Wall Street Journal reports on BA 747 3 engine LAX-MAN flight

[jondc9]

danny:

early on in this discussion I indicated I had not flown 747 of any type, that is on record on this site. I also indicted I had flown another 4 engine piece of equipment so I had an idea about the requirments for landing vs. a 2 engine plane.

My opinions are my own and don't represent CNN, ALPA, or anyone else.

Danny, you seem to think that I am using any appearances ON CNN as something which should inflate my position on this forum. That is not the intent, it is a statement which might influence how someone replies on the forum to a question that I ask. YOU HAVE A DISCLAIMER on this forum warning about media types who might use what is posted.

MY MENTION OF CNN and my appearances on it were a statement of courtesy, like a lawyer, or constable might make before someone incriminates themself.


I think you have taken it the wrong way. Will you at least consider the possibility?

To the poster who would rather fly on a 747-400 than a twin jet over the ocean , I agree with you, so would I.

My comment on voting is if BA continues to fly from LAX to England after losing one engine.

To overstress, USA=good , UK = not good, is simply not the way I feel. Elsewhere on this forum I have praised the 2 UK built planes that I flew, the contribution of people from the UK of such things as RADAR and the gas turbine engine.

I also praised the "few" who saved the world from the Nazis.


I still stand by my opinion as a NON 747 pilot that flying from LAX to England in this situation was wrong.


to the poster who indicted that all BA pilots might not have continued, thank you. my intent was not to chastise the pilots, but a system or company that might encourage the $ or Pound as a higher priority than others.


Rule Brittania, God Bless America, and will George W. Bush please leave the White house as soon as possible!?

[overstress]

To overstress, USA=good , UK = not good, is simply not the way I feel. Elsewhere on this forum I have praised the 2 UK built planes that I flew, the contribution of people from the UK of such things as RADAR and the gas turbine engine.

Thanks for your clarification, but may I be forgiven for that interpretation after your

gain even 10 percent of the some 60,000 ATP's in America

quote.

I have worked with pilots from the USA and we're fundamentally exactly the same.

What we pilots in the UK react badly to is any unnecessary (in our eyes) self-promotion. We demur. We apologise over the R/T to ATC when we have an engine surge or fire.

However, we raise our collective eyebrows when those we deem unqualified see fit to comment on the way we do things. This is not because we think we're superior, it's because we know we are, but we just don't want or like to tell you

So that is why you're getting the reaction you are, especially from BA 747 pilots. To us, your opinions hold little or no relevance, but when you make comments we perceive to be attacking our position, especially in the public battleground of PPRuNe, we splutter into our mugs of tea and say "I say, that's not on". Then we will tenaciously defend ourselves to the hilt.

I hope this helps!

PS: We are given little commercial guidance in BA. Flight continuation policy is there because we have 747s and they are built to do it, if you have a commercial capability, why not use it? The whole point of a 747 is that it has 4 engines, not 3, not 2, not 1. 4. Any idea of the built-in redundancy? It's fabulous. If you haven't done a conversion I can recommend a very good chap in LAX who can help you! Then you will understand how frustrated some of us feel about these criticisms. Does a transaltantic sailor worry if he loses the spinnaker? No, he just unfurls the headsail and carries on a little slower. He can always get the kite repaired when he gets to his home port, but it would take longer to stop at the nearest port and get it fixed than to sail on without it. Is the headsail going to let him down as well? Probably not. Is his decision unsafe? No. Is dumping 60T of gas if you don't have to good for the wine crop in the Napa Valley? No.

All the above is TIC and IMHO

[Rananim]

Very emotive issue.Its worth a revisit.The intent of the specific regulation,indeed any reg,is contained in the main paragraph and not any sub-clause and I think that was the point.Yes,thats right,in essence the FAA does not distinguish between aircraft type when mandating a diversion following an engine failure.The privileges granted in any sub-clause never obviate the need to comply with the general instruction contained within the main paragraph.Rather it is designed to afford greater flexibility to the pilot-in-command based on any perceived advantage,in this case greater redundancy.In this example,the sub-clause would relieve the pilot from an immediate return and allow him to continue toward his destination,landing at a preferred engineering base without the need for fuel-dumping.And that is all.If he was already mid-Atlantic when the engine failure occurred,it would probably,but not necessarily,entitle him to continue to destination.
But no regulation can address the real issue here;how did it look to the passengers?

[blueloo]

Overstress eh...stiff upper lip chaps, press on!!

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by Rananim

But no regulation can address the real issue here;how did it look to the passengers?

We're still full out of LAX most days so obviously not that bad.

[bubbers44]

Since no 747 has ever had to ditch because of engine problems in almost 40 years I would say they operated safely by their op specs and the FAA should let them continue on with their excellent safety record since the FAA condones continuing as long as the captain considers it as safe as diverting. Here in the US we tend to think in twin engine logic and landing at the nearest suitable airport mode. I am impressed with BA standing up to the FAA and not letting them run their airline.

[JW411]

jondc9:

"Rule Brittania"

If you are going to grovel to us Brits please learn to spell Britannia correctly.

God bless Ammerica!

[jondc9]

JW411


1. I am not groveling, I am expressing a feeling held even prior to my purchase of a computer.

2. spelling on the internet has long been thought of as NOT an area for criticism.

if it becomes one on this forum, we will spend alot of time on color/colour and taxy/taxi

Make like the R100 and lighten up.

[JW411]

Sorry old son, the spelling of Britannia is as important to me just as I am sure the spelling of America is to you.

If you are really going to be a serious journalist and expect the rest of us to take you seriously then you need to get a grip.

[barit1]

Originally Posted by jondc9

...2. spelling on the internet has long been thought of as NOT an area for criticism.
if it becomes one on this forum, we will spend alot of time on color/colour and taxy/taxi
Make like the R100 and lighten up.

Spelling, and its cousin word choice (hanger/hangar, lose/loose, etc.) is underappreciated among many internetters.

If I'm writing for an audience of hundreds or thousands online I try to be pretty careful about such "trivia". I believe it affects how I am perceived.

(OTOH - a great pun is its own reword!)

[punkalouver]

Originally Posted by barit1

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.

Are you sure you should be making statements like that. About a year prior to the BA737 accident PWA 501 burned in Calgary after a similar uncontained engine failure. A 1 second fire bell did ring 51 seconds after the failure which ejected metal and punctured a fuel tank. I suppose this was a different sort of malfunction.

http://www.avsaf.org/reports/CANADA/...ing737-200.pdf

I am not saying I would have done differently than the crew perhaps continueing on to at least JFK, but someone elses comment about a visual inspection, if it was daylight does not cover the fuselage or underside of the wing.
Many mention the 777 in their argument, that it only has two engines and of the redundancy of the 747-400 but would you rather go across the Atlantic in a fully serviceable 777 or a damaged 747-400 and for those who would continue including perhaps myself, how can we guarantee that there is no secondary damage in this situation? Just play the odds?

[BahrainLad]

Originally Posted by jondc9

if it becomes one on this forum, we will spend alot of time on color/colour and taxy/taxi

Hang on - color/colour and taxy/taxi are both recognised correct spellings in English, whereas 'brittania' is wrong wherever you are.

It's amazing what passes for quality journalism these days.

[jondc9]

bahrain lad

last time I checked, this was a pilot's forum and not a journalistic enterprise.

Add more helium and lighten up.

j

[Danny]

OK ladies and gentlemen, can we get back to the topic. Overstress obviously has charm and diplomacy by the bucketload and I thank him for stressing my points to jondc9 in a way that I could never do and I thank jondc9 for taking it in the manner it was intended to be delivered.

Punkalouver, I think that in the absence of a fire warning the crew will take the time to look at all the engine parameters in a situation like the one being discussed. An engine surge which was handled as we are trained to do, 'Thrust Lever - Retard' until the surging stops is not a catastrophic failure of the engine. We have the 'Engine Severe Damage or Separation' checklist for that scenario. We also have the 'Engine Shut Down' checklist for non catastrophic failures or situations as in this one where there was an EGT exceedence.

Signs of N1 and N2 rotation (GE engines) are good indicators that there is something far more serious even if there is no fire warning. Also, if any blades of the engine had been shed then the vibration monitors are useful indicators. If any accessories had gone then there would be other indications. Also, it is possible to get much more detailed information about the condition of the engine than just the basic instrumentation we get on the EFIS and an operator like BA will have the ability to get a lot of information remotely.

So, I don't think that any crew would just shut down an engine after a surge and then continue without a lot more analysis of what actually happened even if some posters on here would like us to believe that that is what happened. Those of us that fly the B744 are aware of what goes on and those that make wild assumptions without a foundation knowledge of the B744 and its systems continue to make comments that disrupt the flow of the debate and feed the sensationalism of the journalists that like to use this site as their source for pilots views.

[barit1]

Thanks for the link, punkalouver.

While the Calgary report mentions several times the failure of the Tower to alert the crew of the fire, it also chides the crew for excessive reliance on cockpit indications of a fire.

I find it strange indeed the failure of the fire warning system is not highlighted. An uncontained failure in the engine cold section should have been immediately indicated in the cockpit; that's a "given" for transport category aircraft. Without such a warning, the crew were working on ambiguous data - no clear emergency at that point.

I've never been in a 737 cockpit, but I doubt one can see the engines - maybe not even the wingtips. Without a working fire warning system, I cannot fault the crew in this case.

[Khaosai]

Hi jondc9,

rather than say what the crew did was wrong, perhaps you should have used you 4 engined ops experience to state to the listening layman that this was a perfectly acceptable option for the crew once all factors and resources had been considered.

You, as someone who works on behalf of a large news organisation have to choose your words a little more carefully than the rest of us. The large listening audience hanging onto your every word, could be, potentially damaging to an airline.

On that particular day, the crew, having used all of the resources available to them, chose to continue, perfectly acceptable and legal too.

Rgds.

[jondc9]

Hi Khaosai


I didn't cover this live at all. To make it clear again, I am not employed by CNN, but I help them out especially on live events and background information.

To be sure, I have considered how I might have handled it on live TV.

I certainly would have mentioned that 4 engine planes are allowed to continue to destination with one shut down...I would even point out that takeoff alternates are different for 4 engine planes than 2 engine planes.

I would have asked the following, to help the viewer put things into perspective.

Would it be better for British Airways public relations to have a small article on page 17 of the Los Angeles Times saying:

yesterday, after a minor engine malfunction on one of 4 engines, a BA 747-400 made an uneventful return to LAX. The crew was praised by the passengers who were accomadated on a later flight.


or would it be better to have the story told so many times and finally make the FRONT PAGE of the Wall Street Journal?


I would try to put it in some form for a ground person to understand the world of flight. I would indicate that the following was an imperfect analogy, but all I could think of at the time...

imagine driving a car across the loneliest road in America, US 50 between ELY NEVADA and Fallon, Nevada. You start your journey in ELY with a properly serviced car...2 miles out of ELY the car appears to only be working at 75% of its potential, do you turn around and drive back to ELY and get it fixed, even though you will be late, and you may have to wait for parts, or do you push on across the Nevada desert for some 300 miles, knowing you will make it somehow to the next town. And do you call the people who serviced the car and ask their opinion. (I've driven this road)

Now again, I have stated this is an imperfect analogy, but trying to speak in aeronautical terms to ground laypersons can be tough.

I have never said what they did was illegal, though the catchall in some parts of regulations might go against them depending on the judge, the jury and the day.

[Carnage Matey!]

It only made the front page of the WSJ because some muppets at the FAA dropped the ball and it took them six months to dig themselves out of the big hole they'd gotten themselves into. You cannot run an airline if you constantly refuse to fly out of fear that a regulatory agency will start spouting off to the press that what you have done is dangerous, even though they themselves approved it. We could equally appear on the front pages next month if the FAA decided they suddenly didn't like the aircraft dispatching under a Boeing approved MEL alleviation. Once again, BA were following approved procedures throughout the flight and the FAA have dropped all charges. Next time it happens it won't make the front pages because the FAA have learnt that if they open their mouths without thinking first then they just embarass themselves.

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by jondc9

imagine driving a car across the loneliest road in America, US 50 between ELY NEVADA and Fallon, Nevada. You start your journey in ELY with a properly serviced car...2 miles out of ELY the car appears to only be working at 75% of its potential, do you turn around and drive back to ELY and get it fixed, even though you will be late, and you may have to wait for parts, or do you push on across the Nevada desert for some 300 miles, knowing you will make it somehow to the next town.

An "imperfect" analogy? It's absolutely laden with the conclusion that you so want your listeners to reach.

A better analogy would have started: "Imagine driving from New Haven to New York on the Post Road ..."

[L337]

Would it be better for British Airways public relations to have a small article on page 17 of the Los Angeles Times saying:
yesterday, after a minor engine malfunction on one of 4 engines, a BA 747-400 made an uneventful return to LAX. The crew was praised by the passengers who were accomadated on a later flight.
or would it be better to have the story told so many times and finally make the FRONT PAGE of the Wall Street Journal?

So now we must run our operation according to what the press might or might not say?
Let me see. Tomorrow as I get airborne in my 747-400. I have a problem. any problem will do. I now discard company procedure, bin the Boeing QRH. Ignore my common law duty of care. Ignore my responsibilities granted to my by my license. Discard company procedure. And invent an action according to how it may or may not be perceived by the press?
A press that shows little or no understanding of aviation. Shoots from the hip and sensationalizes everything. Reduces all to the lowest common denominator. And would sell its own proverbial granny to sell more copy.
The interview with the Chief Pilot would be short and too the point.