BA 744 Diversion to MAN
 

BA 747-400 diverted in to Manchester this afternoon around 15:45 - can anyone in the know shed some light on this? Fire trucks followed the aircraft in, but all looked normal.

Curious to know the reason for the diversion, and why the decision to land at Manchester, rather than LHR.

Over to the lions' den . . .

BA Divert
 

Was BA268, Lax-Lhr.

Called "Pan" with fuel problem.

Expected to depart 18.00 to Heathrow.

Pilot advised London ATC that there was an issue re the "No 2, left inboard" engine (his words).

Listening in , the pilot declared an engine shutdown followed shortly after by a PAN alert due to fuel shortage. Between 3000 and 4000 ft he declared a MAYDAY with critical fuel and asked for sterile runway as he would to be unable to go-around.

I suspect something may have been lost in the reporting here. Had the the aircraft had insufficient fuel to go around they'd have known about it a lot earlier than 3000 ft and company policy would have been to declare a mayday much, much earlier than that. Sounds a bit unusual that all 3 flight crew were ignorant of company fuel policy or chose to ignore it.

I agree with HS. No knowledge of the incident beyond what I read here but they would certainly have used the M word much sooner if that was the case.

3 donks isn't a big issue on a -400.

I agree with john8b on this one, aircraft was 8 miles out when he declared a mayday.
ATC had said 10 minutes before in a conversation with OPS 3 that one engine shutdown and to expect an overweight landing.

Egerton Flyer.....

Taken from a Manchester website

BA 268 shut down one engine,the controller on 128.050 asked him if he was
declaring a PAN,he said no,
Then declared PAN PAN,said he couldnt get fuel from the tank,then went to
121.350,called Mayday Mayday,
He didnt have the fuel for a go around,requested a sterile runway.

Well those two posts don't add up. If you think about it logically, the only way the aircraft could have been over max landing weight was if it was still carrying lots of fuel. That doesn't tie up with the suggestion that the aircraft had insufficient fuel to fly a go around.

Three flight crew? Does the 744 have an engineer on board, or just a spare pilot for such a long haul sector?


Thanks.

@A300Man

LAX-LHR isn't a party for two, isn't it?

regards

whay i don't get is why, if he knew fuel was critical, did he not divert earlier in flight. surely it is not worth taking the risk when it comes to fuel.

It would appear from the posts above, that it might not have been a problem of the total fuel onboard being insufficient, but rather the useable fuel.

If it was a problem in the fuel system, then it might not have been clear exactly how much fuel was useable until very late.

Sorry, was a genuine question. I am not a pilot and have never flown the route. I assume from your reply that there is a third pilot onboard. Thanks.

Why do so many have to ask the same questions? If you are not familiar with the a/c and the way its systems work then would the spotters please leave us alone on this forum. It sounds like this wasn't just a diversion because of low fuel but there was a technical problem to do with fuel transfer from tank to engine.

Maybe a 'FUEL TANK/ENG' problem?

From one of the cabin crew who was on it:

Engine surge on or shortly after take-off at LAX. Engine shut down, all the way on 3 engines but not enough fuel to make LHR. Some suggestion that fuel may have been dumped at some stage ( 3-engine cruise performance?). I'm not and never have been 747 licensed so I can't comment further.

Are you seriously suggesting that after shutting an engine down "shortly" after take-off at LAX, the crew would elect to continue a 10 hour flight on three? If this pans out to be true, that'll be BA off my longhaul prefered carrier list! However, methinks and hopes that it's total bulls##t.

Avman

The subject of Flight Continuation Policy has been covered several times on PPRuNe.

Airclues

Avman- Correct! ATC at LAX also reported flames from engine exhaust.

that'll be an interesting captains special report!

Avman Fairly normal on 4 engined aircraft......It's not ETOPS!

Avman

Any carrier with 4 engines will consider doing that, since getting passengers closer to destination is easier logistically, and engineering support is easier closer to home base. You don't have only one remaining to worry about all the way over, but performance is penalised.

Continuing on 3 engines is actually fairly common among many operators. On the 744 its just means you cruise a bit lower and reduce range by about 10%. Much of what has been reported on here by spotters and second hand from cabin crew is highly speculative and to the qualified mind sounds like total BS. Continuing on three engines - sensible. Dumping fuel in a non-emergency situation then continuing on three engines - extremely unlikely. Pressing on with grave doubts over fuel levels then only discovering at 3000 ft there's not enough fuel to go around - even more unlikely.

I am quite interested in this one.

Would the 3 engines instead of 4 resulted in higher fuel burn? I assume they had to cruise at a lower level hense the diversion to MAN?

As far as the comment above is concerned, it would make sense to me for the flight to continue. What were the options, circle above LAX and dump tonnes and tonnes of fuel, emergency landing on American soil, aircraft stuck overseas along with its passengers and crew!

The flight deck obviously double and treble checked their performance before going oceanic to make sure they could do it without worry.

All makes sense :8

*EDIT*
Handsolo, you posted that just as I was writing mine, first part of my question answered:ok:

Sorry but if the crew got it absolutely right how did they finish up with a Mayday at Manchester and no option for a go-around?

The Captain's Special Report will make interesting reading!

What was the MAYDAY call for?? Fuel or engine problems?

:confused:

As a regualr BA pax I read this with some alarm even dis belief, but I did as one person suggested and read the much longer thread which discussed this kind of situation in depth.

My intial reaction was God are they mad to carry on over the Polar route on three engines. However after reading all the details on the earleir post the it was clear four engines are very nice to have ensure a smooth and comfortable take off but once airborne any single engine is pretty much redundant as far as safety (as opposed to optimal operation) is concerned.

I never had a problem flying the same routes or long over water sectors on a DC 10 or 1011 and logically whats the difference when on a three engine 747 and what was a case of 'god werent they reckless' turns into an understanding of a rational and perfectly safe process.

On that subject thought I would take my life in my hand and try and pour a bit of oil on the troubled waters that sometimes occur on this site between the pros and the amateurs. That friction is toa degree understandable which is understandable but would like to make a couple of comments.

On the side of the pax the cabin crew and 'enthusiasts ' I do think we have a legitimate right to ask the odd question without being snapped at or derided . Other than for the freighter guys we are your customers and should be treated as such even if that involves a bit of patience-something I am sure is benerally regarded as virtue among airline pilots.. Customers today do feel they have the right to ask questions about all sorts of services and also about the conduct of professionals in all fields thats the way of the world

On the side of the professionals though I think the non flying folks should perhaps think first and make their points in a way that isnt downright disrespectful at times or just plain thoughtless at others. After all unlike other professionsals the crew are up their with you in the unlikely event things do go wrong.

My views were reinfoced recently when I had the good fortune to have a go in a real 73NG sim at LGW -(Xmas pressie from Mrs PB)

Great fun but a real eye opener even though I always believed that FS 2002/2004 was a million miles from the real thing.

Landing it from a set up 6 mile final witha qualified pilot in the right seat was not that hard. Thats cos all i had to do was steer it and judge the descent . I think I could have a shot at that for real.

What came across though were two things-theres an awful lot going on in your mind to just use the yoke on a clear day -the same process for real at night in the rain with a crosswind leaving aside any actual defect problems would rapidly stretch and probably overload most peoples brain capacity. I know I could not get anywhere near getting it down in those sorts of conditions and they happen every other day in Northern Europe.
I half expected that conclusion but the sim ride really reinfocred it when you folks minds get busy they do get very very busy indeed way beyond the capcity of most people even with the years of training and preactice involved.

The other memory I took away was the sheer power of the machines- they failed an engine at 1500 feet on take off and while I held the yaw easily ( because the guy on my right told me what to do) the performance seemed virtually unaffected. Iwas really surprised at how undramatic the event was and kind of fits back into the original theme of this thread that 3 engines on a 74 isnt a big deal ( Yes I know getting it back on the grounds a completely different story ))

Anyway to cut to the chase

I like this PPrune and admire the attitude Danny and Co have of letting people of all interests particpate. Its interesting , informative to regular users and often fun to read. I do wish some pilots would be a little more customer oriented rather than dismissing non flyers with contempt. Equally if not more important ( since all non PPs are clearly guests here) is that when non pilot people ask questions or post a 'story' they approach it in a respectful and genuine way rather than than a sensational form along the lines of ' I was amazed that a reputable airline could do this etc etc etc'

PB

( By the way the Sim ride was terrific fun and I would really recommend it to people interested in aviation; a real eye opener and run by a couple of terrific enthusiatic and informative profeesional pilots )

How do you know they did? The only suggestion of this comes from two spotters listening out on different frequencies, neither of whom are qualified to fly the 744. Do you think that perhaps they might have put two and two together and made five? There is an enormous difference between being unable to fly a go around and not wanting to fly one.

now, now cargo boy! surely there's no harm in the chap asking

I'm not familiar with the 74 fuel system either but I'm still interested in what's happened here

From the BBC News local site:

A jumbo jet carrying 351 passengers was forced to make an emergency landing after one of its engines failed during a transatlantic flight.

The British Airways flight 268 from Los Angeles was diverted to Manchester from Heathrow because the pilot feared he did not have enough fuel.

A power surge meant a port-side engine was shut down, but the plane carried on using its three remaining engines.

The 747 landed without problems on Sunday afternoon and no-one was hurt.

British Airways said the pilot had noticed problems with the engine one hour after take off.

The aircraft had enough fuel to reach Heathrow but, because of a strong headwind across the Atlantic Ocean, there was not enough to keep flying if it was forced to queue before landing.

A spokeswoman said it was not a major incident and fire engines at the scene were called only as a precaution.

Hmmmmm....
 

????

Great fun but a real eye opener even though I always believed that FS 2002/2004 was a million miles from the real thing.

FS is a million miles from the real thing:ok:

FS is a million miles form the real thing as it's a lot harder to land! :p

Was talking to an Airbus captain a year or two ago, who said he couldn't land FS2002 for toffee.

Nuff said me thinks!!:ok:

Bearcat

After an engine failure on a 747-400, two of the major considerations as to whether or not to continue or divert/return will be possible related damage to the adjacent engine, another will be the en-route terrain and the implications of losing another engine.

A 747-400 at max weight on 3 will probably climb to about FL280, five hours into flight with the weight down at about 340 tonnes a second engine failure will see it maintaining about FL220 on the remaining 2 engines. Greenland MSA's probably top out at about 15,000ft so not a problem.

All this would have been considered in developing a strategy for the flight. Give us professionals some respect.

Right said TopBunk !

Sounds like trim tank fuel not avail any more.Valve frozen in.

If they really had fuel shortage problem into MAN, they would have had it known already way ahead of PIK or SNN .

Rgds
Angel:cool:

Just a quick note.

I understand that quite a few of you are professional pilots,(lucky sods;) ).
But I was at MAN on sunday and unless my hearing is on the way out the pilot did declare a mayday and did say he did not have enough fuel to carry out a go-around.
I'am a spotter but that does not mean I'm stupid, or does it.:8
Before anybody ask I have past my 15th birthday....

Egerton Flyer......

The 747-400 can go-around on 2 engines but there is a significantly different approach and go-around procedure on two engines.

All the uniformed speculation here is quite pointless. The truth will come out and will be less dramatic than the Sun readers would like.

I daresay the situation was handled exactly the way pilots flying for any other decent airline would have handled the situation.

They landed safely having kept ATC fully informed of their exact status and everybody walked away unhurt. However, let's not let that get in the way of a good slagging match from the comfort of our armchairs.

MS flight sims are just a damn game. I am a professional airbus pilot and quite frankly anyone who thinks that they are a f **king good pilot because they can land MS flt sims is..... A total TW*T!

I have never flown a computer game that is anything like as real as an aircraft. Every 6 months I do a recurrent check in a class D sim. A sim that is certified for ZFT qualifications, and I still pick holes in its accuracy.

So why the hell do you consider yourselves an authority on flying big jets?

A 744 on 3 engines is safer (in terms of redundancy) than a twin on one. But just try re-planning a route across the atlantic at a one engine out level at an increased fuel burn whilst discussing with your co-pilot and heavy whether you should continue or not.

Get real chaps. Wake up and smell the coffee.... and bacon.

I belive it was around 2 years ago, when there was a big discussion about the case, where a BA aircraft made a go-around just before touchdown on a beautiful clear day, because of a EGPWS warning due tue a map shift.

Some pilots argued during this discussion, whether this was the right decision or not, since the runway was clear and it should have been quite obvious, that it was a false warning.

That time some pilots (from BA ?) claimed that it was the absolte right decision and in the matter of safety, the company SOP dictates a mandatory go-around (even if the warning is obviously nonsense), I believe one pilot here on this forum argued that the procedure is set, to automatically (call it maybe robotic) let the pilot react that way under all conditions, so he/she will never ever hesitate in a GPWS warning. For the matter of safety, of course... :rolleyes:

Reading through the previous postings here, I start to wonder.... Is is safer to fly a aircraft over the (winter) North Atlantic with one engine out and take a couple of risks, or to land an aircraft on a beautiful VMC day, when the GPWS warning comes on just before touchdown....
:confused: I am really sorry, but the safety policies of BA are a bit confusing to me.

It seems that just as some on here are quick to point fingers of blame without having all of the facts, there are others who will defend the indefensible.

IF and only IF, this aircraft had an engine problem that forced it to shut down one near its origin point of LAX, and the crew elected to fly the aircraft full of passengers across North America, bypassing numerous suitable alternates and maintenance facilities, and the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of winter, with only 3 engines operating, then had to declare an emergency for lack of fuel and land at Manchester, I would not call them heroes. Of course, we have to wait for the facts to come out and this might not be correct, but let's not jump to conclusions from either side.

The crew might have a perfectly logical and legal reason for doing what they did. Let's give them that benefit. But on the surface, it seems that there might be more than a mechanical problem here.