BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
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
Yes we do fly safe- you will not find a safer airline or one with better training, believe me....and certainly not one in the world with more experience of worldwide longhaul heavy jet flying than BA. We actually know how to do it pretty well because nobody has done more since 1945.
If it was LHR-LAX when an engine failed, it would most probably have returned to LHR before PNR as that would be easiest for repair. After losing an engine over Caraffa, I returned to LHR- it is actually easier to do that and transfer a to another aeroplane than dump them at Rome or Athens at 2 am to hoe to get a flight on later that evening! But this is hypothetical- we are talking about LAX-LHR.
If it was LHR-LAX when an engine failed, it would most probably have returned to LHR before PNR as that would be easiest for repair. After losing an engine over Caraffa, I returned to LHR- it is actually easier to do that and transfer a to another aeroplane than dump them at Rome or Athens at 2 am to hoe to get a flight on later that evening! But this is hypothetical- we are talking about LAX-LHR.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets be quite clear that the crew were not instructed to go anywhere. BA do not instruct crews on where to go when an aircraft has a technical problem. They will inform crew what the best options are in terms of ground handling, technical support and alternative arrangements for passengers, but the decision on the ultimate destination for the aircraft rests solely with the flight crew. This is not some third world airline where the pilots are monkeys flying the plane who will unthinkingly do what the management tell them for fear of losing their jobs.
There was no 'HOMITIS' here. The crew spent the night assessing every en-route airfield for its availabilty and calculating and recalculating three engine fuel burn as well as two engine drift down altitude and cruise performance. At any stage of the process they could have diverted to an en-route alternate. At every stage of the process across the Atlantic the criteria for continuing were met.
Once (yet!) again, the 747 is approved by Boeing, the FAA and the CAA for flight on three engines. The CAA have no problems with the conduct of the flight. The mayday was a seperate issue which the entire UK 747 flight crew community have learned from. The plan was sound from the outset and the CAA agree with that. As the CAA, not the FAA, regulate UK flight operations the continuation policy will remain. The only thing that might change is that we'll have to avoid US airspace in order to avoid the FAA scoring cheap points trying to promote their own industry.
There was no 'HOMITIS' here. The crew spent the night assessing every en-route airfield for its availabilty and calculating and recalculating three engine fuel burn as well as two engine drift down altitude and cruise performance. At any stage of the process they could have diverted to an en-route alternate. At every stage of the process across the Atlantic the criteria for continuing were met.
Once (yet!) again, the 747 is approved by Boeing, the FAA and the CAA for flight on three engines. The CAA have no problems with the conduct of the flight. The mayday was a seperate issue which the entire UK 747 flight crew community have learned from. The plan was sound from the outset and the CAA agree with that. As the CAA, not the FAA, regulate UK flight operations the continuation policy will remain. The only thing that might change is that we'll have to avoid US airspace in order to avoid the FAA scoring cheap points trying to promote their own industry.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winston Churchill once wrote of a Japanese Admiral (Kurita, after Leyte):
"...only those who have endured similar may judge him...". I think it applies to this particular flight....
Back to the original article - the FAA fine for operating an aircraft in an unsafe manner becomes even more inexplicable when one considers
a. The aircraft had sufficient fuel for the flight as intended (even after departing the LAX area on 3)
b. Adequate terrain clearance could be maintained throughout
c. Suitable en-route alternates were available
d. The FAA originally certified the aircraft for just such a policy.
It leads me to a suspicion: I have heard through the grapevine that there has been concern expressed in Gov. circles here that there exists an in-balance of trade between US carriers and their foreign counterparts on bi-lateral routes, both in terms of pax numbers (390-ish on a -400 / 220-ish ETOPS twin) and in terms of yield (a function of pathetic service on US carriers and what you can charge for a premium passenger ie: if you have $5K to spend on a 1st class ticket and choice - who do you think that pax is going to chose? It ain't grumpy grannies...). The FAA certainly seem to have their knickers in a twist here.
"...only those who have endured similar may judge him...". I think it applies to this particular flight....
Back to the original article - the FAA fine for operating an aircraft in an unsafe manner becomes even more inexplicable when one considers
a. The aircraft had sufficient fuel for the flight as intended (even after departing the LAX area on 3)
b. Adequate terrain clearance could be maintained throughout
c. Suitable en-route alternates were available
d. The FAA originally certified the aircraft for just such a policy.
It leads me to a suspicion: I have heard through the grapevine that there has been concern expressed in Gov. circles here that there exists an in-balance of trade between US carriers and their foreign counterparts on bi-lateral routes, both in terms of pax numbers (390-ish on a -400 / 220-ish ETOPS twin) and in terms of yield (a function of pathetic service on US carriers and what you can charge for a premium passenger ie: if you have $5K to spend on a 1st class ticket and choice - who do you think that pax is going to chose? It ain't grumpy grannies...). The FAA certainly seem to have their knickers in a twist here.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its still got 4 hydraulic systems, three generators and three engines, which is a damn site more than a 777 on one engine.
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
....and the wheel goes around about the 20th time saying the same things over and over again to people who refuse to understand the whole point about safe and efficient longhaul 4 engine operations! Sometimes I think the best way is just to not say anything and let the storm subside before it reaches this never ending rotation of the same arguments from people who really don't know or understand the capabilities built in to the aircraft so this can be achieved safely! The voices of those who feel anything not absolutely perfect with the aeroplane is enough reason to 'land at nearest suitable airfield!' The whole point of our argument is that as long as you remain in a safe operation, the best thing is to get where repairs can be most expeditiously carried out and the pax most expeditiously carried to their destinations. That is why the 747 has all that redundancy and why it has 4 beautiful Rollers. Instead of examining the real operation causing concern ('excessive' ETOPS), they are throwing all their criticism in the wrong place.
You watch the discussions that come again- all the old stuff recycled!
You watch the discussions that come again- all the old stuff recycled!
Take first the mote from thine own eye....
We'd moved on from the 'land asap' comments to a discussion concerning levels of risk which, though more restrictive than pure Perf A considerations, would perhaps be more appropriate to continued operation of a 4-engined non-specific airliner with fare-paying passengers on board following the loss of a single power unit.
I consider that 60 min flight time at 2-e speed/alt from en-route alternates (obviously with Wx better than 2-e minima applicable to type) should be the limit.
Thanks, by the way, for all the PMs in agreement with my comments.
We'd moved on from the 'land asap' comments to a discussion concerning levels of risk which, though more restrictive than pure Perf A considerations, would perhaps be more appropriate to continued operation of a 4-engined non-specific airliner with fare-paying passengers on board following the loss of a single power unit.
I consider that 60 min flight time at 2-e speed/alt from en-route alternates (obviously with Wx better than 2-e minima applicable to type) should be the limit.
Thanks, by the way, for all the PMs in agreement with my comments.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know the ins and outs of the FAA - Euro politics, but I'm confused by the constant reference to the FAA looking after their own industry. It was a Boeing involved after all. Are they hoping that BA will change the 744 fleet for 777's or something?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, stop being a pompous a*****e!
ETOPS are highly relevant in this discussion because they involve operating aircraft with many passengers all over the world under rules and regulations formulated by the same bodies and institutions as any other flight.
The questions to be answered are..........
Was the flight legal?
Was the flight safe?
Was the flight conducted in accordance with the manufacturers and operators SOP's?
What's your bloody problem??
ETOPS are highly relevant in this discussion because they involve operating aircraft with many passengers all over the world under rules and regulations formulated by the same bodies and institutions as any other flight.
The questions to be answered are..........
Was the flight legal?
Was the flight safe?
Was the flight conducted in accordance with the manufacturers and operators SOP's?
What's your bloody problem??
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
I consider that 60 min flight time at 2-e speed/alt from en-route alternates (obviously with Wx better than 2-e minima applicable to type) should be the limit.
Your 'logic' if fundamentally flawed.
Sorry to jump into the thread with a stupid question… but is the 4th engine really needed on the 747 ?
If 3 engine operation is deemed “safe enough” for regular passenger service by manufacturer, operator and CAA , if a 3 engine LAX-LHR flight is to be seen as a non event, then isn’t the 747 an inefficient design ?!
Ok, more seriously, as a regular BA customer (and tiny shareholder) I would rather see might flight diverted / cancelled than flying such a long route with one engine u/s, regardless of SOP. Exceeding minimal regulatory requirements is what I would expect from BA when speaking of safety matters.
If 3 engine operation is deemed “safe enough” for regular passenger service by manufacturer, operator and CAA , if a 3 engine LAX-LHR flight is to be seen as a non event, then isn’t the 747 an inefficient design ?!
Ok, more seriously, as a regular BA customer (and tiny shareholder) I would rather see might flight diverted / cancelled than flying such a long route with one engine u/s, regardless of SOP. Exceeding minimal regulatory requirements is what I would expect from BA when speaking of safety matters.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...then isn’t the 747 an inefficient design ?!
Originally Posted by Human Factor
When the original 747 was designed back in the '60s, if it hadn't had four engines it wouldn't have got off the ground. As time has gone on, engine technology has improved so if it were designed from scratch today, it would probably look like a 777-300.
atakacs
Well as a fellow shareholder (isn't it time this whole topic died..)
Returning to LAX would mean dumping perhaps 50 tonnes of very expensive aviation fuel, overnighting 300 plus pax in LAX hotels, rearranging onward connections, and either having to have the aircraft repaired at LAX (at what cost?) or three engine ferrying it back to the UK.....all of the above not good for the bottom line or your shares.
On the other hand (here we go again) having got airborne, and contained the problem the crew could reconsider their options: take advice from the Company ( Operations who know where the spare bits and crews are, engineering who can access telemetry from the aircraft), consider the en-route alternates, weather and terrain..and on the basis of all the above make a considered decision as to if and how to continue.
As someone who is both a shareholder and current on the 744, working on the basis of what I have heard of this incident, I would have continued towards the UK..the operation certainly "was safe enough" and the FAA are getting their proverbials in a twist here.
Finally the main threat to your precious shares doesn't come from the crews or the engineers - it's the other decision makers in the Company you need to worry about!
Returning to LAX would mean dumping perhaps 50 tonnes of very expensive aviation fuel, overnighting 300 plus pax in LAX hotels, rearranging onward connections, and either having to have the aircraft repaired at LAX (at what cost?) or three engine ferrying it back to the UK.....all of the above not good for the bottom line or your shares.
On the other hand (here we go again) having got airborne, and contained the problem the crew could reconsider their options: take advice from the Company ( Operations who know where the spare bits and crews are, engineering who can access telemetry from the aircraft), consider the en-route alternates, weather and terrain..and on the basis of all the above make a considered decision as to if and how to continue.
As someone who is both a shareholder and current on the 744, working on the basis of what I have heard of this incident, I would have continued towards the UK..the operation certainly "was safe enough" and the FAA are getting their proverbials in a twist here.
Finally the main threat to your precious shares doesn't come from the crews or the engineers - it's the other decision makers in the Company you need to worry about!
Last edited by wiggy; 8th Apr 2006 at 13:16.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused by the constant reference to the FAA looking after their own industry. It was a Boeing involved after all. Are they hoping that BA will change the 744 fleet for 777's or something
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
BA B747- 400 three engine promenade put in context by a non American nor Brit.
Civil aviation versus military:
Military aircraft are used to be deliberately exposed to dangerous situations and then try to get out of it unharmed. Civil aviation is about the transport of passengers and the very essence of its operation is to stay out of trouble at all times. This is the essential reason why they are designed with so much redundancy.
The probability law:
Many decisions are made based on probability calculations. ETOPS, AWO, autopilot architecture etcetera. All this to assure that in case of failures there remains enough redundancy to bring the ship safe on the ground. These redundacies are not there for commercial reasons but for Safety only.
Airliners are built for efficiency when all goes normal only.
Civil aviation is a commercial activity and has inherent commercial risks. Out of the thousands of flights every day, some flights are lost due to technical reasons.
This is something we have to accept. The build in redundancy is not to be used to cover commercial risk and that’s exactly how British Airways has used it.
Therefore, in its very essence this incident is not to be put in the context of twin versus four engine powered aircraft, this has nothing to do with it. A failed weather radar shortly after take off over Africa with the ITCZ ahead of you is the same kind of problem. The potential of serious trouble ahead is a fact.
Those that claim this is not so are missing the real meaning of what happened.
The MEL covers all that is needed to cover minor technical failures and that’s the bottom line as far as it’s commercial benefit is concerned, for whitch the MEL was not even designed.
Many lessons have been learned from errors and lost lives in the past. Are we are now throwing all that away for non relevant reasons?
Aircraft design has evolved in a way that they are easier to operate and reduced crew error has resulted from it, however this is no argument to reduce crew training or training culture.
It’s not because routine tasks have been delegated to hard and software that crews should no longer be required to handle their malfunctions since this is the prerequisite to proper monitoring the function of these systems in the first place. The way we used to fly the old stuff gives the exact mindset needed to do this.
We all know that if the flying skills that were needed to fly the old generation non glass Airliners are combined with today’s technology, the new kind of automation related errors that are emerging would not be allowed to develop beyond an acceptable level. We all know that what happened to the Virgin A 340 fuel problem would have been picked up by a crew that had the experience of flying the old B 747 or DC 10 with flight engineers.Situation awareness was more a fact in those times, today it's hidden in the bits and bytes of computers and crews that blindly trust those systems are waking up to reality when it's too late.
It does not matter if the FAA wins or not, its BA that was wrong and as such the UK CAA is no different than the Egyptian CAA.
Neither British Airways nor any other airline can be compared to the RAF and that’s why the FAA is right but they probably have chosen the wrong battlefield, basically because they do not think with a military strategy and that’s why they are right.
What we need is common sense and not heroes.
Remember Concord.
Civil aviation versus military:
Military aircraft are used to be deliberately exposed to dangerous situations and then try to get out of it unharmed. Civil aviation is about the transport of passengers and the very essence of its operation is to stay out of trouble at all times. This is the essential reason why they are designed with so much redundancy.
The probability law:
Many decisions are made based on probability calculations. ETOPS, AWO, autopilot architecture etcetera. All this to assure that in case of failures there remains enough redundancy to bring the ship safe on the ground. These redundacies are not there for commercial reasons but for Safety only.
Airliners are built for efficiency when all goes normal only.
Civil aviation is a commercial activity and has inherent commercial risks. Out of the thousands of flights every day, some flights are lost due to technical reasons.
This is something we have to accept. The build in redundancy is not to be used to cover commercial risk and that’s exactly how British Airways has used it.
Therefore, in its very essence this incident is not to be put in the context of twin versus four engine powered aircraft, this has nothing to do with it. A failed weather radar shortly after take off over Africa with the ITCZ ahead of you is the same kind of problem. The potential of serious trouble ahead is a fact.
Those that claim this is not so are missing the real meaning of what happened.
The MEL covers all that is needed to cover minor technical failures and that’s the bottom line as far as it’s commercial benefit is concerned, for whitch the MEL was not even designed.
Many lessons have been learned from errors and lost lives in the past. Are we are now throwing all that away for non relevant reasons?
Aircraft design has evolved in a way that they are easier to operate and reduced crew error has resulted from it, however this is no argument to reduce crew training or training culture.
It’s not because routine tasks have been delegated to hard and software that crews should no longer be required to handle their malfunctions since this is the prerequisite to proper monitoring the function of these systems in the first place. The way we used to fly the old stuff gives the exact mindset needed to do this.
We all know that if the flying skills that were needed to fly the old generation non glass Airliners are combined with today’s technology, the new kind of automation related errors that are emerging would not be allowed to develop beyond an acceptable level. We all know that what happened to the Virgin A 340 fuel problem would have been picked up by a crew that had the experience of flying the old B 747 or DC 10 with flight engineers.Situation awareness was more a fact in those times, today it's hidden in the bits and bytes of computers and crews that blindly trust those systems are waking up to reality when it's too late.
It does not matter if the FAA wins or not, its BA that was wrong and as such the UK CAA is no different than the Egyptian CAA.
Neither British Airways nor any other airline can be compared to the RAF and that’s why the FAA is right but they probably have chosen the wrong battlefield, basically because they do not think with a military strategy and that’s why they are right.
What we need is common sense and not heroes.
Remember Concord.
Last edited by AIMS by IBM; 16th Apr 2006 at 21:21.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what's your point?
I've seen DISTRACTING posts before, but I believe this takes first place.
I fail to see how MEL enters the picture; nor how BA failed to maintain a generous degree of redundancy right up to their parking the bird at MAN.
Originally Posted by AIMS by IBM
Loosing
witch
looses,
Remember Concord.
witch
looses,
Remember Concord.
I fail to see how MEL enters the picture; nor how BA failed to maintain a generous degree of redundancy right up to their parking the bird at MAN.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know that what happened to the Virgin A 340 fuel problem would have been picked up by a crew that had the experience of flying the old B 747 or DC 10 with flight engineers.
'AIMS by IBM'
What a ridiculous and semi literate rant, 'Airliners are built for efficiency when all goes normal only'
Indeed, the levels of redundancy built into modern transports, particularly the 747 allow for continued flight in the event of a loss of significant systems, up to and including powerplants. (That is why they have four!)
'Built in redundancy not to be used to cover commercial risk' It is there to cover any risk that failures require.
'Loosing' as you call it your weather radar over Africa with the ITCZ in front of you is not even remotely close to the same situation this crew had.
ETOPS is extremely relevant, as has been said, the FAA in their wisdom have no problem allowing a twin engine aircraft to fly on one for over three hours.
But protest when a four engine aircraft continues on three despite being certified to do so by them.
Or perhaps I am confused remembering 'Concord'
What a ridiculous and semi literate rant, 'Airliners are built for efficiency when all goes normal only'
Indeed, the levels of redundancy built into modern transports, particularly the 747 allow for continued flight in the event of a loss of significant systems, up to and including powerplants. (That is why they have four!)
'Built in redundancy not to be used to cover commercial risk' It is there to cover any risk that failures require.
'Loosing' as you call it your weather radar over Africa with the ITCZ in front of you is not even remotely close to the same situation this crew had.
ETOPS is extremely relevant, as has been said, the FAA in their wisdom have no problem allowing a twin engine aircraft to fly on one for over three hours.
But protest when a four engine aircraft continues on three despite being certified to do so by them.
Or perhaps I am confused remembering 'Concord'