3 engine BA 747 hearing

[jondc9]

Does anyone know the results of the recent FAA hearing on the 3 engine 747 trip from LAX to England?

j

[lomapaseo]

Perhaps If I might rephrase a similar question to see if anybody out there has heard.

Has anybody heard the status/outcome of the FAA hearing for BA to plead their case on the 3 engine B747 flight. If yes could you share the status.

I would appreciate hearing from the informed.

please...pretty please with brown sugar on top

[Boy]

O.K., since nobody else will - and especially because of the exceedingly polite request by iomapaseo. Apparently somebody has been found guilty of something in a secret meeting. However, for security reasons (to do with the war on something or other) they are only going to tell selected people on a "need to know basis". Excessive efforts to discuss the subject will be identified by the NSA using something called "neo-stocastic inductive inferential analysis" and boy will you be in trouble if they track you down using this painful technique.

In any case, is it not a fact that what happened will be irrelevant to the debate here? - so it hardly matters what happened. We will all start up again just where we finished up ... reheat our previous arguments and "keep on truckin" .... right? Why let the issue be confused by facts or, even worse, let them get in the way of a good rant?

[Taildragger67]

Now at the risk of getting flamed here,

It seemed to me like a reasonable question to ask, given that, whilst apparently complying with the rules of its regulator, an airline chose to press on with one out; meanwhile, a regulator of the country from which the flight took off and then overflew has taken a different view.

Just like asking the outcome of an incident/accident report, the outcome of such hearings might be of interest to a few people, from 747 captains to students on C152s - and so include "BAe146 drivers" as well - especially as they are four-engined and so it might actually be of operational interest to a pilot of said type. So in answer to an earlier question, they GAF.

[Rainboe]

I think we would all be interested in what the FAA deliberates. It will be interesting to see if their stance has changed at all from previous established procedure for what is probably all 747-400 operators. We could start listing the flight continuation history of operators American, Australian, British and others and wonder at what may make the FAA conclude that nowadays with ever more reliable engines on aeroplanes (so reliable that twins may fly clean across the Pacific even), it is suddenly no longer acceptable practice (if that is what they deem).....and why would that be. And we may wonder how the FAA's own rules (which were not contravened) should suddenly not apply when it choses for them not to in a case like this particular one. A very bizarre case indeed.

I rather think the loudmouth FAA spokesperson who shot off an aggressive FAA response (from the hip) immediately after the alleged 'incident' rather pushed the FAA into a corner. I think the FAA will have some explaining to do when its own rules were not contravened in this 'case'.

[barit1]

What if - ?

I know the subject is being thrashed to death, but a question occurred to me:

What if this had been JL or CX westbound? If they elected to continue (no probs with obstacles...) what would FAA do?

FWIW, a SR DC-10 had a similar hiccup out of KHI 28 years ago, and the Capt. considered it safer to press on up the Gulf than to fly an OEI approach at KHI at 2AM local. He finally landed at ATH after daybreak. Although the Swiss authorities quizzed him thoroughly, in the end they found no fault with his decisions.

[742]

Originally Posted by Rainboe

I rather think the loudmouth FAA spokesperson who shot off an aggressive FAA response (from the hip) immediately after the alleged 'incident' rather pushed the FAA into a corner. I think the FAA will have some explaining to do when its own rules were not contravened in this 'case'.

I offer up this thought, as both a 747 driver and one who has had the (mis)fortune of working closely with the feds for a period of time.

This whole episode no doubt initially entered the FAA bureaucracy as a mechanical failure. Within the FAA the maintenance and flight operations sides don't like each other and don't work well together. My bet is that some maintenance inspector decided to hang some pilots, ran this up into region where it hit the desk of some fed lawyer who knows nothing about long haul heavy jet operations and….here we are. Unfortunately the ETOPS mental state is now dominate, and the number of people in power who understand 3 or 4 engine operations are few and far between.

IMO

[galaxy flyer]

While I support the decision to continue the BA flight, there was an interesting article (by SLF) about an engine loss over the Atlantic on Air France (PAR-JFK). Captain's decision was to divert into St. John's NF. AF was unable to move the passengers until the next morning. The writer thanked the Captain over breakfast at the hotel. Certainly, the opposite extreme.

I find it silly to treat 4-engine ops just like ETOPS.

GF

[20driver]

3 engines to St Johns

I saw that in the WSJ and was very curious. Some of it does not ring true
First - why would an A340 - Paris-JFK have to dump fuel to land at St Johns -surely they would have being under the max landing weight. They must have being airborne for close to 5 hours with maybe 1.5 to go.
The second is why the brace stuff - running on 3 of 4 really is not that dramatic.
Something about the whole thing sounds fishy. Two parts ring true. The captain saying it he had never experinced an engine failure in XX years and second the hopitality on the rock.
Anyone have any more info?
20driver

[7FF]

>What if this had been JL or CX westbound? If they >elected to continue (no probs with obstacles...) what >would FAA do?

It happened last year whilst in US airspace on the way to Asia. The a/c also stopped on the way as there was insufficient fuel to make the destination.
Nothing heard from the FAA.
Low profile, need to know, less for them to worry about.

[lomapaseo]

I take it then that nobody who is willing to talk knows the answer to the question that initiated this anticipatedly short thread.

[Rainboe]

I don't think anyone was aware that a hearing was actually scheduled. I don't know if it actually took place. If it did take place, then I assume if one was interested in the opinions of the FAA, then it would be easy to find their adjudication on the net. So, did a hearing actually take place? Who 'heard' it- or was it a thrilling self-judgement of the FAA opinionating itself over a flight that followed the FAA's own rules? The suspense is killing (not).

[sky9]

Interestingly the FAA is having a
"2006 Conference on Risk Analysis and Safety Performance in Aviation" in September 2006.
(http://aar400.tc.faa.gov/FlightSafety/agenda.htm )

One of the talks on the second day is "Risk Analysis in Operational Environment" when "Andrew Rose - British Airways giving brief talk"

That might clear something up.

[Rainboe]

So I don't think there was any such hearing.......in which case what the hell was this thread about then?

[upsfr8rcaptain]

Just Google: "British Airways FAA 747 fine"

Originally Posted by jondc9

Does anyone know the results of the recent FAA hearing on the 3 engine 747 trip from LAX to England?

j

11/4: British Airways is appealing a fine of US$ 25,000 imposed by the American Federal Aviation Authorities (FAA) regarding an incident on a Los Angeles-London flight in February 2005. Engine nr 2 of the Boeing 747-400 developed problems after taking off from LAX. The pilots shut the engine down and, after consulting with the maintenance and operations departments in the UK, decided to continue the flight across the Atlantic. The FAA claims that the aircraft was not airworthy and British Airways breached safety rules.

Piece of cake! Cheers

[bermondseya]

Originally Posted by jondc9

Does anyone know the results of the recent FAA hearing on the 3 engine 747 trip from LAX to England?
j

The hearing was due to happen on 16th May. BA requested another 90 day extension, the FAA didn\'t mind, and the judge granted it. So everybody keep their powder dry and come back on August 15th and tell us what we already know you think about it.

[Boy]

Now ... there we go .... they go and cancel the hearing, robbing us of he opportunity for an argument .... and we still find an excuse for argument / name calling! Well done gents.

Maybe we should just have the post-hearing argument now and get it over and done with by re-heating all the old arguments once again? As I said earlier, the facts and making a reasonable effort to understand the different points of view don't seem to be of much relevance anyway.

[Rainboe]

Suggest suspend further discussion whilst the suits argue it out- there is nothing new and it has all been done to death!

[lomapaseo]

Originally Posted by bermondseya

The hearing was due to happen on 16th May. BA requested another 90 day extension, the FAA didn\'t mind, and the judge granted it. So everybody keep their powder dry and come back on August 15th and tell us what we already know you think about it.

Thanks for that.

I guess there is only one out of ten quality posts on this subject

[Rainboe]

We're still waiting for it.