barryt, I am quite confident that within BA, if the Captain had decided to dump fuel and return to LAX, even if it had been against BA's wishes, he would not have been looking for another job. He would have had to explain why he did it, but saying, "Because I felt like it!", might not be a convincing argument.

Perhaps we should never take off because there is a chance that all of the fuel is contaminated and all 4 engines stop just as we complete the rotation. One engine failing does not actually increase the risk of the fuel being contaminated. Nothing in the system has changed - there is still just the same chance that the fuel is contaminated.

Barryt;

So you say that by utilising the redundant systems and the in built redundancy of the aircraft being able to fly on three engines is incorrect?

So why build in redundancy then if you are unwilling to use it?

Just a thought...

I am not a professional pilot, the aircraft I fly have minimal redundant systems (dual mags etc) which are there to be used, as required, by the POH and the flight schools SOP's.

As SLF I am really not interested in knowing the most minor details of the aircraft and its defect's at that point, I am more interested in knowing that I have two properly trained, motivated and alert people on the flight deck, with more of a regard for their own lives than mine, that also have the experience and empowerment to make the decisions to proceed or not.

Also, I haven't seen anywhere on this thread to confirm that the passengers were not informed as to the situation.... (Although I wait to be corrected on that one)

Rainboe : In no way am I insisting that I always be "informed" of what happens at the sharp end as the top posting suggests.

It seems you have taken on a rather arrogant approach to my comments and have adopted a very defensive approach to this issue, together with the chap in the top posting.

It won't go away, whether you like it or not sir. Nobody is accusing you, or fellow 747 drivers. There is still something fundamentally wrong with what happened and it smacks of the operator trying to minimize their costs at a potentially increased risk to passengers.

Please understand while you are in your ivory tower (being a 17 year 747 veteran and all) Rainboe that "Joe Public" is not always a moron and is entitled to voice his opinion. If that is a bit "prickly" for you, then that's too bad - "thou protesteth much!"

There by the grace of God go I (as a paying passenger)

pprecious : Use redunduncy by all means! But only when you HAVE to, or are FORCED to!

BarryT

Rainbow is not being arrogant nor defensive, he is replying as a professional in a highly specialised occupation.

Now neither you nor I are professionals in that field, so maybe we ought to leave comment on this thread to them, since the performance of airline crews over the years suggests that they know what they are doing.

Alternatively, you can always go across to Airliners.net and have a chat with the folks there.

The line you are taking strikes me as being similar to the tactics that might be used by an investigative journalist, confronting people with a load of speculative tosh and then accusing them of protesting too much when they comment.

You capitalisation technique is also reminiscent of Red Top subs.

barryt

Could you explain why flying a 747 on three engines (with an ability to fly on two) is less safe than flying a twin engine 777?

Emotionally people are saying it is safest to dump fuel and land again. Fortunately SOPs are developed unemotionally and are based on careful and considered analysis.

As flight crew we have the ultimate say but one would have to have extremely compelling reasons to operate outside SOPs. An emotional impulse that it is safer to dump fuel and land would not fall into that bracket.

Three highly trained and experienced pilots with many thousands of hours were happy to continue within defined parameters, refined over many years by many highly experienced and qualified people, but you say it would have been safer not to.

Could you explain your background and qualifications which give you enough insight and experience to say that everybody else is wrong?

When ETOPS was first considered everybody was aghast that it was even considered. I didn't like the idea and said I would never do it. I now do at least 8 ETOPS sectors every month. The change of heart has come from observation, education and experience. That last numbers I saw showed that there are around 1,100 ETOPS sectors flown every 24 hours.

My emotional opposition to ETOPS was not grounded in reality. Similarly so many of the opinions posted on this thread.

It is worthy of note that nobody from any other major carrier operating 4 engined public transport has posted what there particular company philosphy is following an IFSD.

barryt

I don't believe you always have to be an expert to know when something isn't right.

I'm in the same line of work and it seems clear to me that this flight went wrong at some point, the debate is where and how?

I love the way everyone just assumes I am not a professional. Why? Because Rainboe says so?

What makes a professional anyway? Rainboe's attitude? (Which is akin to a kid being prodded and having a toy removed from him because he is about to break it).

You are possibly correct. I AM getting tired MYSELF now, of people with seemingly no common sense...

Why on earth did they not go in to SNN or DUB??

I am one who certainly supports their decision to bring the a/c back to the UK, but I feel BA were being a little greedy to try and bypass Ireland.

At the end of the day - Anything could have occured that would have prompted a Go-Around, what would have their options been then?? The headlines could have been a lot worse!!

Yeah and land on a MAYDAY with bog all fuel and no Go-Around capability !!

If this is modern airmanship then give me the old fashioned kind.

BarryT

Do you really want me to answer your question?

Your initial post suggests that (a) you were "tired and emotional" when you wrote it or (b) you have very little clue about the subject.

Please re-read the posts from GS-Alpha and M.Mouse.

In closing (I have to leave now) I would just like to say that in no way am I "blaming" or holding any of the crew responsible for what happened (so all you reporters out there take NOTE).

But something STILL doesn't feel right about the flight.

Cheers all.

That copy deadline's a killer, isn't it BarryT :O

Is that a known fact?

I have over 10,000 hrs on all models of B747, mostly on the 744. During that time I've carried out 3+eng ferries, including across the Atlantic, and flown air-tests on 2+eng. The aircraft is safe and easy to fly in all configurations, provided that you have the knowledge and training to do so. There is nothing, from the sparse information here on Pprune, that would indicate that the crew carried out anything other than a text book operation. Barrack room lawyers please note!

We are very fortunate to have so many experts available to us here on Pprune. It seems a shame that most of them push a pen for a living.;)

As I said on page 2, IFSD Continuation Policy has been discussed at length on PPRuNe and so I don't intend to go through it all again. Suffice to say that this crew, and all the other professionals involved (engineers, ATCOs etc), did an excellent job in getting their customers to within 200 miles of their destination in a safe and professional manner.
As GS states, all of the 5t on board was usable by opening the crossfeel valves and using the normal fuel pumps in tank 2. 5t is more that you might have after a diversion from somewhere like LHR due to weather etc. A go-around, radar vectored circuit and landing will use about 2t (I did it a few weeks ago). As we all know, the JAR-OPS rules about reserve and alternate fuel are very different for a two-runway airfield than for a one-runway airfield (once again this has been discussed many times here on PPRuNe), so it would seem sensible to overfly a single runway airfield and continue to EGCC.
If anyone is not happy with this then I suggest that you only fly on two-engined aircraft. That way you can ensure that you will land after an IFSD. However you might be airbourne for three hours on ONE engine before you do so.

Airclues

If it's wrong enlighten me.

BarryT, you refuse to accept the explanations given to you by pilots who are experienced on type so all I can suggest is that you put in the time, effort and money to complete a course for your Air Transport Pilots Licence and then book yourself on a B744 type rating course. Once you have those qualifications under your belt you will be in a position to explain why you are so sure that what the crew did was wrong. In the meantime, perhaps you will leave us to discuss the more technical aspects of this case. You have made your point.

As for Stan Wooley Perhaps you would like to enlighten us all to your B744 experience or expertise. As has been pointed out, 5t of mostly useable fuel is not "bog all" and the reasons for the mayday have already been stated. WE are the first to complain when the media sensationalise what are in fact normal SOP's so why shouldn't we do the same when someone who purports to be a professional pilot is no better? It never ceases to amaze how the comforting cloak of anonimity brings out the worst in people. :rolleyes:

Perhaps some of the lay people out there need explaining about the difference between engine failure and engine severe vibration, separation or fire as there seems to be some confusion about why this engine was shut down because of a surge and not because of a contained or uncontained failure. The again, we had to cover all that as part of our licence qualification and subsequent type rating processes and that didn't happen overnight!

Capt A & others

As a frequent traveller, your point about the pax being delivered safely and close to their final destination strikes a chord with me and your recognition of the "system" of different skills that supported this is also well made.

Having delivered some consulting assignment for an operational area within a big airline and seen a glimpse of your world, it seems to me that the problem with some people on here is that they do not realise how well proven SOPs are and how seriously safety is taken within airline flight ops.

Neither do they realise that if a MAYDAY was called, due to SOP requirement, it is not because the aeroplane was about to plunge to its doom, but rather because the aircraft manufacturer, authorities or the airline decided that this is the best way to mitigate the risk profile at that stage of flight, thus making it a non sensational event, just the implementation of safety planning.

I started my 10 months of work with an open mind and came away convinced that I am very safe in 8F!

Danny

I have plenty enough experience and knowledge to have an expert opinion at least the match of yours !!

Steve Mc Kinnell

The FAA/JAA recently completed a review of the possible engine failure definitions and checklists/procedures and published the results of this study in this link http://fromtheflightdeck.com/Stories/turbofan/

The study includes recommendations from the manufacturers on what are the most common signatures and how to deal with them

"Why on earth did they not go in to SNN or DUB??"

Generally, West Coast US flights to London do not transition Irish airspace at all.

GS-Alpha,

Appreciate your thought process, but your explanation does not fit with some of the available evidence i.e a MAN engineer said there were 5.2 tonnes on board: 2.6 in No 2, and another 2.6 in No 4. (This is from memory as I don't want to trawl through the thread).

If you have been reading this forum for more than a few months you will remember the many threads where BA fuel policy has been discussed, with several expressing concern that one day they will need to call MAYDAY to get in. Well it's happened. I'm very surprised it should happen at the end of a flight where fuel burn is known to be higher. Your explanation seems to suggest the flight crew were somehow surprised by a warning, surely if you can explain what happened after the event, they should be expected to have the knowledge to anticipate this too?

Cheers

can you explain what you meant by this comment Bermondsey?

Bermondseya,

No problem, I'll take a look at baeng's post for you, in fact here is everything quoted about the fuel remaining...

I got involved with this thread because I take pride in the company I work for, and I was not happy with the tone from some of the passengers on here with regards to whether their safety is ever put at risk in such circumstances.

I hope I am clear when I say that I have NO knowledge of this incident except for what I have read here. My initial post was written to try to explain that all of the 'facts' posted here do not in ANY way suggest that safety was ever in question, or that the pilots, air traffic, or maintrol etc, screwed up in any way.

With regards to whether the pilots should have know what was going to happen - why do you suspect they did not? Do you have any evidence of this? I mentioned the FUEL QTY LOW checklist. They did not necessarily wait for the EICAS prompt. They may well have anticipated it and discussed the relevant checklist well in advance? What evidence is there that they did not anticipate it? Policy is to declare a PAN if the aircraft might land without reserve fuel. A MAYDAY is declared when it will.

As I have said, they more than likely did NOT declare a MAYDAY due to the possibility of landing with less than reserve fuel, because 5 tonnes is ABOVE reserve! In fact baeng's post doesn't even suggest a MAYDAY was called, although some other poster's who were listening to radio did.

If a MAYDAY was called, where is your evidence that it was due to landing with below reserve fuel? It was more than likely regarding the requirement to avoid high pitch levels as mentioned in the checklist. This incidentally does not mean they could not go around, just that they could not do a full energy go-around. They could quite easily break off the approach and fly a gradual climb. But they wanted to avoid a full energy go-around, such as would be required for a discontinued approach at the very late stages. Hence the information that they would not be going around. In this way, the runway would have been kept sterile for the latter part of the approach.

I really cannot see what all of this fuss is about? My guess would be that the crew did a fantastic job throughout. I certainly have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise

Bermondsey,
In the later stages of the flight, wouldn't fuel buirn tend to be lower at a given altitude as the aircraft becomes lighter due to cumulative fuel burn?

Zak, Chippy

Please read the post again.

I think that you are inserting a comma where the poster did not and thus misunderstanding the sentence.

Believe that he is referring to the fact that 3 engined flight burns more fuel than 4 engined flight.

Mea Culpa
 

I got concerned that the override/jettison pumps were the only way to get fuel from tanks 2/3 to the other engines.

Jack's a dull boy, GS-ALPHA, Danny et al. have rightly pointed out that the fuel left behind by the override/jettison pumps will still get to the remaining engines.

Examination of the fuel system schematic -- something I should have done first -- shows that the boost pumps in any tank can feed any engine.

Thank you, gentlemen, for the information -- I learned something.

FMC Messages
 

Assuming the routing was correctly setup in the FMS, shouldnt an INSUFFICIENT FUEL message appear on the scratchpad at some stage?

flash8

You are correct, but there is no evidence that this point was reached? With two runways available at Manchester, the crew will have put reserve fuel (plus a bit of buffer probably), into the FMS. (This is in fact Reserves fuel now - note the S, because no diversion is necessary because of the two runways). This figure could have been about 4 tonnes or slightly less, and they will have burnt a bit taxying in anyway.

Regardless of the model of 747, 5 tons is very little fuel.

JJ

JJflyer

You are correct, that at the end of a flight, jet transport aircraft carry "very little fuel."

At the end of a diversion, they tend to carry even less.

And your point is........?

4468
 

Your remark does not even deserve an answer

Very little for what?

They landed with more than the legal minimum, are you suggesting the rules need revising?

If so can you expand on your fatuous statement?

I've ended up with less than that after shutdown....without a Mayday, which incidently was perfectly correctly given in this case. The Mayday did not mean 'we're going down, save us!!!!' (extra exclamations added for maximum dramatic effect). It meant 'we are possibly going to land with below Reserve fuel'- Reserve fuel being something below 4.5 tons.
I really feel that the crew did extremely well for many hours under trying conditions with everything 'to the book'. It enrages me that uninformed and ignorant of aviation procedures people are crawling out of the woodwork with their daft 'shoot from the hip' opinions and so easily criticising professionals who have made a damn good job of a trying event. It is seriously making me consider the wisdom of entering into discussions in an open forum with people who don't know what they are talking about. Why do they need to express themsolves so objectionably in a Professional Pilots Forum?

and 4468 made a perfectly sensible point above!

fatuous \FACH-oo-uhs\, adjective:
1. Inanely foolish and unintelligent; stupid.

Coming from one Pilot to another that seems a rather cruel remark (perhaps, just in the heat of the moment) .... there is no doubt that if anyone wants to start a heated debate then the subject of IFSD's is sure to oblige) :( .... JJ's almost a "2000 posts" man so he can't be all that bad ;)

I'm curious if you take that this happened to a BA flight out of the picture, and substitute another carrier, for instance KE or CI, which have had a perceived history of cockpit problems, on the same agenda, do you get the same reaction. Would they be praising the crew for "plodding on" or chastizing them for
reckless decisions?

So now we are moving on from what this BA crew did to what would be the reaction if someone else did it? It's all getting a little twisted and hard to follow, isn't it? Would you like to expand on what you perceive as their 'history of cockpit problems' and what that means and what point you are going to try and make out of it? If we are going to wonder down peculiar tracks, we might as well thread creep completely!

But it is more than Reserve Fuel which, by definition is; "Fuel to hold for 30 minutes at 1500ft above aerodrome elevation in ISA calculated with the estimated landing mass on arrival at the alternate or the destination, when no alternate is required". As 4468 points out, this is more than might be on board after a diversion.

Airclues

Easy Rainbo,

I'm not looking to trash anyone here.
BA is a respected world class airline. KE or CI have had
recent problems of approaches below minimums, take offs on wrong runways etc as well as past accidents, that resulted in changes in their cockpit environment. I'm only saying, if it
was a carrier that has had recurrement problems that operated a 3 engine Trans Atlantic flight under the same circumstances, would the reaction be the same on forums such as this.
Perception is a good part of reality...

Cambridge Dictionary:

fatuous = stupid, not correct, or not carefully thought about

QED

The statement was meaningless and used in a way that implied a very low fuel state i.e. a fatuous statement