BA's flight continuation policy remains unchanged! The policy is manufacturer-approved. Issi Noho - assumptions are a dangerous thing in aviation - you 'assume' the decision was crew-led. You talk about a senior BA captain wanting to make up his own annex to the Flying Manual (FM). I can assure you he would have been facing an interview without coffee had he done so. The truth is, the policy is contained in a section of the FM and the decision will have been taken by the crew in conjunction with the best possible advice from the company, in real time. BA's procedures are approved by the CAA. The discussion should now take place between CAA & FAA.

True, but they wouldnt have continued if the alternates weren't cast iron, it was summer and the weather was pretty benign, plus the LAX-LHR great circle is mostly over land, alternates are not as far away as you'd think, once past Winnepeg/Edmonton theres Churchill, Iqaluit, Goose, Sondestrom, Keflavik, indeed the longest stretch of water is probably Iceland - Scotland. We're not talking about a mid atlantic crossing here, in fact i would be surprised if it went out of maybe 90 mins for the whole flight.

The flight continuation policy is common to most JAA airlines, I would imagine there's a continued flight on 3 at least once a month by a European airline if not more often. BA's backup from Base is excellent, they are the most experienced 744 operator in the world.

Pretty much agreed, that's a sensible word indeed.

However, it is not just a matter of regulators, it is also a matter of passengers deciding, whether they feel comfortable with the procedure and feel comfortable with the airline, when the airline does not provide them with the safety margin passengers have paid for.

As such, it could become a financial matter to the airline, if they are perceived as taking unnecessary chances in the public.

Simon

Didn't the flight in question take place on February 19th 2005?

No argument here, that there are plenty of airports around. But for example, I wouldn't fancy to go into Sondrestrom with two engines out ...

Simon

Is this clown for real? Sonderstrom must be in his flight sim.

OK, time has come, once again, to issue a warning to our self appointed 'experts' who in fact have never, ever, flown a B744 and quite probably, never, ever, flown a commercial airliner, never mind a jet. One particular poster in particular seems hell bent on trying to teach those us who do fly heavy jets and the B744 in particular, how to suck eggs.

If you want to appear knowledgeable on these forums then do not try to tell us how to operate, fly and handle abnormal situations. Austrian Simon in particular seems fixated on trying to teach us how to handle a B744 in a cross-wind with two engines out on the same side. :rolleyes: Well, let me tell you AS, unless you are an experienced B744 pilot and I'm willing to wager that you aren't, please wind your neck in a notch or two as you are irritating the majority of us who do fly the B744.

Whilst there are differing opinions on what any of us who fly the B744 would have done under the same circumstances, I don't think any of us would deny that the B744 having a non-catastrophic engine failure at any stage after V1 is not quite the same as having the same problem in a twin engined aircraft. I have again looked through my QRH for the B744 and nowhere does it say land at the nearest suitable airport for an engine failure. Have you any idea of the redundancy available in a B744?

So, please stop wittering on about losing a second engine or climb gradients on two engines. As long as the aircraft still has three engines running it is certified for continued flight. Whether you would want to is another matter and as you will probably only ever be a passenger in one, you will have to rely on the professionalism of the crew and the back up they receive from their operations department, which in BA, is probably one of the best.

Experience of Microsoft Flight Simulator or even having been given a joyride once or twice in a real simulator does not confer on you any 'expertise' worthy of posting irritating pontifications on here. When you've at least qualified to fly a twin engined jet and have a bit of experience behind you, then you will be given the respect you deserve when you post your opinions about how to handle the situation on here. Qualify to fly the aircraft in question, the B744, then you will be listened to and your arguments will have the necessary weight of experience behind them. Until then, please refrain from posting your opinions based on a joyride in a sim.

Blueprint
 

I would like to point out to M. Mouse that I flew 747s for 18yrs. Having overflown Iceland on 3eng a further failure shortly after that point with about 900nm to Man would have led to a serious fuel shortage if that misfortune had occured. We know the a/c landed as it was with fuel low pressure lights illuminated in a critically low fuel state. The crew knowingly flew the a/c into such a situation, that is what the authorities are worried about.

Nice one Danny. About time someone wound his scrawny little neck in!!!!:)

Blueprint they had low fuel pressure on 2 pumps due to a slightly mismanaged crossfeed and at that stage in the approach declared a PAN, they actually landed with about 8t if my memory serves which is not critically low by any means. As for overflying iceland, well you turn back if its before the BIKF/EGCC crit point, you should know that. Anyway Glasgow and Prestwick are well before EGCC

Quite obviously that depends which aviation authority you look at. It certainly looks like, that not all aviation authorities agree with that sentence, and even issue penalties for continuing this flight in question.

What will CAA say, should one flight, which continued past the next suitable airport on three engines, suffer another failure and - Lord beware - crash? Will they then say, that this was just fate and the scenario not foreseeable?

Simon

Why do you think if they had a second failure "shortly after Iceland" they would not have gone back to Keflavik, as a twin would do, or go into Prestwick ?

Well said Danny. As a 400 Captain with 26000 hours and 8000+ on the 400 operating according to my companies SOP, under the circumstances experienced my the BA crew my action would have been same to continue to LHR.

Very interesting thread (again ;) ), although I do have one question.

Austrian Simon, do you actually fly 747s?

What do make out of the minimum climb rates listed on the approach charts, for example LLZ/DME+MKR Runway 10, for the go-around, flying on just two engines?

Simon

Austrian Simon

OK, tell us what the procedures for flying a B747-400 2 engine out approach are.

Do you know? What is the commital height, what does that actually mean? What is the landing configuration, when do you configure? What sort of power settings would you use? If you had to, what is the go-around procedure and how does it differ from a 3 or 4 engines approach?

Demostrate (as Danny says) that you know and have carried out 2-engine approaches in a B744, and then you can question the decisions of a professional crew, until then by al means debate the cultural differences between the FAA and the CAA, but otherwise keep your own council.

I stand by my original posting, pages ago.....as Danny has pointed out, [I]nowhere[I] in the '400 manual, that I recall, is land as soon as possible for 1-eng out.

I also am convinced that with with fewer and fewer 4-eng experienced pilots in th USA, especially in the FAA (mostly ex-mil, particularly Army choppers, in my experience of them), they are brainwashed into 2-eng op. mode. Indeed, the first thing USAF pilots get drilled into them in UPT is a parrot-fashion recital for 'stand-ups' on how to handle an emergency:
1 mantain aircraft control
2 analyse the situation
3 land as soon as conditions permit
Here, I think is the crux of the situation - the FAA inspectors are stuck on phrase three.

Somebody posted earlier ' we're not in a war here'...true, and sound advice indeed. But, we are in a commercial business with slim economic margins; BA has given it's crews a magnificent tool that deserves to be operated to the significant advantages it confers over cheaper twins. We're not crossing at 45North in this example, and the abnormal is not time-critical. I'm pretty sure I'd carry on too. In fact, I have, once.....:cool:

Austrian Simon....oh deary me....it's like trying to lecture Spok about the finer points of comedy....'that's illogical, Captain'
1. Suggest you try flying your -400 sim with enough rudder applied to not need to use aileron - a simple glance down at the top of the yoke would tell you on the graded scale there if you have enough size-11 (oh-wait...the joystick you use has missiles and rear view up there...woops)
2. This will shock you...the -400 will go-around prior to flaps 20 for a 2-eng approach, indeed it will still go around from after that. It can, if you're very brave and know the difference between rudders and the flappy things out at the ends of the wings (they're locked-out at high speed BTW), in fact, climb out from gear retraction at heavy weight after t/o on 2. Hate to try it for real - you have to go to flaps 5 and fly right in the hockey stick, as I recall - sh1t scary out of HKG, but a great scan exercise....
3. I don't know of any Authority out there brave enough to overrule the manufacturer's manual and ban 3-engine continued flight...
4. Please don't let me ever land with you in a podded jet in a strong crosswind if aileron and roll-rates are primary in your mind...I've been scared-a-plenty with agricultural wing-warping at low altitude...the crosswind limit for 2-eng is a combination of available rudder deflection and level wings (a small amount of wing down is available, but I believe no credit on certification). The ailerons come into play primarily on roll-out. If you mash the yoke around, the 400 just shudders, as will the Captain.;)

Photon torpedo running....

Austrian Simon,

What Topbunk is trying to tell you is that commit to landing with the B747 on 2 engines is GEAR DOWN.

That makes min climb rates for a go around rather irrelevant.

PS. I think that armchair quaterbacks should leave the professionals to do their job. I have no doubt that these guys proceeded after considering ALL the options and that they still had options open to them when they made the decision to go to Manchester.

Minimum climb gradients are for "normal" operations.In a G/A,you will level out at 800/1000 agl,cleanup and,if feasable,comply with an emergency escape procedure published by the company(advising ATC)using the departure emergency policy published by each concerned airline for that specific runway(some on the airport analysis,some on special procedure manuals).All airports where heavy birds operate,there are these procedures,due to non-minimum climb gradients obtained and it takes you to MSA and dumping area combined for;
holding x resolving x crm'ing x preparing X deciding x returning.

3 engines on a 4 bird,2 engines on a 3 bird are considered an ABNORMAL situation.Decision to go/nogo lies entierly on crew/sop.

2 engines ferry flights on a Tri bird and 3 engines ferry on a quad bird are common.No PAX,special crew and clearance necessary.Saves the compan a bundle to bring it back to base for overhaul(eng change abroad at ramp)
witch would require hauling spare eng,crew and service(a million bucks).
These crews are certified by the company/manufacter/FAA/JAA/CAA and,special training is required for these operations.Not to mention a special procedure on the AFM,with at least 25/30 pages of maintanance requirements(yes,strapping the fan is part of it too...).
Been there,done that..Transatlantic and Inter Europe.
Regards

Ricky, not quite correct. The QRH has a note stating 'do not attempt a missed approach after landing gear is extended'. However, if you've trained on the B744, you will probably have tried the two engined go-around utilising the kinetic energy still available after gear extension. The QRH suggests gear down at glideslope intercept, which quite often is at around 2000'-3000'.

So, aside from Austrian Simons parallel universe, we could retract the gear and clean up to at least flap 1 whilst accelerating DOWN the glideslope to initiate a climb before reaching minimums. You have to be careful about how much thrust you apply so that it is commensurate with directional control. Ooh er! I bet they don't teach you that in MS Flight Sim! :rolleyes:

Based on Austrian Simons logic, I should never fly because if I lose one engine then I might lose another. I'd rather face that in a B744 than a twin, three hours from the nearest suitable airport.

Austrian Simon, please do us all a favour and refrain from your comments on here because they serve no purpose other than to irritate with no substance to provide any mitigation. The only issue here is whether the FAA are right or wrong to fine BA for continuing the flight instead of landing at the nearest suitable airport. In my book, as a B744 pilot, albeit, with nowhere nearly enough experience to make such a command decision, the BA captain did nothing illegal. Whilst I may not have reached the same conclusion and may have decided to continue as far east as was practical whilst my ops department set up a reroute to JFK or EWR, so that we could arrange onward transfers for our pax, I have no doubt that the BA crew involved weighed up all their options and continued on the basis that it was feasible. What happened later to cause the fuel problem is irrelevant to this case as it could have had the same effect if they'd not lost an engine and been kept below optimum levels and the winds were not as favourable as forecast.

"Whilst I may not have reached the same conclusion and may have decided to continue as far east as was practical whilst my ops department set up a reroute to JFK or EWR, so that we could arrange onward transfers for our pax...."

In my humble view (and I don't claim to have flown a 744 - and most definitely not a Microsoft Flight Sim!), that would have been the most prudent option - although probably not the cheapest for the airline.

Just because 'you can' doesn't mean 'you should'.