BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article

[Jumbo Driver]

Originally Posted by AIMS by IBM

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.

AIMS by IBM

First point, UK registered aircraft do not operate using the dispatch release system you have in the USA, although I have no doubt that pre-flight fuel planning considerations are very similar.

Second point, contingency fuel is just that - it is there to cover any airborne contingency, i.e. not limited to certain events only. This event (engine shut-down) would have necessitated in-flight re-planning by the crew to ensure they had sufficient fuel for continuation with safe reserves (which they had and they did).

Third point, see point two - contingency fuel is there to be used if needed when airborne.

[maxy101]

I believe that some JAA operators can reduce to less than 5% of the Trip Fuel if their flight planning systems are so authorised by the relevant aviation authority. i.e Statistical Contigency fuel programmes.

[notdavegorman]

3% contingency if en route alternative is specified.

[lomapaseo]

In my dreams I do wish this whole thread could be summarized down to only a pagefull of discussion points rather than wandering back and forth over the same ground.

I'm still trying to be a friend of the court in my own mind and just offering technical opinion of a few points that crop up.

Here's a couple of coments on what I have read today.

The engine would likely be considered restartable (by the crew and tech ops on the ground) based on the symptoms when it was shut down. From what I have read these were nothing more than engine surges at a localized flight condition.

The application of the word airworthy or unairworthy to my knowledge has its basis only in the decision basis to take (initiate) flight (taxi out). Once it's in flight the combinations of all likely varriables enter into an airworthy judgement chain of decision making involving the pilot.

From only a personal point of view, I'm bored with the endless arguments (nobody is going to change their mind) about the decisions of the pilot. I am however interested in what possible statuatory fault may apply here and as such be upheld by a court, including the appeal process. Typically the courts uphold the right of the administrator to administrate their regulations as the administrator interpretes them. There is possibly some argument about whether these regulations apply (court may decide) And some argument about whether any regulations were broken (administrator through the appeal process may decide this).

I'm still guessing that if this goes to the appeal process (back to the FAA) the administrator will give BA a pass and reenergize a process never to get into this pissing contest with the CAA again..

[wiggy]

Notdavegorman

FWIW the 3% minimum contigency fuel figure doesn't always apply if using a Statistical Contingency Fuel policy (as in BA's case) - the mininimum amount depends on the policy agreed between the operator and the CAA.

[jondc9]

dear danny:

how very civilized of you to chat with me.

first off, I have never indicated I flew the B747. Please find the passage in which I mention "I FLY B747".

I have never done long haul flying.

I did mention doing a 3 engine ferry on the BAE146 to indicate how flying on a 4 engine plane with ony 3 running should (imho) be done...that is without passengers.


I have certainly flown jet aircraft dispatched with one engine generator inop, to be replaced by the apu generator.

I also know how mad mechanics (you call them engineers I think, just like an adjustable spanner there is a monkey wrench here) get when you come back to the gate to have them do the paperwork and how frustrating it is when a company does not keep proper spare parts nearby.

I also never said that flying a B747 with 3 gens was unsafe...I just said I would go back to the gate and have the mechanics look at it. (meaning fix or defer)


And perhaps the wink and the nod came from your mechanics, sorry engineers, and not your fellow pilots.

You all seem to think I am blaming pilots on your side of the pond for doing things I might not have done. Perhaps you don't understand that I am trying to point out the pressure that money brings on pilots to make some decisions.

AND for the record, while we have dispatchers in the USA and our flights leave with concurrence of both pilot and dispatcher, the PILOT IN COMMAND still gets the final word while airborne.

And yes I have flown for one large and one tiny airline that have both been in bankruptcy.

Raising the question about another engine problem 3 weeks later is certainly relevent. Perhaps it is a trend of poor mx,inherent problems with that type of plane or engine, or perhaps just a coincidence?

And to the low fuel emergency. We are obviously seperated by a common language. We don't have that in our lexicon either, we can advise "minimum fuel". Slang terms sometimes don't carry across the pond...I for one still can't understand your side's reference to women as BIRDS, yet I understand our own reference to CHICKS.

(do you know what the phrase "I am popeye" means?)

Fine, then a MAYDAY should be declared and the reason was low fuel? does that make more sense to you?

Sadly a 707 going into JFK many years ago got the lexicon wrong and ended up crashed, but that is another thread.


And reading between the lines I get this from you and your side of the pond. You believe all of us love 2 engine planes ( an economic decision I am sure which you all seem to place so high in the equation). You very much believe that we are sales people for Boeing 777's and the like. And that we are trying to get the FAA to take action just to increase B777 sales.

Please.

For the record I really don't care for Boeings. I prefer single digit douglas and I guess Boeing liked them enough to buy them.

I base all of my opinions NOT ON BEING A 747 pilot, but having flown for 3 small airlines and one big one; having seen the pressure on pilots to save money even moving into the world of calculated risk; having watched what happens when pilots don't write up problems in "tech logs" only to have the next pilot have to deal with it, sometimes unexpectedly.

Certainly 30 years in aviation does allow me to post on this site however!

My opinions are also based on teaching people to fly as a CFIIMEI/ATP and how judgement differs from person to person, background to background.

My opinions are also based on trying to get improvements in safety for pilots and having a deaf ear turned to such topics as: enhanced security training (prior to 9/11), installation of EMAS systems at airports (way prior to Chicago Midway Southwest) and better real time wx information for pilots (prior to a tragic crash in KCLT in 1994).

The deaf ear was turned towards me by the FAA and elected governement officials. The answer was always money related.


I have already said before that flying on 3 engines in your 747 was just fine, but that other options which would have (imho) enhanced safety and were easily available existed.

Sometimes I think pilots (ourselves) are our own worst enemy. We can be a bit too heroic in trying to get the mission done. Perhaps I think the BA pilots were being a bit too heroic to get the mission done. I have also indicated that money is too often part of the equation (IMHO)>

We must ask ourselves this question:

IF the B747 in question had dumped fuel/burned fuel down to landing weight and landed safely at any of half a dozen airports on the west coast of the USA, would the FAA had made such a big stink?

Long ago I learned that besides the passengers, the company and myself as a pilot, I also had to please the lawyers ( or at least stay away from them!).

regards

jon

PS. I have not yet made reference to a popular TV network in your country...lots of things can be made up about BBC.

"i am popeye" means the aircraft is IMC and can't find the traffic mentioned...I had been flying 17 years before I heard that one...a US navy term.

[Joetom]

Would BA do the same today, or have they changed the way they operate.??

[Rainboe]

My head aches! Now we have 20driver telling us from afar how BA will operate from now on! (see bottom previous page):

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.

One simply doesn't know where to start. I think he deserves a prize for every sentence being totally wrong! Can't be easy screwing up one posting like that.

[JumpAhead]

Currently there is no change in BA policy and why should there be? the flight continues if it's safe to do so according to all the experts/manufacturers/regulators rules and performance calculations. If at any time you think it may become unsafe then you divert i.e. continue to LHR until you think (rightly or wrongly) you're not happy then go to an en-route. I'd like to stress the bit which says 'think'. This crew knew all the rules and probably spent most of the flight doing 'howgozit' fuel calculations, collecting alternate wx etc. There are rules to which you must abide but at the end of the day someone has to decide. Who better than the highly trained flight crew on the flight?

What if they had carried on to LHR, had a delay and landed below reserve fuel?

The FAA fine is political because there is no current regulation which prevents the crew doing exactly what they did. As usual it's all about interpretation of semantics which the lawyers get paid zillions to thrash out in a court.


And no, I'm not suggesting the lives of pax should ever be resolved by lawyers. An example is the BA diversion to Uralsk. No question, land at the nearest bit of concrete regardless of the cost implications for getting pax/luggage out. The Pilots are the best and only people to decide there and then what is best.

If you disagree then roll on the day when Pilots are no more and the flight is operated by a commitee of accounts with a remote control box.

[RobertS975]

Originally Posted by Rainboe

Sure BA may have 'lost your respect'. That's because you don't understand the problem and how to handle it in a plane like the Jumbo. Avoid them. They will not miss you. You still haven't answered the question- a 747 LAX-LHR on three, or a 777 across the Pacific on one for 3 hours 8 minutes.....which one cowboy? Is the second really acceptable? Ask the FAA why they are creating so much bluster on the first when they authorise the second.

Rainboe, I am but a mere private pilot, but I am a frequent airline pasenger. The 777 that loses one three hours away from the nearest "suitable" diversion point has an "urgent" situation that demands the skill and judgement of the flight crew. But the 747 that loses one of its four engines at the beginning of a 5000 mile 12 hour flight has to be considered to have suffered a significant anomaly. As a frequent passenger, I am surprised that the BA crew decided to continue onward.

I certainly think that the subject merits debate. But I personally believe that continuation of the flight on three engines was not a wise decision.

[20driver]

Rainboe - probably your head aches because you don't seem to be able to read.

I said - "I have no problem what so ever with the crews call" - which part of this you have a problem with? When this originally came up I provided a post that there was a very sound argument that continuing on was safer that returning to LA and risking a van ride and night in an LA Airport hotel.

This has being nothing but bad publicity for BA. Or did we miss something and you think this publicity is good for the BA image. There is no upside for BA in this no matter how it finishes.
From earlier posts it seems it only got into the new because of some anoraks in MAN. Someone even created an anorak index showing MAN at the top of the "spotter" list. Hence the tongue in check remark of no futher diversions to MAN unless the wings are coming off.

This was never a safety issue - it has always being a chest thumping PR issue. If the crew had diverted to Prestwick this might never have become the little tempest in the teapot it is. I'll bet the FAA wishes they had never heard of this.

As for next time, well it will probably be a very long time before this exact set of circumstances happens but if they stars align this way again do you think BA management really wants to deal with this? If you do, stick to flying, hopefully you are better at flying than managing.

You sure you and Joncd aren't related - you show remarkably similar behavior.

20driver

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by jondc9

You very much believe that we are sales people for Boeing 777's and the like. And that we are trying to get the FAA to take action just to increase B777 sales.

Please.

I take the following from the Flight editorial already linked to, which was the most illuminating thing I've read this time around about this episode:-

Although the argument about extended twin engine operations (ETOPS) has gone quiet for a couple of years, it is still out there – unresolved. At last reading, the FAA and its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) wanted either the commander’s discretion about indefinite continued flight with one engine out to be extended to twins, or the captains of quads to lose their discretion about when and if to divert. The rest of the world’s NAAs signalled that neither would be acceptable, because if a twin loses an engine it has no power unit redundancy, whereas a quad can lose three more before it has no power at all. But the FAA’s thinking in the BA case is consistent with FAA/ARAC objectives. It could “win” whichever way the court rules.

So you see why many of us smell a rat?

[bermondseya]

Originally Posted by overstress

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

If that is an invitation to find that information by crawling through the many threads, I am not sure I could face that But joking aside, I don't think the sequence of events has been properly documented on here or anywhere. Isn't that why we have independent bodies like the AAIB and NTSB - independant of the regulators even, as the suspicion that the regulators are in the pockets of the airlines is just too strong, on both sides of the pond. So with due respect to the BA insiders, I will wait until the independent reports come out before I know whether they "always had enough fuel for LHR". The only factual piece of information we have is that they didn't make it.

I am really wondering out loud why the FAA are going after BA for operating an "unairworthy airplane"? Perhaps they consider a 3 engined 747 airworthy for a PAX trip to JFK, but not across the N Atlantic in winter. In their complaint they said BA bypassed many suitable airfields, they must think that is relevant. They also mentioned the MAYDAY in their complaint, they must feel it relevent, and perhaps they do actually know how much fuel was on board. Perhaps they do consider amount of fuel on board for the filed destination an airworthyness issue. BA does appear to have a fuel policy which might not pass muster with the FARs. When did they decide to head for Manchester, seems from the FAA complaint that it was quite a hurried decision, not the sort of behavior to expect from an airline that 'BA insiders' are telling us is the most experienced and safest in the world That's not a nice thing to say to those of us who have never had to divert with a MAYDAY because we haven't a clue how much usable fuel we have.

I still think it's the fuel and the management of the same, but as there is no real evidence to suggest what the FAA are thinking, this is just a WAG. But plenty of other new ideas in my original post, this fuel/engine discussion is indeed becoming stale. What about the FAA vs NTSB and Merrill case? The FAA can now change how they interpret the FARs and the NTSB judge is bound to accept any new FAA intepretation. In US law, it appears to me that you can no longer win against the FAA if they don't want you to, that should be of real concern to BA (and the rest of us)

[overstress]

Sorry Bermondseya but you're mistaken that this hasn't been covered elsewhere. You are of course entitled to join the 'debate' - everyone else has- but may I suggest that you do 'trawl' as you will discover the answers you seek. As a BA 747 pilot I am aware of the sequence of events. BA pilots are not debating this on the BA BALPA forum as it is simply a non-issue. An event took place and the crew acted as they are paid to do. There have been another couple of long threads where my 747 colleagues have politely tried to explain to the pilot/spotter community at large. This has turned into another such thread.

Off to LAX now, & noting that our procedures still haven't changed

[bermondseya]

Originally Posted by overstress

Off to LAX now, & noting that our procedures still haven't changed

But they wouldn't have changed, as that could be used by the FAA as evidence that BA accepted the original procedures were wrong. I wouldn't change the procedures either, but that proves nothing.

Have a good trip!

[Jumbo Driver]

Originally Posted by bermondseya

But they wouldn't have changed, as that could be used by the FAA as evidence that BA accepted the original procedures were wrong. I wouldn't change the procedures either, but that proves nothing.
Have a good trip!

Equally likely, bermondseya, and certainly much nearer the truth, they haven't changed because they don't need to !




Have a good trip, overstress !

[bermondseya]

Originally Posted by Jumbo Driver

Equally likely, bermondseya, and certainly much nearer the truth, they haven't changed because they don't need to !

I thought BA had changed the QRH. As for engine out procedures, as I said, I wouldn't change them either. My point is that there is more than one reason for not changing the engine out procedures. Telling us that the procedures have not changed proves nothing.

[Jumbo Driver]

Originally Posted by bermondseya

I thought BA had changed the QRH. As for engine out procedures, as I said, I wouldn't change them either. My point is that there is more than one reason for not changing the engine out procedures. Telling us that the procedures have not changed proves nothing.

Okay, bermondseya, I understand this may prove nothing to the cynical - however the fact remains, as overstress says, the procedures haven't changed!

[DA50driver]

How about this angle?

How would you feel about this if you considered this from the point of view? You are at home in London. You hear that the flight your wife and two little children are on had an engine failure shortly after take-off. Would you want the airplane to come to London or maybe make a precautionary landing at a suitable destination? (No, Manchester was not a suitable airport for the sake of discussion.)
I know how I would feel if my entire genepool was onboard.

[Jumbo Driver]

Originally Posted by DA50driver

How would you feel about this if you considered this from the point of view? You are at home in London. You hear that the flight your wife and two little children are on had an engine failure shortly after take-off. Would you want the airplane to come to London or maybe make a precautionary landing at a suitable destination? (No, Manchester was not a suitable airport for the sake of discussion.)
I know how I would feel if my entire genepool was onboard.

I understand the instinctive reaction of many in such a case is probably to "land, check and sort it out". This view is inevitably encouraged by the tabloid images created by headlines such as "Pilot Grapples with Stricken Jet" and "Hero Pilot Avoids School" that we see so often, which are designed simply to sell newspapers.

However a considered and more informed reaction is not quite the same. I realise I will be expressing a minority view in that I have considerable experience of 747 operation in BA, in both LHS and RHS and from Training and Route Check perspectives (NOT Management, by the way!). From first-hand experience, therefore, I know both the aircraft and the operating standards within the fleet and also know enough to realise that an "engine failure" on the 747-400 is generally not a big deal. Thus, I would not be over-anxious in the circumstances described because I am familiar with both the aircraft and the environment in which the decision whether or not to continue would have been made. I would of course be concerned and interested to learn full details after the event but I have sufficient confidence in the Command and crew standards within BA to let them get on with the job that they are professionally qualified to do.

That's how I would feel.