Flying the Atlantic with only 3 engines operating As for the fuel emergency, it's possible that the pilots found that the fuel in the tank associated with the shutdown engine was not feeding to the other engines; i.e. the other tanks were running down to uncomfortable levels while the dead engine tank still had lots. This seems to be the second recent example of an automated fuel system that suddenly seemed unable to get all the fuel to the engines: Anybody got a towbar? |
<<These days I suspect that most a/c crossing the pond only have 2 operating.>>
Oh really? Presumably you mean 767 and 777 types? On the subject of PC games - a friend of mine, a 747 skipper, had great diffiulty landing the FlightSim 747 but I could do it most times out of ten. On the other hand, he was a dab hand at TRACON (ATC sim) and when I tried I had about 25 mid-air collisons and the wreckage was strewn everywhere! PC games are fun, but that's all they are and can in no way approach the real world. |
Fire engine at the scene as a precaution ??
Might have been more practical to have had a (loaded) fuel truck at the scene................................:rolleyes: |
I find it a bit odd that people on here are doubting BA's safety.
I don't work for them, and am certainly not a 'fan' of BA, but their safety record is second to none. As we know, their flight deck recruitment is as difficult to penetrate as a nuns pants, along with their engineering. As I said, I am not a fan of BA but feel more than comfortable on one of their a/c - no matter what decisions they make! |
The thing is that it's not because it's standard SOP that it makes it right. All the experienced B744 pilots in the world can tell me how safe it all is, but I still can't get my head around continuing a nine (plus) hour flight with one engine out and no knowledge of any damage that may have occured to the adjacent engine and possibly the aircraft. Lurking somewhere behind some of these SOPs are the beancounters me thinks, just as in ATC these days. I too thought I was safer flying BA. Doubts are now creeping in, not just from this incident I might add. By this I don't by any means mean to imply that BA is not safe, but only that perhaps the extra safety buffer feeling I had is now gone.
|
1) It is not just BA who operates such a procedure; the 744 is capable of performing on 3, or even 2 engines, within safely defined performance criterea.
2) You doubt and refuse to accept what professionals say without being a pilot, based upon what - a gut reaction? These SOPs are proven and risk-based. 3) Whos to say that if the engine was working a valve still became stuck and prevented fuel flow, if that situation were to arise, or for that matter the same problem were to affect a 2-engined aircraft or an 8-engined aircraft. 4) You question the reputation of the professional crew without any basis for doing so, nor concrete evidence of the event. 5) An engine failure does not necessarily mean bits flying everywhere; equally a seriously destructive uncontained blade failure may not result in power loss initially. Many different causes and consequences all come among a power loss bracket. |
Avman,
A 747-400 has four engines and four hydraulic systems. If one engine quits, it is left with three engines and three hydraulic systems. It is (more than) reasonable to assume that the crew of this particular flight would not have continued if there had been any risk. Yes, they have to fly at a lower level. Yes, it uses more fuel. So what? They did the sensible thing and landed somewhere closer. Wrt their alleged fuel problem. How do you know that had anything to do with the engine failure? It may have happened anyway. A 777 has two engines and three hydraulic systems. Does this mean it is less safe than a three engined 747-400? Please explain why you feel that a three-engined 747-400 is unsafe in cruise. After you've done that, please explain why you are happy to fly ETOPS. If you're that concerned, take the train in future. |
Hi guys and gals,
I have read with interest the items within this post, and because of what has been said I felt that I had to register and add some FACTS as to what happened to the aircraft in question. Before you all start screaming and shouting that I am a spotter, I am not, I am a BA engineer working at Manchester who was on shift when the aircraft arrived at Man. Firstly, just after take off from LAX the number 2 engine surged, it was contained by the 3 man flight crew, shortly after that there was another surge with EGT hitting 1200 degrees. Lax control reported 20 ft flame from no 2 engine also. The decision was made to shut down the engine and contact LHR Maintrol and after acars message, the decision was made to carry on to LHR as they had enough fuel. Upon crossing the pond the a/c was told by atc to descend and in doing so the fuel burn increased. The decision was made to come to MAN as they did not have enough fuel left to reach LHR, this was because of a problem getting fuel from trhe number 2 main tank. The aircraft did declare a PAN and informed the tower at MAN that they would not be doing a go around. It arrived safely at MAN with no injuries to pax or crew. The aircraft was certainly not overweight as it landed with 5 tonnes of fuel onboard. As for why he came to MAN and not PIK or SNN, the only thing I can think of it is easier to get items to MAN than it is to these other stations. As I left work on Sunday evening, LHR was sending a 3 engine ferry kit to MAN to be fitted to return the a/c to LHR for an engine change, and the fuel problem was being looked into. It was a very brave decision by the crew to shut down the engine in flight as these figures also count towards our etops ifsd's, but they all did very well to bring her home with no problems. Hope this sheds some light for everone. |
Ok, Did the crew inform the passengers they were shutting down an engine in flight and continuing?? My guess is that they did not, to prevent anarchy and panic.
BUT, if they didn't they were in the wrong - passengers should be kept informed. I think the guys on here that are saying the 747 is capable of flying on three engines are wording it all wrong. Yes the 747 can fly safely on three engines BUT IT WAS DESIGNED TO FLY ON FOUR What they should be saying is that unfortunately the aircraft lost an engine, but the experienced crew deemed it safe to continue. To say that a 747 lost an engine is not a big deal is wrong, because lets face it most pilots fly their whole career without experiencing it! |
I'm happy to fly a twin 3 hours from a suitable airfield. Never flown the 747, but 1 engine out strikes me as no big deal...:ok:
|
BUT, if they didn't they were in the wrong - passengers should be kept informed. Is this so that they can all give me advice similar to the ill-informed and ignorant speculation on this thread? Or is it so that they can decide to get off having considered the implications which, of course, they would have little understanding of anyway? Thanks for telling me, I shall bear it in mind. |
Gentlemen, I am not looking at this from a pilot's perspective, but that of a passenger - you know, the ones that pay to fly with your companies. Many are of a nervous disposition as it is. Try and look at this issue from outside your technical boxes.
Can't find any train services between LAX and LHR by the way :rolleyes: |
Ha ha, its quite funny to watch how out of hand these forums can get. :D
My point is (surely others will agree), is that an engine failure isn't exactly a minor defect. I agree passengers would have no interest in a brake overheat problem, or a pack fault, but they surely have the entitlement to be inormed that an engine has been shut down - I would be FUMING having not been informed. |
I understand that it is perfectly safe to go on with 3. I also believe in BAs safety reputation. However, I find it unlikely that either an uneventful flight with all 4 engines (which the 744 alows to do in principle), or diverting in this case, would be less safe than continuing on 3. In other words, "maximum safety" is better than "perfect safety". I understand that the difference is deemed small enough so that other factors come into consideration. This is just my opinion...
|
Having been informed, what can you do about it from First/Club/Cattle? We need to be careful what we tell the customers, sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing!
|
So you think it's wise to inform passengers of a nervous disposition that you've just shut down an engine, really helpful. I'm all for keeping passengers informed of things but what were they going to do here, fix the engine, demand that the Captain turns the aircraft around or land at the nearest airport, don't think so.
Sometimes it's not helpful to know 'everything'. Sorry Jock you beat me, I was thinking what to write. |
Dear God! Don't tell me please!
edited to say "Feel free to ship the booze trolley down the back tho" |
If one engine quits, it is left with three engines and three hydraulic systems |
If I'd been a passenger on the flight I would be extremely unhappy if I happened to read some of the FACTS as proposed by baengman.
A very brave decision to shut the motor down because it impacts EtOPS? 5 tons remaining, apparently not all of it useable? These aeroplanes are so good that it seems to me they are creating a feeling of infallibility, probably encouraged by the beancounters and 'pilots' that no longer fly. Big mistake IMHO. And yes I'm a real current Boeing Captain , just one who has been and expects will be scared on occasion. |
Windshear:
But having been told, then what? Imagine the scenario where one/some/many nervous flyers get hysterical about the situation and want to land immediately. Other passengers, less nervous - want to go on as they'd rather be in MAN than LAX. Before you know it there's a riot going on outside the cockpit door and the plane has to land somewhere even less convenient. Now that's a threat to flight safety! This may seem a little cheeky but it's meant in all seriousness: where on your ticket, terms & conditions, at the airport or anywhere else does your contract with the airline specify that the plane will be flown in the state in which it was designed to be flown? Laws, regs, SOPs and everything else require the operation to be SAFE - and they don't require 100% of all kit to be servicable at all times. Putting that technicallity aside, the aircraft WAS designed to be flown with suitable redundancy and fail safe systems - it WAS NOT designed to be flown with four engines - otherwise it would plummet from the sky when one was lost. The reason that industries such as aviation & rail are so regulated and the safety sytems so involved (in comparison to you getting in your car and driving with a very finite chance that the single hydraulic braking system will fail) is that your average joe passenger does not have the knowledge to make a judgement call on the safety of the operation or otherwise. Thus the governments of the world assume the responsiblity for legislating requirements needed on the public's behalf. Therefore when you step onto that plane or that train (or that ship or......) then you are handing your safety to the operator in the knowledge that the government has made arrangments to ensure that it is safe. Until you step off the plane at the other end (and trip over the first stairs you see), you play no role whatsoever in determining the operational decisions made. Avman, you may have bought the ticket but part of that cost is you paying the Captain in the front to look after your life as well as theirs. UTR. |
Having read this thread right through, it is obvious that there are strong opinions from both sides of the cockpit door. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that I trust the two trained people who sit at the front to make the decisions. They know the full circumstances, they know the risks, they know the capabilities of the aircraft.
There occupation is to get me from A to B. It's isn't to tell me every minute details of the flight plan or what the current temperature of the engines is. I merely want to sit and sip a G & T and let the guys who are working do their job. I make a decision to trust Boeing/Airbus/Cessna to work properly. I trust the operator to manage the aircraft and it's employees with a view to keeping me safe. As long as the flightcrew get me where I want to go in less than two pieces, I will be happy. Some of you need to get a life. |
baengman
Can we just get a couple of facts right. This Aircraft was not operating under ETOPS. ETOPS in my time stood for Extended Twin Operations. Even if it was an ETOPS sector, (assuming it had been a 767 or 777), the shutdown was before entering the ETOPS segment of the flight so wouldnt have affected the figures. Time will tell on this one, but having flown the 777 for BA I am very interested in the fuel system on the 747. On the 777 the fuel is burnt initially from the centre tank (down to a minimum level)and then from the remaining two wing tanks. What is the procedure on the 400? How much fuel was left in this No 2 tank (which could not be used for whatever reason) that prompted a Pan call and if we are to believe one "spotter"(and I see no reason why not, I even started as a "spotter") who heard a Mayday call? |
It operates to ETOPS since BA 744s are maintained to ETOPS standards even though they are not required to be, since overall the costs of maintaining higher engineering standards allows greater operational availability for the fleet.
Don't know about the stats or being in ETOPS segment specifics though? |
woodpecker
In the first instance this impacts ETOPS in the way that re heat mentioned, Even though it was not classed as an ETOPS sector or a/c, the B747 has the same basic engine as the B767 and as such any ifsd counts against the engine and hence impacts on the ETOPS rating. As for the fuel, the no 2 tank had much the same as the no 4 which was 2.5 tons, as for fule feed, I am not a 747 guy but I believe that the centre and tail are used first and then the reserves then main tanks, the problem was that with the engine shut down, they were only able to get fuel out of the the no 2 tank using the over-ride pumps and they shut off at about 3 tons so they could get no more out. Yes I know there is a discrepancy in the figues but that is what the guys were looking into and will be for some time I guess. |
baengman
Thanks for the info... It will be rather embarrassing if, at just the time you need to get all the fuel out of a tank following a shutdown, an appreciable amount is "unusable" (assuming all the appropriate pumps were working correctly). With regard to ETOPS, Maintrol used to class an ETOPS shutdown as one that occurred in an ETOPS segment of the flight, obviously things have changed. However, I seems rather strange that an airline which wants to keep ETOPS "problems" to a minimum (in shutdown per sector figures) should include in the figures Non-ETOPS (non-twin) aircraft operating on Non-ETOPS flights!! After all there is twice the chance of a 747-400 suffering an IFSD compared to the (same engine equipped) 767! |
Landing with 5 tonnes total and 3 tonnes in tank 2 leaves 2 tonnes in the other main tanks.
2 tonnes is the Minimum Desired Landing Fuel in my manual less go around fuel. Mimimum fuel in a tank is about 0.23 tonnes; so, I would be seriously disappointed that the override pumps failed to deliver that last 3.77 tonnes to the working engines. The other nasty bit is that you discover this defect rather late in the game:uhoh: Only in the inboard engine failure case are the override pumps called upon to empty tank 2 or 3. All engine operation does not call upon the 2/3 override pumps to take these tanks down so low. And I do not see in my manuals or checklists a higher unuseable fuel figure for tanks 2/3 when they're not directly feeding their engine:confused: |
As always some of what has been said here is true, some is close and some is way off the mark. (Even BAengman doesn't have all his facts correct). In addition some is just down right rude to the professional crew involved. They are all very competent operators who made a good many decisions. Please do not jump to conclusions.
|
Assuming the account by baengman is accurate, the crew were told to decend by ATC. I was under the impression that the Capt. was in ultimate control of the aircraft, could he have not declined the instruction from ATC? From what I have read and heard, if ATC was told that the aircraft was on 3 engines and needed to maintain as high a level as possible they would not have hesitated to help. If a higher level had been maintained the fuel issue might not have arose.
|
As a simply paying passenger & member of BAEC (silver) I would like to say that IMHO & based on what baengman said ["Firstly, just after take off from LAX the number 2 engine surged, it was contained by the 3 man flight crew, shortly after that there was another surge with EGT hitting 1200 degrees. Lax control reported 20 ft flame from no 2 engine also"] I cannot understand why this flight didn't return to LAX as that would seem to me to be the safest & most prudent option?
If I was on this flight I would be seriously upset to hear that a decision was taken to continue the flight with 3 engines after the problem occurred so early in the flight - why take ANY risk when you are still so close to LAX? I fly (flew?) BA because I believed their safety standards were higher than their competitors out of LAX but this now seems to longer be the case? |
I cannot understand why this flight didn't return to LAX as that would seem to me to be the safest & most prudent option? If a poll was conducted amongst the world's operators of 4 engined aircraft and the question was 'What is your company policy after an engine surge and subsequent shutdown?' I think the answers would be illuminating. The flight crew of a twin engined aircraft have an easier decision, with the loss of one engine, because there is only one option. A 747 could lose a further engine en-route and still fly safely. At some point one has to trust that the people tasked with overseeing flight safety have looked at the various scenarios with dispassionate, but highly informed and educated, knowledge and deemed it safe. What many are guilty of here is saying that because an engine failed the flight is in grave danger and must land as soon as possible. The reason this one is generating such shock and horror is because a further problem brought the matter to public attention. Three very experienced flight crew operated to company SOPs, themselves approved by the CAA, and landed the aircraft safely at Manchester. I am not sure what more they should have been expected to do. On a technical note, and to add some perspective, a surge will always look dramatic with fuel vapour igniting in the efflux from the engine, it looks very spectacular at night. The flame is momentary and is not in anyway similar to a fire. Also a temperature of 1200°C is 120°C hotter than the 20 sec. allowable overtemp of 1080°C applicable to the RR engines fitted to BA's fleet. |
After all there is twice the chance of a 747-400 suffering an IFSD compared to the (same engine equipped) 767! Or am I being thick this evening? |
I would be seriously disappointed that the override pumps failed to deliver that last 3.77 tonnes to the working engines From the maintenance manual - The override/jettison pumps can lose their prime when operated dry (pump inlets not covered by fuel). At a nominal ground attitude (wings level 0.5 degrees nose down) the left override/jettison pump inlet will be uncovered when the fuel quantity in the center wing tank is approximately 7300 pounds (3300 kilograms). The right pump inlet will be uncovered at approximately 3550 pounds (1600 kilograms). The override/jettison pump inlets in the main tanks will be uncovered when the main tank fuel quantity is between 8600 and 10,600 pounds (3900 and 4800 kilograms) |
cargo boy.......would the spotters please leave us alone
Hand Solo....The only suggestion of this comes from two spotters listening out on different frequencies ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. I may be a spotter but it is I rumour and NEWS forum. It seems a raw nerve has been touched. 2. Two spotters, one was on 128.05 but didn`t mention when the Mayday was initiated, I HEARD the Mayday whilst the flight was on 121.35. Two hearing it indicates to me that it is FACT and I may be a spotter but there is certainly nothing wrong with my hearing |
Some don't understand?
Doesn't matter. We do and that's what we are trained and paid for. regards |
BahrainLad
The point is ETOPS rules were put in place for twin operations. The company went overboard to keep the IFSD figures to a minimum. The first acars to maintrol regarding a westbound trip that was returning to London was met with "had you entered the ETOPS area?" At the time the "same" engines were being taken off the 400's and put on the 767's as the 400 engines were of a later mod state. All to keep the figures looking good. My point is that the ETOPS rules were not put into place for the 400 and why include the "same" engines in the IFSD figures bearing in mind the 400 uses the "same" engine in different way. Much longer sectors than the 767 and run at higher thrust settings in the initial flight phase. The point about IFSD is that a 400 has a greater chance of an IFSD than a twin. I was not talking about an individual engine but any engine. |
For what it's worth, as a passenger...
If it's something I'm going to notice anyway I'd rather hear the straight story than sit there wondering what the flame out the back of the engine was or why we're flying under 30,000 ft , or why the flight is so rough, or... I'm not that nervous a flier but unusual events can still get the adrenaline going. Tell me everything is ok and I'll believe you - say nothing and my imagination will fill in the blanks. Thanks to National Geographic lots of people know that if something serious goes wrong the pilots are too busy to inform the passengers. To be clear, I'm just expressing a preference - not demanding a right to know. Keep up the good work! |
penguin123, as M. Mouse says why is the safest option? The a/c was overweight to make an immediate return to LAX and would have need to dump fuel. This of course takes time and in some cases it can take a lot of time. The crew would only not dump fuel if for example, the a/c had an uncontained fire and it was imperative to land ASAP. Once they had ascertained that the a/c was performing correctly, as they did before leaving the LAX area and was in no danger, electing to continue flight towards the UK presents no great problem. As BahrainLad says statistically having lost one engine you would be extremely unfortunate to lose another and therefore continued flight is acceptable on a 4 engined a/c. Rememeber they were on the west coast of the USA and had many hours of flight over land well known to them with multiple well equiped airfields enroute. This time also afforded them the opportunity to ensure that their Atlantic crossing could be made safely.
As M. Mouse says problems much later on in the flight have brought this to the publics attention. Many of the posters here are professional airline pilots with thousands of flying hours who are basically saying the same thing - continued flight was safe. Please give us all some credit for the jobs we have been trained to do. I'm sure you'd do the same to the solictor carrying out the conveyancing on a house purchase, the doctor prescribing medicines or the mechanic fixing that rusted brake pipe on your car! |
At the time the "same" engines were being taken off the 400's and put on the 767's as the 400 engines were of a later mod state. All to keep the figures looking good. 767 engines were being exchanged for engines on the 747 for sound engineering reasons. Nothing to do with the 'mod. state' The explanation is long and irrelevant to this thread or in fact to anybody outside the company. |
Were you flying the 767 at the time Mickey ?
I was! Was the mod state different? It was! |
spannersatcx,
The amount the override/jettison pumps will leave unused in the inboard tanks in the case of an inboard engine shutdown should be shared with the flight crews. That's about another 200nm. that should be taken off the range for 3-engine cruise. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.