Ditto your remarks, tdracer!

As I happened to know more than the "average Joe" about this subject, it is indeed bound for Victorville, CA (VCV) for painting and maintenance checks required before returning it back into service.

VCV is less than a 30 min trip from LAS, so is the nearest facility that does that kind of work and with an appropriate RWY too!

And like many other "boneyards" around these parts (Marana, nr Tucson, AZ for another) have engineering staff that have a lot of experience in getting previously laid up or "stored" aircraft back in to revenue service. Indeed, I myself flew an older 757 out of the Tucson facility en route to Algiers via Bangor, MA about 10 years ago. Interesting trip, if you can get it!

Yes guys, I know that kind of thing happens at VCV aswell, it was a bit of British irony ;-) bearing in mind that BA (or their insurers) are probably spending quite a lot to get an 18 year old triple7 back into service.

Many younger aircraft go to the boneyards and don't come out.

Local paper story on the departure, has a nice pic of the lady leaving Las Vegas.

Jet that caught fire on McCarran runway has left Las Vegas | Las Vegas Review-Journal

VCV is home to lots of interesting stuff
 

VCV is home to lots of interesting stuff... not necessarily a sign of a boneyard!

For example, the superwhale and baby plastic jet were both recently extensively tested there (and the -8 even did a 1,000,000+ lb. MTOGW type record there), ...as well as a lot of "New type" engine testing is done there.

The long obstacle free runway is great (albeit a bit rough in spots), the WX generally reliable, and VCV is adjacent to some great testing airspace and related resources.

As to being up at FL430, that is pretty typical for an FCF (or for a re-fly of a B1 profile) following any significant MX or modifications.

Didn't BA first few 788's go to Victorville after entering service for some mods? Vaguely recall them going there after flying to AUS one at a time...

Indeed they did. Can't remember the details now but I seem to remember software was part of the mods.

Just love the way every opportunity to slag "British" comes into the reporting. No mention of the GE responsibility for this. :bored:

On her way back to the UK - BAW9179 (VCV-CWL) following repaint. :D

AD Issued. Root Cause still out There.
Excerpts Only, Use Link for full texts.
2015-27-01. GE90-76B, -77B, -85B, -90B, and -94B engines with high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 8-10 spool, part number 1694M80G04, installed. SUMMARY: This AD requires performing an eddy current inspection (ECI) or ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the high-pressure compressor (HPC) stage 8-10 spool and removing from service those parts that fail inspection. This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of the HPC stage 8-10 spool, leading to an airplane fire. Effective January 27, 2016. Compliance by; (1) Perform an eddy current inspection or ultrasonic inspection of the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC stage 8-10 spool for cracks as follows: (i) For HPC stage 8-10 spools with serial number (S/N) GWNHC086 or GWNHB875, inspect within 150 cycles-in-service (CIS), after the effective date of this AD. (ii) For HPC stage 8-10 spools with S/N GWNHC154, GWNHA455, GWNHC153, or GWNHB516, inspect within 300 CIS, after the effective date of this AD. (2) Remove from service any HPC stage 8-10 spool that fails the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD and replace the spool with a spool eligible for installation. Discussion. We received a report of an HPC stage 8-10 spool uncontained failure resulting in an airplane fire. Ongoing investigations have determined that a crack initiated in the stage 8 aft web upper face of the HPC 8-10 spool and propagated until spool rupture. The root cause of the crack initiation is not yet known. Costs of Compliance. We estimate that this AD affects 1 engine installed on an airplane of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 7 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $780,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $780,595. Link > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/70e7b9e69301df4186257f380054ed8a/$FILE/2015-27-01.pdf -----------------------------
Prior ADs With mentions of HPC spools web cracks.
2009-07-03 – 80 series, 2002-25-08 – 45/50, and – 80s, 99-24-15 - 50 and -80 series,
For Full AD and Details, Query By AD number at FAA’s AD Query website; Link > Airworthiness Directives

Wow, the cost of certified engineers replacing a major part of a huge gas turbine, with the associated aircraft downtime, costs less than a service and having the cam belt changed on my car!

No wonder tickets are cheap!

Real world? Possibly not!

FAA Typo
 

Taken from 2009-07-03 comments:

One commenter, FedEx Express, states that it appears that the proposed AD costs of compliance total to U.S. operators of $594,500,
is inaccurate and might be the cost of a single spool replacement, rather than the accumulated total of the proposed action,
if the estimate of 10 affected units is accurate.

We agree that the proposed AD total is inaccurate.
We had a typo in the proposed AD costs of compliance. The total cost should have been $5,594,500.
We corrected the total in the final rule AD.

onceapilot

It is always airline's responsibility, doesn't matter who did what. BA cannot rewrite rules.

Not sure where the comma issue is but the FAA state that an engineer is $85 an hour (7 hour fix at $85 an hour = the $595 difference), even BMW charge £100 an hour for labor!!!! I just find it laughable what the manufactures assume and the operators charge and the engineers get paid.

Irrespective of who bears the brunt of the costs this was an issue that had been flagged up to GE prior to the incident through NDT and endoscopic investigation.

I have a feeling that some fairly hefty costings have been done behind the scenes in this recovery!

As to a Billion it was always 1 Million x 1 Million in my schooling! Perhaps that's why I'm poor! :ok:

Lots of good reading in this NTSB accident docket:

https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/h...docketID=59741

This actual excerpt from one of the BA manuals reminds me of that infamous non-handling, non-landing pilot procedure joke making the rounds two decades ago. ;)

https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59500-59...741/602177.pdf

Document 9 is far more revealing, especially the nonsense of changing over thrust lever handling in an RTO.I am thinking of how BA can justify it and am left without any answers.
Document 17 shows how Boeing suggest it should be done,

I believe you mean to say Operations Group Attachments 9 and 17, the document numbering is different:

https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59500-59...741/602179.pdf

https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59500-59...741/602187.pdf

Tubby
 

The Genesis comes from the Trident..certainly the most difficult aircraft to fly on approach especially with the BEA procedures. Recently a very old manager admitted that they had made a mistake..the mistake being believing that by training up “wunder mensch” to pole the aircraft whilst P1’s contribution was to guard the auto throttle (we weren’t allowed manual throttle) then everyone and anyone could be a captain.
This philosophy was certainly reflected in the Staines, Bilbao and Heraklion accidents; it may have been a factor in the Heathrow flypast as at the time of the captains conversion the board had apparently put the training department under pressure to pass all. BEA had a policy of everyone was fit for command whereas BOAC rightly did not.
Ps there was talk in the mid 70s of putting the captain on the third seat and let the co pilots do the flying, presumably to reduce the appalling accident rate. Unfortunately some of our management infiltrated BOAC when BA was formed and took their ideas with them.

Yes the Monitored Approach still lingers on in BA.
Not universally popular. On the formation of GSS the separate BA cargo B744 operation, the Chief pilot was ex BEA and a fan of the MA system. The new crews gathered from several airlines including ex BA not so impressed with the old BEA system. It was put to a vote and as a result GSS flew the aircraft the “normal” way. Allowing much needed handling practice of the whole sector from take off to landing,when in suitable weather and no continuous A/T SOP. Autopilot out A/T out.
A friend of mine on the BA A380 in 2 years has never manually flown the aircraft much above 1000ft even in CAVOK, usually being handed control for landing off a coupled approach at 500/800 ft when on an ILS with mandatory full time A/T.
No wonder accidents due poor manual handling continue to occur.

FWIW As I recall well post Trident days the 744 went with Boeing procedures initially but eventually things changes..

As for the 777, fortunately, fingers crossed can't speak for the efficiency of the current BA method outside of the sim, but there does seem some at least some logic to the BA way....but both parties have got to remember to do their bits.

Manual handling with autothrust engaged is not permitted on the approach in the 747-400 with BA, nor is it on any other BA type with a pitch-power couple (767 and 737 as was).

Re BA SOPS (i.e. not GSS) and autothrottle, etc.....the 744 -

1. What TC said...the SOP was/is autothrottle out if manually flying the aircraft.

I'm not versed in the 380 but reasonably up to speed on ULH ops at BA....with that in mind..

Landing pilot (:p) not supposed to take control above 1000 feet...etc...that's true...but it doesn't routinely have to be a coupled approach down to that point, so unless there is a fleet specific rule there's no reason why your friend can't hand fly the bird down the approach if they are the non landing pilot, before the 1000 'handover, if conditions permit...

As part of the descent brief I always mention if I think it's a good day for hand flying and encourage my colleagues to knock the autopilot out if conditions are suitable...good grief, even knackered old me can hand fly a 777 down from F240 on a good day on an early arrival into LHR and most of the guys I fly with can manage to hand fly off the LHR holds and produce an acceptable ILS whilst also pondering: "WTF is this Bovington hold our American friends are on about....." ....

In your friends defence I'd say being a FO or SFO on a ULH fleet doesn't give you much opportunity for hand flying ( 'cos of the dilution in stick time due to heavy sectors, not because of BA SOPs) but that has always gone with the territory...if your friend really wants to fly the aircraft they need to speak up more during the descent brief and discuss the matter....this idea that BA somehow ban hand flying is nonsense..

ATHR/ auto throttle OFF is banned on FBW fleets though? (Or is that a myth?)

It's as Tay Cough described ( personally I don't agree with that bit of the SOPs, but we are stuck with it) - obviously (?) that is not the same as a ban on hand flying the other "bits" when appropriate
(up/down/left/right etc..:8)

Full time mandatory speed control by A/T is not manual flying in my book! Speed control using the throttle/ thrust lever is just as important in maintaining your flying skills.
Shows up in the very poor single engine thrust control shown by the pilot handling, after engine failure, in the BA Airbus which took off with an unlatched cowling.

Apparently done once every 2 years in the sim!

Same here but I am a guy, with pockets. Women are more likely to keep their stuff in a bag and rules about unsecured objects require that those bags be in the overhead locker or under the seat in front of you. A lot of people are too tall to put bags under the seat so it has to be put in the locker.

Airlines could address this by providing a way for passengers to safely carry essential items. They could also establish a rule that luggage never goes on a slide but can be thrown under the body of the aircraft and potentially recovered later if the owner really has to take it with them.

Lockers
 

I suppose you could make it fairly safe by using normally open switches to power solenoid controlled latches. That way the lockers would be unlocked by default. If power is lost they will unlock. But the cabin crew could hold the locks on in the few seconds when the passengers are starting for the exits. They would back that up with commands to run and leave the bags.

I wouldn't disagree but we are stuck with the SOPs.

On the rare occasions anyone in the "head shed" has tried to justify the policy the logic rolled out is that the safety benefits of using auto throttle (e.g. low speed protection, reduced landing dispersion) out weigh the increased risk...

Regardless of whether an autopilot out/autothrottle in approach can be called hand flown or not I would agree it is deskilling...I personally don't like the policy, I think autothrottle/auto thrust should be optional but as I said on the line we are stuck with it so please don't shoot the messenger....

In BA....

Being unable (on fbw fleets) to take out autothrust, is a right royal pita! But typical misguided arse covering!

Monitored approaches have advantages and disadvantages.

PM selecting reverse is no major problem, but it's not how the manufacturer designed the a/c nor how it recommends it's operation. For years now I've heard that BA are on the brink of PF operating their own reversers. We shall see.

ULH does not lend itself to being well practiced in manual flying. Frankly the overwhelming majority could probably be described as 'rusty' at best. Flying into and out of the busiest airports in the world, when tired, are not the greatest places to 'give yourself a bit of practice because you're rusty'!

But....

Unlike many airlines, in BA we are able to access sim practice. That's where we should be practicing if we feel rusty. Not in Class A airspace! There's also no ban on manual thrust in the sim. So if you consider yourself a professional, take advantage of the system in place! It's not just to practice for your upcoming check!

There's no excuse!

And anyone in an A380, or any aircraft for that matter, who has never flown it above 1000'.. Clearly just doesn't want to!

BA & its predecessor companies have always had a fetish for re-writing the manuals and implementing their own "ways" of doing things. The dogma seemed to be "why do something the straightforward, pragmatic way when you can do it the complicated, idiosyncratic way". There has always been some sort of intrinsic institutionalised need amongst the "intelligentsia" to be different, perhaps "special" even.

PrivateJet: Thrust lever/reverse handling aside, 'Back to Boeing' a few years back sorted out most of the nonsense in the manuals...

The nonsense in the manuals came about because of all the 'unfortunate' horse trading that went on back in the '80s after the merger in an attempt to produce a common operating philosophy and set of procedures. It was a difficult time!