', as many of those that fly the 747 have testified that it is more than capable of flying on two engines. If, and I am sure they did, the crew looked at 2 engine driftdown, terrain clearance and available enroute alternates, I still think the crew were well placed to bring the aircraft home. At the end of the day, passengers may vote with their feet but this aircraft was operated legally and with the full support of BAs operation & flight planning back up.

Passengers may be able to voice their opinion on ETOPS. I would still far rather be sitting on the ocean on a 4 engine aircraft that has lost one engine than a 2 engined aircraft that has lost one. Which has 'thrust redundancy' then?

Hope all well Beagle.

[Hand Solo]

The aircraft has plenty of 'thrust redundancy' after losing a single engine. Lose a second and it will still maintain 14000 feet. Lets not overlook (yet again) that there were countless diversion airfields all along the route in the event of a second failure.