BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
 

You may not agree with the consequences of continuing on, but at least now you know the consequences.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php

Oh dear, I guess that means the end to three engine ferrying as well. Seems the answer is to have the relevent authority of every country the aircraft is to operate over put their stamp of approval on the ops manual and every other relevent bit of paper. :ugh:

Flight With One Engine Inoperative

From Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121.565 (excerpts):

(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.

(c) The pilot in command shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and shall keep that station fully informed of the progress of the flight.

As SLF and not knowing 747 capabilities, on the basis of the above FAR seems they did OK to me. ie thumbs up

I believe a 3 engine ferry is done without passengers. As are many ferries due to technical reasons.

Might I suggest, given your comparison, that passengers are not included on such flights due to the reduced safety margins....... (or is that a little to simple?).......

Its interesting the flak this incident attracts when an Asian carrier flew a revenue service with the fan of one badly damaged engine strapped down to prevent rotation. Seem to recall the comment it attracted was little more than "boy, look at this". What I allude to in the earlier post is if its considered safe to do a three engine ferry (following the proscribed limitations) then I would be more than happy to ride along.

Mike, re the part (b) it almost seems to be the glass half full argument. The previous threads showed the differing opinions among the drivers of the type in question, so its understandable the FAA could disagree with the decision made. Given the circumstances I'm just saying I would have been happy with either decision (go, no go).

Oh dear!
 

Brian,

Yes I agree I've seen the photo's to that Asia carrier!

As you pointed out they did have the fan strapped down! with fri*****g Freight straps, the old mechanical latching type often seen holding down freight on the backs of lorries I kid you not!

I will try and find the photographs I have and shall we narrow it down? they were Chinese!

Even the Chinese authorities didn't support this little antic and the aircraft and the company were hauled over the coals!

No doubt they're all packing tea or tanning leather in one of the state prisons now!

However! this comment was a little contradictory!

As SLF and not knowing 747 capabilities, on the basis of the above FAR seems they did OK to me. ie thumbs up

if you read the extract you posted it says:

land as appropriate 'As soon as possible' at the nearest airport!

Not continue on across the Atlantic or any other pond for that matter!

As a fare paying passenger and 28 yrs in the industry I would be horrified if you guys weren't being a little more proffesional in your approach to emergencys and technical problems!

This is term'd as press on itus!

Sorry, chaps, disagree here.

The FAA are wrong on this occasion. The BA crew did the right thing, all things considered - I totally agree with the decision to continue, including 'due regard' to the FAR's pertinent to this situation. I myself have been in this position on the '400 (sort of). It seems the FAA have become more familiar with ETOPS over time and forgotten about 4-eng ops....

Multiple en-route divs, legal fuel to continue, abnormality contained....what's the point in spending $150M if you don't use it the way it can be operated to full advantage?

Contraversial opinion, I know....incoming....:ooh:

So the FAA claim that BA operating an unairworthy aircraft? At the same time they are allowing etops 777's to do in excess of 3hrs on one engine over the Pacific.
Come on FAA which is the most dangerous? Are you not in danger of making yourselves look extremely foolish?

Raamjet and Sky 9 have a I point. Almost all US Carrier Long Haul is now 777/767 based-the exceptions being UA who still operate 744s across the Pacific and occasionally to Europe

On the other hand non US carriers LH BA QF KLM AF JAL KE CX VS operate fouir engined aircraft which if the general expert opion on this topic is to be belived do provide the extra redundancy to allow continued flight to destination or a convenient alternate. That would be something of a commercial disadvantage to AA CO DL UA who are almost entirely ETOPS.

So perhaps the FAA have forgotten about the reasons why for decades long range over water ops was with more than two engines and not that the FAA would ever favour US over foreign aviations interests.

This will open another can of worms but.......
A/C operating to ETOPS standards are designed to ETOPS standards (simple enough eh), what this means of course (and here you rely on statistics which can be manipulated anyway etc etc) is that a 767, 777 or others, have engines supposedly built/maintained/checked prior to each departure to a higher standard to reduce the likelihood of failure. In addition, we can assume that the engine failure case is the least likely scenario to cause an ETOPs a/c to divert, the aircraft has better fire suppression systems, more reliable electrical systems, hydraulics, extra preflight checks, and more stringent maintenance etc etc.

Now I am sure some expert can correct me on a few of those things, but essentially what it boils down to is that despite the mighty 747s having 4 donks, you should theoretically be safer on a twin designed to ETOPs standards because of the higher standards imposed, additional checking and redundancy. (The easy solution, build the 747 to the higher ETOPS Standards, and incoporate the appropriate maintanence and engineering and checking programs)

Of course the counter argument is you are safer because you have 4 donks, extra generators, and systems........


RRAAMJET - maybe it was a fairly acceptable decision to continue (I personally would have elected to return), I would hope, most crews would err on the side of caution. Its an expensive decision to make if it goes horribly wrong too. Aviation is pretty unforgiving, and you really need everything going in your favour.

The "Asian carrier" did NOT fly with its engine strapped down wit "fri*****g Freight straps"!!!! The fan was gagged using the approved method from the maintenance manual. The freight straps were approved Gereral Electric parts, in fact if you look closley at the picture you can see the part numbers printed on them. This method is used on both the GE CF-6 and the PW JT-9.
This is an aviation urban myth and I'm amazed that "Snopes" has not bebunked it.

Rgds Dr I

I don't understand why this topic rolls on and on. 4-engined jets have operated across the Atlantic for decades, and SOPs have equally always been in place, and are known to all concerned. There must have been many engine failures before starting the transocean crossing in that time. Did they all turn back ? Was this BA flight the first one ever that carried on ?

LAX to Europe does not actually do too many hours over the ocean, it is probably one of the lesser ETOPS-demanding routes, not like a transpacific flight.

This incident is not really about the letter of the law it's about the intent or spirit in which it should be applied.
Clearly a modern 4 engine aircraft is designed to be operated for extended periods of time on 3 motors when sound professionalism and good airmanship have been applied, and of course when commercial aspects have been considered.
However, I don't think it was ever intended that a aircraft could have an engine shut down before the flaps were up and then its flight continued for thousands of miles including an ocean crossing, regardless of how many alternates were on the route.
Just because an aircraft can do such a trip does not mean it should! If BA was to be honest with its self now I don't think they would make the same decision again should something similar occur in the future.

Twice Proves it
 

Not forgetting that BA thumbed its nose at FAA concerns by doing a 3eng long-haul with pax from Singapore to Heathrow the following week in the same airframe after the replacement engine also failed.
Not long after that we had all the revelations from the UKCAA about BA's maintenance shortcomings (and with plenty of evidence to back those assertions up).
Even without the EU directives on passenger compensation coloring the background, you have to wonder what they were trying to do? Alienate their customers and dispose of what reputation that BA had left for attention to flight safety.
The FAA action was well warranted and the fine was a distinct undershoot.

Ill informed comment
 

Last time I looked, it was also Cathay Pacific policy to continue on three engines AFTER THE PILOT IN COMMAND HAD REVIEWED A LIST OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
Begs the question: Why do so many contributers think they know better than two major airlines whose attitude to safety is exemplary?

Basil, the FAA thinks it knows better than BA on this occasion as well.

Capt. Brian Abraham...not in any way attempting to strain your intellectual capacity further, ...but a three engine ferry flight [which includes a 3-engine takeoff] is a special operation that precludes the carriage not only of revenue pax, but it also precludes the carriage of non essential riders.
An en route engine failure cannot be compared with with an engine-out ferry operation :ooh:

Bluloo,

QUOTE
"Now I am sure some expert can correct me on a few of those things, but essentially what it boils down to is that despite the mighty 747s having 4 donks, you should theoretically be safer on a twin designed to ETOPs standards because of the higher standards imposed, additional checking and redundancy. (The easy solution, build the 747 to the higher ETOPS Standards, and incoporate the appropriate maintanence and engineering and checking programs)"

Have to disagree there.

There are some operators out there who's only extra requirement on an ETOPS sector PDI is to check the crew oxygen!

With others it requires extra checks on generators, hydraulics etc.

So you see, it has nothing to do with the a/c type but everything to do with the operator and it's NAA's requirements.:hmm: :suspect:

Airbrake,
On the face of it and if Brian Abraham has accurately posted the FAR then it would appear that it is legal under FARs to complete the flight on three.
It is also the case that the airline's AOC is issued, not by the FAA but by the British CAA.
Clearly, a sovereign nation must have some say in what takes place in its national airspace but it appears odd to me that: a) BA should be fined over a matter of pilot in command judgement which did not even appear to contravene FARs, and b) the matter was not dealt with at ministerial level to decide how future similar occurences were to handled.

Spannerless - Suggest you re-read the posted FAR regulations again, especially the part concerning aircraft with three or more engines, then review your comments. Land ASAP is for aircraft not covered by section (b).

Turin - The checks and requirements bluloo refers to are required to get an aircraft ETOPS certified, not the checks to be carried out before flight. It has everything to do with aircraft type.


I wonder if the FAA are looking at the fuel situation. If I remember correctly the aircraft div'd to MAN due to fuel, if the crew had made it clear early on that was their intention then there would have been no issue. The crew obviously thought they'd get to LHR only to find the burn/winds etc. weren't quite what they thought. Perhaps this is what the FAA is latching onto?

Just to keep this interesting, I thought I'd dig out DingerX's interesting review on the original thread by Mini Mums where this incident first came to light, long before the media got hold of it, here on PPRuNe.Think about it if you have time and would prefer to keep it out of the media spotlight! :}

The rules
 

Folks, you are missing the point. This is all politics with the US trying to get one over on the europeans. Listen up.
The FAA is proposing having ALL airliners incl. 4 engines comply with ETOPS procedures but also extending ETOPS to 4 hours to diversion. Oddly enough this would give an advantage to Boeing's mainly twin engine products (no one is buying 747s) and seem to work against Airbus's A340 + A380s. Ok I know they have 330s too.
Perhaps we should really be debating 4 hours over water/artic/whatever on one engine?

Console.

Well, fancy that!!
Nice to know I'm not the only cynic out here, even though I did bite my tongue (well typing finger) when someone mentioned the FAA thinking they know better etc!!!

Refreshing

Doc C:ok:

edited for spellingz

The question is not whether I can make it to a particular destination on 3 engines, in the case of a 4-engine airplane. The question is can I make it on 2 engines? When one engine fails, you then plan for loss of the next engine.

The crew was never alone without the proper support from Maintenance control and dispatch. I’m sure that the crew was continuously updated about the performance status requirement of their aircraft. Also, I can’t believe that British Airways would allow the flight to continue across the Atlantic without updating the Equal Time Point and the Point of Safe Return.

The FARs part 121.565(b) is quite clear on the issue about the captain’s decision authority, “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.

After discussing and deliberating the information received from Maintenance Control and Dispatch it was mutually agreed by all parties concerned, the flight could continue safely to LHR. If anything… it was prudent of the captain land in Manchester rather then pressing on and having a real emergency on his hands.

Not knowing the route across the Atlantic taken but given drift-down distances on two engines, Gander – Keflivick – Shannon would not be a major stretch for the whale.

I think, it's all about safety margins, risk management and responsibility towards paying passengers and people on ground.

After all, passengers are expecting, that their flight is conducted with the safety margins, that they can reasonably expect before takeoff, and which of course has been calculated into their ticket prices.

It is also clear, that even on a 4-engine aircraft the failure of one engine reduces the safety margin significantly and at the same time increases the risk.

What for example, had during the passage of the Atlantic the other engine on the very same wing failed as the initial one?

Flying her then becomes real hard work, and especially during configuration changes for landing loosing her is not just a remote chance anymore, even though without engines detaching (like the ELAL 747 in Amsterdam) such a landing is manageable.

If then however the only available diversion field has got turbulent crosswinds, no problem with 3 or 4 engines operating, but putting your aircraft on 2 engines beyond safety margins, then the receipe for disaster is made up ...

What I think, got forgotten so far in the arguments: a B747 on three engines has no greater (performance) margin than a twin engine airplane on one engine, at least by regulations, being required only to perform to a certain climb gradient in the case of one engine's failure. In other words: if the mimimum thrust needed to climb out with an engine out is 100%, a twin jet has 200% of that thrust with both engines operating, the B747 however only 133% of that thrust with all 4 engines operating, and with one engine out both have just 100% of the required thrust.

And isn't it true, that despite, of course, having more redundancy more engines is also more chance for failure, as each moving part has a certain risk of failure attached with it, the risks all summing up to a total risk?

Now, Lord may prevent this, you are down to two engines - perhaps even on just one side - and you might need to go-around for whatever reason, but are not able to outclimb the obstacles in your path anymore with your remaining 66% of minimum thrust needed ...

Regulations intend to provide sufficient safety margin, that in case of a single failure safe flight to the next suitable airport is still ensured and leaves sufficient reserves to deal even with a reasonably adverse weather. What happens in case of a second fault however, is not covered by regulations anymore, as basically all safety margins have been eaten up by the first failure. It is clear therefore, that the time of being without safety margins needs to be as short as possible. Expecting on the base of experience, that things fail very rarely, can very quickly turn into disaster - and it wouldn't be a first.

From a passengers point of view, continuing a journey after an engine failure beyond the closest suitable airport is not the safety standard, that has been paid for and that a passenger can therefore reasonably expect. It is putting paying passengers as well as people on the ground at an increased risk for unnecessarily long periods of time.

Simon
P.S.: note, that I did not even go into any of the additional circumstances like limited service ceiling, increased fuel burn, less available rudder travel for corrective action (gusts!) towards the operating engine(s) and other side effects, which do aggravate the scenario.

Looks like an ETOPS approval for the C-172 is not far away -- no more than 4 hours on one engine:}

OVERTALK:
At what point during a SIN-LHR sector are the FAA involved in a JAA registered aircraft's performance and the decision-making of the crew with the advice from the airlines' operations staff?

Blueprint
 

Globally has I believe put his finger on the crux of the matter. If the a/c went into MAN with a PAN due low fuel state, then with a further engine failure beforehand it would have been in an even worse fuel state. A 747 burns significantly more fuel on 2 viz 3. So after crossing say Greenland & Iceland with a failure after that point, then the last portion of the flt onwards to the UK would have been very fuel marginal. That is where I believe the crew were unprofessional.

And you don't think that BA procedures take a further engine failure into account?

Armchair pilots, don't you just love them.

I see that the spotters are pontificating at length again. I'm sure BA will be delighted to be informed of the extra rudder required for gusts etc. Microsoft have got a lot to answer for.

So exactly what are BA's procedures re in flight reanalysis?
Just how good is a night shift at Flight planning HQ. Does the fleet office keep a bod in the office ready to leap into action with the 3 Eng fuel flow tables.

I have no axe here but I assume this was crew driven, they must have set out across continental North America (with plenty of options) whilst considering fuel to continue to destination rather than Dump in the vicinity of incident. At some point BA planners, in accordance with BA procedures backed up the crews decision to continue, so when did they realise it wouldn't be LHR? why wasn't it planned for GLA? Since when did a diversion, (en route at that) fuel or otherwise constitute a heightened state of alert (PAN or MAYDAY). Find me an ops control dept which wouldn't prefer an a/c tech at home base than LAX.

Why the FAA would be upset about the flights progress this side of the pond is beyond me, but why the UK CAA haven't said more well I can only guess it must be legal and wise and why didn't we all think of it before.

If I were a gambling man, I would think the balance of probability says a senior BA Capt had been thinking about this very scenario for years and grinned widely at the opportunity to give it a go. Just a thought.

Glueball you dill, the point made was that they deemed with an engine out the aircraft was unairworthy ie could not carry out a ferry even. Basil I'm with you on your last post and with that I'll take the Martin Baker.

It is interesting to note, that the only point you raise to joke about my post is the one about the reduced rudder travel for corrective action, where I put as a possible cause gusts into brackets. That shows, that the rest of my post hits the nail square on its head, so actually, I take your post as a compliment.

On the other hand I believe, you overlook an important point in your joke about that reduced rudder travel for corrective actions in gust - did I say, where this corrective action is needed? Are you just thinking of flight at height?

What do you do close to ground, for example at 150 AGL, in final approach, still on considerable engine power especially on a two engine scenario (with just #1+#2 or #3+#4 running), when it is about time to align (or to decide to perform a crab landing), and a gust hits you, causing quite some yaw to the airplane, without an option to throw the approach away because of the lack of thrust to climb away safely?

Quite clearly, you step into the rudder to keep the nose nailed where it belongs to, help with ailerons, and get her down.

The other chance, where rudder may be needed is, when a gust hits you that exceeds aileron authority to avoid roll. We could argue in that case, whether it would be needed to throw the approach away in such a scenario, and I would certainly tend to go-around in such a situation.

Again however, what are we talking about, what scenario are we currently in? We have lost two of four engines, a go-around is not an option because of insufficient available thrust to climb away safely.

So now, what do you do in that particular gust, if you don't touch your rudder? Crash? Or use the rudder as an additional margin beyond aileron authority that you have available to correct?

See the point, why the reduced rudder travel is becoming an issue in this scenario and is a valid argument?

Not everything, that somebody says whom you identify as being a spotter and just being trained by MS Flightsim (both of your points being wrong, by the way!) , is pure nonsense ...

Simon

Just take a look at Austrian Simon's profile before you even read his post. Professional Pilots Rumour Network?

Will those who've clearly never been anywhere near a 4 engine jet please stop pontificating. Do you think they just said "oh no we've lost an engine lets carry on and hope its ok"? The 3 engine and 2 engine fuel tables are in the flight deck, indeed if you knew anything of 747-400's you would know that the FMC has proper fuel and eta predictions with 1 engine out, the 2 engine tabels would then be used to determine 2 engine driftdown and critical points between SUITABLE alternates. As for Crosswinds, well funnily enough type rated pilots know the limits of their aircraft and would choose possible en route diversions with xwinds and other weather in mind.

And you can go around on 2 anyway just at a higher minima.

Once again interesting to see, that there is no factual argument, just an attempt to disregard arguments on personal grounds rather than their factual merits.

If my arguments were wrong, then quite obviously I expect they'd get torn apart by any aviation professional, with ease and without ever looking at the individual or its profile.

It is common sense and experience in life however, that one gets only personal (or tries to discredit the discussion partner), when he lacks arguments to counter what has been said.

Sometimes however such an attitude comes back to haunt the one, who just disregards others on personal grounds rather than thinking about arguments.

Simon

Three engine ferry with or without Pax over land with suitable Airports within a reasonable descent distance is very different than over water with greater distances between available landing fields. What if a second engine took a crap, on the same side.

This Civil Avaition, not a War effort. Don't want my Family riding on this chap's Aircraft.

You'd be wrong, if you believe, I have not flown dual (and even triple) engine failures on B744 Full Flight Sims.

The 3 and 2 engine tables are there, of course, to allow you to continue as safe a flight as still possible to your diversion field. You just won't have a lift to get your passengers and yourself straight down to ground when an engine fails. Instead, you may need to cover quite some distance to get to your next suitable airfield indeed, so those tables are absolutely necessary for a lot of reasons.

The presence of those tables however does not indicate, that the loss of an engine has not increased the risks of flight and has not decreased your safety margins, and that you therefore can ignore the loss of one engine.

Yes, you can go around on two engines, you can climb away, however not at the climb gradient, to which obstacles may occur in your climb path by regulations. If you then happen to approach an airfield, where that climb gradient is required to outclimb obstacles in the go-around path ... I don't think, one can name that scenario "safe flight" though.

And fully agreed, an airline pilot will know the cross wind limits etc. of his aircraft, and will choose the airport accordingly - unless in an emergency, where he might be forced to take whatever he gets. Loosing a second engines overhead the Atlantic would most definitely put the aircraft into severe risk and leaves little options for diversion. And before you raise the argument, that the diversion fields have been selected on the base of weather forecast before you even take off: that is clear, however, weather forecasts have a tendency to not reflect the weather, that is present when you arrive.

Thanks BTW for presenting arguments rather than opinions und suspicions about my background.

Simon

And isn't it true, that despite, of course, having more redundancy more engines is also more chance for failure, as each moving part has a certain risk of failure attached with it, the risks all summing up to a total risk?

I am in danger of being flippant here, but on that statement 0 Engines = nothing to go wrong.

Ref 4 hour ETOPs perhaps this should be another thread?

Don't overdo it, please. If there are no engines left on an airliner, a whole lot has already gone wrong (and there's a lot of systems going to fail as a result as well).

If we were talking gliders however: then it would indeed be extremely unlikely, that a glider suffers an engine failure. But that is not the theme here.

Simon