Wall Street Journal reports on BA 747 3 engine LAX-MAN flight
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
johc9. OK we are waiting for their views, PPRuNe is an open forum available to American 747-400 let them put their views rather than through the CNN expert (we have the same "experts" in the UK - generally they managed to come to a conclusion before the main evening news).
As a matter of interest have you read the CAA report on the incident?
As a matter of interest have you read the CAA report on the incident?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that the Captain of the BA flight, competent Airman that he clearly is, would be feeling somewhat embarrassed if he read the offensive and personal attacks made by some in trying to 'defend' him. Surely he has no need for friends like these! The nature of some replies to Jonc9 are so rude and illogical that an observer might reasonably come to the conclusion that the writers are only resorting to such abuse because they have lost the argument - if indeed there needs to be an argument at all.
That Captain made a number of decisions during that flight. The flight landed safely so his decisions were fundementally sound. Because we are pilots and professionals though, we accept that our decisions are bound to be analyzed over and over again by our peers. They will do this from the comfort of their armchairs and with no time constraints! There is nothing wrong with this - it is one of the reasons why flying has become so safe.
There are often no 'right' or 'wrong' decisions. Some are just, with hindsight, better than others. We go to great lengths in training to get people to understand this.
By all accounts that crew, on the day, behaved impeccably. Were all of the Captain's decisions the best options? With the benefit of hindsight possibly not, but that is no critisism and aviation safety has been improved by this event. For example, 747 pilots understand their fuel system better now than they did previously...
What to do after an engine surge (and after the engine has been shut down and secured) is an interesting debate. I have had a GE (CF6) surge and, on engineering inspection it was found that the engine was considerably damaged. Naturally, we did not know the extent of the damage until after landing... There are though, ex RR Conway operators for whom an engine surge was a regular event! Nowadays though, these happenings are so rare that, having shut the engine down, I would probably acknowledge the possibility of damage and remain close to suitable and commercial alternates. For that reason, my 'armchair' course of action would have been to land at a BA destination somewhere on the east coast, hopefully without the need to dump some of the world's precious fuel. I think there are lots of us out here who would have made such a decision - we are not so vociferous on PPrune but the personal attack on Jonc9 is ridiculous and demeaning to the profession.
It is unfortunate that BA's standards have been questioned. I know that BA have the highest standards (I would say that though, I was a Training Captain with them). There are many very dodgy operators on both sides of the pond let alone elsewhere in the world who would never stand up to even superficial investigation. Such an incident would probably never have been reported.
BS
That Captain made a number of decisions during that flight. The flight landed safely so his decisions were fundementally sound. Because we are pilots and professionals though, we accept that our decisions are bound to be analyzed over and over again by our peers. They will do this from the comfort of their armchairs and with no time constraints! There is nothing wrong with this - it is one of the reasons why flying has become so safe.
There are often no 'right' or 'wrong' decisions. Some are just, with hindsight, better than others. We go to great lengths in training to get people to understand this.
By all accounts that crew, on the day, behaved impeccably. Were all of the Captain's decisions the best options? With the benefit of hindsight possibly not, but that is no critisism and aviation safety has been improved by this event. For example, 747 pilots understand their fuel system better now than they did previously...
What to do after an engine surge (and after the engine has been shut down and secured) is an interesting debate. I have had a GE (CF6) surge and, on engineering inspection it was found that the engine was considerably damaged. Naturally, we did not know the extent of the damage until after landing... There are though, ex RR Conway operators for whom an engine surge was a regular event! Nowadays though, these happenings are so rare that, having shut the engine down, I would probably acknowledge the possibility of damage and remain close to suitable and commercial alternates. For that reason, my 'armchair' course of action would have been to land at a BA destination somewhere on the east coast, hopefully without the need to dump some of the world's precious fuel. I think there are lots of us out here who would have made such a decision - we are not so vociferous on PPrune but the personal attack on Jonc9 is ridiculous and demeaning to the profession.
It is unfortunate that BA's standards have been questioned. I know that BA have the highest standards (I would say that though, I was a Training Captain with them). There are many very dodgy operators on both sides of the pond let alone elsewhere in the world who would never stand up to even superficial investigation. Such an incident would probably never have been reported.
BS
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to anticipate the usual question - no I am not 744 type rated. I do have some experience though on 1,2,3,and 4 engined aircraft. But to borrow the line from someone else - "airmanship is not type specific".
If any of us are unlucky enough to make a really bad decision one day - and end up in court - the prosecutor won't be type rated either. Neither will the judge be who sends you down...
BS
If any of us are unlucky enough to make a really bad decision one day - and end up in court - the prosecutor won't be type rated either. Neither will the judge be who sends you down...
BS
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rananim
With all due respect,the facts quite clearly support a contrary opinion to the one that most posters appear to have on this forum.He should have diverted.
BA have a good reputation and the FAA dont have the cooperation of the CAA.They have the promise that such a decision will not be taken again in their airspace so they've dropped it.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Shire
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are missing the point, jondc9, and you are also assuming that I endorse all the decisions made that day.
People here are not condemning you for having a critical view of the flight crew, but for that opinion having absolutely no foundation. You have provided no credible data to back up your conclusion, which appears to be based on nothing other than your own ego.
Freedom of speech is wholeheartedly encouraged on 'our side of the pond' as it is here on Pprune. We are open and receptive to well presented thoughts and opinions no matter which side of the pond, or indeed part of the world, they emanate from. As professional pilots though, the least one would expect is for views expressed to be backed up with something of substance.
With your overwhelming credentials and experience I would expect you to be able to produce a superior and more convincing argument than 'they were wrong.'
'My perception' is that your 'us v them' America is best attitude is an embarrassment to your more enlightened and balanced peers. You are exactly the sort of individual that wrongly gives America a reputation for being arrogant and disdainful within the global community. The thing I fear, as you point out, is that people will form perceptions of American professionals based on your posts and I believe you to be doing them a great dissevice.
You genuinely seem to believe that all 747 pilots in the UK believe they did the right thing and that all 747 pilots in the US believe they did the wrong thing. Incredible.
Your friends opinions would be welcomed here. They are in an infinitely stronger position than you to pass judgement. Their opinions would likely be based on actual concrete evidence, therefore respected and well-received whatever their conclusions may be.
Yes, I'm sure it would make the BA crew realise the error of their infidel ways.
People here are not condemning you for having a critical view of the flight crew, but for that opinion having absolutely no foundation. You have provided no credible data to back up your conclusion, which appears to be based on nothing other than your own ego.
Freedom of speech is wholeheartedly encouraged on 'our side of the pond' as it is here on Pprune. We are open and receptive to well presented thoughts and opinions no matter which side of the pond, or indeed part of the world, they emanate from. As professional pilots though, the least one would expect is for views expressed to be backed up with something of substance.
With your overwhelming credentials and experience I would expect you to be able to produce a superior and more convincing argument than 'they were wrong.'
'My perception' is that your 'us v them' America is best attitude is an embarrassment to your more enlightened and balanced peers. You are exactly the sort of individual that wrongly gives America a reputation for being arrogant and disdainful within the global community. The thing I fear, as you point out, is that people will form perceptions of American professionals based on your posts and I believe you to be doing them a great dissevice.
You genuinely seem to believe that all 747 pilots in the UK believe they did the right thing and that all 747 pilots in the US believe they did the wrong thing. Incredible.
Your friends opinions would be welcomed here. They are in an infinitely stronger position than you to pass judgement. Their opinions would likely be based on actual concrete evidence, therefore respected and well-received whatever their conclusions may be.
you should hear what pilots on this side of the pond think of the choices made on that day
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Shire
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to anticipate the usual question
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice flaps and others:
it is very unlikely that my US based 747 friends will post on pprune. They have read the posts as forwarded by me and have come to the conclusion that posting here would be as effective as talking to a rock.
to SKY 9, you and the others always seem to refer to me as a CNN expert...why not by my certificates, which I imagine are similiar to yours? A simple question for you. Will you answer ?
I have also demanded an apology from DANNY and L337 as they question whether or not I am a real pilot. See post 88 on this thread and others on other threads. I have offered an unimpeachable source for my credentials/certicicates and Danny and L337 have been invited to disprove who I say I am or say they are sorry. I await their response within 4 days or automatically assume their most humble retraction.
In america, when something is so wrong, we, as a slang term just say: WRONG.
Wrong refering to the highest level of morality and not regulations, SOPs and policies and economic considerations.
Many times on this and other threads, pilots ( I guess they are pilots, no real proof) have indicated that they would prefer to fly a 744 vs 777. I offer this priority of planes:
1. fully functioning 744, 2. fully functioning 777, 3. crippled 744, 4. crippled 777, 5. "Spirit of ST. Louis"
If you would like an analysis of the FAA quote regarding an understanding with BA, fine.
When a media reports an FAA official speaking of reaching an understanding with BA and a change for operations in US airspace, the only way you can disprove that is to contact the FAA spokesperson and have him retract the statement. This post/thread, unlike the first thread which was on the actual incident, is based on the article leading off this post. Do you understand that?
Simply saying, "BA POLICIES HAVE NOT CHANGED" is like screaming, "YOUR MOM WEARS COMBAT BOOTS". or Neener, Neener, Neener!
In fact if BA polices have not changed, report it to the Times of London and ask them to get the FAA to coment on this, FOR THE RECORD. When the response is published, we can discuss it.
This has never been a US vs. UK thing, and to say it is, is a disservice to a fine friendship between 2 great nations. Shame on you.
I recall financial hardships by BA in recent years...in the US, money has become a guiding light to airlines, even changing safety and mx procedures leading to death. Witness Alaska MD80 crash due to poor lubrication of jackscrew.
The posters who defend the handling of the incident have spoken of redundency of 744, of regulations and SOPs and a myriad of others. Fine.
Their defense of this situation is as strong as Sec.State Rice's defense of the business in Iraq and WMD. And some people still believe we will find WMD in Iraq and it is all just fine. But people are waking up to that crock too.
I often find when people defend something with such passion, their views are tainted by motivated self interest. What interest have I but safety? and do not for a minute think it is a journalistic interest, I post on this forum primarily as a pilot, I acknowlege the journalistic portion as a disclaimer, as surely as the disclaimer posted on the bottom of pprune's forum.
over to you on the old RT
j
it is very unlikely that my US based 747 friends will post on pprune. They have read the posts as forwarded by me and have come to the conclusion that posting here would be as effective as talking to a rock.
to SKY 9, you and the others always seem to refer to me as a CNN expert...why not by my certificates, which I imagine are similiar to yours? A simple question for you. Will you answer ?
I have also demanded an apology from DANNY and L337 as they question whether or not I am a real pilot. See post 88 on this thread and others on other threads. I have offered an unimpeachable source for my credentials/certicicates and Danny and L337 have been invited to disprove who I say I am or say they are sorry. I await their response within 4 days or automatically assume their most humble retraction.
In america, when something is so wrong, we, as a slang term just say: WRONG.
Wrong refering to the highest level of morality and not regulations, SOPs and policies and economic considerations.
Many times on this and other threads, pilots ( I guess they are pilots, no real proof) have indicated that they would prefer to fly a 744 vs 777. I offer this priority of planes:
1. fully functioning 744, 2. fully functioning 777, 3. crippled 744, 4. crippled 777, 5. "Spirit of ST. Louis"
If you would like an analysis of the FAA quote regarding an understanding with BA, fine.
When a media reports an FAA official speaking of reaching an understanding with BA and a change for operations in US airspace, the only way you can disprove that is to contact the FAA spokesperson and have him retract the statement. This post/thread, unlike the first thread which was on the actual incident, is based on the article leading off this post. Do you understand that?
Simply saying, "BA POLICIES HAVE NOT CHANGED" is like screaming, "YOUR MOM WEARS COMBAT BOOTS". or Neener, Neener, Neener!
In fact if BA polices have not changed, report it to the Times of London and ask them to get the FAA to coment on this, FOR THE RECORD. When the response is published, we can discuss it.
This has never been a US vs. UK thing, and to say it is, is a disservice to a fine friendship between 2 great nations. Shame on you.
I recall financial hardships by BA in recent years...in the US, money has become a guiding light to airlines, even changing safety and mx procedures leading to death. Witness Alaska MD80 crash due to poor lubrication of jackscrew.
The posters who defend the handling of the incident have spoken of redundency of 744, of regulations and SOPs and a myriad of others. Fine.
Their defense of this situation is as strong as Sec.State Rice's defense of the business in Iraq and WMD. And some people still believe we will find WMD in Iraq and it is all just fine. But people are waking up to that crock too.
I often find when people defend something with such passion, their views are tainted by motivated self interest. What interest have I but safety? and do not for a minute think it is a journalistic interest, I post on this forum primarily as a pilot, I acknowlege the journalistic portion as a disclaimer, as surely as the disclaimer posted on the bottom of pprune's forum.
over to you on the old RT
j
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CV
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Failures on aircraft will always occur. What we should all focus on is that a PIC in consultation with his airline made and took a course of action that resulted in safe landing in Manchester. No two incidents are ever likely to be the same. Only those who believe or naive enough to believe that flailures can and will be experienced only as per the QRH or FCOM blame the crew. A pilot who understands and makes a life saving decision is a better assest than one who thinks life in an aircraft will always replicate the manuals to the dot.
There are too many variables.
I do not believe that the decision was based on economics but on the ability of the crew and aircraft to continue the flight safely. BA is great airline. And when I fly with them I know that I am being looked after by some of the best pilots in the world. Some of the posts on this thread show that we have converts to the teaching doctrine that a set of robotic responses to a memorized set of responses to a situation beats common sense and good airmanship. Some recent incidents/accidents illustrate clearly the difference between believers in the QRH/FCOM and those who truly undesrtand the profession of flying.
Finally and most important a safe landing is more important than killing yourself and passengers etc. than killing yourself and others by believing recommendations for machines you may not fully understand will always save your ass.
There are too many variables.
I do not believe that the decision was based on economics but on the ability of the crew and aircraft to continue the flight safely. BA is great airline. And when I fly with them I know that I am being looked after by some of the best pilots in the world. Some of the posts on this thread show that we have converts to the teaching doctrine that a set of robotic responses to a memorized set of responses to a situation beats common sense and good airmanship. Some recent incidents/accidents illustrate clearly the difference between believers in the QRH/FCOM and those who truly undesrtand the profession of flying.
Finally and most important a safe landing is more important than killing yourself and passengers etc. than killing yourself and others by believing recommendations for machines you may not fully understand will always save your ass.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had thought there was a more recent thread on this topic but I failed to find it. Just wanted to point out that AvWeb's John Deakin published a column this week with his take on the situation.
Here.
I am SLF with no agenda here. Cheers.
Here.
I am SLF with no agenda here. Cheers.
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
Thanks for pointing that out. how nice to see a totally independant opinion supports the crew's actions!
It was mildly upsetting seeing the inferences that the crew were browbeaten, or 'influenced', by BA management into continuing. People must understand these were safety minded pilots in no mood to be forced what they didn't want to do, and no BA pilot I know would ever be 'obliged' to take an action they considered unsafe. Anybody who has flown the 747 knows the mechanics of engine stalls and flying the beast on 3 engines. The crew did exactly what I would have done, and I flew them for 8 years (and the Classic 747 for 10 years before that). The outcome has shown that the go decision has been vindicated. I will always accept that many pilots don't like it and would maybe have done otherwise, but they must accept they have no experience of the -400. There is no airline flying today with as extensive a history of longhaul operations as BA, and as experienced pilots, and with a 747-400 it was the right thing to do, in my opinion. The option of dump and return seemed to be the favoured opinion by many here- understand fuel jettison (pouring about 40 tonnes of raw fuel into the vortex) carries additional risks of its own. Landing en route ( a long way off route) would have been dreadfully inconvenient and not solved much. Decisions like that are what pilots are paid to take.
It was mildly upsetting seeing the inferences that the crew were browbeaten, or 'influenced', by BA management into continuing. People must understand these were safety minded pilots in no mood to be forced what they didn't want to do, and no BA pilot I know would ever be 'obliged' to take an action they considered unsafe. Anybody who has flown the 747 knows the mechanics of engine stalls and flying the beast on 3 engines. The crew did exactly what I would have done, and I flew them for 8 years (and the Classic 747 for 10 years before that). The outcome has shown that the go decision has been vindicated. I will always accept that many pilots don't like it and would maybe have done otherwise, but they must accept they have no experience of the -400. There is no airline flying today with as extensive a history of longhaul operations as BA, and as experienced pilots, and with a 747-400 it was the right thing to do, in my opinion. The option of dump and return seemed to be the favoured opinion by many here- understand fuel jettison (pouring about 40 tonnes of raw fuel into the vortex) carries additional risks of its own. Landing en route ( a long way off route) would have been dreadfully inconvenient and not solved much. Decisions like that are what pilots are paid to take.
"been dreadfully inconvenient"
When speaking of a safety related issue, that has no place in the conversation.
For the record, as best I can tell, they didn't do anything wrong.
When speaking of a safety related issue, that has no place in the conversation.
For the record, as best I can tell, they didn't do anything wrong.
Grandpa Aerotart
I guess all those here, only jondc9 it seems, suggesting the BA crew should have dumped fuel and landed at LAX will be campaigning for all ETOPS flying to cease and indeed for DC10/L1011/B727/DA50/900 etc flights to be limited to always operating within 400nm of a suitable alternate?
I mean we can't have aeroplanes flying over the Atlantic on three engines can we...even when 1000s of flight a week happen on two?
I have flown a couple of different 4 engined aircraft, turboprop & jet...a single engine failure in such an aircraft is a complete non event...for gods sake P3 mil operators shut engines down to increase loiter time.
Boeing are very succinct in what qualifies as reason to 'land at the nearest suitable' airport and 1 engine out in a 4 engined aeroplane is not on the list.
The media is not qualified to comment and neither would be most employees at the FAA. For that reason alone their possible views after the fact will never come into my decision making processes.
The crew on the day made a very safe and correct decision...end of story.
Edit: jonc when in a hole best to stop digging.
I mean we can't have aeroplanes flying over the Atlantic on three engines can we...even when 1000s of flight a week happen on two?
I have flown a couple of different 4 engined aircraft, turboprop & jet...a single engine failure in such an aircraft is a complete non event...for gods sake P3 mil operators shut engines down to increase loiter time.
Boeing are very succinct in what qualifies as reason to 'land at the nearest suitable' airport and 1 engine out in a 4 engined aeroplane is not on the list.
The media is not qualified to comment and neither would be most employees at the FAA. For that reason alone their possible views after the fact will never come into my decision making processes.
The crew on the day made a very safe and correct decision...end of story.
Edit: jonc when in a hole best to stop digging.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 9th Jan 2007 at 05:54.
