BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
You may not agree with the consequences of continuing on, but at least now you know the consequences.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways operated the aircraft in an unairworthy condition
Flight With One Engine Inoperative
From Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121.565 (excerpts):
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.
(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.
(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.
(4) The air traffic congestion.
(5) The kind of terrain.
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.
(c) The pilot in command shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and shall keep that station fully informed of the progress of the flight.
As SLF and not knowing 747 capabilities, on the basis of the above FAR seems they did OK to me. ie thumbs up
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 3rd Apr 2006 at 03:22.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe a 3 engine ferry is done without passengers. As are many ferries due to technical reasons.
Might I suggest, given your comparison, that passengers are not included on such flights due to the reduced safety margins....... (or is that a little to simple?).......
Might I suggest, given your comparison, that passengers are not included on such flights due to the reduced safety margins....... (or is that a little to simple?).......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its interesting the flak this incident attracts when an Asian carrier flew a revenue service with the fan of one badly damaged engine strapped down to prevent rotation. Seem to recall the comment it attracted was little more than "boy, look at this". What I allude to in the earlier post is if its considered safe to do a three engine ferry (following the proscribed limitations) then I would be more than happy to ride along.
Mike, re the part (b) it almost seems to be the glass half full argument. The previous threads showed the differing opinions among the drivers of the type in question, so its understandable the FAA could disagree with the decision made. Given the circumstances I'm just saying I would have been happy with either decision (go, no go).
Mike, re the part (b) it almost seems to be the glass half full argument. The previous threads showed the differing opinions among the drivers of the type in question, so its understandable the FAA could disagree with the decision made. Given the circumstances I'm just saying I would have been happy with either decision (go, no go).
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 3rd Apr 2006 at 04:28.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: eastmidlands
Age: 62
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear!
Brian,
Yes I agree I've seen the photo's to that Asia carrier!
As you pointed out they did have the fan strapped down! with fri*****g Freight straps, the old mechanical latching type often seen holding down freight on the backs of lorries I kid you not!
I will try and find the photographs I have and shall we narrow it down? they were Chinese!
Even the Chinese authorities didn't support this little antic and the aircraft and the company were hauled over the coals!
No doubt they're all packing tea or tanning leather in one of the state prisons now!
However! this comment was a little contradictory!
As SLF and not knowing 747 capabilities, on the basis of the above FAR seems they did OK to me. ie thumbs up
if you read the extract you posted it says:
land as appropriate 'As soon as possible' at the nearest airport!
Not continue on across the Atlantic or any other pond for that matter!
As a fare paying passenger and 28 yrs in the industry I would be horrified if you guys weren't being a little more proffesional in your approach to emergencys and technical problems!
This is term'd as press on itus!
Yes I agree I've seen the photo's to that Asia carrier!
As you pointed out they did have the fan strapped down! with fri*****g Freight straps, the old mechanical latching type often seen holding down freight on the backs of lorries I kid you not!
I will try and find the photographs I have and shall we narrow it down? they were Chinese!
Even the Chinese authorities didn't support this little antic and the aircraft and the company were hauled over the coals!
No doubt they're all packing tea or tanning leather in one of the state prisons now!
However! this comment was a little contradictory!
As SLF and not knowing 747 capabilities, on the basis of the above FAR seems they did OK to me. ie thumbs up
if you read the extract you posted it says:
land as appropriate 'As soon as possible' at the nearest airport!
Not continue on across the Atlantic or any other pond for that matter!
As a fare paying passenger and 28 yrs in the industry I would be horrified if you guys weren't being a little more proffesional in your approach to emergencys and technical problems!
This is term'd as press on itus!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, chaps, disagree here.
The FAA are wrong on this occasion. The BA crew did the right thing, all things considered - I totally agree with the decision to continue, including 'due regard' to the FAR's pertinent to this situation. I myself have been in this position on the '400 (sort of). It seems the FAA have become more familiar with ETOPS over time and forgotten about 4-eng ops....
Multiple en-route divs, legal fuel to continue, abnormality contained....what's the point in spending $150M if you don't use it the way it can be operated to full advantage?
Contraversial opinion, I know....incoming....
The FAA are wrong on this occasion. The BA crew did the right thing, all things considered - I totally agree with the decision to continue, including 'due regard' to the FAR's pertinent to this situation. I myself have been in this position on the '400 (sort of). It seems the FAA have become more familiar with ETOPS over time and forgotten about 4-eng ops....
Multiple en-route divs, legal fuel to continue, abnormality contained....what's the point in spending $150M if you don't use it the way it can be operated to full advantage?
Contraversial opinion, I know....incoming....
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the FAA claim that BA operating an unairworthy aircraft? At the same time they are allowing etops 777's to do in excess of 3hrs on one engine over the Pacific.
Come on FAA which is the most dangerous? Are you not in danger of making yourselves look extremely foolish?
Come on FAA which is the most dangerous? Are you not in danger of making yourselves look extremely foolish?
Raamjet and Sky 9 have a I point. Almost all US Carrier Long Haul is now 777/767 based-the exceptions being UA who still operate 744s across the Pacific and occasionally to Europe
On the other hand non US carriers LH BA QF KLM AF JAL KE CX VS operate fouir engined aircraft which if the general expert opion on this topic is to be belived do provide the extra redundancy to allow continued flight to destination or a convenient alternate. That would be something of a commercial disadvantage to AA CO DL UA who are almost entirely ETOPS.
So perhaps the FAA have forgotten about the reasons why for decades long range over water ops was with more than two engines and not that the FAA would ever favour US over foreign aviations interests.
On the other hand non US carriers LH BA QF KLM AF JAL KE CX VS operate fouir engined aircraft which if the general expert opion on this topic is to be belived do provide the extra redundancy to allow continued flight to destination or a convenient alternate. That would be something of a commercial disadvantage to AA CO DL UA who are almost entirely ETOPS.
So perhaps the FAA have forgotten about the reasons why for decades long range over water ops was with more than two engines and not that the FAA would ever favour US over foreign aviations interests.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will open another can of worms but.......
A/C operating to ETOPS standards are designed to ETOPS standards (simple enough eh), what this means of course (and here you rely on statistics which can be manipulated anyway etc etc) is that a 767, 777 or others, have engines supposedly built/maintained/checked prior to each departure to a higher standard to reduce the likelihood of failure. In addition, we can assume that the engine failure case is the least likely scenario to cause an ETOPs a/c to divert, the aircraft has better fire suppression systems, more reliable electrical systems, hydraulics, extra preflight checks, and more stringent maintenance etc etc.
Now I am sure some expert can correct me on a few of those things, but essentially what it boils down to is that despite the mighty 747s having 4 donks, you should theoretically be safer on a twin designed to ETOPs standards because of the higher standards imposed, additional checking and redundancy. (The easy solution, build the 747 to the higher ETOPS Standards, and incoporate the appropriate maintanence and engineering and checking programs)
Of course the counter argument is you are safer because you have 4 donks, extra generators, and systems........
RRAAMJET - maybe it was a fairly acceptable decision to continue (I personally would have elected to return), I would hope, most crews would err on the side of caution. Its an expensive decision to make if it goes horribly wrong too. Aviation is pretty unforgiving, and you really need everything going in your favour.
A/C operating to ETOPS standards are designed to ETOPS standards (simple enough eh), what this means of course (and here you rely on statistics which can be manipulated anyway etc etc) is that a 767, 777 or others, have engines supposedly built/maintained/checked prior to each departure to a higher standard to reduce the likelihood of failure. In addition, we can assume that the engine failure case is the least likely scenario to cause an ETOPs a/c to divert, the aircraft has better fire suppression systems, more reliable electrical systems, hydraulics, extra preflight checks, and more stringent maintenance etc etc.
Now I am sure some expert can correct me on a few of those things, but essentially what it boils down to is that despite the mighty 747s having 4 donks, you should theoretically be safer on a twin designed to ETOPs standards because of the higher standards imposed, additional checking and redundancy. (The easy solution, build the 747 to the higher ETOPS Standards, and incoporate the appropriate maintanence and engineering and checking programs)
Of course the counter argument is you are safer because you have 4 donks, extra generators, and systems........
RRAAMJET - maybe it was a fairly acceptable decision to continue (I personally would have elected to return), I would hope, most crews would err on the side of caution. Its an expensive decision to make if it goes horribly wrong too. Aviation is pretty unforgiving, and you really need everything going in your favour.
Last edited by blueloo; 3rd Apr 2006 at 08:27.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Asian carrier" did NOT fly with its engine strapped down wit "fri*****g Freight straps"!!!! The fan was gagged using the approved method from the maintenance manual. The freight straps were approved Gereral Electric parts, in fact if you look closley at the picture you can see the part numbers printed on them. This method is used on both the GE CF-6 and the PW JT-9.
This is an aviation urban myth and I'm amazed that "Snopes" has not bebunked it.
Rgds Dr I
This is an aviation urban myth and I'm amazed that "Snopes" has not bebunked it.
Rgds Dr I
I don't understand why this topic rolls on and on. 4-engined jets have operated across the Atlantic for decades, and SOPs have equally always been in place, and are known to all concerned. There must have been many engine failures before starting the transocean crossing in that time. Did they all turn back ? Was this BA flight the first one ever that carried on ?
LAX to Europe does not actually do too many hours over the ocean, it is probably one of the lesser ETOPS-demanding routes, not like a transpacific flight.
LAX to Europe does not actually do too many hours over the ocean, it is probably one of the lesser ETOPS-demanding routes, not like a transpacific flight.
This incident is not really about the letter of the law it's about the intent or spirit in which it should be applied.
Clearly a modern 4 engine aircraft is designed to be operated for extended periods of time on 3 motors when sound professionalism and good airmanship have been applied, and of course when commercial aspects have been considered.
However, I don't think it was ever intended that a aircraft could have an engine shut down before the flaps were up and then its flight continued for thousands of miles including an ocean crossing, regardless of how many alternates were on the route.
Just because an aircraft can do such a trip does not mean it should! If BA was to be honest with its self now I don't think they would make the same decision again should something similar occur in the future.
Clearly a modern 4 engine aircraft is designed to be operated for extended periods of time on 3 motors when sound professionalism and good airmanship have been applied, and of course when commercial aspects have been considered.
However, I don't think it was ever intended that a aircraft could have an engine shut down before the flaps were up and then its flight continued for thousands of miles including an ocean crossing, regardless of how many alternates were on the route.
Just because an aircraft can do such a trip does not mean it should! If BA was to be honest with its self now I don't think they would make the same decision again should something similar occur in the future.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twice Proves it
Not forgetting that BA thumbed its nose at FAA concerns by doing a 3eng long-haul with pax from Singapore to Heathrow the following week in the same airframe after the replacement engine also failed.
Not long after that we had all the revelations from the UKCAA about BA's maintenance shortcomings (and with plenty of evidence to back those assertions up).
Even without the EU directives on passenger compensation coloring the background, you have to wonder what they were trying to do? Alienate their customers and dispose of what reputation that BA had left for attention to flight safety.
The FAA action was well warranted and the fine was a distinct undershoot.
Not long after that we had all the revelations from the UKCAA about BA's maintenance shortcomings (and with plenty of evidence to back those assertions up).
Even without the EU directives on passenger compensation coloring the background, you have to wonder what they were trying to do? Alienate their customers and dispose of what reputation that BA had left for attention to flight safety.
The FAA action was well warranted and the fine was a distinct undershoot.
Ill informed comment
Last time I looked, it was also Cathay Pacific policy to continue on three engines AFTER THE PILOT IN COMMAND HAD REVIEWED A LIST OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
Begs the question: Why do so many contributers think they know better than two major airlines whose attitude to safety is exemplary?
Begs the question: Why do so many contributers think they know better than two major airlines whose attitude to safety is exemplary?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. Brian Abraham...not in any way attempting to strain your intellectual capacity further, ...but a three engine ferry flight [which includes a 3-engine takeoff] is a special operation that precludes the carriage not only of revenue pax, but it also precludes the carriage of non essential riders.
An en route engine failure cannot be compared with with an engine-out ferry operation
An en route engine failure cannot be compared with with an engine-out ferry operation
Bluloo,
QUOTE
"Now I am sure some expert can correct me on a few of those things, but essentially what it boils down to is that despite the mighty 747s having 4 donks, you should theoretically be safer on a twin designed to ETOPs standards because of the higher standards imposed, additional checking and redundancy. (The easy solution, build the 747 to the higher ETOPS Standards, and incoporate the appropriate maintanence and engineering and checking programs)"
Have to disagree there.
There are some operators out there who's only extra requirement on an ETOPS sector PDI is to check the crew oxygen!
With others it requires extra checks on generators, hydraulics etc.
So you see, it has nothing to do with the a/c type but everything to do with the operator and it's NAA's requirements.
QUOTE
"Now I am sure some expert can correct me on a few of those things, but essentially what it boils down to is that despite the mighty 747s having 4 donks, you should theoretically be safer on a twin designed to ETOPs standards because of the higher standards imposed, additional checking and redundancy. (The easy solution, build the 747 to the higher ETOPS Standards, and incoporate the appropriate maintanence and engineering and checking programs)"
Have to disagree there.
There are some operators out there who's only extra requirement on an ETOPS sector PDI is to check the crew oxygen!
With others it requires extra checks on generators, hydraulics etc.
So you see, it has nothing to do with the a/c type but everything to do with the operator and it's NAA's requirements.
Airbrake,
On the face of it and if Brian Abraham has accurately posted the FAR then it would appear that it is legal under FARs to complete the flight on three.
It is also the case that the airline's AOC is issued, not by the FAA but by the British CAA.
Clearly, a sovereign nation must have some say in what takes place in its national airspace but it appears odd to me that: a) BA should be fined over a matter of pilot in command judgement which did not even appear to contravene FARs, and b) the matter was not dealt with at ministerial level to decide how future similar occurences were to handled.
On the face of it and if Brian Abraham has accurately posted the FAR then it would appear that it is legal under FARs to complete the flight on three.
It is also the case that the airline's AOC is issued, not by the FAA but by the British CAA.
Clearly, a sovereign nation must have some say in what takes place in its national airspace but it appears odd to me that: a) BA should be fined over a matter of pilot in command judgement which did not even appear to contravene FARs, and b) the matter was not dealt with at ministerial level to decide how future similar occurences were to handled.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spannerless - Suggest you re-read the posted FAR regulations again, especially the part concerning aircraft with three or more engines, then review your comments. Land ASAP is for aircraft not covered by section (b).
Turin - The checks and requirements bluloo refers to are required to get an aircraft ETOPS certified, not the checks to be carried out before flight. It has everything to do with aircraft type.
I wonder if the FAA are looking at the fuel situation. If I remember correctly the aircraft div'd to MAN due to fuel, if the crew had made it clear early on that was their intention then there would have been no issue. The crew obviously thought they'd get to LHR only to find the burn/winds etc. weren't quite what they thought. Perhaps this is what the FAA is latching onto?
Turin - The checks and requirements bluloo refers to are required to get an aircraft ETOPS certified, not the checks to be carried out before flight. It has everything to do with aircraft type.
(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.
(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points
(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to keep this interesting, I thought I'd dig out DingerX's interesting review on the original thread by Mini Mums where this incident first came to light, long before the media got hold of it, here on PPRuNe.
Think about it if you have time and would prefer to keep it out of the media spotlight! 
...just as an aside, I understand the bulk of the users of this board are located in the UK. I also see a lot of "hand-wringing" about "this is surely not the first time something like this has happened", and wonder as to why it happened to make the news this time.
Well, if you read through the whole thread, you'll see the initial notice of the event was by spotters with radios at Manchester. Then we had discussion from some people who had spoken with the cabin crew, and a few maintenance folks. Then the press caught wind of it.
As I thought about it, I realized that just about every emergency, non-emergency, fire drill, prang, go-around or similar event that occurs at MAN usually makes at least the Manchester papers and often before they do, you see it here on PPRuNe.
I understand that Manchester is the second-largest airport in the UK, boasting something on the order of 18 million passengers a year. Still, I decided to do a little study.
First, I grabbed a list of the 30 busiest airports in the world. Then I went over to the photo database at popular Planespotting site airliners.net and I tallied up the number of spotter photographs taken from each of the 30 airfields on the list, plus Manchester. The theory is:
1. Total Passengers are roughly an indicator of total movements.
2. Total Photographs taken indicate the number of amateur observers and the degree to which the airport is under observation.
3. From this, we can calculate a Spotter Quotient of (Photos/Million Movements). A high Spotter Quotient should indicate an airport where aircraft and aircrew behaviour is closely monitored by a band of net-savvy, anorak packing enthusiasts.
Here's my results:
Apt Pax Pho SQ
ATL 75.8 5210 69
ORD 66.5 2359 28
LHR 63.3 25110 397
HND 61.1 1727 28
LAX 56.2 16353 291
DFW 52.8 3203 61
FRA 48.5 23714 489
CDG 48.4 8698 180
AMS 40.7 24611 604
DEN 35.7 3619 101
PHX 35.5 6711 189
LAS 35.0 3005 85
MAD 33.9 4915 145
IAH 33.9 1965 58
HKG 33.9 9859 291
MSP 32.6 2551 78
DTW 32.5 664 20
BKK 32.2 2075 64
SFO 31.5 3447 109
MIA 30.0 11485 382
JFK 29.9 8062 269
LGW 29.6 6988 236
EWR 29.2 2725 93
SIN 29.0 4285 147
NRT 28.9 2049 70.9
PEK 27.2 4721 174
SEA 26.7 1492 56
MCO 26.7 2184 82
YYZ 25.9 7952 306
STL 25.6 839 33
and...down the list quite a bit:
MAN 18.3 17419 952
So, in terms of Spotter Quotient, Manchester is first in the world. Only one airport -- Amsterdam-- has more than half the SQ of MAN. In absolute terms, if we determine spotter community by the number of photos, then Manchester is fourth in the world -- with LHR, AMS and FRA in the 1, 2 and 3 slots.
There are more eyes on aircraft coming into and going out of Manchester than anywhere else in the world.
Since, in the case discussed in this thread, economics played a factor (as it does in every other case: why run an airline if not to make money?), and a significant part of economics is global news exposure, if, after having suffered an engine failure, the crew elected to proceed across the pond, with the full knowledge that adverse winds might put them in to MAN in an emergency, they acted very poorly indeed.
Had they landed at any other airport on their path, the odds of this event hitting the international press would have been greatly reduced.
...just something to think about when you're planning alternates.
Well, if you read through the whole thread, you'll see the initial notice of the event was by spotters with radios at Manchester. Then we had discussion from some people who had spoken with the cabin crew, and a few maintenance folks. Then the press caught wind of it.
As I thought about it, I realized that just about every emergency, non-emergency, fire drill, prang, go-around or similar event that occurs at MAN usually makes at least the Manchester papers and often before they do, you see it here on PPRuNe.
I understand that Manchester is the second-largest airport in the UK, boasting something on the order of 18 million passengers a year. Still, I decided to do a little study.
First, I grabbed a list of the 30 busiest airports in the world. Then I went over to the photo database at popular Planespotting site airliners.net and I tallied up the number of spotter photographs taken from each of the 30 airfields on the list, plus Manchester. The theory is:
1. Total Passengers are roughly an indicator of total movements.
2. Total Photographs taken indicate the number of amateur observers and the degree to which the airport is under observation.
3. From this, we can calculate a Spotter Quotient of (Photos/Million Movements). A high Spotter Quotient should indicate an airport where aircraft and aircrew behaviour is closely monitored by a band of net-savvy, anorak packing enthusiasts.
Here's my results:
Apt Pax Pho SQ
ATL 75.8 5210 69
ORD 66.5 2359 28
LHR 63.3 25110 397
HND 61.1 1727 28
LAX 56.2 16353 291
DFW 52.8 3203 61
FRA 48.5 23714 489
CDG 48.4 8698 180
AMS 40.7 24611 604
DEN 35.7 3619 101
PHX 35.5 6711 189
LAS 35.0 3005 85
MAD 33.9 4915 145
IAH 33.9 1965 58
HKG 33.9 9859 291
MSP 32.6 2551 78
DTW 32.5 664 20
BKK 32.2 2075 64
SFO 31.5 3447 109
MIA 30.0 11485 382
JFK 29.9 8062 269
LGW 29.6 6988 236
EWR 29.2 2725 93
SIN 29.0 4285 147
NRT 28.9 2049 70.9
PEK 27.2 4721 174
SEA 26.7 1492 56
MCO 26.7 2184 82
YYZ 25.9 7952 306
STL 25.6 839 33
and...down the list quite a bit:
MAN 18.3 17419 952
So, in terms of Spotter Quotient, Manchester is first in the world. Only one airport -- Amsterdam-- has more than half the SQ of MAN. In absolute terms, if we determine spotter community by the number of photos, then Manchester is fourth in the world -- with LHR, AMS and FRA in the 1, 2 and 3 slots.
There are more eyes on aircraft coming into and going out of Manchester than anywhere else in the world.
Since, in the case discussed in this thread, economics played a factor (as it does in every other case: why run an airline if not to make money?), and a significant part of economics is global news exposure, if, after having suffered an engine failure, the crew elected to proceed across the pond, with the full knowledge that adverse winds might put them in to MAN in an emergency, they acted very poorly indeed.
Had they landed at any other airport on their path, the odds of this event hitting the international press would have been greatly reduced.
...just something to think about when you're planning alternates.