FAA and CAA conflicting views
 

From today's Sunday Times:

BA accused over flights with one engine down

DIPESH GADHER, TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT

BRITISH AIRWAYS has allowed jumbo jets to complete long-haul flights on at least seven occasions despite pilots having to shut down an engine.

On each occasion the flight had to be completed on three engines rather than four because of technical problems.

Safety concerns have been raised because the pilots of the Boeing 747s decided to continue with their journeys rather than divert to a nearby airport.

In one recent case this led to an aircraft making an emergency landing at Manchester because pilots feared it was running low on fuel after crossing the Atlantic with one engine down.

America’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has accused British Airways (BA) of “careless and reckless” behaviour although the airline says passenger safety has never been compromised.

The phenomenon is not confined to BA. Since the start of last year 18 British-registered aircraft — including Airbus A340s, BAe146s and jumbos — have been forced to shut down one of four engines in the air, according to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) records. Several then continued their journeys.

The FAA is investigating one BA flight, carrying 351 passengers, that suffered an engine surge immediately after taking off from Los Angeles airport in February.

The faulty engine was shut down, but after taking advice from BA technicians in London, the captain continued with the 11-hour flight to Heathrow rather than returning to Los Angeles or diverting to another American airport.

Forced to fly at a lower altitude than the flight crew wanted, the plane used up more fuel than expected because of less favourable tailwinds.

By the time the aircraft reached Ireland the captain felt that attempting a landing at Heathrow would be too risky and asked for a diversion to Manchester.

Howard Ramsdale, 47, a passenger on the flight, said: “I was absolutely astounded that we didn’t return to LA. There wasn’t a single person that I spoke to on that plane who wanted to carry on. “As far as I’m concerned my life was put at risk. It was a very stressful flight and I’m not really sure that I’d get on an aircraft again, let alone a BA one.” Ramsdale, a science teacher from Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, has written to the airline, demanding compensation for the trauma he suffered.

BA has backed the actions of the pilot and points out that the 747 is certified to fly on three engines.

Given the circumstances, the CAA also believes that flying with one engine down is “a safe option”, more so if the plane is well into its journey.

This view, however, does not appear to be shared by the FAA, which could fine BA if it concludes that the airline violated American regulations.

Originally posted on the 747 diversion thread, but that appears to have been given the PPRuNe 'sinking' treatment as it didn't reappear at the top of Rumours and News. Those who wish to read more can search under '744 Diversion to MAN' to find the full thread.

The FAA has no option other than to question the decision as their rules require a diversion to the nearest "suitable". On occasions this is not so strictly followed as the FAA believe.

Our rules do not as they take into account the performance of modern aircraft.

Once again, now that I am reduced to the status of walking freight, I have every support for the BA captain and ops who took that entirely legal and sound decision.

:rolleyes: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Well I know that we have been through all this before (in about 50 pages in the other thread)

but just to stick to this latest topic, The FAA has every right to question the pilots decision according to the regs, however this certainly not proma facia evidence of a bad decision by the pilot.

There is some allowance for allowing the pilot to make decisions like this due to only a minor degrade (subjective as it is based on the previous threads pages of posts) to overall flight risk.

Such overall risk includes consideration of Air-turn-backs, contaminated runways, air traffic, fuel dumps, overweight landings, diversions to unfamiliar (to the crew) airports etc.

In the long run, the FAA questions will likely go beyond this one incident, although it does give them a key to the CAA door. It will likely revolve arround not just this one flight (which was minisule in increased risk) but to the greater fleet risk increase if every crew would perform the same action as an SOP without the threat of being questioned about their specific judgement by a regulator.

When it comes to the discussions between the CAA and FAA I'm intrigued by the ironic possibilities to which this matter gives rise.

Would one not wish to be a "fly on the wall" for the various chats and exchanges between the CAA and FAA as they take hours and days to dissect and argue out a decision that normally has to be taken in minutes?

I mean to say, if YOU are up to your ears "in the merde" you are normally told that the regulations and requirements are clear, are you not?

Of course, what you are really being told is that the interpretation being shoved down your throat is the current "conventional wisdom" as to how the regulations should be interpreted. Individual pilots facing "the system" have an uphill battle to explain why what they decided seemed quite reasonable at the time. The system tends to win these arguments.

But what happens when two equally opinionated authorities - here the CAA and FAA - disagree? I, for one, would pay for an observer's seat as they thrash out their points of view. In fact it is the argument, not the published outcome that will be interesting - perhaps a better source of education and enlightenment than your average accident report?

BTW, iomspaseo, I don't think continuing on 3 will ever be "SOP". It is an option, and it should be an option.

Whot me Stupid!
 

Another engine fails. "Capt of the ship" takes a new meaning.:O

Why dont we all just accept that this has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with politics.

The regulator of one country which now builds mainly twins (777, 787) wanting to make it difficult for the quads (340 series and 380) built by another group of countries. If you make quads obay the same rules as twins after an engine failure then some of the economic advantages of them disappears. And in the same breath if you can allow twins to do unlimited ETOPS then you take away another advantage of quads.

La to London on 3
 

I am from the continent that makes quads, living in the country that makes twins, and flying a tri motor.

There is no way I will continue on with one shut down. I have read enough accident reports to know that you need three events to crash an airplane. Having one engine go out is the first event. Running low on fuel is number two. The call to land should have been made long before you get to Manchester.

Lets do our profession a favor and take the most conservative approach. We would look a lot better in the public eyes if we don't gamble with their lives.

Sorry for the misunderstanding about my use of SOP in my post. All I meant was that the option was to be an allowed?? procedure.

As to the fly-on-the-wall approach, BTDT.

Mostly it is an exchange of views and data supporting such views. If the arguments become subjective than they take a break while collecting industry wide views and data.

Harmonization of views is what is needed without a winners or losers in an argument.

...and at the end of the article...shock horror the EAAC flight from Reunion Island arriving on 3 engines with a mere 30 minutes of fuel left. 30 Minutes!!! Crikey is that all? I would have thought they'd have at least 2 or 3 days worth. The irony of the so called article is that it must have been totally cribbed/researched from Pprune. I am not one for bashing journo's as clearly they server a purpose but what utter tosh.

I'm very curious. What is COMPANY policy within Northwest, United and any other US 4-engined operators with regards to a shut down? Please COMPANY policy not personal belief.

Guess I must be cynical being FAA and CAA licenced but FAA holding up the standards- Give me break:confused:

Who pushed the 90 minute rule out and out? and for whose benefit.

180 minutes with 50% of your powerplants AND in some cases system inop. Give me 75% remaining every time.:p

I can guarantee you that if ever you want to push the maintenace envelope out then go to the FAA every time.

This has been exercised to the Nth degree on PPRuNe. All the arguments are known but none of us have the knowledge that the Captain and crew had, nor have the technical reports that showed what really happened.

At the risk of starting the whole thing again, I reckon the FAA have had some American carriers whispering in their ear. I would take BA on any day of the year under (just about!) any circumstances. But there is political mileage to be made out of this. If that means more people being delayed for no purpose, then so be it.

I sit to be corrected.

<<The FAA is investigating one BA flight, carrying 351 passengers, that suffered an engine surge immediately after taking off from Los Angeles airport in February. >>

As well they might, considering the destination was LHR.

Altho 'legal' under British civil aviation regulations, it was, as someone mentioned some time ago...absolutely, positively
stupid.

Bypassing suitable enroute diversion airports is NEVER a good idea, when flight safety is considered.
And, strangly enough, that is the exact point.
BA threw flight safety straight out the window, in preference to commercial considerations.

Sadly, BA should know better.
Even more sadly....they don't.:yuk: :yuk:

PS:
Let's look at this from a different perspective.
ABC Airlines flies to LHR on a regular basis from southern Africa non-stop, and arrives with an engine shut down (4 engine type)....from time to time, ala BA.
I would expect the CAA would be all over 'em like flies on cr@p for this idea, yet BA seems to get away with it on a (more or less) regular basis.

Double standard city...:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Would someone please do the aviation community a favour and shoot David Learmount

The point about how many modern airliners are designed to operate with only two engines (at ETOPS standards for RATs, APUs etc), and how far they can be (up to three hours, single-engine!) from a suitable alternate, is interesting. But if the 747 suffers a problem with another engine, then it might not be a pleasant day for the flightcrew. How high can they cruise near maximum weight on two engines in August during a diversion over desert mountains? How about from over Greenland?

I just read somewhere that BA, or a European airline must pay quite a chunk of money (i.e. $100,000 ?), if a flight returns to its departure airport. It looked like this is in addition to extra operating costs.

For the umpteenth time Ignition, BA would NOT have to pay compensation for returning to LAX. The rules only apply to cancellations and overbooking.

744
 

This is a very contentious issue so I will keep my posting short. I work for a company that also flies quads and I have been discussing this incident with my colleagues. To a man (and woman) they have ALL said: dump fuel, land and let the company sort it out. I am NOT saying the BA Captain made a bad decision but my completely unofficial straw poll would suggest a more cautious approach - no pun intended!

oops!!

this was meant to be in response to the "FAA and CAA conflicting views" started by BEagle.

Sorry...

411A

Would that be because they are operating in compliance with UK law?

Having consulted to BA and therefore seen the company's culture and attitude to safety at first hand, I take considerable exception to your comments that the airline put commercial considerations before safety.

You should at least edit your post to state "In my professional opinion", rather that state it as an apparent fact.

did the shut down affect readungs?
 

Question to 744 pilots:

Did the fact that an engine was shut down have anything to do with the status display of fuel transfer?

I mean after shut down did somone say "I am not sure that all the fuel in the tank(s) dedicated to the engine that shut down has been transferred for consumption by the other engines".

And subsequently did someone dip the tanks and say "You know what, it all transferred tickety-boo but you had no indication of the exact status after xx:xx hrs".

And then did yet a third person say "You were quite right to nip into Manchester in that case".

Four versus two, FAA vs CAA, everybody against BA. Makes a change (not). If putting more and more engines on an aircraft makes less and less sense then the only option is...[fill in blank space].

Makes a change from everybody having a pop at me and my outfit!

Surely Mr Learmount has the right to express his opinion that “In my mind, it was simply not best practice. Were the passengers endangered by this? No. Did they have the same level of safety that they’d have had with four engines? Obviously not.”

Seems sensible to state that the same level of safety does not exist if one engine is shut down. What happens if a second engine fails? The failure of the second engine must reduce safety to a greater extent than the failure of the first engine.

The statistically unlikely occurence of a second engine failure on a 747 means you become a perfectly flyable twin engine aircraft much like all the other 767 and 777 and 330 aircraft plying the ocean that day.

As all PPRuNers know - aviation IS the calculated balance of risk. Usually with one of our backsides strapped firmly to the final calculation. Its what we are paid for.

Do you - in the final analysis - think that the Captain and the Senior/Junior First Officers aboard this aircraft elected to carry on when they were IN ANY WAY nervous or anxious or mildly concerned for their own safety? They've got their own wife and kids to think about and would have little hesitation in putting it down in say New York. Easy Peasy. But no need.

I find it informative to read, in even the quality press, stories about which I have some personal insight. Makes you realise how everything else you read is largely ignorant summary.

Cheers

WWW

Oh really...?
 

<<Having consulted to BA and therefore seen the company's culture and attitude to safety at first hand, I take considerable exception to your comments that the airline put commercial considerations before safety.>>

Oh you would, Final 3 Greens?

Well, in my professional opinion (which spans over 30 years in Command in heavy jets) BA is tweeking the tail of the tiger, and sooner or later, will get bitten.

Badly....:uhoh: :uhoh:

They should positively absolutely know better.
Flight safety...horsefeathers.

Seems that most non american 4 engine operators are tweaking the tale of the tiger, but I don't remember anyone getting bitten by a double unrelated engine failure anytime recently.

CAA, FAA and 411A
 

Surely there really is no need to redo here everything single part of the debate that has already been done on the other thread? Lots of insults got exchanged there and many silly things got said. Here’s the link: Previous Thread: March 30th @ 15:38

However, IMHO there really is an interesting issue to be debated between the CAA and FAA. Essentially it hinges, in my opinion, on the general assumptions (statistical and operational) that underlie ETOPs - set against the level of operational redundancy on the B744. You can swap insults and throw around safety accusations to you hearts content, but there are real issues here to keep the FAA and CAA busy.

********

On a different note, Final 3 Greens, you may not have come across 411A before. The posts you see here are typically modest, un-opinionated and reflective of a deep thinker who has learned a lot from his years in aviation. Such is his authority that most of us mere mortals do not bother getting into a debate with him as it seems to be a waste of our time. 411A is lucky to be able to join any thread and pronounce with certainty on virtually any subject. IMHO you should just concede defeat and give up in the face of such superior knowledge!

It would have been a good article, had AA Gill written it, having been on the flight, half sloshed, reviewing airline food......but in the context it was written, the S.T's have gone down in my expectations.

Why devote so much time to BA?
Humiliate them? Or did some journo not get their upgrade or was served half melted ice in their drink ?

Might as well buy the VIZ.

:yuk:

WWW

You miss the point David Learmount was making.

Statistically you are correct about the likely failure of a second engine. All he is saying is that the aircraft does not have the same level of safety as it would have with four engines.

It might well be able to fly on two engines but is the absolute level of safety the same as flying on four engines?

slj

I know it's all been done to death here and elsewhere, but flying on 2 engines isn't the point here.

What IS the point, I believe, is that with one engine out, with a similar level of engine reliability, the 747/A340 is STILL 50% 'safer' than your 777/A330/767 etc etc that everyone is happy to fly over the world's oceans. So what's the point of building 4-engine aircraft in the first place? Is that 4th engine just to get the a/c off the ground? Very possibly!

One famous boss of an aircraft manufacturer was once asked
'Why do you always fly in a/c with 4 engines?'
'Because we don't make any with 5!'.

I'm inclined to GJB's point - conspiracy theories on a wet Bank Holiday. Why not!

Sadly, I find David Learmont's recent pronouncements unhelpful and out of line with safety management thinking. He's done good work in the past but it's time to pack it in, David...

Cheers,
The Odd One

The top post is found in .... here

Maybe a mod could deal with the said duplicity?

Jordan

www,you are completely wrong if you think a 4 engine aircraft on 2 is similar to a 2 engine aircraft on 1. A 4 engine jet has most of the performance prescribed for the loss of 1 engine.There is a certain level of flexibility after that which considers the loss of a further engine case,terrain clearance on 2 etc.However to say that the loss of 2 engines is comparable to a twin on one is complete baloney.2 engines out on an A340 or B747 will take you very smartly downhill and dependent on the weight/atmospheric conditions all the way down.Not the case of a twin on 1,I think you would agree.

No way would I get into making commentary on the crew who made their decision in the light of the conditions on the day(night) and they have my respect for that.As I recall the actions they took were not technically wrong,but obviously went a bit pear shaped towards the end.It really boils down to risk management;to continue on 3 is fine(and allowed) but if another engine fails you are in deep doodoo.similarly there would be a performance calculation to make based on 3 engines -all of which they made.

www,I believe you work for a 737 loco with orange colours (same as me,actually) and I know you are an enthusiastic contributor to pprune and there is nothing wrong in that.My take is that you are unlikely to have an encyclopeadic appreciation of either long haul ops or 4 engine performance.I have 16 years worth of jet lag in my log book which does not make me the definitive expert either but I have flown those types and routes and understand the pressures/difficulties that may occur.In summary,authorative statements made on pprune which are downright wrong help noone's case.it is hypocritical to damn journalists for their technical innaccuracies then go ahead and demonstrate the same.

with b/rgds

That's rather more of a professional statement.

Now just to recap, how many of your 30 years and 000s of hours was in command of a 744?

It is interesting to see that the regulators are at odds here. divided on national grounds. There must be many examples of US 4 engined airliners with in-flight shutdowns. Did any of them continue? Did the FAA come out with public comments about "recklessness" etc?

OJAY, that is simply not true; the 747 can maintain altitude (OK, not 35,000 feet) on two engines, so it is not going to fall out of the sky as you suggest, and can easily land at the nearest suitable following a second engine shut down. A two engine out landing approach is well-practiced (in the sim), and the pilots in one well known Asian airline do it on auto pilot!

But surely the argument here rests on regulations; FARs and Ops Specs. Boeing does not require an immediate landing following the shutdown of one engine, no matter where or when it happens . They list those failures that do require a landing at the nearest suitable (which can include factors such as maintenance facilities, passenegr handling etc) and a single engine failure does not appear.

I am not aware of any FAR or CAA regulation that does rule on this matter, and for something as major as this it should not be necessary to "interpret" to find the answer. Either there is a regulation, and the FAA has a case, or there is not, and the FAA can blow it out of the proverbial.

Well said, boofhead.

In a simple world, either the FAA are right and there will be major repercussions, loss of International reputation for British aviation, or there will be no case to answer, in which case we'll probably never hear anything about it.

But the world ain't simple. My guess is that this will rumble on and on, with innuendo and dark mutterings coming from various American and other interests. Pity really. It can only harm the reputation of a fine and very safe aircraft and, despite all their foibles, one of the best large airlines in the world.

Cheers,
The Odd One

I did not say it would fall out of the sky,I referenced weight/ISA conditions and I am well aware of the 2 engine approach on either B747 or A340. however,a 4 engine a/c on 2 is in a less 'flexible' scenario than a twin on 1.The regs are different for 4 engine ops due to the statistical chances of 2 failing
(presumed unlikely).The A340-300 is described by Airbus as 'a well balanced quad' and the V1 cut situation at max weight will give less than sprightly climb performance and a 2 engine failure at V1 -highly unlikely I know-at max weight is only going in one direction(down!)

If one was unfortunate and experienced a double engine failure with a favourable combination of weight/altitude etc I would say that fuel dumping would be a priority after the abnormal checklist.I only wanted to highlight the difference between a 4 engine a/c on 2 and a 2 engine a/c on 1,hence the debate between the regulatory authorities.

Finally,I would not comment on the crew decision making-ultimately everybody walked away and the crew were I am certain v professional -it is not a perfect world out there,

b/rgds

747 question
 

In the 747 checklist, is an engine failure in flight an emergency item, or just abnormal?

In any case, it's a safety issue, and should have been treated as such.

Once upon a time I was travelling as SLF in a B747 with a large well know U.S. carrier that therefore operates according to the FARs. (This was some time ago, perhaps around the mid ‘80’s). Approaching Greenland we had an engine failure and we did not go back to LHR or Iceland. Neither did we land in Goose, or divert to Gander or Montreal. In fact we did not continue to SFO, but we did divert to … Chicago (this being a major maintenance base for the said airline, as the coincidence would have it). I wonder if any of those from the U.S. or elsewhere who have criticised the BA captain’s decision would care to comment upon this decision?

The purpose of starting this thread was to highlight the differing views of the FAA and CAA, NOT to go over the same well-trodden ground as the previous thread.

The fact that there is still debate over the event means that there is no single correct solution. Perhaps the national regulatory authorities will now agree further guidance? Or is that a somewhat porcovolant thought?

I'm very curious. What is COMPANY policy within Northwest, United and any other US 4-engined operators with regards to a shut down? Please COMPANY policy not personal belief.

I don’t think that it IS the case that "quads" are made to obey the same rules as twins after an engine failure. For instance, 121.565 speaks to continuing after engine failure, and says (in part):

Sec. 121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.
(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.
(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.
(4) The air traffic congestion.
(5) The kind of terrain.
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.

The language of 121.565 is nearly identical to the US Civil Aeronautics Regulations, Part 40, dated 31 December 1955. How this could have been written in 1955 to disadvantage Airbus in 2005 is beyond me…

Although I haven’t seen anything from the FAA on this, my guess is that it isn’t going to be a battle fought under the “nearest suitable airport” banner… Of course, I am prepared to be corrected.