|
KelvinD: Utter utter utter cock! Please do not comment on things (such as ATC) which you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about!
|
C'mon guys. For a start, we only have the edited version. It seems to me the crew and ATC did the job in front of them, to a successful outcome. Let's not nitpick. As regards cancelling a "Mayday", in Europe it is (was?) possible to downgrade to a "Pan". You're still getting the full emergency service, it's just that the immediate danger to life is no longer there.
|
To be fair - there are two definitions of "ton" - 1,000 kilo or 2,000 pounds. There is a 10% difference between the 'pound ton' and the 'metric ton'. Most people on this side of the pond think in pound tons, not metric tons, so ATC may have wanted to clarify.
|
@cargosales which comments you find objectable?
|
As regards cancelling a "Mayday", in Europe it is (was?) possible to downgrade to a "Pan" I asked about this issue in the (obligatory) post-emergency phone call with the FSDO, (they were happy with my actions) and I was informed that, in FAA parlance, there is no distinction betwixt the two. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10170760)
To be fair - there are two definitions of "ton" - 1,000 kilo or 2,000 pounds. There is a 10% difference between the 'pound ton' and the 'metric ton'. Most people on this side of the pond think in pound tons, not metric tons, so ATC may have wanted to clarify.
And the BA pilot said runway 08 instead of runway 8, surprised the PPRuNe R/T police here didn't go after him for the miscue. |
Originally Posted by Hotel Tango
(Post 10170555)
KelvinD: Utter utter utter cock! Please do not comment on things (such as ATC) which you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about!
Please, HotelTango, play the ball, not the player. And contribute something useful rather than just insulting people. This thread is ultimately about flight safety which is in all of our interests, whether me as a PAX or the guys up front trying their damndest to deal with an emergency. I'd rather like to survive such an emergency, as I'm sure would they. Because those guys 'driving' will the the first to arrive at the scene of an accident !! Please think about that before posting in that vein... Kind regards CS |
Interesting, isn't it. BA 268, 20th February 2005, has a surge on take-off from LAX. Far from declaring a Mayday, a decision was taken to fly back to London on the remaining 3-engines. That decision was robustly defended here on PPRuNe by people professing to be B747 pilots, which I'm sure they were, at least 95% were, mostly on the grounds that A B747-400 is a different animal, and that flying it LAX-LHR on 3 engines is no less safe than with 4. (Provided you get your revised fuel calculations right, of course.) A few dinosaurs disagreed, repeating the mantra, "Land as soon as safe to do so" if an engine gives up the ghost. I don't remember anyone criticising the lack of a Mayday call.
My point is, what's different about this latest incident? I'm guessing that something was, but what? |
Lessons learned? I never understood why did not they land on the East Coast, whilst accepting their actions were safe. The ABN-OP of calling a Mayday regardless and then downgrade which we see here, have they been introduced post the crossing? Maybe the publicity was just not desired ever again.
|
Cargosales, I do not comprehend your post one iota. So, as one who worked in ATC for 46 years I'm supposed to accept the total rubbish put forward by a poster with no obvious ATC qualifications or knowledge? Are you kidding me. I didn't insult him, I spoke the truth.
|
Originally Posted by wtsmg
(Post 10170877)
I think you'll find '08' is correct phraseology as per ICAO doc 9432 / 2.4.2.
|
Ref continue or not (LAX - PHX), the situations were vastly different. The general mantra for a 747 is continue if it’s safe to do so. Considerations include Severe damage or not? Engine surges/failures can occur for multiple reasons, eg. guide vane angle failure (surge, not severe damage), or bits missing (surge/failure, structural damage), fuel metering unit failure (flameout, not severe damage). Terrain clearance emergency turn procedure? If there is one once completed there’s probably not enough fuel to reach destination. No ETP and you might have enough gas to get home. Fuel loading, there might simply be not enough fuel on board to get home one eng inop, if you’re lucky and are carrying a lot of contingency fuel there might be enough. En route MSA’s. If there are MSA’s above the two eng inop max ceiling then either a reroute or divert is required. A reroute might mean an increase to trip fuel which now means you’re short of fuel. En route weathers. If Goose, Gander, Kef, Prestwick etc are wide open you might consider continuing as you could get in two eng inop. If the enroute wx is crappy and you don’t fancy having a go two eng inop (go around is very difficult / impossible after gear extension) you would divert. Decompression fuel. If continuing one eng inop do you still have enough fuel to perform an emergency descent at the critical point mid Atlantic and still be able to reach a suitable airfield with reserves intact. And is the weather at those suitable airfield good enough? These are just some of the concerns a 747 crew need to address. The 747 is designed to be “go minded”. Some crews have quite correctly elected to continue, other crews have quite correctly elected to return or divert. Unless you are type rated on the aircraft in question, and have all the information that that particular crew had available to them, you are quite simply not qualified to pass judgement on a crews decision. Hope that helps. LD |
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
(Post 10170314)
No JS, you are reading it the opposite way around. Clearly didn't. And the since the ATC is confused why no emergency declared at that point - he feels like there should be one - that leads to the fuzzy statement assume he'd come back. Why? Because either the poor ATCO or his colleague before completely missed the 3x MAYDAY call.
Every single thing the BA said made perfect sense (to a pilot) and they went out of their way to be the smallest possible pain they could. BTW your profile is a bit economical with details, are you a pilot? I would be willing to bet large dollars that every active ATC controller in the US knows what MAYDAY means. It is possible that the MAYDAY call wasn't heard but I guarantee he knew what the term meant. Feel free to read through my posts to see if I am a pilot. I think you will enjoy them. |
I might be a bit old fashioned, or just plain wrong (much more likely) but after declaring a mayday isn’t every further communication from the aircraft supposed to include the word “mayday”? That would have avoided the obvious confusion on this recording. |
Locked door posted:
Unless you are type rated on the aircraft in question, and have all the information that that particular crew had available to them, you are quite simply not qualified to pass judgement on a crews decision. Bull at a Gate. As far as I'm aware, the inclusion of "mayday" should be on first contact with a new controller., not on every transmission. |
Locked Door, thank you for that summary of most of the factors that need to be thought about, plus the usual PPRuNe lecture on second guessing the crew, which no-one was actually doing.
Of course, all of those also applied in the BA 268 case; especially "if you’re lucky and are carrying a lot of contingency fuel there might be enough". Hmmm, I seem to remember that BA 268 diverted to MAN due to fuel. I'll show my colours and say that I was among those who thought that BA got that one wrong, simply because the engine surge was the first hole in the cheese. Luckily the second and third did not line up. But they nearly did; just consider if a go-round had been necessary at Manchester from 1,000 feet. The second hole was a higher fuel burn than they claculated; a go-round for a reason outside their control could have been the third. We dinosaurs think that when your safety buffer is eroded by the loss of an engine you don't tempt fate. So I'm with this guy who declared a Mayday to make sure he got the full attention of ATC while he sorted out the situation, and then landed as soon as safe to do so. The passengers on BA 268 did not volunteer to take part in a 3-engine ferry over the arctic. |
They did indeed divert into Manchester on that occasion. It was discussed to death at the time, and was due to being unsure as to whether all of the fuel in the failed engine’s main tank was available. (Nothing to do with a higher fuel burn than they anticipated). They decided to play it safe, even though it was actually all usable and there was plenty of fuel to continue on to LHR. There really is no reason a 747 cannot continue on three engines as long as all of the continuation requirements are met, however the publicity created around that particular event has resulted in public perception guiding the likely subsequent actions, rather than flight continuation safety. The downgrading of the Mayday in this case, will have been due to the fact that the flight continuation situation was by that stage fully assessed, and there was no longer any particular flight safety urgency to be on the ground - just public perception. |
Old Not Bold, When you have completed a type rating on a four engine heavy aircraft come back and read that post. You might go a bit pink in the face. Have a read of this. https://assets.publishing.service.go...BNLG_06-06.pdf Dont skim it, read it all and then come back and explain what the crew did wrong. Base your argument on facts, not “I feel” or “I think”, and base your arguments on four engine aircraft certification and rules. The crew made sensible, appropriate decisions, came up with a plan that contained sensible bottom lines w.r.t fuel, and changed the plan in a calm manner when the circumstances altered, and obtained the appropriate level of assistance from each ATC unit as and when required. Note the FAA recognised the crew made good decisions and that no action would be taken after reviewing the facts. LD |
NB, a hairy old TRI once pointed out to me that a 747 on three engines has more redundancy than any fully serviceable twin engine jet on two engines. |
Locked door: Oh dear! Reference to the full report does in fact show that BA came in for criticism for their use of a non - Boeing standard fuel balancing procedure. This, coupled with the crew's apparent poor/incomplete understanding of the fuel system turned what should have been a routine 3-eng fly on into an emergency! BA were requred to introduce extra training sunsequently. ( if you are inclined to attack my credentials - 13 years B747 and 10 years A340 and TRE both types )
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:51. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.