BA engine fault on Takeoff at PHX
Locked door: Oh dear! Reference to the full report does in fact show that BA came in for criticism for their use of a non - Boeing standard fuel balancing procedure. This, coupled with the crew's apparent poor/incomplete understanding of the fuel system turned what should have been a routine 3-eng fly on into an emergency! BA were requred to introduce extra training sunsequently. ( if you are inclined to attack my credentials - 13 years B747 and 10 years A340 and TRE both types )
Meikleour,
I’m not and never have said it was a perfect sector. The criticism raised was that the crew shouldn’t have continued / it was unsafe to do so.
It was an unfortunate end to the flight and of course lessons were learned. What irks me is the “BA are unsafe and should never have continued” mantra from twin jet or flight sim pilots!
ATB
LD
I’m not and never have said it was a perfect sector. The criticism raised was that the crew shouldn’t have continued / it was unsafe to do so.
It was an unfortunate end to the flight and of course lessons were learned. What irks me is the “BA are unsafe and should never have continued” mantra from twin jet or flight sim pilots!
ATB
LD
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
runway numbers US style
I am guessing that US pilots cleared for "zero nine left" at LHR, don't say " give me that in single figures please".
When in Rome..... and btw the Jepps at PHX not only show 8 but they paint 8 on the runway and not 08 as we limeys would.
When in Rome..... and btw the Jepps at PHX not only show 8 but they paint 8 on the runway and not 08 as we limeys would.
Simplistically it’s true and TBF I was happy to trot that line out for about 20 years, then converted to a relatively modern twin and saw how time had moved on and what that was capable of. Ultimately, yes, a four holer gives you more options than a twin in the case of an engine out ... but as witnessed by the never ending arguments here about the BA LAX flight that continued being able to do so may or may not be a good thing.....
Last edited by wiggy; 12th Jun 2018 at 12:55.
Locked door: Fair enough - but you did attack old, not bold based on, I asume, your guess as to his experience! I did the first part of my career with BA and it always amazed me their predilection for "going their own way" with respect to long standing manufacturer procedures. In that case it bit them badly!
By the by, use of the Override/Jettison Pumps for balancing was an often used procedure in the circuit for base training but then the fuel in tanks was never below 13tons total remaining! What is the current procedure at BA?
By the by, use of the Override/Jettison Pumps for balancing was an often used procedure in the circuit for base training but then the fuel in tanks was never below 13tons total remaining! What is the current procedure at BA?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel Tango: I will confess to having only 5 years experience working with ATC. And I maintain my comment was not "utter, utter poppycock". If there had been better communication between controllers, at least a part of the conversation between the tower and the ground units would not have arisen. I am referring to the tower not knowing that the flight had indeed declared an emergency or what the intentions were. May I respectfully suggest you sit down with a nice warm drink and let your blood pressure settle down.
TDracer: 2,240 lbs!
TDracer: 2,240 lbs!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KelvinD, I'm not sure what you mean when you mention your 5 years experience with ATC. My opinion of your post was based on my 46 years experience working in ATC. The fact of the matter is that you simply have no idea of what was involved at the time with regard to internal communications. You base your conclusion simply on a very compressed/edited recording missing many key and pertinent transmissions not to mention unrecorded (to the public) co-ordination between controllers and between controllers and various agencies. To suggest that the TWR was not in the loop is erroneous. And when you're sitting in your armchair criticizing ATC please also bear in mind that there would have been numerous people communicating to numerous units whilst still also handling all the other traffic in and around the airport. PHX is an extremely busy airport. As I previously stated, as far as I'm concerned, a good job was done by all with a positive outcome. If posters wish to analyse every aspect in detail then they should only do so if they have all relevant evidence at hand. This they have not. Hence my elevated blood pressure as you put it!
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Nairobi
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having watched a Caravan nearly arse end a 172 trainer on landing this afternoon, over what I suspect was a mis-communication from TWR and a possible lack of judgement from the pilot, I would say the boys in PHX and the BA pilots did a pretty dammn good job at communicating whilst juggling many multiple balls in the air at once, whilst translating between English and American 🤣 😂 🤣
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if you believe that a 747 operating on three has more redundancy than a ETOPS twin operating on two; then I assume you will be more comfortable if one of the 747's three goes south than if one of the twin's two goes south? I don't think so. That 747 on two is going to struggle to remain in the air, while the twin on one can go indefinitely (or up to 330 minutes depending on certification).
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Orygun
Age: 60
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No JS, you are reading it the opposite way around. Clearly didn't. And the since the ATC is confused why no emergency declared at that point - he feels like there should be one - that leads to the fuzzy statement assume he'd come back. Why? Because either the poor ATCO or his colleague before completely missed the 3x MAYDAY call.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Orygun
Age: 60
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will recall that this exchange about the fuel happened after the fuel dump, so, no, I don't think they were still talking about flying to London. Silly.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the distinct inability of certain posters on here to understand 'Mayday mayday mayday', I'm amazed that no-one has commented on the ability of the pilot speaking on the R/T (PF or PNF I don't know - don't know him, never met him, never spoken to him etc) to cope with multiple radio inputs while dealing with an emergency.. Guess that's why he's flying a 747 for BA...
I'm no particular fan of Big Airways (or at least their customer service department) but these guys were consumate professionals.. Who even had the presence of mind to mention to the controller where the problem had occured and that there might be debris on the runway! Think about that one because I rather doubt it would happen in every corner of the world, let alone be acted upon by the controllers.
I'm no particular fan of Big Airways (or at least their customer service department) but these guys were consumate professionals.. Who even had the presence of mind to mention to the controller where the problem had occured and that there might be debris on the runway! Think about that one because I rather doubt it would happen in every corner of the world, let alone be acted upon by the controllers.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see the problem. The ATCO asked for fuel remaining, and thought he heard "54 hundred", which clearly could not be the case, and was missing the denominator. So the question was "How many pounds of fuel remaining did you say you had? If you'd rather say endurance, that's cool too", it wasn't "Could you convert that to pounds for me?" When the answer comes back in KG, he takes it and deals with it. It sounded pretty well handled on all sides.
And Mr. Atienza got the transcription wrong. It's clearly "did" with the tongue on the top of the palate between the ds: Did declare. There's no nasalizing there.
Now that LX out of Pulkovo, that's some quality Engleesh for you.
And Mr. Atienza got the transcription wrong. It's clearly "did" with the tongue on the top of the palate between the ds: Did declare. There's no nasalizing there.
Now that LX out of Pulkovo, that's some quality Engleesh for you.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Struggle was a poor choice of word. But the fact remains, a twin on one engine is operating in a regime for which it is designed. A 747 on two, not so much.
Most of the data I can recall where more than one engine lost significant power,. were at conditions where light loads, time to dump fuel and runway in sight or time to make several restart attempts This leaves the major problem as the pilot workload not within normal training. But other than the normal "what-ifs" of PPrune I don't see any relationship with the successful air-turnback of this thread
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HotelTango: "Working 5 years with ATC" means exactly that. I was never a controller but I spent 50 years working in communications, 5 years of which were spent with ATC. During that time, I met and worked with many controllers of various nationalities and found some of them to be nice, even tempered people. Others I found to be prima donnas who appeared able only to communicate with themselves with a "I am a controller and second only to God" attitude.
(We haven't met, have we?)
My post served to highlight only how communications really are and implied no criticism of either the pilot or ATC. The approach controller sounded like a really helpful and knowledgeable bloke (ignoring the fuel weight error). The tower controller had not been informed fully of what was happening and it would have made his life easier if the controller handing off to him had made sure he had all the facts at the time.
(We haven't met, have we?)
My post served to highlight only how communications really are and implied no criticism of either the pilot or ATC. The approach controller sounded like a really helpful and knowledgeable bloke (ignoring the fuel weight error). The tower controller had not been informed fully of what was happening and it would have made his life easier if the controller handing off to him had made sure he had all the facts at the time.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tower controller had not been informed fully of what was happening and it would have made his life easier if the controller handing off to him had made sure he had all the facts at the time.
Locked Door, thank you for that summary of most of the factors that need to be thought about, plus the usual PPRuNe lecture on second guessing the crew, which no-one was actually doing.
Of course, all of those also applied in the BA 268 case; especially "if you’re lucky and are carrying a lot of contingency fuel there might be enough". Hmmm, I seem to remember that BA 268 diverted to MAN due to fuel.
I'll show my colours and say that I was among those who thought that BA got that one wrong, simply because the engine surge was the first hole in the cheese. Luckily the second and third did not line up. But they nearly did; just consider if a go-round had been necessary at Manchester from 1,000 feet. The second hole was a higher fuel burn than they claculated; a go-round for a reason outside their control could have been the third. We dinosaurs think that when your safety buffer is eroded by the loss of an engine you don't tempt fate. So I'm with this guy who declared a Mayday to make sure he got the full attention of ATC while he sorted out the situation, and then landed as soon as safe to do so. The passengers on BA 268 did not volunteer to take part in a 3-engine ferry over the arctic.
Of course, all of those also applied in the BA 268 case; especially "if you’re lucky and are carrying a lot of contingency fuel there might be enough". Hmmm, I seem to remember that BA 268 diverted to MAN due to fuel.
I'll show my colours and say that I was among those who thought that BA got that one wrong, simply because the engine surge was the first hole in the cheese. Luckily the second and third did not line up. But they nearly did; just consider if a go-round had been necessary at Manchester from 1,000 feet. The second hole was a higher fuel burn than they claculated; a go-round for a reason outside their control could have been the third. We dinosaurs think that when your safety buffer is eroded by the loss of an engine you don't tempt fate. So I'm with this guy who declared a Mayday to make sure he got the full attention of ATC while he sorted out the situation, and then landed as soon as safe to do so. The passengers on BA 268 did not volunteer to take part in a 3-engine ferry over the arctic.
Just for info, the Lax Lhr 3 eng BA 268 diverted to Man not because of lack of fuel, but it was in the wrong tanks.
Fuel cross feed finger trouble en route. Red faces and revision of the Manuals!!