Wall Street Journal reports on BA 747 3 engine LAX-MAN flight
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cargo boy
<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>
perhaps with you, and those who agree that flying passengers on a 747-400 from one continent to an island on 3 engines is the right thing to do, I have lost credibility.
to the rest of the piloting profession, perhaps I have not.
It is simply not up to YOU to speak for the entire piloting profession.
You constantly bring up me speaking out on TV.
Why not bring up my piloting experience?
See, I have done both. Talked on TV and flown people around in a Boeing.
From your name and lack of response to my previous question, I will assume you have done neither.
And discourse often infuriates those who cannot look at all sides of a topic.
<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>
perhaps with you, and those who agree that flying passengers on a 747-400 from one continent to an island on 3 engines is the right thing to do, I have lost credibility.
to the rest of the piloting profession, perhaps I have not.
It is simply not up to YOU to speak for the entire piloting profession.
You constantly bring up me speaking out on TV.
Why not bring up my piloting experience?
See, I have done both. Talked on TV and flown people around in a Boeing.
From your name and lack of response to my previous question, I will assume you have done neither.
And discourse often infuriates those who cannot look at all sides of a topic.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shall we all agree to add jondc9 to our personal 'ignore' lists? I was going to post a reasonable and technicallt accurate response to why he was utterly wrong about this flight in so many ways but , to be frank, I simply can't bothered at this time of the morning. So lets leave the debate to those who know the aircraft and understand the reasoning and leave CNNs favourite talking head to pontificate from a position of complete ignorance.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<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?
That is quite clear to me, isn't it to you?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
carnage
I would be quite happy if you select IGNORE concerning my posts. I will not ignore yours. It is good to have the other side of the argument to compare and contrast in order to understand.
And you, cargo boy and the rest are defending the choice as well as Condi Rice defends the invasion of Iraq.
I understand the technical basis for the crew's choice. I quote the WSJ article as it is the basis for this thread.
From your post, I shall assume that if this happens again in US Airspace, a BA 747-400 will continue on.
And then the press will get a hold of it and NOT just CNN.
They will explain the technical aspects of the choice to continue. That indeed regulations were not broken . It will sound like a Philadelphia lawyer.
And then the traveling public will scratch their collective head and decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. They will vote in their unique way.
And I hope every 747 pilot in the world reads this post and adds this to the equation of decision making.
Happy Landings,
jon
I would be quite happy if you select IGNORE concerning my posts. I will not ignore yours. It is good to have the other side of the argument to compare and contrast in order to understand.
And you, cargo boy and the rest are defending the choice as well as Condi Rice defends the invasion of Iraq.
I understand the technical basis for the crew's choice. I quote the WSJ article as it is the basis for this thread.
From your post, I shall assume that if this happens again in US Airspace, a BA 747-400 will continue on.
And then the press will get a hold of it and NOT just CNN.
They will explain the technical aspects of the choice to continue. That indeed regulations were not broken . It will sound like a Philadelphia lawyer.
And then the traveling public will scratch their collective head and decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. They will vote in their unique way.
And I hope every 747 pilot in the world reads this post and adds this to the equation of decision making.
Happy Landings,
jon
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I hope every 747 pilot in the world reads this post and adds this to the equation of decision making.
Unless you get a job writing for pilots, not commenting to the layman, that is. Both require different skills and I think you commit an error of judgement if you think you have the respect of your audience here. Especially the 1000 or so BA 747 pilots.
Cheers.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
over stress
I hope you do listen to your training captains.
I also hope when you fly to America you ask some pilots here what they think of the incident.
Should I lose the respect of all 1000 BA 747 pilots and gain even 10 percent of the some 60,000 ATP's in America, I will stand in good company.
regards
jon
I hope you do listen to your training captains.
I also hope when you fly to America you ask some pilots here what they think of the incident.
Should I lose the respect of all 1000 BA 747 pilots and gain even 10 percent of the some 60,000 ATP's in America, I will stand in good company.
regards
jon
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, I see. USA=good, UK(BA)=bad. I can see we're never going to agree, so in the meantime I'll fly the -400 as my employer dictates.
PS you do know that Boeing designed it to be flown as we flew it in this case, don't you?
PS you do know that Boeing designed it to be flown as we flew it in this case, don't you?
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 think boeing designed it, so it was to continue to a nearest suitable airport, so you can land safely asap. different story maybe if in cruise, but at a couple of hundred feet off the ground......and you continue.....your a brave man.
get it safely on the ground asap, let someone else worry about the costs. its not worth the gamble, no matter how many redundacy systems there are. yes it can do it, but what are you proving by continuing?
how does the expression go, there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there aint old and bold pilots.
get it safely on the ground asap, let someone else worry about the costs. its not worth the gamble, no matter how many redundacy systems there are. yes it can do it, but what are you proving by continuing?
how does the expression go, there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there aint old and bold pilots.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am aware of at least one BA 747-400 Training Captain who did not think it was a good decision,reading the relevant threads one may get the impression that everyone (in BA anyway) thinks it was.
Not so.
Not so.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a pax, I'd rather be on a 744 on three than a big twin on one, if land is any distance away. I wouldn't enjoy either experience, but pragmatism kicks in.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter and depsite my lack of understanding of the technical aspects, I'm actually representative of the people who keep the airlines in business by buying the tickets.
So if I have a choice of 744 or someone else on a big twin, I'll take the 74 anyday and frankly I don't give a monkey's what jondc or 600,000 US ATPLs think (if infact they all agree with jon.)
You are welcome to tell me that I don't understand what I am talking about, but in return I will tell you that I understand very well where I spend 6 figures a year on air tickets.
As an aside, I am not surprised that the WSJ produced a balanced article.
I know a couple of their journalists and they are thorough, careful and non sensationalist in outlook.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter and depsite my lack of understanding of the technical aspects, I'm actually representative of the people who keep the airlines in business by buying the tickets.
So if I have a choice of 744 or someone else on a big twin, I'll take the 74 anyday and frankly I don't give a monkey's what jondc or 600,000 US ATPLs think (if infact they all agree with jon.)
You are welcome to tell me that I don't understand what I am talking about, but in return I will tell you that I understand very well where I spend 6 figures a year on air tickets.
As an aside, I am not surprised that the WSJ produced a balanced article.
I know a couple of their journalists and they are thorough, careful and non sensationalist in outlook.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a lot of B744 pilots who do not necessarily think it was a good decision to continue but none will argue that they endangered anyone or even broke any rules. The point being made here against jondc9 is that he
has made a claim that the crew did wrong based solely on the fact that he is a pilot who also happens to provide background to CNN on aviation matters.
He has NO experience on the B744 or its systems and therefore should qualify his claims by stating that they are the equivalent of those of a layman. Assuming that you have the respect of your colleagues just because you talk on TV obviously leads to a tone that irritates many of us on here. Comment on the event is fine but when someone like jondc9 adds a verdict that in effect criticises the crew without him having a full understanding of the aircraft and its systems thyn it leads, as has been seen here, to ridicule and irritation.
As a B744 pilot myself, I have discussed this incident with many colleagues and we all have different opinions on what we would have done under similar circumstances. Some say they would probably have continued, refining their decision as the flight progressed, just as the BA crew did. Others say that they would have continued to the US east coast instead of dumping fuel and then landing normally at a base where the pax could be accomodated on other flights and maintenance could be performed on the engine. A few even said they would probably just dump fuel and go back. However, not one of them could criticise the BA crew because we all know that the B744 flies perfectly well on 3 engines with only a small penalty in performance.
The fact that they had an engine surge after getting airborne and subsequently decided to shut the engine down should not be equated to a 3 engined ferry flight and those putting that argument forward only show their lack of experience or knowledge of 3 or 4 engined a/c ops. The previous thread on this topic hashed the subject to death yet we once again have jondc9 actually turning this into a song and dance with his lack of credibility due to his judge, jury and executioner approach to the BA crew.
As a B744 pilot I will say that they didn't "FU#$up" as jondc9 like to claim. They didn't break any rules either which is why the FAA had to drop the charges. Their spin is irrelevant as nothing has changed over here.
So, let's try and put this one to bed without any more plugs for CNN shall we?
has made a claim that the crew did wrong based solely on the fact that he is a pilot who also happens to provide background to CNN on aviation matters.
He has NO experience on the B744 or its systems and therefore should qualify his claims by stating that they are the equivalent of those of a layman. Assuming that you have the respect of your colleagues just because you talk on TV obviously leads to a tone that irritates many of us on here. Comment on the event is fine but when someone like jondc9 adds a verdict that in effect criticises the crew without him having a full understanding of the aircraft and its systems thyn it leads, as has been seen here, to ridicule and irritation.
As a B744 pilot myself, I have discussed this incident with many colleagues and we all have different opinions on what we would have done under similar circumstances. Some say they would probably have continued, refining their decision as the flight progressed, just as the BA crew did. Others say that they would have continued to the US east coast instead of dumping fuel and then landing normally at a base where the pax could be accomodated on other flights and maintenance could be performed on the engine. A few even said they would probably just dump fuel and go back. However, not one of them could criticise the BA crew because we all know that the B744 flies perfectly well on 3 engines with only a small penalty in performance.
The fact that they had an engine surge after getting airborne and subsequently decided to shut the engine down should not be equated to a 3 engined ferry flight and those putting that argument forward only show their lack of experience or knowledge of 3 or 4 engined a/c ops. The previous thread on this topic hashed the subject to death yet we once again have jondc9 actually turning this into a song and dance with his lack of credibility due to his judge, jury and executioner approach to the BA crew.
As a B744 pilot I will say that they didn't "FU#$up" as jondc9 like to claim. They didn't break any rules either which is why the FAA had to drop the charges. Their spin is irrelevant as nothing has changed over here.
So, let's try and put this one to bed without any more plugs for CNN shall we?
Too mean to buy a long personal title
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?
<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?
There is only one exception - the details of which others know better than I - which is for locations where the FAA might get hysterical.
You can put whatever interpretation you like on that. But to me, it suggests that the exception is a response to possible FAA hysteria, not an acknowledgement that anything's wrong with the procedures.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
A question for the big engined drivers. Is there any chance after an engine problem like this, that metal from the engine was ejected and caused secondary damage to the aircraft? Remember what happened to the British Airtours 737.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not aware of any incidents with this type of surge in which metal has been ejected from the engine, and this particular type of surge is a fairly common and well understood phenomena. Remember the aircraft has the capability to datalink a multitude of engine parameters to the powerplant specialists who can judge an engines state of health. I'd be extremely surprised if there hadn't also been a visual inspection of the engine from the aircraft to check for signs of exterior damage.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any penetration of the engine casings would result in very hot air escaping into the nacelle, which will cause an engine fire warning.
In the absence of a fire warning, and no other indication of systems distress, there is no emergency - it's a simple OEI.
In the absence of a fire warning, and no other indication of systems distress, there is no emergency - it's a simple OEI.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
In a sense, one answer to this is "so what if there was a chance of that?" The decision made to continue from LAX wasn't a decision that "we will now fly over the ocean". The crew watched the aircraft - anxiously, I expect - for hours in case something happened to suggest that more damage had been done that first thought, before the decision was made to proceed beyond the east coast and on to the oceanic sector. And all through those hours, the aircraft was close to many diversion airfields. The aircraft had hours to demonstrate that it was safe, and so it proved to have been.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
beyond the east coast and on to the oceanic sector
On many LAXs I've never gone 'Oceanic'. VHF all the way. Check out a globe, dudes
PS I've lost track of the number of times I've made this point, but it doesn't seem to sink in.....