|
It is also forgotten here that they would have had more fuel if ATC hadnt stuffed up their level across the atlantic. Only the other day a flight from the west coast to LHR was having fuel temp problems (too cold) and the only way they could getATC to understand was to declare a PAN and descend and go faster,otherwise they would have been left way up high. Oh , and l have recently returned from SFO in a 400 and l would have continued towards LHR depending on the engine failure.Note we say towards,there are plenty of places to go if things change.
And another thing,as a result of this incident,crews spent time on the next sim check going through odd fuel configurations ,something that has never been made clear reading the sketchy manuals.I wonder how many 400 operators have done the same thing.That part of the sim detail was excellent. |
Quite right L377, all fuel is available for use.
The only difference is the non-normal configuration of the pumps and cross feeds if any of the main tanks has less then 1T of fuel remaining. I understand that the crew had doubts about whether the fuel in the main tank associated with the shutdown engine was usable or not. Since then, I believe all crew have received a briefing on how to use this fuel to run the live engines via cross-feeds earlier in the flight so that the tanks are approximately balanced on arrival. However, this is just to reduce any trim drag due to the imbalance and not any fuel feed issues. All crew have also been shown in the simulator that the aircraft will run all 4 engines quite comfortably with a main tank empty if all main pumps are on and all cross-feeds open. This of course would apply on 3 engines as well. Boeing designed the aircraft so that any engine can receive fuel from any combinations of main tanks making all fuel usable. |
Mike
Quote 'I can think of far better targets for the FAA to be aiming at - O'Hare for example, with 3 very recent near-accidents to think about.......' I would suggest that O'Hare has become that way by constantly pushing the boundaries of what is sensible, driven by commercial pressure. Quote 'I think you will find that this crew did more safety-related planning & re-planning in one flight than most crews will do in a year (or more!)......' Yet they still ended up landing after declaring an emergency......... I didn't know airmanship was type specific? I'd rather sit behind a Captain with BEAGLE's attitude than many others displayed on this thread, over-conservative possibly but isn't that what we're always told is right? If in doubt take the safe option? If there was no doubt that night why all the extra planning? The fact that they ended up in some confusion about the fuel state of the A/C merely highlights the problem with putting yourself in situations you have not seen before, in an aircraft with degraded capability. In my opinion it's clear that whatever thought processes went on among all those involved,safety was not top of their list!If they were dumping fuel the Captain had already decided to return to land - who or what changed his mind?The guys onboard have probably only ever had one engine failure and it has been the subject of newspaper articles, forum debate and criticism from the FAA. Good decision? Not for me. |
If they were dumping fuel the Captain had already decided to return to land - who or what changed his mind? At no stage, ever, has it been suggested, or did they, start dumping fuel. L337 |
L337
Actually if you followed the link in the second post on this thread(by Mike Jenvey) it WAS suggested they were heading out to sea to dump fuel!! Everything you disagree with is rubbish isn't it?:yuk: |
They headed out to sea. No mountains there. The safe option.
Actually if you read the two huge threads here and here you would get your facts correct. To suggest they began to dump, and who or what changed his mind? I don't disagree with you, It is a matter of fact. They did not begin to, or did they dump fuel. If you write rubbish it is rubbish. :yuk: |
Hang on a minute.
You said..........'At no stage, ever, has it been suggested, or did they, start dumping fuel. As I said in my earlier post it WAS suggested in the article in the link.I also said .........IF............they were dumping fuel. You were wrong. Get over it!:{ |
Bear in mind that once fuel jettison has started it will be dumping approx 2T of fuel per minute. Normal reserve and diversion fuel for somewhere like LHR in good weather may be around 7T - 8T. Add on a few tons of contingency fuel would mean they would normally arrive at LHR with about 11T. If they had commenced fuel jettison within 5 minutes they would not have enough fuel to make LHR!
I am sure they would not have commenced fuel jettison, cancelled it and then elected to continue to LHR. |
Forgive my ignorance but...
Could they be sure that "the fuel in the main tank associated with the shutdown engine" wasn't the cause of the shutdown? |
After having read this thread, as a passenger, I had to register on this forum because I know understand why so many people have a fear of flying and prefer to take trains or drive cars. Some of the real world pilots here have such a condescending, impertinent way of speaking and such an over-self-confidence that I would not like to have them as pilots on a flight I am on. I simply would not trust them to be safe pilots and I would not like to be a passenger on a British Airways flight ever again, that´ s for sure!
If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight and I only would have hoped that BA would have been fined a much larger sum! If pilots are such heroes and have no problems with "unusual situations" why do they switch off the wrong engine (British Midland, 1989), begin a takeoff without having the permission to do it (KLM, Tenerife, 1977), stall airplanes (Birgenair, 1996/ Northwest Orient, 1974/BEA, 1972), fly until they run out of fuel (Avianca, 1990/Antillian Airlines, 1970), land with retracted landing gear(Contintental Airlines, 1996), forget to configure flaps for departure (Northwest Airlines, 1987), land at the wrong airport or do other crazy things. The list is endless. Often an accident is initiated by a seemingly irrelevant incident. In short: a little bit more caution and modesty would be much appreciated by the poor passengers. I don´t like pilots to play with MY life! I like cautious pilots who would rather return to the depature airport than try to save their company some money! |
Forgive my ignorance but... Could they be sure that "the fuel in the main tank associated with the shutdown engine" wasn't the cause of the shutdown? Some of the real world pilots here have such a condescending, impertinent way of speaking and such an over-self-confidence that I would not like to have them as pilots on a flight I am on. If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight |
Originally Posted by Hand Solo
Sadly thats total b*****s and merely serves to demonstrate your lack of understanding of jet aircraft or the rules of the air. Obviously declaring an emergency is just big fun for you. You don´t have to be an expert to KNOW that it is safer to fly on an airplane with all 4 engines running than to be on one with one engine shut off (if it had been safer this way, Boeing certainly would have constructed the 747 in such a way that three engines are "real ones" and one is a dummy)! So there MUST be a decreased level of safety (even if this situation might still be considered to be "safe enough" by some authorities)! Perhaps you are the kind of person who insists on a full run down of how your surgeon will perform an operation and make misguided suggestions as to how you think it should be done better? You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's in any way factually correct. Which it isn't. |
Hey The Passenger,
The reason that some may sound condescending to you is that we are fed up to the back teeth with the press and passengers who think that they know something about flying second guessing our every move. This is our profession. We take pride in doing it well. NOTHING that these guys did was unprofessional or unsafe. Some days you end up declaring an emergency - that's the way that flying is. How about I come to your place of work and critique everything that you do - even though I may understand little of what you do. Don't fly with us - you will not be missed. |
Originally Posted by Ricky Whizz
Hey The Passenger,
The reason that some may sound condescending to you is that we are fed up to the back teeth with the press and passengers who think that they know something about flying second guessing our every move. This is our profession. We take pride in doing it well. NOTHING that these guys did was unprofessional or unsafe. Some days you end up declaring an emergency - that's the way that flying is. You have a strange point of view calling "flying a Boeing 747 thousands of miles in an 'unairworthy condition'" (according to U.S. government documents/International Herald Tribune) "professional" and "safe"! So why was BA fined $25000 then - for flying "professional" and "safe"??? Don't fly with us - you will not be missed. |
Oh dear, of dear. 'the passenger' doesn't like our attitudes when we treat them on this forum condescendingly. Well, what do you expect when you and others whose only real experience of our job is sitting down the back yet you feel it necessary to come on here and tell us how it should have been handled based solely on your very limited knowledge of what is involved.
Yes, we treat you like the fool you are on here because you spectacularly fail to understand the intricacies of our job. Spouting off a list of aircraft disasters by itself is not indicative of anything. Apart from the fact that we all learn from others mistakes, you would do well to put those disasters into the overall context of the actual number of flights, hours and aircraft worldwide and then look at the accident statistics. Personally, none of us could really care less that you will not fly BA anymore or any other airline for than matter. If your IQ is so abysmally low to realise that it is statistically much safer to travel by air, especially with an airline like BA, then you deserve to put yourself at more risk by using less safe airlines. I think it's called natural selection and your living in the shallow end of the gene pool shows itself by your silly post on here. No pilot discussing this incident on here is "playing with your life" and they certainly don't do so when on the job. If your ignorance fails to let you understand that then you'd better be prepared for your ego to severely battered on here. It's like lambs to the slaughter some days. On the one hand it fair game and a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. On the other it's cringingly painful to have to read the utter tripe that some opinionated nosey people write on here. |
The passenger (hopefully not for much longer).
The fine is a 'proposal' numbskull and it's being contested. I hope that you take more care in reading any documents that relate to your work - as I am sure that you would expect us to. The Newspaper is reporting (not commenting) and the FAA is fishing (for a way out of their own mistake). |
L337
Nowhere in my post did I say that they did not have enough fuel, but you have to agree that the crew were treating the situation as such. I have to say that your reaction to any criticism of the crew (even from people qualified to do so) is not very constructive or professional. E.F. |
Originally Posted by arewenearlythereyet?
...
Personally, none of us could really care less that you will not fly BA anymore or any other airline for than matter. If your IQ is so abysmally low to realise that it is statistically much safer to travel by air, especially with an airline like BA, then you deserve to put yourself at more risk by using less safe airlines... |
Originally Posted by the passenger
If pilots are such heroes and have no problems with "unusual situations"
why do they switch off the wrong engine (British Midland, 1989), begin a takeoff without having the permission to do it (KLM, Tenerife, 1977) stall airplanes (Birgenair, 1996/ Northwest Orient, 1974/BEA, 1972), I like cautious pilots who would rather return to the depature airport than try to save their company some money! J. |
I was under the impression that this was a flight-deck forum called
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots Now I'm not a professional pilot and as such I have very little to contribute to this particular forum. As a very frequent flier and an amateur pilot I do like to have an idea of what's going on at the pointy end of the tube and for that reason I read many of the threads here, and whatever I may feel or think, I do not have the training or experience to question the decisions made by the crew. I would be less than impressed if a B744 captain questioned my professional decisions, and the same should hold true for the rest of us. By all means have a discussion about this, but use the appropriate forum to do so. ab |
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. 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. |
[pedant mode on]
("Engines Running Or Passengers Swimming"). You should use the "correct" terminology, as an expert in air travel you claim to be.:yuk: [pedant mode stby] GD&L |
Originally Posted by arewenearlythereyet?
Personally, none of us could really care less that you will not fly BA anymore or any other airline for than matter. If your IQ is so abysmally low to realise that it is statistically much safer to travel by air, especially with an airline like BA, then you deserve to put yourself at more risk by using less safe airlines. I think it's called natural selection and your living in the shallow end of the gene pool shows itself by your silly post on here.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...obability.html by Peter Ladkin, University of Bielefeld |
by Peter Ladkin, University of Bielefeld |
Without soliciting another complete diatribe from the passenger, just wondering how you would feel if you had been a passenger on the longest ETOPS diversion. I believe it was 3 hours 6 minutes on one engine across the Pacific. For me, I'll take the 3 engined BA 747 everytime. Well done BA.
|
alemaobaiano
Totally, completely, entirely agree. In same boat as you (CPL holder with rapidly decaying currency) and have read some serious drivel here from the Flight Sim community. Jesus H Chr!st, stop arguing with the real pilots! |
Originally Posted by exvicar
Without soliciting another complete diatribe from the passenger, just wondering how you would feel if you had been a passenger on the longest ETOPS diversion. I believe it was 3 hours 6 minutes on one engine across the Pacific.
|
Nah, nah, would y’all please not respond in this heated manner to this agent provocateur? Who knows what kind of organization is behind him/her, or who else might be reading this thread and use it against aviation, now or later.
Not responding is not the right thing to do either, but when we respond, please just do it in the coolest possible manner (and references to IQ look/feel/sound, and are inappropriate) . He is only waiting for us to start fuming and then will continue to stoke the fire. Some people just are afraid of flying. Period. To pilots, this is a fear we cannot bring ourselves to comprehend, but it is widespread in the public, in various degrees of severity. Of course, people like “the passenger” are not helping any with their irrational panicky ways of putting things, but that irrationality is a factor that we in the aviation industry have to cope with, no matter what. Unfortunately, “we are professionals and we know what we are doing; and now let us do our job” (although true and the only way to do this and any business for that matter) is not helping those uncomfortable with flying. We have to take the those pax that are uncomfortable serious and make the best effort to put them at ease (which has nothing to do with sugarcoating/hiding facts), then go fly. So please, as much as “the passenger” and others here get on your nerves, just keep a cool head and act/write accordingly. After all, that is what you do in the cockpit as well when the proverbial starts to hit the fan. Dear “the passenger” (and this is a little bit off the original thread, but intended to broaden your horizon a bit): It is funny medical procedures came up on this thread. Let us compare the two fields of occupation for a bit. Of course, dear “the passenger”, you also are a little bit irritated that I “diagnosed” your behavior as an irrational fear. But do a search on the number of “deaths by airline”, in the US and Europe (we know too that Africa is not the safest place to fly). Shockingly low, isn’t it? 80’000 deaths p/y in hospitals in the US alone, figures for Europe are not even available (maybe you can find them and give us the numbers). Yet a lot of people fear to go flying -- if that is not irrational, then what? BTW, why don’t you please tell us whether you are affiliated with a news outlet/law firm/think tank/etc. Thanks. Another BTW: BA really is the most experienced and sophisticated operator of the B 742/3/4. |
well, I'll bite just once more.
Since when do you have to fly 747s to make statistical comparisons? You can't question a 'profi' the way he's doing things; thats what they're trained to death for. Likewise you can't question a heart surgeon about the way he does his operations. If you cannot understand this things your job must be really really really boring and does not involve any type of risk taking... sorry:bored: GD&L |
My observations for what it's worth as a 20 year "veteran" of the Boeing 747(all types) are as follows:-
The aircraft and crew were JAA licensed and BA operate within the USA as FAR compliant. Given the same circumstances, I would also have continued to destination, unless my crew (inc. cabin crew) and passengers expressed serious concerns, having observed the effects of the engine surge. Indeed, I have on 2 occasions cotinued the flight in similar circumstances - legally and safely. My criticism of the crew would be this:- they were either naive or inexperienced on this particular routing, to assume that they would achieve every optimum altitude for maximum fuel-efficiency as the flight would cross the Atlantic on a random track against the NA track system at that time of day, when a lower than desired flight level is more often than not,only available;- and, their knowledge and management of the fuel system was deficient. Other than that, the flight was completed safely, albeit to an alternate and I think that The Boeing Aircraft Co. may be seeking urgent clarification from the FAA regarding their new 4-engined B747-8 and it's operation following an in-flight engine shutdown. If the non-normal QRH is to have "land at nearest suitable airfield) added following completion of the engine shutdown checklist then Boeing and Airbus may as well abandon their 4-engine production lines! P.s. one doesn't "loose" an engine, one "loses" an engine. As for 2-engine go-arounds, it has been possible since the early days of the 747-100, just more exciting then! |
For Gawds sake put an end to this nonsence.
|
Done!
That's enough diversion from this topic. If you want to debate the pros and cons of heart surgery verus ETOPS and 3 engine performance on the B744 with a bit of MS Flight Sim expertise thrown in for good luck, feel free to start an appropriate thread in the Safety forum. The deleted posts have been reinstated there. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by GearDown&Locked
[pedant mode on]
Quote: ("Engines Running Or Passengers Swimming"). ETOPS - Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming You should use the "correct" terminology, as an expert in air travel you claim to be.:yuk: [pedant mode stby] GD&L My Pedant Mode ON GearDown&Locked You raise an interesting point. I think you will find that EROPS (Extended Range OPerationS) existed before ETOPS and that ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine OPerationS) is therefore merely a later "subset" of EROPS. Thus, in connection with a 744 operation (albeit on 3-engines), perhaps EROPS is correct, after all. My Pedant Mode back to STBY ;) |
I really am almost to the point of slapping my brow in frustration at the likes of 'the passenger'. I can understand the ignorance in this case, however, as even some fellow professionals who have flown 4-engined types don't seem to follow. Even when national flight safety committee 'clears' the incident, some still don't get it!
It's all the fault of the movies. |
Originally Posted by the passenger
In short: a little bit more caution and modesty would be much appreciated by the poor passengers. I don´t like pilots to play with MY life! I like cautious pilots who would rather return to the depature airport than try to save their company some money!
Do you think that it is always safer to land the aircraft than to continue on three engines? I know virtually nothing about flying aircraft of any size, but one thing I have learned from reading the other very long thread on this topic is that the answer to that question is "no".If you think the answer is "yes", may I please suggest that you learn a bit about flying from the experts here before revisiting your opinion. Otherwise it is, in fact, you who would be guilty of the arrogance which you currently ascribe to others. |
It's all the fault of the movies I think there was a movie in the 70s along similar lines called Carry On Regardless. Sid James played the captain with Kenneth Williams as the CSD and Barbara Windsor as a rather coarse and vulgar trolley dolly whose top kept springing off as she threw the peanuts about. I could be mistaken though as my memory isn't what it once was. Do you think that it is always safer to land the aircraft than to continue on three engines? |
I was travelling through the Hawaiian islands on holiday a few years ago, and, while connecting through the Kona airport on the Big island of Hawaii I noticed a United 777 on the apron with the cowling open on one of the engines.
Didn't think much about, it at the time I thought that, perhaps UA had direct flights there from the mainland. It was only when I returned home some time later I discovered that Aircraft had just completed the longest single engine divert in the history of ETOPS operations. Over three hours on one engine is, by any definition an uncomfortable experience, and in this case with absolutely no options. In contrast, this crew and aircraft had numerous options, performance and redundancy remaining with real time engineering analysis and support to enhance their decision making. This comes down to a philisophical difference in attitude towards 3 0r 4 engine aircraft in the states by the FAA unfortunately fueled by the media hysterics in their coverage of this 'near disaster' As was mentioned earlier, twin operations are much more prevalent here, and the collective memory and knowledge of when 3 or 4 donks ruled the skies here seems to have died a sad death. Comparing the 777 in the earlier incident to the magnificent 747 in the latter non incident I know which aircraft I would have preferred to be on. |
ETOPS is irrelevant in this debate.
It is quite reasonable for passengers to express their opinions, positive or negative, about travelling in a particular situation. The 744 has excellent system redundancy. But after the loss of an engine on take-off, it has no further 'thrust redundancy' for a protracted flight to a destination some 4700 miles away. It boils down to risk management. Whether passengers are prepared to accept the same level of managed risk on similar occasions to the one in question is a material consideration. For if they lose confidence and vote with their feet, there won't be any such similar incidents - because there won't be an airline. Diversions are expensive. But nothing like as expensive as accidents. |
Surely it still has 'thrust redundancy', as many of those that fly the 747 have testified that it is more than capable of flying on two engines. If, and I am sure they did, the crew looked at 2 engine driftdown, terrain clearance and available enroute alternates, I still think the crew were well placed to bring the aircraft home. At the end of the day, passengers may vote with their feet but this aircraft was operated legally and with the full support of BAs operation & flight planning back up.
Passengers may be able to voice their opinion on ETOPS. I would still far rather be sitting on the ocean on a 4 engine aircraft that has lost one engine than a 2 engined aircraft that has lost one. Which has 'thrust redundancy' then? Hope all well Beagle. |
The aircraft has plenty of 'thrust redundancy' after losing a single engine. Lose a second and it will still maintain 14000 feet. Lets not overlook (yet again) that there were countless diversion airfields all along the route in the event of a second failure.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:21. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.