Engine fire on takeoff....in LAX and divert to Manchester?
Thread Starter
Engine fire on takeoff....in LAX and divert to Manchester?
You have got to be kidding me!
BA jumbo jet continued flight after engine fire
By Peter Woodman, PA
Published: 25 September 2006
Air traffic controllers were "amazed" when a British Airways jumbo jet decided to carry on with a transatlantic flight after an engine caught fire on take-off, it was revealed today.
An air traffic controller, who had seen flames coming from an engine on the Boeing 747 at Los Angeles, told a colleague on hearing the plane was continuing its flight: "If you would have saw what we saw out the window, you'd be amazed at that."
The plane, with 351 passengers on board, was due to land in London but the crew, which shut down the on-fire engine, decided to declare an emergency because of possible low fuel supplies and landed safely in Manchester.
The controller's comments were revealed in a transcript between the plane and the Los Angeles control tower obtained by the Wall Street Journal under US freedom of information laws.
A report earlier this year into the February 2005 incident by the UK's Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) said no evidence had been found to show that the flight continuation posed a significant increase in risk, and that the aircraft landed with more than the required minimum fuel reserves.
But the report added: "However, there were indications of deficiencies in the training regarding fuel management provided to the flight crew."
A BA spokeswoman said today: "We always maintained that the aircraft operated in strict accordance with the (UK) Civil Aviation Authority regulations and this was consistent with the what the AAIB report into the matter said."
She went on: "The AAIB found that the action by the crew was in accordance with BA's flight continuation policies and that the aircraft had sufficient fuel and performance to continue the flight safely.
"The US Department of Transportation is taking no action against BA regarding this incident."
By Peter Woodman, PA
Published: 25 September 2006
Air traffic controllers were "amazed" when a British Airways jumbo jet decided to carry on with a transatlantic flight after an engine caught fire on take-off, it was revealed today.
An air traffic controller, who had seen flames coming from an engine on the Boeing 747 at Los Angeles, told a colleague on hearing the plane was continuing its flight: "If you would have saw what we saw out the window, you'd be amazed at that."
The plane, with 351 passengers on board, was due to land in London but the crew, which shut down the on-fire engine, decided to declare an emergency because of possible low fuel supplies and landed safely in Manchester.
The controller's comments were revealed in a transcript between the plane and the Los Angeles control tower obtained by the Wall Street Journal under US freedom of information laws.
A report earlier this year into the February 2005 incident by the UK's Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) said no evidence had been found to show that the flight continuation posed a significant increase in risk, and that the aircraft landed with more than the required minimum fuel reserves.
But the report added: "However, there were indications of deficiencies in the training regarding fuel management provided to the flight crew."
A BA spokeswoman said today: "We always maintained that the aircraft operated in strict accordance with the (UK) Civil Aviation Authority regulations and this was consistent with the what the AAIB report into the matter said."
She went on: "The AAIB found that the action by the crew was in accordance with BA's flight continuation policies and that the aircraft had sufficient fuel and performance to continue the flight safely.
"The US Department of Transportation is taking no action against BA regarding this incident."
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If you would have saw what we saw out the window, you'd be amazed at that."
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO, NO, NO - No fire
Half baked news report - as usual
Thread duplication. See http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=245089 for the facts. Better still http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...LG%2006-06.pdf
Half baked news report - as usual
Thread duplication. See http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=245089 for the facts. Better still http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...LG%2006-06.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pacific Ocean
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't this more than some time ago anyhow?
Here is the simple conclusion to all the hype started last year:
"In the end, the nations avoided a fight over jurisdiction with a compromise. The U.S. acknowledged that international law gave Britain's CAA oversight of British Airways, and the CAA told the U.S. the airline had agreed to change its procedures for when an engine was out, at least while flying in U.S. air space.
British Airways said it hasn't formally changed procedures but has agreed to take into account "issues that arose from this incident" if a 747 engine fails again. "We have always maintained that we operated this aircraft in strict accordance with the CAA's regulations," it said.
Last month, the FAA told British Airways it was dropping the case based on assurances that airline changes will "preclude the type of extended operation that was the subject of this enforcement action." Says the FAA: "Our goal was to get them to change their procedures, and when we found out they were changing in the U.S., we settled the case."
Here is the simple conclusion to all the hype started last year:
"In the end, the nations avoided a fight over jurisdiction with a compromise. The U.S. acknowledged that international law gave Britain's CAA oversight of British Airways, and the CAA told the U.S. the airline had agreed to change its procedures for when an engine was out, at least while flying in U.S. air space.
British Airways said it hasn't formally changed procedures but has agreed to take into account "issues that arose from this incident" if a 747 engine fails again. "We have always maintained that we operated this aircraft in strict accordance with the CAA's regulations," it said.
Last month, the FAA told British Airways it was dropping the case based on assurances that airline changes will "preclude the type of extended operation that was the subject of this enforcement action." Says the FAA: "Our goal was to get them to change their procedures, and when we found out they were changing in the U.S., we settled the case."
