Wall Street Journal reports on BA 747 3 engine LAX-MAN flight
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course not. We've all been into the simulator to study fuel management in an engine out situation so if it happened again tomorrow we'd go into Manchester without feeling the need to declare an emergency. Apart from that, no change.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be utterly clear.
Apart from the journos, was there any indication of FIRE (which in my simple world entails being on the surface whether dry or wet ASAP) or was it just an engine FAILURE (which given 3 more is a bit of a non-event other than the timing) with no suggestion of collateral damage?
Sven
Driving 2 rotors & 2 engines
Apart from the journos, was there any indication of FIRE (which in my simple world entails being on the surface whether dry or wet ASAP) or was it just an engine FAILURE (which given 3 more is a bit of a non-event other than the timing) with no suggestion of collateral damage?
Sven
Driving 2 rotors & 2 engines
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Houston, do we have a problem?
It would seem to me (retired flt ops guy) that the crew would be getting some long-distance engineering help about the fuel management issue, long before the MAN diversion was decided. Wouldn't the best minds in the industry be following this OEI marathon, in real time?
I have NO criticism of the initial decision to carry on, because there are several precedents going back decades. But why did fuel management become such a black eye so late in the game?
I have NO criticism of the initial decision to carry on, because there are several precedents going back decades. But why did fuel management become such a black eye so late in the game?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barit - because it didn't manifest itself until after top of descent, at which point they thought they'd lost 25% of their useable fuel. In that situation there was not time to speak to the engineers on the satphone, the priority was to get on the deck.
Sven - There was no engine FIRE, and no FIRE warning on the flight deck. It was an engine surge. The subsequent examination showed no evidence of an engine FIRE.
Sven - There was no engine FIRE, and no FIRE warning on the flight deck. It was an engine surge. The subsequent examination showed no evidence of an engine FIRE.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
still sounds very dubious to me 
in my humble opinion, any signs of fire should be treated with the upmost of urgency and respect- Just because there is no flight-deck indication of fire does NOT mean there is no fire- its not unheard of for a fire indication to flash briefly then dissapear almost instantly as the detecting system is destroyed 
... Sorry but in my eyes it was a downright irresponsible decision to "press on", had they lost another engine, especially on the same wing,(again, not unheard of...) halfway across the atlantic then they would have been in big, big trouble 
have we not learnt from years of bitter experience and thousands of deaths, that aviation accidents happen due to a "chain of events"? All I can see is a crew failing to break that chain due to pressure to complete the flight, which ultimatly ended up in a Mayday situation, which in its self tells you all you need to know about the event..
suspected fire?? get it on the floor and argue about it afterwards
in my humble opinion, any signs of fire should be treated with the upmost of urgency and respect- Just because there is no flight-deck indication of fire does NOT mean there is no fire- its not unheard of for a fire indication to flash briefly then dissapear almost instantly as the detecting system is destroyed ... Sorry but in my eyes it was a downright irresponsible decision to "press on", had they lost another engine, especially on the same wing,(again, not unheard of...) halfway across the atlantic then they would have been in big, big trouble have we not learnt from years of bitter experience and thousands of deaths, that aviation accidents happen due to a "chain of events"? All I can see is a crew failing to break that chain due to pressure to complete the flight, which ultimatly ended up in a Mayday situation, which in its self tells you all you need to know about the event.. suspected fire?? get it on the floor and argue about it afterwards
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K130... I do trust you understand the difference between flames due a surge (from the intake or jetpipe(s)) and an engine fire - outside the core. The former is to be expected in many engine failure scenarios, and it could be dangerous to get overly excited about it.
As far as Airline Pilot training goes, if a fire is extinquished - as far as the indicatons go - it is extinquished. Emergency probably downgraded from Mayday to a Pan, and sense of priorities altered. I am sure you (and I) could find counter arguments / incidents, but you will have a very strong uphill battle if you want to change this.
In the LAX incident, you can be sure that with any indication a "fire" was present (a call from ATC re flames from an enigne is NOT an "enigne fire"), the aircraft would have been on the deck in minutes, very overweight. Once a fire was judged extinquished, it would be very poor airmanship to land overweight - indeed, a 4 engine aircraft 1 engine out without further complications is not generally held to warrant even a Pan (this all assumes one understands the definitons of Pan and Mayday).
NoD
As far as Airline Pilot training goes, if a fire is extinquished - as far as the indicatons go - it is extinquished. Emergency probably downgraded from Mayday to a Pan, and sense of priorities altered. I am sure you (and I) could find counter arguments / incidents, but you will have a very strong uphill battle if you want to change this.
In the LAX incident, you can be sure that with any indication a "fire" was present (a call from ATC re flames from an enigne is NOT an "enigne fire"), the aircraft would have been on the deck in minutes, very overweight. Once a fire was judged extinquished, it would be very poor airmanship to land overweight - indeed, a 4 engine aircraft 1 engine out without further complications is not generally held to warrant even a Pan (this all assumes one understands the definitons of Pan and Mayday).
NoD
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
K130- you evidently haven't read the previous thread on this incident before making your pronouncement from a basis of not really understanding what went on at any stage of this flight. I would advise it is only fair to the readers here that you and any other potential opinion giver here brief yourselves thoroughly on those 50 pages of discussions before publicly announcing your ill-informed opinion? It is a bit of an insult to people who have followed this to have shoot-from-the-hip judgements from people who do not know what was going on.
What I don't wish to happen is for hot gases to make their way out of the engine core containment into the more delicate structures surrounding it - this is what fire detection/suppression facilities are for. As I understand it, the flight in question did not receive any overheat/fire warnings so the crew did not need to carry out the associated drills.
An engine surge can (as in this case) be quite spectacular to an observer but a 10m flame coming out of the back for a short period only signifies that the fuel/air mix inside is temporarily wrong - not that any damage has actually occurred. That is for Engineering to decide when they downlink the recording of the surge and examine it.
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
If anybody wants to make uninformed opinions on the routing, in this case, they really should have educated themselves from that previous thread to realise at no point does the LAX-LHR routing put you 'out in the middle of the Atlantic'. The route takes you well to the North bypassing YYZ, YYL, Gander/Goose, emergency diversion airfields in north-eastern Canada, Greenland, Iceland and northern Scotland. Even with a second engine failure, at any stage, even on the same side, you would then be in a situation not dissimilar to a 777 with an engine out.
I would have no doubt about which aeroplane I would rather be in!
I would have no doubt about which aeroplane I would rather be in!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed rainboe indicated which aeroplane he would prefer.
I will say that I would PREFER to land at LAX rather than risk the need for a diversion to the other airfields he mentioned.
An etops twin that is operating normally is superior to a 747 that is in a reduced capacity...the etops twin can go higher for example. A fully and normally functioning 747 is certainly another story.
That BA has agreed to a different set of protocols should this happen again in US Airspace is a tacit admission of a FU#$up. And that should be that on the subject. If they were smelling like a rose instead of fertilizer, there would have been NO CHANGE to procedures.
And as to the great "fire / flame" controversy. It is likely that there was no FIRE warning per se in the cockpit, there could have been other indications of less than desirable engine performance...and that alone is sufficient to stay close to a first class aerodrome rather than PRESS ON.
I will say that I would PREFER to land at LAX rather than risk the need for a diversion to the other airfields he mentioned.
An etops twin that is operating normally is superior to a 747 that is in a reduced capacity...the etops twin can go higher for example. A fully and normally functioning 747 is certainly another story.
That BA has agreed to a different set of protocols should this happen again in US Airspace is a tacit admission of a FU#$up. And that should be that on the subject. If they were smelling like a rose instead of fertilizer, there would have been NO CHANGE to procedures.
And as to the great "fire / flame" controversy. It is likely that there was no FIRE warning per se in the cockpit, there could have been other indications of less than desirable engine performance...and that alone is sufficient to stay close to a first class aerodrome rather than PRESS ON.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's unlikely I'll eve be in your exalted position Jon, but I think you're being a little unfair to my countrymen there. Change in procedure for US airspace is not a 'tacit admission of a FU#$up' as much as they didn't know that US procedures differ from theirs, they now know that and are prepared to deal with it.
Speaking as a wannabe with very limited experience but a fair amount of enthusiasm I'd say that there's a considerable difference between a 747 Classic with one engine out and a 744 in the same situation, especially one with RB211s. Also, for all its facilities, I'd consider hanging around LAX with all that traffic in the area constitutes more risk than pushing forward, especially if you have Maintrol on the line telling you it's OK to do so. From MAN it's just a short hop to BA maintenance (and by extension Rolls-Royce) to fix the engine, something that would be trickier in LAX, especially given the compatively rare engine/airframe matchup that BA uses on its 744s.
Speaking as a wannabe with very limited experience but a fair amount of enthusiasm I'd say that there's a considerable difference between a 747 Classic with one engine out and a 744 in the same situation, especially one with RB211s. Also, for all its facilities, I'd consider hanging around LAX with all that traffic in the area constitutes more risk than pushing forward, especially if you have Maintrol on the line telling you it's OK to do so. From MAN it's just a short hop to BA maintenance (and by extension Rolls-Royce) to fix the engine, something that would be trickier in LAX, especially given the compatively rare engine/airframe matchup that BA uses on its 744s.
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dozy, please don't worry yourself about Jondc9. What you consider to be an exalted position is actually only a pedestal of his own making! 
Jondc9's experience of flying four engined jets is limited to the BAe146 (probably still known as the HS146 in his day). If you think his experience of that aircraft can be compared with that of the B744 and all its systems and system redundancies then you would be sadly mistaken. Jon was very quick to criticise the BA crew on the original thread when he exposed his lack of knowledge about B744 systems and what it actually says in the AFM about continued flight with an engine shut down.
Yes, we know he would "prefer" to return to LAX and no doubt that is one option available to the crew but for him to then claim that the decision to carry on was a "FU#$up" only serves to ignite this old debate once more. The fact that the dear old FAA were actually cornered into their announcement about their intent to 'fine' BA has somehow been conveniently forgotten by the famous talking head, Mr jondc9. It was only thanks to some lowly light aircraft examiner from a local FSDO office blabbing to the media with his uninformed tripe about all aircraft supposedly having to land at the nearest airport that the FAA had to be seen to be defending one of their own and they announced that there would be a prosecution.
How convenient that Jondc9 didn't mention in his post that after BA announced that they would defend such an action that the FAA realised they didn't have a leg to stand on, never mind the pedestal that our famous Jondc9 has elevated himself to, that they dropped the charges.
So Dozy, you still have a chance to achieve the exalted position of B744 pilot, something that Jondc9 isn't. What he fails to realise that on this website he is preaching to the converted whereas on CNN he is, in his own eyes, the god-pilot that is able to talk over live shots of something that he has little experience of but thinks he does!
Jondc9's experience of flying four engined jets is limited to the BAe146 (probably still known as the HS146 in his day). If you think his experience of that aircraft can be compared with that of the B744 and all its systems and system redundancies then you would be sadly mistaken. Jon was very quick to criticise the BA crew on the original thread when he exposed his lack of knowledge about B744 systems and what it actually says in the AFM about continued flight with an engine shut down.
Yes, we know he would "prefer" to return to LAX and no doubt that is one option available to the crew but for him to then claim that the decision to carry on was a "FU#$up" only serves to ignite this old debate once more. The fact that the dear old FAA were actually cornered into their announcement about their intent to 'fine' BA has somehow been conveniently forgotten by the famous talking head, Mr jondc9. It was only thanks to some lowly light aircraft examiner from a local FSDO office blabbing to the media with his uninformed tripe about all aircraft supposedly having to land at the nearest airport that the FAA had to be seen to be defending one of their own and they announced that there would be a prosecution.
How convenient that Jondc9 didn't mention in his post that after BA announced that they would defend such an action that the FAA realised they didn't have a leg to stand on, never mind the pedestal that our famous Jondc9 has elevated himself to, that they dropped the charges.
So Dozy, you still have a chance to achieve the exalted position of B744 pilot, something that Jondc9 isn't. What he fails to realise that on this website he is preaching to the converted whereas on CNN he is, in his own eyes, the god-pilot that is able to talk over live shots of something that he has little experience of but thinks he does!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cargo boy
tell me, is it easier to fly boxes or people?
I so enjoy hearing you misquote me.
Tell us all about the 747-400 will you? For example, can this wonderbird do a 3 engine ferry? I am sure it can.
Landing in the USA, discharging passengers and doing a ferry to a mx base might have been another option...key words: MIGHT & OPTION. I also mentioned bringing another engine (podded) to LAX.
And while I don't have a 747-400 manual handy, at least I never said it HAD to land at the nearest airport... I did say it should have. Perhaps you will chat up an old english professor and ask the difference between these words.
post your phone number and I will give it to CNN if you would like to comment on aviation matters. chances are you couldn't handle it. prove me wrong if you like.
Maybe you will learn what its like to chat up a few million people at a time.
Be sure your boxes are loaded properly.
By the way, the BAE 146 was called just that when I flew it. Not the HS 146.
I've flown 2 british planes that I think were very well built. How many have you flown that you think are well built?
How come the Queen of England used a BAE 146 as Queen's Flight and not a B747-400 (unless leased from BA).
regards from the homeland of the 747-400. and I do wish AF1 had RB211's and not GE 's.
j
tell me, is it easier to fly boxes or people?
I so enjoy hearing you misquote me.
Tell us all about the 747-400 will you? For example, can this wonderbird do a 3 engine ferry? I am sure it can.
Landing in the USA, discharging passengers and doing a ferry to a mx base might have been another option...key words: MIGHT & OPTION. I also mentioned bringing another engine (podded) to LAX.
And while I don't have a 747-400 manual handy, at least I never said it HAD to land at the nearest airport... I did say it should have. Perhaps you will chat up an old english professor and ask the difference between these words.
post your phone number and I will give it to CNN if you would like to comment on aviation matters. chances are you couldn't handle it. prove me wrong if you like.
Maybe you will learn what its like to chat up a few million people at a time.
Be sure your boxes are loaded properly.
By the way, the BAE 146 was called just that when I flew it. Not the HS 146.
I've flown 2 british planes that I think were very well built. How many have you flown that you think are well built?
How come the Queen of England used a BAE 146 as Queen's Flight and not a B747-400 (unless leased from BA).
regards from the homeland of the 747-400. and I do wish AF1 had RB211's and not GE 's.
j
Too mean to buy a long personal title
And, as the AAIB report shows, the UNCHANGED procedures were based on the very same FAA's certification, continue to be approved by the CAA, and are shared by other airlines elsewhere in the world.
Where is the "FU#$up"? I don't see one. I see only recognition that one body needs to be pandered to.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moderators, please stop this "dejavu all over again". We have been through this once (maybe twice?), and I don' t want to see all the wannabees plus pilots who don't have a clue about long range multi engine ops stating their uninformed opinions once (twice) more. Please, everybody, read through the original thread, and the AAIB stuff, and let this be, OK. And thank you, Rainoboe...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear globe
from the article in the WSJ:
<Last month, the FAA told British Airways it was dropping the case based on assurances that airline changes will "preclude the type of extended operation that was the subject of this enforcement action." Says the FAA: "Our goal was to get them to change their procedures, and when we found out they were changing in the U.S., we settled the case.">
That is quite clear to me, isn't it to you?
And to H. Finn.
If you wish to remove non long range pilots from this forum topic, do you agree to remove long range pilots from any topic not involving long range ops?
For example, should a 747-400 pilot comment on the comair crash in Kentucky?
Should a short haul pilot of a two engine plane NOT comment on the Air France over-run at CYYZ? Did 4 engines cause the plane to go off the end, or was it a bit of wind, a bit of wet and a bit of?
I think it is a wonderful fact that BA has operated in this fashion 15 times since 2001. If this is not a fact ( or has increased ) please dispute the article's information now.
regards
jon
from the article in the WSJ:
<Last month, the FAA told British Airways it was dropping the case based on assurances that airline changes will "preclude the type of extended operation that was the subject of this enforcement action." Says the FAA: "Our goal was to get them to change their procedures, and when we found out they were changing in the U.S., we settled the case.">
That is quite clear to me, isn't it to you?
And to H. Finn.
If you wish to remove non long range pilots from this forum topic, do you agree to remove long range pilots from any topic not involving long range ops?
For example, should a 747-400 pilot comment on the comair crash in Kentucky?
Should a short haul pilot of a two engine plane NOT comment on the Air France over-run at CYYZ? Did 4 engines cause the plane to go off the end, or was it a bit of wind, a bit of wet and a bit of?
I think it is a wonderful fact that BA has operated in this fashion 15 times since 2001. If this is not a fact ( or has increased ) please dispute the article's information now.
regards
jon
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish - this isn't necessarily a company decision. That's why we have pilots. If the company says "You choose" then it might happen all over again. If they say, please land ASAP, that may happen as well. This sort of thing is a judgement call. The outcome proves the validity of the judgement call made several hours earlier. Now, if were BA, maybe I would be putting the hard word on Boeing for a failure in the fuel system. But no matter what, I'd be spending my political penny making sure that through government channels that the Feds were told to "Go Away".
PM
PM
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...I never said it HAD to land at the nearest airport... I did say it should have.
The point being made here, obviously to no avail, is that the crew on that aircraft did nothing wrong. They broke no rules and made decisions based on safe conduct of the flight at all stages. Please spare us all from further pontification. Your rush to judgement is apparent in all the threads you participate in. That plus the incessant reminders that you are gods gift to instant news in all matters aviation makes one want to reach for the barf bag.
Feel free to pontificate to the general public all you like but here you are taking part on a professional pilots website. With your style and lack of substance, your credibility is shot and all you manage to do is infuriate those of us who do have enough understanding of matters aviation to see through your feeble attempts to balance on top of yet another pedestal even more precariously perched on top of the one you came in with in the first place.