3 engine BA 747 hearing
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
Trying to induce some ETOPS issues into this INCIDENT is ignoring the reality of what has happened and very childish to say the least.
BA should (as Airbus states themselves) should have taken the safest course of action and that is certainly NOT what they did.
BA should (as Airbus states themselves) should have taken the safest course of action and that is certainly NOT what they did.
The AAIB have issued a report into this incident. The actual report is available online as a PDF here.
The abstract reads:
The abstract reads:
Immediately after the aircraft took off on a night flight from Los Angeles to London, a banging sound was heard and passengers and ATC reported seeing flames from the No 2 engine. The symptoms and resultant turbine over-temperature were consistent with an engine surge; the crew completed the appropriate checklist, which led to the engine being shut down. After assessing the situation, and in accordance with approved policy, the commander decided to continue the flight as planned rather than jettison fuel and return to Los Angeles. Having reached the east coast of the USA with no indications of further abnormality and with adequate predicted arrival fuel, the crew decided to continue to the UK. The winds and available flight levels were subsequently less favourable than anticipated and, nearing the UK, the crew decided to divert to Manchester in order to maintain the required arrival fuel reserve. In the latter stages of the flight the crew encountered difficulties in balancing the fuel quantities in the four main tanks, became concerned that the contents of one tank might be unusable and declared an emergency in accordance with the operator’s procedures. The aircraft landed with low contents in both outboard main tanks, although the total fuel quantity was in excess of the planned reserve. The fuel system, in the configuration selected, should have continued to feed the operating engines until all tanks emptied. The investigation determined that the engine surge had been due to excessive wear to the high-pressure compressor casing and, with the standard of fuel controller software installed, this resulted in turbine over-temperature damage. There was no evidence of fuel system malfunction and it was possible to maintain fuel tank quantities in balance by the selective use of fuel pumps. The evidence suggested that the operator should ensure that flight crews are provided with relevant instruction on 3-engined fuel handling during initial and recurrent training, and that the regulators should review the policy on flight continuation for public transport aircraft operations, following an in-flight shutdown of an engine, in order to provide greater clarity to the operators. Eight recommendations are made, 6 of which relate to flight data recorders.
3 engine ferry with pax!
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Recommendation 2006-018
"It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority and
the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with
other relevant agencies, should review the policy on flight
continuation for public transport aircraft operations,
following an in-flight shutdown of an engine, in order to
provide clear guidance to the operators."
Summed up as the CAA and FAA should get their act together and the crew acted in a safe mannner.
What a lot of twaddle has been written in this subject on this and previous threads.
"It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority and
the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with
other relevant agencies, should review the policy on flight
continuation for public transport aircraft operations,
following an in-flight shutdown of an engine, in order to
provide clear guidance to the operators."
Summed up as the CAA and FAA should get their act together and the crew acted in a safe mannner.
What a lot of twaddle has been written in this subject on this and previous threads.
3 engine BA (ferry) ex LAX
There are specific procedures in place for three engine ferry flights. No pax being an obvious factor . Also In addition there is common sense as to whether or not a flight is continued, mainly dependant of course where the a/c is in relation to its point of no return and the nearest diversion airport. That being an obvious fact it is surprising that an operator can elect to bend and remain within the rules to continue the major portion of a flight with an engine out!
There must be a place on the carpet in CAA for BA this one!!
There must be a place on the carpet in CAA for BA this one!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Suitcase....
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by patkinson
There are specific procedures in place for three engine ferry flights. No pax being an obvious factor . Also In addition there is common sense as to whether or not a flight is continued, mainly dependant of course where the a/c is in relation to its point of no return and the nearest diversion airport. That being an obvious fact it is surprising that an operator can elect to bend and remain within the rules to continue the major portion of a flight with an engine out!
There must be a place on the carpet in CAA for BA this one!!
There must be a place on the carpet in CAA for BA this one!!
Suggest you review the facts and applicable regs....
The following is an extract from a summary of press articles circulated by IACA yesterday
Report: Pilots' training deficient
British Airways pilots who carried on with a jumbo jet flight right across the Atlantic despite an engine failure, were not sufficiently knowledgeable about how the fuel system worked with only three engines operating, an accident report has said. The crew on the four-engined London-bound Boeing 747, which was carrying 352 passengers, had to shut down an engine after flames were seen coming from it immediately after take off from Los Angeles. The pilots decided not to return to Los Angeles but to carry on to London but, in the end, declared an emergency and diverted to Manchester, where the plane landed safely, a report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said. The report said that in the latter stages of the February 2005 flight, the crew encountered difficulties in balancing the fuel quantities in the four main tanks. The AAIB said the crew became concerned that the contents of one tank might be unusable.
Those of us who have argued in pprune -and been soundly whacked around the head for doing so - that there's only one thing to do when an engine fails, and that is to land as soon as safely practicable, because human failings can always upset the statistics, might take some comfort from the fact that we are not alone. If the crew did not understand the fuel system, what else did they not understand?
And now to standby mode, to wait for the guys with computers telling me I just don't understand the B744 and should keep quiet. Well, maybe. I just know that there's only one place I want to be in an aircraft where something has gone seriously wrong, and that's on the ground, because the next thing to go wrong, probably through unpredictable and unpredicted human error, may kill me. The one after that certainly will.
Trip to Kegworth, anyone?
Report: Pilots' training deficient
British Airways pilots who carried on with a jumbo jet flight right across the Atlantic despite an engine failure, were not sufficiently knowledgeable about how the fuel system worked with only three engines operating, an accident report has said. The crew on the four-engined London-bound Boeing 747, which was carrying 352 passengers, had to shut down an engine after flames were seen coming from it immediately after take off from Los Angeles. The pilots decided not to return to Los Angeles but to carry on to London but, in the end, declared an emergency and diverted to Manchester, where the plane landed safely, a report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said. The report said that in the latter stages of the February 2005 flight, the crew encountered difficulties in balancing the fuel quantities in the four main tanks. The AAIB said the crew became concerned that the contents of one tank might be unusable.
Those of us who have argued in pprune -and been soundly whacked around the head for doing so - that there's only one thing to do when an engine fails, and that is to land as soon as safely practicable, because human failings can always upset the statistics, might take some comfort from the fact that we are not alone. If the crew did not understand the fuel system, what else did they not understand?
And now to standby mode, to wait for the guys with computers telling me I just don't understand the B744 and should keep quiet. Well, maybe. I just know that there's only one place I want to be in an aircraft where something has gone seriously wrong, and that's on the ground, because the next thing to go wrong, probably through unpredictable and unpredicted human error, may kill me. The one after that certainly will.
Trip to Kegworth, anyone?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the crew did not understand the fuel system, what else did they not understand?
Trip to Kegworth, anyone?
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by old,not bold
I just know that there's only one place I want to be in an aircraft where something has gone seriously wrong, and that's on the ground, because the next thing to go wrong, probably through unpredictable and unpredicted human error, may kill me.
And that, it seems to this layman, is just one possibility of many.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the report, it seems well balanced, and covers all the avenues that were discussed here at great length.
To me, the significant aspect of the report is that the bottom line recommendations about a previously unreported fault on the FDR have generated a ratio of 3 to 1 recommendations in comparison to the reported incident.
In other words, so that there's no confusion, it seems to me that the people responsible for producing the report were a lot more concerned about the FDR failure than they were about the engine failure and the subseqeuent continued operation of the flight. That should tell us something.
Maybe at last, this thread will now be allowed to quietly subside back into the background noise.
One set of statistics may be worth quoting
26.4 x 10 to the 6th Hours. That's a LOT of hours, and in all of that time, only 2 engines have received additional damage, and in both cases, there were indications of significant vibration, so an appropriate response was made. When the cold light of day facts are reviewed in the way that this report does it, I suggest that there was no case here to be getting excited about in the first place, and as has been suggested, if they'd got to LHR without the "drama" of the diversion and Mayday, this "incident" would not have even got a mention, let alone the hysteria it provoked at the time.
To me, the significant aspect of the report is that the bottom line recommendations about a previously unreported fault on the FDR have generated a ratio of 3 to 1 recommendations in comparison to the reported incident.
In other words, so that there's no confusion, it seems to me that the people responsible for producing the report were a lot more concerned about the FDR failure than they were about the engine failure and the subseqeuent continued operation of the flight. That should tell us something.
Maybe at last, this thread will now be allowed to quietly subside back into the background noise.
One set of statistics may be worth quoting
The engine manufacturer provided statistics showing
that, from 1989 to May 2005, there had been 389 surge
events from all causes for the RB211 524G2 and 524G2‑T
engines. The worldwide fleet size was 603 with a
total engine operating time of 26.4 x 10
that, from 1989 to May 2005, there had been 389 surge
events from all causes for the RB211 524G2 and 524G2‑T
engines. The worldwide fleet size was 603 with a
total engine operating time of 26.4 x 10
6 hours. Of the
389 surge events, 57 resulted in an abandoned takeoff
389 surge events, 57 resulted in an abandoned takeoff
and 65 resulted in an IFSD; of these 54 were subsequently
removed due to damage. The manufacturer considered
that prolonged windmilling may have caused additional
damage in two of the cases, both LP compressor fan
removed due to damage. The manufacturer considered
that prolonged windmilling may have caused additional
damage in two of the cases, both LP compressor fan
blade failures, but in both cases a diversion had been
carried out due to significant vibration.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why do you always fly on 4-engined aircraft, sire?"
"Cos they don't make any 5-engined ones young man."
Overall, as Willie the Shake once said, 'much ado about nothing.' Perfectly logical decision, within the rules, end of story IMHO.
"Cos they don't make any 5-engined ones young man."
Overall, as Willie the Shake once said, 'much ado about nothing.' Perfectly logical decision, within the rules, end of story IMHO.
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
Quite right. It's all been said here, many, many times- any other comments are just repeating what has been said over and over again.
If the regulatory authorities would come to some sort of concensus and give positive guidelines, should they decide to change current procedures, well, the aviation world is all ears. However, procedures and rules were followed in this case and in the many other cases of US, European, Far East and Australian operators who have followed a flight continuation policy in the past, and still do provided the circumstances are right, as in this case. FAA regulations were not breached. If the FAA, in conjunction with other regulatory authorities wants to change the current rules, it will be done, but that is as long as the FAA recognises it can no longer impose its own rule changes on the rest of the world. The FAA just doesn't carry that much grunt outside the USA anymore, and frankly, with some of its recent deliberations and statements, quite rightly.
Only trouble is, the biggest current hazard in aviation is Jon9dc's feeling of 'what is right'. Somehow we have to get over that!
If the regulatory authorities would come to some sort of concensus and give positive guidelines, should they decide to change current procedures, well, the aviation world is all ears. However, procedures and rules were followed in this case and in the many other cases of US, European, Far East and Australian operators who have followed a flight continuation policy in the past, and still do provided the circumstances are right, as in this case. FAA regulations were not breached. If the FAA, in conjunction with other regulatory authorities wants to change the current rules, it will be done, but that is as long as the FAA recognises it can no longer impose its own rule changes on the rest of the world. The FAA just doesn't carry that much grunt outside the USA anymore, and frankly, with some of its recent deliberations and statements, quite rightly.
Only trouble is, the biggest current hazard in aviation is Jon9dc's feeling of 'what is right'. Somehow we have to get over that!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the latter stages of the flight the crew encountered difficulties in balancing the fuel quantities in the four main tanks, became concerned that the contents of one tank might be unusable and declared an emergency in accordance with the operator’s procedures. The aircraft landed with low contents in both outboard main tanks, although the total fuel quantity was in excess of the planned reserve. The fuel system, in the configuration selected, should have continued to feed the operating engines until all tanks emptied.
