Jet Flies On With One Engine Out on Nonstop Trip to London

[Larry Dighera]

Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
transatlantic destination.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

[Mike Rapoport]

So, is this good or bad?

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
> engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
> transatlantic destination.
>
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story
>
> March 1, 2005
> By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers
>
> Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
> Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
> nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
> destination.
>
> A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
> from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
> elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
> instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
> on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.
>
> Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
> engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
> and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
> in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

This situation is going to be "interesting" as it plays out. I hate to
second guess a guy who isn't here so I won't, but as I said, this one could
get VERY interesting before the fuzz is finished with it.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> So, is this good or bad?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
>> engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
>> transatlantic destination.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story
>>
>> March 1, 2005
>> By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers
>>
>> Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
>> Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
>> nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
>> destination.
>>
>> A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
>> from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
>> elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
>> instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
>> on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.
>>
>> Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
>> engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
>> and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
>> in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...
>>
>>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
t>::

>So, is this good or bad?

I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
making the judgment.

British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.

The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
landing at his London destination.

Someone more qualified than me had this to say:

"It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
doesn't make any sense."

However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
operations in the United States, said:

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
our normal operating protocols."

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera")
> Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
> engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
> transatlantic destination.

> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story


'They've got half the PhD's on the planet working on it.'

That was my thought when I read the first news blips on this flight. 747
flew for many hours (over land) before they decided to cross the Atlantic.
In that time I'm sure they were gathering and analyzing much data relating
to fuel burn.

Iceland, post-Iceland, pre-Ireland, Ireland, Manchester, London, etc. They
had safety options. Safety was never the main issue here. Could they make
London? THAT was the main issue and that answer is no, they could not make
London ...safely.

In the end the winds hurt them - no big deal.

Wonder if any Manchester passengers said, "Hey, I'll get off here."


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Montblack" wrote)
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story

> Iceland, post-Iceland, pre-Ireland, Ireland, Manchester, London,


Go no-go decision points.

I guess "pre-Ireland" means ...hope we make Ireland.

Probably should have eliminated this one and just gone with Ireland, since
once you're out of that big circle around Iceland the next go no-go decision
point is the Irish coast. Not too many places to land pre-Ireland <g>.


Montblack

[Doug Carter]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> So, is this good or bad?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
>>engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
>>transatlantic destination.

Whoever wrote this SOP for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> So in the end, it's about money v safety.
>
> Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
> above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
> that doesn't have that policy?

Whichever has the cheapest fare. It's also about money to me.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Mike Rapoport]

But he landed only 167 miles short of his destination and presumably had the
required reserves at that time. A great circle route between LA and London
crosses Greenland, passes near Iceland and then overflies Scottland and the
UK. I don't think that you can make the case that there was a big risk of
running out of fuel far from an airport. In fact, he could have landed in
Scottland with about 40 minutes more fuel than he landed with. It will be
interesting to see what the whole story is. It probably comes down to
deciding to continue after passing each suitable airport with plenty of fuel
to reach the next suitable airport. The airports are only 500-700nm apart
so he was always less than an hour from a suitable airport. I would also
doubt that he made this decision without consulting his company dispatch. I
guess that I might feel differently if the flight was going from LAX to
Sidney and decided not to return or to land at Hawaii.

It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will weigh
in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and this guy
had three jet engines!!!

I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine
airplane?

Mike
MU-2



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in
> t>::
>
>>So, is this good or bad?
>
> I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
> making the judgment.
>
> British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
> fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
> each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.
>
> The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
> winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
> asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
> lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
> his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
> landing at his London destination.
>
> Someone more qualified than me had this to say:
>
> "It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
> it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
> doesn't make any sense."
>
> However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
> operations in the United States, said:
>
> "The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
> our normal operating protocols."
>
> So in the end, it's about money v safety.
>
> Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
> above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
> that doesn't have that policy?
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> So, is this good or bad?
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
>>>engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
>>>transatlantic destination.
>
> Whoever wrote this SOP for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks.

Along with the JAA and FAA...Or are you just another PP ASEL with strong
opinions on flying 747s and how to run a global airline...?

Mike
MU-2

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:08:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
t>::

>But he landed only 167 miles short of his destination and presumably had the
>required reserves at that time.

Presumably.

>A great circle route between LA and London
>crosses Greenland, passes near Iceland and then overflies Scottland and the
>UK. I don't think that you can make the case that there was a big risk of
>running out of fuel far from an airport. In fact, he could have landed in
>Scottland with about 40 minutes more fuel than he landed with.

Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
Scotland and all those intermediate airports.

>It will be interesting to see what the whole story is.

I doubt the "whole story" will ever be completely revealed.

>It probably comes down to deciding to continue after passing each suitable
>airport with plenty of fuel to reach the next suitable airport. The airports
>are only 500-700nm apart so he was always less than an hour from a suitable
>airport.

Thanks for that information.

>I would also doubt that he made this decision without consulting his company
>dispatch.

Right. But given the BA policy, I'm not sure their input was safety
oriented.

>I guess that I might feel differently if the flight was going from LAX to
>Sidney and decided not to return or to land at Hawaii.

Definitely.

>It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will weigh
>in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and this guy
>had three jet engines!!!

That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight
characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with
the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually
uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a
forced descent.

And another issue is, if the engine failure had been a result of fuel
contamination, how did the PIC determine that the remaining fuel was
safe for continued transcontinental flight?

Additionally, when the engine failed, ATC mentioned sparks being seen.
How did the PIC determine there was no structural damage to the
airframe as a result of the engine failure?

>I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
>you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine
>airplane?

I don't have the requisite experience in airliner operation to begin
to answer that question.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

>
> Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
> Scotland and all those intermediate airports.

Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Sondre
Stromfjord in Greenland is long enough (I've seen 747s there) and so is
Keflavik in Iceland (I've seen 747s there too).

> I doubt the "whole story" will ever be completely revealed.

I would suspect that the press will drum up enough concern that there will
be an investigation and the story will come out.

> Right. But given the BA policy, I'm not sure their input was safety
> oriented.

I was not aware that BA had a bad safety record or that the passengers were
exposed to much risk.

> That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight
> characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with
> the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually
> uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a
> forced descent.
>

I think that four engine airliners have to be able to fly with two engines
inoperative on one side but I am not certain. They can probably fly on one
outboard engine at certain weights.


> And another issue is, if the engine failure had been a result of fuel
> contamination, how did the PIC determine that the remaining fuel was
> safe for continued transcontinental flight?
>

That seems remote. Has it ever happened? Could it even happen? Jet
engines can burn almost anything that is flamable. Seems unlikely that you
could even find enough of anything, except Jet fuel, at LAX to fill a 747!
Maybe they know why the engine failed.

> Additionally, when the engine failed, ATC mentioned sparks being seen.
> How did the PIC determine there was no structural damage to the
> airframe as a result of the engine failure?

I think airliners are required to have burst protection built into the
nacelles to contain failed engine debris. I know that the 777 has this (saw
it on TV!)

>
>>I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
>>you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two
>>engine
>>airplane?
>
> I don't have the requisite experience in airliner operation to begin
> to answer that question.
>

I don't either, I just think cheaper is better.

I have found over the years that when a group of smart people come to a
decision that seems crazy to me, it only seems crazy because I didn't have
all the facts that they had. Based on this, I give people the benefit of
the doubt.

Mike
MU-2

[Chris]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will
> weigh in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and
> this guy had three jet engines!!!
>
> I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
> you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two
> engine airplane?

The reason I fly on four engined planes is that they don't do any with five
engines :)

[Bob Moore]

Larry Dighera wrote
> That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight
> characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with
> the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually
> uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a
> forced descent.

Nope! It has a two-engine VMC around 230 KTS. Its two-engine
service ceiling would probably be less than 20,000' depending
upon weight.

Bob Moore

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Mike Rapoport" > said:
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
>> Scotland and all those intermediate airports.
>
>Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Sondre

Are you thinking of Tenerife? That's in the Canary Islands, not Scotland.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It must be in the basement; I'll go upstairs and get it." - M.C.Escher

[Julian Scarfe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...

>> Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
>> Scotland and all those intermediate airports.
>
> Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there.

Er, when?

(But you're certainly correct in that Edinburgh, Glasgow and Prestwick are
probably all suitable for landing a B747.)

Julian

[Chris]

> Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
> Scotland and all those intermediate airports.
>

Glasgow (2700m) and Prestwick near Glasgow(3000m) can take a 747, Edinburgh
at 2600m might also. There are two RAF bases which could also take anything
big as they are emergency diversion fields.

Long before there is Reyjavik in Iceland

So when did two 747s collide in Scotland?

[Mike Rapoport]

I was, my error. The runways at Glasgow and Edinburgh are long enough and
I'm certain that they are in Scottland.

Mike
MU-2


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Mike Rapoport" > said:
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
>>> Scotland and all those intermediate airports.
>>
>>Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Sondre
>
> Are you thinking of Tenerife? That's in the Canary Islands, not Scotland.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> "It must be in the basement; I'll go upstairs and get it." - M.C.Escher

[Chris]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Montblack" wrote)
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story
>
>> Iceland, post-Iceland, pre-Ireland, Ireland, Manchester, London,
>
>
> Go no-go decision points.
>
> I guess "pre-Ireland" means ...hope we make Ireland.
>
> Probably should have eliminated this one and just gone with Ireland, since
> once you're out of that big circle around Iceland the next go no-go
> decision point is the Irish coast. Not too many places to land pre-Ireland
> <g>.

You need to check up on your North Atlantic geography. Once you are out of
that big circle around Iceland, the next point of decision is the Scottish
Coast. Ireland is only an issue if you are doing the none Greenland route
and then the first airport is Shannon but to allow the Russians to fly to
Cuba.

[Julian Scarfe]

>> Are you thinking of Tenerife? That's in the Canary Islands, not
>> Scotland.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>I was, my error.

It's unfortunately too easy to mix in the memory the pictures of a
devastated Pan Am B747 lying around after the Tenerife accident and pictures
of a devastated Pan Am B747 lying around after the Lockerbie bombing, which
was definitely in Scotland.

Julian

[Doug Carter]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>>>So, is this good or bad?

>>Whoever wrote this SOP for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks.
>
>
> Along with the JAA and FAA...Or are you just another PP ASEL with strong
> opinions on flying 747s and how to run a global airline...?
>

Oops! I overlooked the implication that you were only interested in
hearing from BA, JAA &/or FAA experts; Sorry, I am just another dumb
ass PP ASEL... with 30 years of system failures analysis experience.

I think I'll stay with my opinion until I learn enough to feel good
about riding over the pond with a known major systems failure.

Perhaps these engines are instrumented well enough that the pilot knew
that the failure did not result in severed fuel, oil or electrical
lines; that there were no overloaded buses, etc; time will tell.


The list of disasters that started with a controllable problem that was
allowed to compound out of control is long.

An example of pushing the maintenance edge can be seen at:
http://www.rhythm.com/~will/asian747.html.


By the way, do I refer from your reply that you think this is a good
practice?

[Montblack]

("Chris" wrote)
> You need to check up on your North Atlantic geography. Once you are out
> of that big circle around Iceland, the next point of decision is the
> Scottish Coast. Ireland is only an issue if you are doing the none
> Greenland route and then the first airport is Shannon but to allow the
> Russians to fly to Cuba.


Anyone have a link to a (really good) Great Circle Route map maker? I dug
around in google but didn't much care for the maps I saw. One site is ok,
but not as good as a link I used to have - can't find that link anymore.

Montblack

[Mike Rapoport]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>
>>>Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, is this good or bad?
>
>>>Whoever wrote this SOP for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks.
>>
>>
>> Along with the JAA and FAA...Or are you just another PP ASEL with strong
>> opinions on flying 747s and how to run a global airline...?
>>
>
> Oops! I overlooked the implication that you were only interested in
> hearing from BA, JAA &/or FAA experts; Sorry, I am just another dumb ass
> PP ASEL... with 30 years of system failures analysis experience.
>
> I think I'll stay with my opinion until I learn enough to feel good about
> riding over the pond with a known major systems failure.
>
> Perhaps these engines are instrumented well enough that the pilot knew
> that the failure did not result in severed fuel, oil or electrical lines;
> that there were no overloaded buses, etc; time will tell.
>
>
> The list of disasters that started with a controllable problem that was
> allowed to compound out of control is long.
>
> An example of pushing the maintenance edge can be seen at:
> http://www.rhythm.com/~will/asian747.html.
>
>
> By the way, do I refer from your reply that you think this is a good
> practice?

I didn't mean to offend you, but when a PP SEL says "Whoever wrote this SOP
for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks" and that SOP is approved by the
FAA and JAA and known by thousands of BA employees (who aren't complaining
or pointing out problems with it), it occurs to me that the PPASEL probably
knows a whole lot less than ANY of the people that wrote or approved it and
is just spouting off without knowing any of the issues. Kind of like Jane
Fonda educating people about nuclear power.

Apparently, a single failed engine on a four engine jet airliner is not an
emergency nor an automatic reason to terminate a flight.

Like you said: "Perhaps these engines are instrumented well enough that the
pilot knew that the failure did not result in severed fuel, oil or
electrical
lines; that there were no overloaded buses, etc; time will tell." Indeed
time will tell. In the meantime, you look like a fool jumping up and
declaring that the guy (It was actually a bunch of people all of whom know
more about airlines and airliners than you or I) who wrote the SOP for BA is
an idiot.

Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
land immediately because it is too heavy. So it has to fly for a while
regardless. The crew decide to head in the direction that they were
originally going. This was all thought out years before by the airline, the
regulators and probably Boeing and incorportated into the crew's training.
There are numerous large commerical airports along the way that are just as
suitable as LAX (PMD, RNO, SLC ect). We haven't even gotten into what the
weather might have been like at LAX. By the time the flight starts over
water, it has been flying for many hours over thousands of miles and, even
then, is always well under an hour from a suitable airport. The flight
lands safely and then some PP ASEL declares that they did it all wrong.

I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA, FAA,
JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid stunt than
to accept your assertion that it was.

Mike
MU-2

[Marco Leon]

It's going to be simple actually. It will all depend on BA's operational
policies. If he followed it, then he's safe--if not, then he's in trouble.
An airline's flight ops are approved by the various governing entities. As
long as they are followed, my impression is that the pilot would be legally
safe.

Marco Leon

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
> This situation is going to be "interesting" as it plays out. I hate to
> second guess a guy who isn't here so I won't, but as I said, this one
could
> get VERY interesting before the fuzz is finished with it.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
> (take out the trash :-)
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > So, is this good or bad?
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
> >> engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
> >> transatlantic destination.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story
> >>
> >> March 1, 2005
> >> By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers
> >>
> >> Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
> >> Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
> >> nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
> >> destination.
> >>
> >> A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
> >> from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
> >> elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
> >> instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
> >> on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.
> >>
> >> Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
> >> engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
> >> and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
> >> in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Marco Leon]

That website would be MUCH more believable if the engine was still on the
aircraft on the ramp as opposed to sitting on a maintenance cart. I
especially like the "forwarded by some flying friends" part. Oh yeah, then
it MUST be true!

747-400's are actually more efficient in cruise on two engines.

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> An example of pushing the maintenance edge can be seen at:
> http://www.rhythm.com/~will/asian747.html.
>
>
> By the way, do I refer from your reply that you think this is a good
> practice?

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote in
> t>::
>
> >So, is this good or bad?
>
> I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
> making the judgment.
>
> British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
> fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
> each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.
>
> The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
> winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
> asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
> lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
> his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
> landing at his London destination.
>
> Someone more qualified than me had this to say:
>
> "It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
> it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
> doesn't make any sense."
>
> However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
> operations in the United States, said:
>
> "The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
> our normal operating protocols."
>
> So in the end, it's about money v safety.
>
> Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
> above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
> that doesn't have that policy?


As a single engine pilot, three running engines sounds excessive to me.
Reliability of jet engines being what it is now days I would be fine with
the flight on three engines.

[Dave Stadt]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > So, is this good or bad?
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
> >>engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
> >>transatlantic destination.
>
> Whoever wrote this SOP for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks.

Don't look now but twin engined airliners are approved for transoceanic
flights.

[Dave Stadt]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Chris" wrote)
> > You need to check up on your North Atlantic geography. Once you are out
> > of that big circle around Iceland, the next point of decision is the
> > Scottish Coast. Ireland is only an issue if you are doing the none
> > Greenland route and then the first airport is Shannon but to allow the
> > Russians to fly to Cuba.
>
>
> Anyone have a link to a (really good) Great Circle Route map maker? I dug
> around in google but didn't much care for the maps I saw. One site is ok,
> but not as good as a link I used to have - can't find that link anymore.
>
> Montblack


A string and a globe works.

[Dudley Henriques]

Stay tuned! :-)
After all the legal hash is played out, the chief pilot at BA is going to
have to take a long hard look at this guy's judgment call. And after THAT,
there's a little something called "establishing precedent" that BA just
might not want to get involved with.
This type of thing in the industry is never "easy". You have a condition and
you make a call. That's the easy part, considering you get away with it as
this guy did. The devil is in the details however on situations like this
one.
If no violation, then it can go several ways at the front office.....odds on
bad for the Captain. The fact remains that this Captain made a decision to
continue that involved not only the engine scenario, but as well an ending
condition that involved an unscheduled landing due to conditions that would
not have been present without his having proceeded with the engine
condition.
It all came up roses, but it's the manure the roses were planted in that
will either nail this guy or let him off the hook.
We'll see!! :-)
I've been around this business all my professional career. I've seen this
type of thing nail some pretty good people....but who knows really. We'll
have to wait and see. Like I said, it's going to be interesting watching it
go down. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)



"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> It's going to be simple actually. It will all depend on BA's operational
> policies. If he followed it, then he's safe--if not, then he's in trouble.
> An airline's flight ops are approved by the various governing entities. As
> long as they are followed, my impression is that the pilot would be
> legally
> safe.
>
> Marco Leon
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> This situation is going to be "interesting" as it plays out. I hate to
>> second guess a guy who isn't here so I won't, but as I said, this one
> could
>> get VERY interesting before the fuzz is finished with it.
>> Dudley Henriques
>> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>> Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
>> dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
>> (take out the trash :-)
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> > So, is this good or bad?
>> >
>> > Mike
>> > MU-2
>> >
>> >
>> > "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
>> >> engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
>> >> transatlantic destination.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story
>> >>
>> >> March 1, 2005
>> >> By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers
>> >>
>> >> Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
>> >> Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
>> >> nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
>> >> destination.
>> >>
>> >> A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
>> >> from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
>> >> elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
>> >> instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
>> >> on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.
>> >>
>> >> Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
>> >> engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
>> >> and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
>> >> in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Bob Moore]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote
> I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA,
> FAA, JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid
> stunt than to accept your assertion that it was.

From the FAA:

Section 121.565: Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.
(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.

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest
suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of
operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an
airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action
as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations
shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base,
send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to
the certificate-holding district office.

[Stefan]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> I think that four engine airliners have to be able to fly with two engines
> inoperative on one side but I am not certain.

This is the reason why they have rudders so large that they can be
ripped off when unproperly used.

Stefan

[John Clonts]

Here's the one I usually use...

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=lax-lhr

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Doug Carter]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> ...In the meantime, you look like a fool jumping up and
> declaring that the guy (It was actually a bunch of people all of whom know
> more about airlines and airliners than you or I) who wrote the SOP for BA is
> an idiot.

As a fool I will accept your assertion that the FAA & JAA approve, a
priori, the SOP and the resulting decisions the pilot made based on it
(BA *has* asserted that three out of four engines is fine with them).

> Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
> land immediately because it is too heavy.

Without dumping fuel ($$)

> So it has to fly for a while regardless.
....

> I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA, FAA,
> JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid stunt than
> to accept your assertion that it was.

Again, this fool accepts your assertion that the FAA, JAA and Boeing
approve trans-Atlantic operations with a failed engine; that presuming
the pilot *knew* there was no other damage to the aircraft and that the
aircraft had sufficient range to complete its mission given the normal
wind variability... Oops, it didn't! They had to divert, fortunately
over land.

I fully expect that the crew carefully calculated their ability to land
safely despite losing the other engine on that side, but it still seems
like an unnecessary risk of several hundred lives. As a *former* BA
passenger I would have been much happier had the pilot landed at DFW or
JFK, at least inspected the airplane then continued.

Perhaps BA was concerned that the engine could not have been quickly
repaired... Would they have taken off from JFK on three engines?


In general I have a great deal of respect for the FAA and Boeing (and
even BA, up to now), but I continue to be surprised by the fact that all
these learned agencies support launching over the Atlantic with a known
failed engine and no visual inspection.


By the way, I fly aerobatics and single engine IFR (not always at the
same time). This fool is not totally risk adverse, but perhaps not an
idiot.

[Doug Carter]

Marco Leon wrote:
>
> 747-400's are actually more efficient in cruise on two engines.
>

Any two?

[Doug Carter]

Bob Moore wrote:
....
>
> (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:*
>

So the crew (and quite probably BA Operations) apparently concluded that
continuing to London was *as safe as landing at the nearest suitable
airport* Ouch :(

....
>
> (d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest
> suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the
> trip) send a written report, in duplicate...

I'd hate to write that report...


Doug
PP ASEL, Fool

[Dave Stadt]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
> Bob Moore wrote:
> ...
> >
> > (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:*
> >
>
> So the crew (and quite probably BA Operations) apparently concluded that
> continuing to London was *as safe as landing at the nearest suitable
> airport* Ouch :(

The crew and BA ops apparently were correct in their decision. Evidence
otherwise?

> > (d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest
> > suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the
> > trip) send a written report, in duplicate...
>
> I'd hate to write that report...

Why? Sounds simple and straight forward.

> Doug
> PP ASEL, Fool

[Doug Carter]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> The crew and BA ops apparently were correct in their decision. Evidence
> otherwise?

Ran out of gas before they got home; sounds like the wrong outcome to me.

However I will concede that the unscheduled stop in Manchester to refuel
and possibly repair the engine may have been cheaper than stopping to do
the same thing on this side of the Atlantic.

(I wonder if they took off from Manchester on three engines?)

>>>... he or she shall (upon completing the
>>>trip) send a written report, in duplicate...
>>
>>I'd hate to write that report...
>
> Why? Sounds simple and straight forward.
>

As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:

"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

This may require careful wording to edge past the letter of the regulations.

Of course, landing to refuel and repair *before* attempting to cross the
Atlantic may require even more tedious paperwork to be submitted to BA
management for all I know.


Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
destination does not help appearances.

Doug
PP, ASEL IA, Fool

[Peter R.]

Dave Stadt > wrote:

> As a single engine pilot, three running engines sounds
> excessive to me.

And glider pilots would agree that one engine is too much.


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

Doug Carter > wrote:

> Ran out of gas before they got home;

Um, more like they landed before they dipped into their reserves. Big
difference. ;)

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Stefan]

Doug Carter wrote:

> As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
> prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:
>
> "...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

I think it's the job of the FAA to prove the opposite. BTW: Why should
the FAA care at all? They flew safely in the USA, they made a security
landing only when they were under the regulation of the British CAA.

Stefan

[Dave Stadt]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > The crew and BA ops apparently were correct in their decision. Evidence
> > otherwise?
>
> Ran out of gas before they got home; sounds like the wrong outcome to me.

They stopped to refuel. Don't believe that qualifes as running out of fuel
(OBTW they don't run on gas). When you run out of fuel the engines stop
'eh. Could well be they knew they would have to stop for fuel and that was
a desirable alternative.

> However I will concede that the unscheduled stop in Manchester to refuel
> and possibly repair the engine may have been cheaper than stopping to do
> the same thing on this side of the Atlantic.
>
> (I wonder if they took off from Manchester on three engines?)
>
> >>>... he or she shall (upon completing the
> >>>trip) send a written report, in duplicate...
> >>
> >>I'd hate to write that report...
> >
> > Why? Sounds simple and straight forward.
> >
>
> As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
> prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:

I do believe the 747 was designed to fly just fine on three engines and in
fact it will do just fine on two engines.

> "...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."
>
> This may require careful wording to edge past the letter of the
regulations.

The outcome was a safe landing. Based on that, what regulation is of
concern? The regulations provide for them to do exactly what they did.

> Of course, landing to refuel and repair *before* attempting to cross the
> Atlantic may require even more tedious paperwork to be submitted to BA
> management for all I know.
>
>
> Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
> destination does not help appearances.

I don't believe they ran out of "gas."

> Doug
> PP, ASEL IA, Fool

[Doug Carter]

Peter R. wrote:
> Doug Carter > wrote:
>
>>Ran out of gas before they got home;
>
> Um, more like they landed before they dipped into their reserves. Big
> difference. ;)

Sigh... well, you have me by the short hair there! Gee, I really
thought I could fool (tm) everyone into believing that they flamed out
before reaching Manchester...

While I don't think it has been reported as such, I do presume they
landed with legal reserves. No doubt they could have selected another
alternate (possibly requiring their reserves) if Manchester had been
closed for any reason.

Regardless, they couldn't make it to London. Landing in Manchester was
no doubt embarrassing but clearly the right decision (finally).


--
Doug
PP, ASEL IA, Fool

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:20:59 -0500, "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com>
wrote in >::


>747-400's are actually more efficient in cruise on two engines.

So if the PIC had shutdown a second engine, he wouldn't have had to
land before his London destination?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 00:28:52 +0100, Stefan >
wrote in >::

>BTW: Why should the FAA care at all? They flew safely in the USA, ...

According to the regulation posted by Bob More, the PIC must write a
report:

... stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an
airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of
action as landing at the nearest suitable airport.

In light of the fact, that the nearest suitable airport (LAX) does not
require flying over the heads of those inhabitants of the continent of
North America, I would say the PIC better be of creative bent. :-)

[Scott Skylane]

Stefan wrote:
/snip/
> I think it's the job of the FAA to prove the opposite. BTW: Why should
> the FAA care at all?/snip/

Stefan,

You've obviously never dealt with the FAA, have you?

[Doug Carter]

Stefan wrote:
> Doug Carter wrote:
>
>> As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
>> prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:
>>
>> "...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."
>
> ... BTW: Why should the FAA care at all? ...

Something about a transcontinental flight past the nearest suitable
airport while in U.S. airspace. When "in Rome" and all that...

[Cockpit Colin]

> Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
> land immediately because it is too heavy.

My understanding is that you CAN land an aircraft overweight, but it then
has to be inspected according to a specified protocol - obviously if it's a
high 'g' landing then damage is far more likely to result - if however
(perhaps due to good conditions and a touch of luck) you land with a real
greaser then it's unlikely to physically damage anything.

Anyone have more of an insight into this? - I'm also thinking of the
Swissair 111 fire where the pilot delayed landing because it would have
meant landing overweight - and could possibly have made a difference.

My 10c worth on continuing on 3 engines is that it's not 'unsafe' per sec,
but it means pushing ones luck a bit more. If it came down to only a
financial decision, I'd have circuited to land after dumping fuel.

[Bob Moore]

"Marco Leon" wrote
> 747-400's are actually more efficient in cruise on two engines.

I know that to be not true. The maximum cruise altitude on two
engines is too low.

While I do not have a B-747 Flight Manual in front of me, I do
have the numbers for its predecessor, the B-707, which are
representative for four engine jet transport altitude vs fuel
flow comparisons.

At a mid-weight for an ocean crossing, 260,000#, the numbers are
for maximum altitude and nautical miles per 1000# of fuel burn.

Four Engines.....FL370 37.9 nm/1000#
Three Engines....FL300 33.5 nm/1000#
Two Engines......FL140 25.0 nm/1000#

It's the two engine maximum altitude that kills you.

Lets see your numbers

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[Bob Moore]

Larry Dighera wrote
> According to the regulation posted by Bob More, the PIC must write a
> report:

And I speak with first hand knowledge...I have written one of
those reports. :-(

Departed St Petersburg/Clearwater In'tl in an Air Florida L-188
Lockheed Electra destined for Miami. As we broke ground, the
number three engine fire warning sounded. The copilot and flight
engineer went through the engine shutdown procedure. There was
no evidence of a fire and the warnings ceased.

Now...in a previous life, I had spent most of my last tour in the
US Navy patrolling in the same basic airframe (Lockheed P-3B) at
200' or less with at least one and sometimes even two of its
engines feathered...no big deal!

So....we pressed-on to Miami, I submitted a report to the Director
of Operations (myself :-))and I hand carried it to the airline's
FAA PIO (Principal Operations Inspector) who after reading the
report, chuckled and asked if I missed the P-3 that much.

No Big Deal

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
Air Florida PIC, Chief Pilot, Director of Operations (1972-1973)

[Gary]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
> engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
> transatlantic destination.
>

Well he had 3 working engines, probably no where near gross, pilot did
contact BA head office and got the go ahead to continue, landed to refuel
due to unfavorable and unanticipated winds aloft...yada, yada, yada!!!!

I'd say that pilot had less to worry about than the fools on Air Transat
Flt..?? that ran out of fuel on it's way to Spain. Now the fuel problem was
due to improper maintenance (or rather a improper maintenance department
head) but it would seem to me that when you have a higher than normal fuel
consumption from one tank you shouldn't cross-feed fuel from the full tank
to the empty one untill the aircraft is out of fuel and in the middle of the
Atlantic Ocean.

Anyway it all came out to a happy ending when Air Transat glided into the
Asores Islands. Except pilots were cited for not following proper
procedures, and the maintenance supervisor was dissaplined for authorizing
the installation of a fuel pump (I think) after it was brought to his
attention that this part was for a different jet engine!

[George Patterson]

Bob Moore wrote:
>
>
> From the FAA:

<stuff deleted>
> The director of operations
> shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base,
> send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to
> the certificate-holding district office.

Ok. Here we have a British operator and aircraft with JAA certfied pilots (or
have I got that wrong?). Is this section of the regulation applicable?

Second question -- what's the "certificate-holding district office"? To what
certificate are they referring?

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Jose]

> The fact remains that this Captain made a decision to
> continue that involved not only the engine scenario, but as well an ending
> condition that involved an unscheduled landing due to conditions that would
> not have been present without his having proceeded with the engine
> condition.

I don't understand this statement. Had the captain elected to do
something else, there would still be an unscheduled landing. With more
fuel on board. In fact, by continuing, the captain ended up with the
greatest probability of =not= having an unscheduled landing.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Doug Carter wrote:
>
> Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
> destination does not help appearances.

Nobody ran out of gas. Even if they had continued to London, they would not have
run out of fuel. The report said they would have had an insufficient reserve
when they arrived. That implies that the plane still had about an hour of fuel
left when they landed. If traffic was stacked up at London, they could well have
had much more.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Dudley Henriques]

Yes, this is a viable argument Jose, and very well might be the way it plays
out. In fact, there is I think, a very good chance that this is exactly how
it will play out. There is however another scenario, and it also may become
a player for this Captain. It all depends on a; if any regs were violated,
which is up for grabs at this point, then b; how the BA front office and
Chief Pilot view the decision from the company policy standpoint. I've seen
a few real good pilots go down company wise after coming up clean on a
decision regulations wise. It happens out here.
The difference between the two landings scenario is that the first option,
to dump and return, would have been an action taken to counter an existing
situation. The second landing has an additional data point missing from the
first. It was the result of a calculated decision made by the Captain to
extend into the flight plan. This decision ADDED to the situation when the
fuel came up short. In other words, the decision to extend was flawed. It's
a subtle difference, but it could be THE difference for this Captain.
There is also the matter of precedent. Committing to a flight plan with
paying passengers on three engines when the flight plan was computed and
accepted for four engine performance, and then coming up short on the flight
plan due to fuel is something the BA front office will be looking at VERY
closely.
Could be this guy will come up smelling like a bouquet of roses..........but
perhaps not. I'm not making a call on this by any means. I'm just guessing
like everybody else. I wasn't there, and I won't second guess the guy who
was.
The real culprit in this kind of thing is that in many cases for the
professional pilot, you're dammed if you do....and you're damned if you
don't. It "ain't" an easy business.
I hope he made the right decision whatever that was; for his sake; for the
sake of his passengers; and also for the company.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> The fact remains that this Captain made a decision to continue that
>> involved not only the engine scenario, but as well an ending condition
>> that involved an unscheduled landing due to conditions that would not
>> have been present without his having proceeded with the engine condition.
>
> I don't understand this statement. Had the captain elected to do
> something else, there would still be an unscheduled landing. With more
> fuel on board. In fact, by continuing, the captain ended up with the
> greatest probability of =not= having an unscheduled landing.
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> It all depends on a; if any regs were violated

There's no evidence of this as of yet, but =anytime= something comes to
the attention of the FAA I expect they will look all over for missing dots.

> The second landing [...] was the result of a calculated decision made
> by the Captain to extend into the flight plan. This decision ADDED to
> the situation when the fuel came up short. In other words, the
> decision to extend was flawed.

I don't agree. You could be correct if there were only =one= decision -
for example, to cross middle of the Atlantic, with no alternatives until
the destination. But this was not the case. I'm sure that decisions
were made all along the way that they can continue at least to point
A... then when over A, at least to point B... etc. None of those
decisions to continue a bit further would have compromised safety, and
each one takes them closer to a successful and safe outcome. Well,
finally they get to Q, and decide that they should =not= continue to R
(the destination) because to do so would adversely impact safety, so
they land at Q.

There is a safe outcome (landing with plenty of fuel and options), but
arguably not a successful one (passengers are not =at= their
destination. However, the passengers are (maybe) within a bus ride of
their destination, which is better than being an ocean away. The
airplane is much closer to home turf. The airplane landed with low fuel
rather than a fuel overload, which is safer for landing anyway, and
all the fuel was used to move the airplane and its cargo towards its
destination, rather than being wasted.

I will take it at face value (approved by FAA and BA) that the procedure
is "safe enough". I'm not going to second guess a hundred professionals
who know more about jumbo jets than I've forgotten about piston singles.

I also take what you say (about the political aspects of any situation
like this) at face value. But politics doesn't =change= the right
answer. It just sometimes punishes it.

One should always bear in mind the difference between an error and an
unfortunate outcome.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Could be" :-)
As I said, it will be interesting to follow and see how it plays out.
DH
"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> It all depends on a; if any regs were violated
>
> There's no evidence of this as of yet, but =anytime= something comes to
> the attention of the FAA I expect they will look all over for missing
> dots.
>
>> The second landing [...] was the result of a calculated decision made
>> by the Captain to extend into the flight plan. This decision ADDED to
>> the situation when the fuel came up short. In other words, the
>> decision to extend was flawed.
>
> I don't agree. You could be correct if there were only =one= decision -
> for example, to cross middle of the Atlantic, with no alternatives until
> the destination. But this was not the case. I'm sure that decisions were
> made all along the way that they can continue at least to point A... then
> when over A, at least to point B... etc. None of those decisions to
> continue a bit further would have compromised safety, and each one takes
> them closer to a successful and safe outcome. Well, finally they get to
> Q, and decide that they should =not= continue to R (the destination)
> because to do so would adversely impact safety, so they land at Q.
>
> There is a safe outcome (landing with plenty of fuel and options), but
> arguably not a successful one (passengers are not =at= their destination.
> However, the passengers are (maybe) within a bus ride of their
> destination, which is better than being an ocean away. The airplane is
> much closer to home turf. The airplane landed with low fuel rather than a
> fuel overload, which is safer for landing anyway, and all the fuel was
> used to move the airplane and its cargo towards its destination, rather
> than being wasted.
>
> I will take it at face value (approved by FAA and BA) that the procedure
> is "safe enough". I'm not going to second guess a hundred professionals
> who know more about jumbo jets than I've forgotten about piston singles.
>
> I also take what you say (about the political aspects of any situation
> like this) at face value. But politics doesn't =change= the right answer.
> It just sometimes punishes it.
>
> One should always bear in mind the difference between an error and an
> unfortunate outcome.
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 04:26:21 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote in
et>::

>The real culprit in this kind of thing is that in many cases for the
>professional pilot, you're dammed if you do....and you're damned if you
>don't. It "ain't" an easy business.

Isn't it difficult for the PIC to be reprimanded for choosing
prudence?

[Capt.Doug]

>"Doug Carter" wrote in message -
> Ran out of gas before they got home; sounds like the wrong outcome to me.

If they had circled to dump fuel and landed at their origin, would the
outcome have been different? Proceding as they did is no more inherently
dangerous provided they had alternates available if an additional problem
developed. There are good alternate landing airports along their route, even
along the Atlantic tracks, allowing for safe landings if an additional
engine had failed.

> (I wonder if they took off from Manchester on three engines?)

Why not? I've done 2 engine ferry flights in B-727 numerous times overwater.

> As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
> prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:
> "...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."
> This may require careful wording to edge past the letter of the
regulations.
> Of course, landing to refuel and repair *before* attempting to cross the
> Atlantic may require even more tedious paperwork to be submitted to BA
> management for all I know.
> Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
> destination does not help appearances.

The symantics of language is why we have lawyers. The lawyers draw knowledge
from their resources which includes highly experienced professional 4 engine
transport pilots. This is how precedents are set. BA, CAA, FAA, and JAA set
regulations and policies from these precedents.

The B-747 will fly on 2 engines as evidenced by a requirement for a
type-rating candidate to successfully demonstrate a precision approach with
2 engines failed on the same wing. Having 3 engines and plenty of alternate
landing sites is considered by most to be a rational way to proceed.

D.

[OtisWinslow]

I was on an airliner once coming out of Florida that had a gear problem
shortly after departure. At first they announced they'd land short as
a precautionary measure. To which I thought .. why? The maintenance
facility is at our destination .. STL. Then after a while they announced
they'd just continue on and have plenty of emergency vehicles
waiting when we landed. It ended up being uneventful. I thought it was a
good decision.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
> engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
> transatlantic destination.
>
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story
>
> March 1, 2005
> By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers
>
> Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
> Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
> nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
> destination.
>
> A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
> from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
> elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
> instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
> on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.
>
> Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
> engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
> and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
> in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> There's no evidence of this as of yet,
>

Uh, 91.13 certainly comes to mind.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Doug Carter]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>... Proceding as they did is no more inherently
> dangerous provided they had alternates available if an additional problem
> developed.

>>(I wonder if they took off from Manchester on three engines?)
>
> Why not? I've done 2 engine ferry flights in B-727 numerous times overwater.

So what? The question was "is it SOP to take off with passengers and a
dead engine?"

> The B-747 will fly on 2 engines as evidenced by a requirement for a
> type-rating candidate to successfully demonstrate a precision approach with
> 2 engines failed on the same wing.

No doubt. But do you argue that going missed on two engines is as safe
as with four?


Early on I suggested IMHO that BA was "as dumb as a bag of rocks" if
their SOP approved this operation; there were (and are) two reasons for
this:

First, From a technical perspective I remain unconvinced that crossing
the Atlantic with a known dead and un-inspected engine is, per Part 121
"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

Second, From a business perspective keep in mind that there is a lot of
competition for business class ticket revenue.

If BA routinely crosses oceans with a dead un-inspected engine and other
carriers do not then BA will start losing customers as the word gets
around the frequent flyer crowd. I'll probably make six or eight more
trips to Europe this year; BA is no longer on my list of options until
the rest of the story comes out on this.

[Dudley Henriques]

Maybe it's different where you come from, but in my area of the business,
only the result, and/or the ramifications of that result mattered. Imprudent
and you're history if you survive the imprudence. On the other hand you
could be as "prudent" as you wanted to be, but if that "prudence" didn't sit
well with the front office, you could very well be history!
Let me make something clear here. I'm not making a case for or against this
pilot. I'm simply relating some "possibilities" based on his scenario, and
my personal experience in the business. I've said several times already that
I don't want to second guess what he did. He did it, and the chips will fall
in his world either upside down or right side up depending on how the regs
play out and his front office and chief pilot view the totality of his
actions.
That's it....no more....no less!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 04:26:21 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>>The real culprit in this kind of thing is that in many cases for the
>>professional pilot, you're dammed if you do....and you're damned if you
>>don't. It "ain't" an easy business.
>
> Isn't it difficult for the PIC to be reprimanded for choosing
> prudence?
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will
> weigh in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and
> this guy had three jet engines!!!

Ah, yes. The dreaded three-engine approach...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
om...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> ...In the meantime, you look like a fool jumping up and declaring that
>> the guy (It was actually a bunch of people all of whom know more about
>> airlines and airliners than you or I) who wrote the SOP for BA is an
>> idiot.
>
> As a fool I will accept your assertion that the FAA & JAA approve, a
> priori, the SOP and the resulting decisions the pilot made based on it (BA
> *has* asserted that three out of four engines is fine with them).
>
>> Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
>> land immediately because it is too heavy.
>
> Without dumping fuel ($$)

You seem to assume that the reason for contiued flight was cost even though
there is no evidence of this. It seems unlikely that anyone would risk a
$140 million airplane and assume over a billion dollars of liability to save
$60,000 worth of kerosene. This was a reasoned decision made with the
luxury of time.

>
>> So it has to fly for a while regardless.
> ...
>
>> I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA, FAA,
>> JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid stunt
>> than to accept your assertion that it was.
>
> Again, this fool accepts your assertion that the FAA, JAA and Boeing
> approve trans-Atlantic operations with a failed engine; that presuming
> the pilot *knew* there was no other damage to the aircraft and that the
> aircraft had sufficient range to complete its mission given the normal
> wind variability... Oops, it didn't! They had to divert, fortunately over
> land.

As I pointed out earlier, the airplane was never more than an hour from
land.


> I fully expect that the crew carefully calculated their ability to land
> safely despite losing the other engine on that side, but it still seems
> like an unnecessary risk of several hundred lives. As a *former* BA
> passenger I would have been much happier had the pilot landed at DFW or
> JFK, at least inspected the airplane then continued.

A great circle route from LA to London crosses the US-Canada border in
Montana so going to DFW or JFK is a little out of the way.

> Perhaps BA was concerned that the engine could not have been quickly
> repaired... Would they have taken off from JFK on three engines?

Again you are ascribing motives to BA that there is no evidence of. I
assume that the engine could have been changed anywhere.

> In general I have a great deal of respect for the FAA and Boeing (and even
> BA, up to now), but I continue to be surprised by the fact that all these
> learned agencies support launching over the Atlantic with a known failed
> engine and no visual inspection.

You seem to view the Atlantic as this huge featurless body of water devoid
of islands with airports. This is partly true if you were flying from the
US east coast to Europe but from the US west coast you cross that Atlantic
much farther north where Canada extends much farther east and Greenland and
Iceland exist. Lots of single engine airplanes make the crossing each year
using only their standard tanks. Also, by the time they exited Canada they
had been flying for roughly five hours. If the wing was going to fall off,
it should have done it by then.

Mike
MU-2
..

[Jose]

>>There's no evidence of this as of yet,
>>
> Uh, 91.13 certainly comes to mind.

Uh... there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Moore]

Jose wrote
> Uh... there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.

My dear, departed mother always maintained that simply flying
in an aircraft was "careless and reckless". :-)

Bob Moore

[Marco Leon]

Hehe, I *knew* that would cause a bit of ruckus. I will do more research but
I got that information from a 747-400 captain while I was jumpseating
enroute of the Pacific. Before you ask, this was before 9-11 so I frequented
the flight deck often since my wife (then fiancee) was a flight attendant
for that airline. That captain added that the practice was not done because
of their SOP. I believe he also said that it was the "new" engines--Rolls
Royce most likely because that's what Cathay Pacific's744's use (744 is
their shorthand for 747-400).

I'll post if I find anything.

Marco Leon

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Marco Leon" wrote
> > 747-400's are actually more efficient in cruise on two engines.
>
> I know that to be not true. The maximum cruise altitude on two
> engines is too low.
>
> While I do not have a B-747 Flight Manual in front of me, I do
> have the numbers for its predecessor, the B-707, which are
> representative for four engine jet transport altitude vs fuel
> flow comparisons.
>
> At a mid-weight for an ocean crossing, 260,000#, the numbers are
> for maximum altitude and nautical miles per 1000# of fuel burn.
>
> Four Engines.....FL370 37.9 nm/1000#
> Three Engines....FL300 33.5 nm/1000#
> Two Engines......FL140 25.0 nm/1000#
>
> It's the two engine maximum altitude that kills you.
>
> Lets see your numbers
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-707 B-727
> PanAm (retired)
>
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.
>

Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book. Let's
see if it does in the book of the authorities, too, but I'd be very
surprised if not. After all, we're not talking about an engine failure
somewhere over Greenland - we're talking about RIGHT after take-off!

It reminds me very much of the Hapag-Lloyd accident with the Airbus
running out of fuel after flying through half of Europe with the gear
locked in the down position.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:32:18 GMT, Doug Carter > wrote:

>So what? The question was "is it SOP to take off with passengers and a
>dead engine?"

How do you know they took off with passengers and a "dead" engine?

-Jack Davis
B737

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> I think that four engine airliners have to be able to fly with two engines
> inoperative on one side but I am not certain.
>

New certification requirements want them to be able to take-off with two out
on the same side at max gross. The A380 for example will have to be able to
do that. The 747 needs three for take-off.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Doug,

I couldn't agree with you more. "Known failure" is the key issue!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Doug,

> Ran out of gas before they got home
>

Nah, they decided in the beginning to go to Manchester, of course,
after consideration of b(2). Yeah, right...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
> back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book.

I didn't know that there was an emergency.

> It reminds me very much of the Hapag-Lloyd accident with the Airbus
> running out of fuel after flying through half of Europe with the gear

Now *they* ran out of fuel, which is an entirely different story.

Stefan

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:47:17 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> wrote in
>::

>I was on an airliner once coming out of Florida that had a gear problem

I see a "gear problem" as being in a completely different class from
an engine that may have thrown turbine blades through vital systems
and structure.

[George Patterson]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
> to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
> back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book.

What low-fuel emergency? They landed with adequate reserve.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> I didn't know that there was an emergency.
>
>
> Now *they* ran out of fuel, which is an entirely different story.
>

There is something very simple at work here: We're judging after the fact.
In one case, it worked out, in the other, it didn't. Thus, in on case,
some here are saying "Those pilots were ok to do what they did" whereas in
the other case everyone agrees the pilots were total idiots. But the
prerequisites for something bad happening were quite similar in both
cases. I don't think safety should be judged on whether one got away with
doing something not quite smart or not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Doug Carter]

Jack Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:32:18 GMT, Doug Carter > wrote:
>
>
>>So what? The question was "is it SOP to take off with passengers and a
>>dead engine?"
>
>
> How do you know they took off with passengers and a "dead" engine?

I don't and never stated or implied that they did.

My original question was: "I wonder if they took off from Manchester on
three engines?"

For all I know they changed airplanes or put everyone on a bus some
other option. Perhaps someone knows.

[Jose]

> Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
> to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
> back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book.

Whoa there! This is beginning to sound like yellow journalism. He
landed short of his destination, under control, with plenty of
resesrves, just not enough fuel to make it to the destination with
reserves. This is most assuredly =not= a "low fuel emergency", although
saying so will sell papers and generate usenet traffic.

Now if he =had= generated a true low-fuel emergency due to mishandling
of the incident, that would be something else. But there's no evidence
in any of the reports I've seen that he did this.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> There is something very simple at work here: We're judging after the fact.

You should add: Without knowing anything about it, at least in the
second case.

My guess, which is not better nor worse than anybody else's, is that
they knew exactly what the problem with the engine was, they discussed
it with their chief ingenieer, who calculated the situation with the
appropriate software, and then decided it was safe to continue and to
land with the required reserves. I don't know, but I wouldn't be
surprized if this was even an approved procedure. I'll be willing to
admit that I am wrong *if* the CAA report says so.

But I know: An emergency sells, while a security landing after a non
event does not. (Sorry, this was unfair, but I couldn't resist.)

Stefan

[Mike Rapoport]

Why was it a low fuel emergency? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that
there was an emergency of any kind.

Mike
MU-2


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jose,
>
>> there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.
>>
>
> Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
> to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
> back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book. Let's
> see if it does in the book of the authorities, too, but I'd be very
> surprised if not. After all, we're not talking about an engine failure
> somewhere over Greenland - we're talking about RIGHT after take-off!
>
> It reminds me very much of the Hapag-Lloyd accident with the Airbus
> running out of fuel after flying through half of Europe with the gear
> locked in the down position.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Who said anything about throwing a blade? It might have been something as
mundane as failure of the instrumentation.

Mike
MU-2

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:47:17 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>I was on an airliner once coming out of Florida that had a gear problem
>
> I see a "gear problem" as being in a completely different class from
> an engine that may have thrown turbine blades through vital systems
> and structure.

[Bob Moore]

Thomas Borchert wrote
> New certification requirements want them to be able to take-off with
> two out on the same side at max gross. The A380 for example will have
> to be able to do that.

That will never happen. Now..you might mean "continue the takeoff
after V1", but the aircraft cannot accelerate to V1 at maximum
weight and remain on the runway with only two engines on the same
side operating. In fact, the 747 cannot do it on three engines at
maximum weight. It can however continue the takeoff after V1 if one
engine fails at maximum weight.

Bob Moore

[Julian Scarfe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Why was it a low fuel emergency? There doesn't seem to be any evidence
> that there was an emergency of any kind.

My understanding from witness accounts posted elsewhere and from press
coverage is that a Mayday was declared before the landing at Manchester,
though the fuel on landing was in fact greater than final reserve fuel.

Note that the UK does not not recoginize a "fuel emergency" as a separate
issue -- it's either Mayday (distress) or Pan (urgency).

Julian

[John T]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
> engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
> transatlantic destination.

Unless you have transcripts of all discussions made between the crew, ATC,
BA maintenance, Boeing and any other relevant parties that were undoubtedly
involved, it seems you're making something out of nothing.

For those claiming the jet "took off with passengers and a dead engine", I
read "lost an engine on takeoff" as "the engine died while airborne before
reaching cruise altitude". What does Boeing recommend in that situation?

As I understand it, the B747 does not require four engines for safe
operation of the aircraft. Until I have the transcripts or an official
report, I think I'll wait before calling BA's personnel "idiots" or even
getting concerned about flying on BA aircraft.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Mike Rapoport]

I hadn't seen any mention of this but I'll take your word for it. I
certainly don't consider it an emergency when I land with required reserves.

Mike
MU-2


"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Why was it a low fuel emergency? There doesn't seem to be any evidence
>> that there was an emergency of any kind.
>
> My understanding from witness accounts posted elsewhere and from press
> coverage is that a Mayday was declared before the landing at Manchester,
> though the fuel on landing was in fact greater than final reserve fuel.
>
> Note that the UK does not not recoginize a "fuel emergency" as a separate
> issue -- it's either Mayday (distress) or Pan (urgency).
>
> Julian
>

[George Patterson]

Julian Scarfe wrote:
>
> My understanding from witness accounts posted elsewhere and from press
> coverage is that a Mayday was declared before the landing at Manchester,
> though the fuel on landing was in fact greater than final reserve fuel.

Wouldn't it be SOP to declare an emergency prior to an approach with an engine
out? That would pretty much eliminate any possibility of having to go around. If
so, they would have declared an emergency wherever they decided to land.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[RST Engineering]

Mike, I'd like to second your analysis with a few more observations. I
admit that I haven't worked for but two airlines in my life, neither of them
BA. However, the general rules apply pretty much universally.

Less than an hour after that pilot reported an engine failure to LAX BA-OPS,
everybody from the president of the airline through the chief pilot,
director of maintenance, and director of ops was on the phone to one another
analyzing the situation, discussing options, and coming to a consensus
recommendation to the pilot of the airplane in question. The decision from
the left front seat was not in a vacuum; he had the consensus recommendation
from the top echelon of the airline.

Was it his ultimate decision? Sure. Was his decision based on the best
information from the most informed sources in the airline? You betcha.

Based on the pilot's analysis of the situation, the recommendation of his
top brass, and the guidance of the ops manual it is my observation that the
pilot did just exactly the right thing.

Jim




> Apparently, a single failed engine on a four engine jet airliner is not an
> emergency nor an automatic reason to terminate a flight.
>
> Like you said: "Perhaps these engines are instrumented well enough that
> the pilot knew that the failure did not result in severed fuel, oil or
> electrical
> lines; that there were no overloaded buses, etc; time will tell." Indeed
> time will tell. In the meantime, you look like a fool jumping up and
> declaring that the guy (It was actually a bunch of people all of whom know
> more about airlines and airliners than you or I) who wrote the SOP for BA
> is an idiot.
>
> Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
> land immediately because it is too heavy. So it has to fly for a while
> regardless. The crew decide to head in the direction that they were
> originally going. This was all thought out years before by the airline,
> the regulators and probably Boeing and incorportated into the crew's
> training. There are numerous large commerical airports along the way that
> are just as suitable as LAX (PMD, RNO, SLC ect). We haven't even gotten
> into what the weather might have been like at LAX. By the time the flight
> starts over water, it has been flying for many hours over thousands of
> miles and, even then, is always well under an hour from a suitable
> airport. The flight lands safely and then some PP ASEL declares that they
> did it all wrong.
>
> I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA, FAA,
> JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid stunt
> than to accept your assertion that it was.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>

[Doug Carter]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> You seem to assume that the reason for contiued flight was cost even though
> there is no evidence of this.


I do wonder how the Captain phrased the cabin announcement?

Perhaps:

'Good evening everyone, this is your Captain speaking. You may have
noticed that right after rotation "there was an engine surge, like a
backfire" and I should inform you that the control tower reported
"sparks flying from the crippled engine and heard popping noises."

Not to worry! We have shut down the affected engine and finished a
lengthy conference call with management that absolutely did not include
any discussion of the recently effective EU passenger compensation law
nor other costs of landing to inspect the damage.

You will be happy to know that based *only* on consideration for your
safety and convenience that rather than landing somewhere in the US to
inspect the damage and repair the aircraft that we have decided to press
on to London! Stiff Upper Lip and all that!

Of course we will be a little lower and slower but we estimate we have
probably have enough fuel to reach London, or at least Manchester.


Now I know that you paid close attention to the safety briefing and if
we should developer a bit of fire from the engine damage in the next
eight or ten hours, well, heck, we will be at most an hour from land and
I know that each of you knows where your personal flotation device is
located!

Remember, your safety is always our first concern! Thank you for
choosing British Airways'


(Foolish caveat: quoted remarks abstracted from the LA Times)

--
Doug
PP ASEL IA Fool

[Julian Scarfe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>I hadn't seen any mention of this but I'll take your word for it. I
>certainly don't consider it an emergency when I land with required
>reserves.

Again, speculating based on unverified reports, it seems that there may have
been some doubt in the pilot's mind as to whether some of the fuel was
usable or not.

Julian

[George Patterson]

Doug Carter wrote:
>
> Remember, your safety is always our first concern!

This sort of statement have always amused me. My safety had better not be their
primary concern -- if it were, we'd never leave the ground. Their primary
concern had better be to deliver me to my destination. Safety runs a close
second, of course, since I'd like to get there intact.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Julian Scarfe]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...

> Wouldn't it be SOP to declare an emergency prior to an approach with an
> engine
> out? That would pretty much eliminate any possibility of having to go
> around. If
> so, they would have declared an emergency wherever they decided to land.

On a twin with an engine out, or even a trijet, perhaps. On a 4-engined
aircraft which has just crossed the Atlantic on 3 engines on the basis of
having sufficient redundancy to do so safely, that would smack a little of
having your cake and eating it too, doesn't it? ;-)

Julian

[Mike Rapoport]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Wouldn't it be SOP to declare an emergency prior to an approach with an
>> engine
>> out? That would pretty much eliminate any possibility of having to go
>> around. If
>> so, they would have declared an emergency wherever they decided to land.
>
> On a twin with an engine out, or even a trijet, perhaps. On a 4-engined
> aircraft which has just crossed the Atlantic on 3 engines on the basis of
> having sufficient redundancy to do so safely, that would smack a little of
> having your cake and eating it too, doesn't it? ;-)
>
> Julian
>

Yes, but it also seems unlikely that 12hrs after takeoff, it suddenly occurs
to the crew that some of the fuel might be unusable.

Mike
MU-2

[Chris]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Mike, I'd like to second your analysis with a few more observations. I
> admit that I haven't worked for but two airlines in my life, neither of
> them BA. However, the general rules apply pretty much universally.
>
> Less than an hour after that pilot reported an engine failure to LAX
> BA-OPS, everybody from the president of the airline through the chief
> pilot, director of maintenance, and director of ops was on the phone to
> one another analyzing the situation, discussing options, and coming to a
> consensus recommendation to the pilot of the airplane in question. The
> decision from the left front seat was not in a vacuum; he had the
> consensus recommendation from the top echelon of the airline.
>
> Was it his ultimate decision? Sure. Was his decision based on the best
> information from the most informed sources in the airline? You betcha.
>
> Based on the pilot's analysis of the situation, the recommendation of his
> top brass, and the guidance of the ops manual it is my observation that
> the pilot did just exactly the right thing.
>
> Jim

What people forget in this debate that the captain would have not done
anything that would have put his and his crews life at risk either. bear in
mind too that these flights have three pilots on board two of whom are
captain status. SOPs, on board computer analysis, homebase engineering
analysis etc will have provided enough information to enable the most
appropriate decision to be made.

Before the airplane could land, it would have had to dump fuel. so why not
fly towards the eventual destination whilst a decision is being made. If a
precautionary landing was then deemed necessary then it could have happened
in many places along the route.

As it was, they figured out the problem and decided to continue the flight
and actually Manchester is a better place to divert in such a situation than
taking the plane to Heathrow. That would have required a lot of shifting of
planes out of the way in the process and the last thing required would be
causing any delays, either to this jet or other aircraft which might
themselves be a bit low on fuel and this is not uncommon.

I did hear that many of the passengers on the flight were changing to
flights from London to Manchester so maybe this was a factor too. The
airlines know what the connecting flights are too.

The answers will be in the official report. But for sure these guys had all
the airline resources backing them up and they also had plenty of time to
get a solution that worked out.

Pity the poor *******s who have minutes to come up with an answer on their
own.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Stefan,
>
>> I didn't know that there was an emergency.
>>
>>
>> Now *they* ran out of fuel, which is an entirely different story.
>>
>
> There is something very simple at work here: We're judging after the
> fact. In one case, it worked out, in the other, it didn't. Thus, in
> on case, some here are saying "Those pilots were ok to do what they
> did" whereas in the other case everyone agrees the pilots were total
> idiots. But the prerequisites for something bad happening were quite
> similar in both cases. I don't think safety should be judged on
> whether one got away with doing something not quite smart or not.

I don't agree here. The BA pilots made a concious decision to land
short of their final destination to avoid the risk of fuel exhaustion.
They landed with required reserves for all we know. The Hapag Lloyd
Pilots could have done the same, but didn't. The decision to carry on
with one engine short might be disputable from a risk management point
of view. Fuel management wasn't flawed at any point during the trip,
quite different from the Hapag Lloyd case. Your point would only hold,
if they had arrived in London (or in Manchester, for that matter) with
dry fuel tanks.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[Julian Scarfe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> Yes, but it also seems unlikely that 12hrs after takeoff, it suddenly
> occurs to the crew that some of the fuel might be unusable.

Yes, it does sound like something "unexpected" must have happened *after*
the decision to continue, whether it was unexpectedly high fuel burn or some
other technical surprise. We'll find out in due course I guess.

Let me add one more thing before I drop out of this thread. I'm not an
airline pilot, but the impression that I have of BA over the years is that
it's the airline that they all want to fly for over here, precisely
*because* the bean-counters don't have the upper hand on the crew. There's
no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
going to compromised by continuing -- whether with 20:20 hindsight everyone
else agrees is something we may have to wait for the report to find out.

Julian

[ShawnD2112]

It always amazes me at how little people feel they need to know in order to
maximize their right to free speech. And how quickly they bypass the
"seeking information" stage to jump straight to "making accusations".

Most of the people making conjecture here are not completely informed,
though there is no reason they necessarily would be. Not that I believe
there is some kind of government cover up going on or commercial conspiracy,
but there is no reason to publish further details as the outcome was not
unsafe. Where there are apparently gaping holes in the decisions made by
the flight crew and BA Operations, rather than think they might be missing
key information, people immediately assume all the professionals involved
are idiots with less knowledge and poorer judgement than themselves. Most
of the accusatory statements made here are incorrect and based on a lack of
knowledge of the situation, a lack of knowledge of 747 design,
certification, and operations, and a lack of knowledge of airline operations
and commercial considerations, as well as a lack of knowledge of the
activities of national airworthiness bodies like the FAA and JAA.

As a PPL-ASEL, I would have asked a lot more questions before I came out on
a public usenet board and questioned the integrity and judgement of other
people with far more knowledge and experience than myself. There are a few,
like Mike R., Dave S., and a few others, who have taken a more sensible
approach and are to be commended. Others, like Larry D. and Doug C., have
proven themselves unworthy adversaries in the debate on the issue.

Shawn




"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> So, is this good or bad?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>>
>>>
>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
>>>>engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
>>>>transatlantic destination.
>>
>> Whoever wrote this SOP for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks.
>
> Along with the JAA and FAA...Or are you just another PP ASEL with strong
> opinions on flying 747s and how to run a global airline...?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>

[Bob Moore]

George Patterson wrote
> This sort of statement have always amused me. My safety had better not
> be their primary concern -- if it were, we'd never leave the ground.
> Their primary concern had better be to deliver me to my destination.
> Safety runs a close second, of course, since I'd like to get there
> intact.

None of the above.....MY safety was always my primary concern.
The aircraft came second. If I and the aircraft both survived,
chances were, the passengers made out OK.

Bob Moore

[Chris]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
.uk...
> It always amazes me at how little people feel they need to know in order
> to maximize their right to free speech. And how quickly they bypass the
> "seeking information" stage to jump straight to "making accusations".
>
> Most of the people making conjecture here are not completely informed,
> though there is no reason they necessarily would be. Not that I believe
> there is some kind of government cover up going on or commercial
> conspiracy, but there is no reason to publish further details as the
> outcome was not unsafe. Where there are apparently gaping holes in the
> decisions made by the flight crew and BA Operations, .......

Shawn

are you not making the same mistake as those you accuse when you say,
.....Where there are apparently gaping holes in the decisions made by.......
so authoritively for a PP-ASEL?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:13:05 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in
et>::

>Who said anything about throwing a blade?

While this report doesn't specifically mention a turbine blade, what
it describes could be consistent with many things including throwing a
blade:


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story

Right after rotation, there was an engine surge, like a backfire,"
Hayes said.

Air traffic controllers at the airport tower saw sparks flying
from the crippled engine and heard popping noises.



>It might have been something as mundane as failure of the instrumentation.

Would such an instrumentation failure be consistent with sparks
flying?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
wrote in >::

>There's
>no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
>going to compromised by continuing


I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
2000 holding same belief.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:30:14 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote in
>::

>Others, like Larry D. and Doug C., have
>proven themselves unworthy adversaries in the debate on the issue.

Sweeping generalities leading to subjective dismissal is not debate.
If you are able to find specific flaws in my statements, call them to
my attention and we can discuss the specifics.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:lEkVd.83178$tl3.71593@attbi_s02...
> > It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will
> > weigh in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight
and
> > this guy had three jet engines!!!
>
> Ah, yes. The dreaded three-engine approach...

And only enough fuel to fly 5,000 miles or so. How daring!

>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> George Patterson wrote
> > This sort of statement have always amused me. My safety had better not
> > be their primary concern -- if it were, we'd never leave the ground.
> > Their primary concern had better be to deliver me to my destination.
> > Safety runs a close second, of course, since I'd like to get there
> > intact.
>
> None of the above.....MY safety was always my primary concern.
> The aircraft came second. If I and the aircraft both survived,
> chances were, the passengers made out OK.
>
> Bob Moore

You betcha, I want two people up front that think they are the most
important people in the world.

[ShawnD2112]

I was implying that the criticisms from others stemmed from what they
perceived to be holes in the decisions, not that I found any.

Shawn
"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
> .uk...
>> It always amazes me at how little people feel they need to know in order
>> to maximize their right to free speech. And how quickly they bypass the
>> "seeking information" stage to jump straight to "making accusations".
>>
>> Most of the people making conjecture here are not completely informed,
>> though there is no reason they necessarily would be. Not that I believe
>> there is some kind of government cover up going on or commercial
>> conspiracy, but there is no reason to publish further details as the
>> outcome was not unsafe. Where there are apparently gaping holes in the
>> decisions made by the flight crew and BA Operations, .......
>
> Shawn
>
> are you not making the same mistake as those you accuse when you say,
> ....Where there are apparently gaping holes in the decisions made
> by....... so authoritively for a PP-ASEL?
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jose,
>
> > there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.
> >
>
> Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
> to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
> back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book.

What fuel emergency? Do you know something we don't?

Let's
> see if it does in the book of the authorities, too, but I'd be very
> surprised if not. After all, we're not talking about an engine failure
> somewhere over Greenland - we're talking about RIGHT after take-off!
>
> It reminds me very much of the Hapag-Lloyd accident with the Airbus
> running out of fuel after flying through half of Europe with the gear
> locked in the down position.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >There's
> >no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
> >going to compromised by continuing
>
>
> I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
> 2000 holding same belief.

And that means what?

[Dave Stadt]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I hadn't seen any mention of this but I'll take your word for it. I
> certainly don't consider it an emergency when I land with required
reserves.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

It could be something as simple as BA SOP for an engine out landing.

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> While this report doesn't specifically mention a turbine blade, what
> it describes could be consistent with many things including throwing a
> blade:
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-britair1mar01,1,2497317.story
>
> Right after rotation, there was an engine surge, like a backfire,"
> Hayes said.
>
> Air traffic controllers at the airport tower saw sparks flying
> from the crippled engine and heard popping noises.


Usually, in this group, everybody seems to agree that jurnalists are
idiots and never get something right, especially not when it comes to
aviation. But then, jurnalists are good enough to back up ones own
opinion. Oh well.

You cited two sentences of the article. I don't ask how a controller in
the tower would hear that popping noise (after rotation!). But let me
cite a couple of other sentences of the same article:


"The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to
do so."

"But I don't think most pilots would have undertaken such a
bizarre-sounding flight, partly just because it sounds kind of dangerous."

"The pilot flew two 20-mile circles in a holding pattern over Santa
Monica Bay, talking by radio with British Airways' flight technical team
and operations control team in London."

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within our
normal operating protocols."

"There were several alternative landing fields," Hayes said. "The pilot
chose Manchester" — 163 miles from London.

"He said the pilot made a routine landing with enough fuel on board to
satisfy international safety regulations."



That said, I have no idea what happened and whether it was safe. I'll
read the final report, though.

Stefan

[Cockpit Colin]

> I will do more research but
> I got that information from a 747-400 captain while I was jumpseating
> enroute of the Pacific.

Just wondering if it's the same 747 Captain we're all talking about!

[Cockpit Colin]

> people immediately assume all the professionals involved
> are idiots with less knowledge and poorer judgement than themselves. Most
> of the accusatory statements made here are incorrect and based on a lack
of
> knowledge of the situation, a lack of knowledge of 747 design,
> certification, and operations, and a lack of knowledge of airline
operations
> and commercial considerations, as well as a lack of knowledge of the
> activities of national airworthiness bodies like the FAA and JAA.

Clearly the crew are not "idiots" - it's interesting however that their are
also comments being made in the media from people who are eminately
qualified to comment that it was the wrong decision. My experience in
dealing with individual departments (like maintenance) is that none of them
ever take a step back to look at the bigger picture.

Just because they "could" to it doesn't mean to say they "should" do it.

[Doug Carter]

ShawnD2112 wrote:

> ...there is no reason to publish further details as the outcome was not
unsafe...

Darn, you could have saved a lot of valuable bandwidth and potential
confusion to the FAA & JAA (whom no doubt depend on Usenet as a primary
data source) if you had informed us of this fundamental truth a couple
of days ago.


> Others, like Larry D. and Doug C., have
> proven themselves unworthy adversaries in the debate on the issue.

Aw shucks Shawn, are you going to hold Usenet to the rigorous reporting
and analysis standards of professional icons like CBS, CNN, BBC or
perhaps the LA Times?

But, upon reflection, perhaps "dumb as a bag of rocks" *is* too harsh;
I'll go with "dumb as a bag of hammers" instead.

[ShawnD2112]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
>> people immediately assume all the professionals involved
>> are idiots with less knowledge and poorer judgement than themselves.
>> Most
>> of the accusatory statements made here are incorrect and based on a lack
> of
>> knowledge of the situation, a lack of knowledge of 747 design,
>> certification, and operations, and a lack of knowledge of airline
> operations
>> and commercial considerations, as well as a lack of knowledge of the
>> activities of national airworthiness bodies like the FAA and JAA.
>
> Clearly the crew are not "idiots" - it's interesting however that their
> are
> also comments being made in the media from people who are eminately
> qualified to comment that it was the wrong decision.

And which of those eminantly qualified people was on the flight deck or in
BA operations at the time of the event?

>My experience in
> dealing with individual departments (like maintenance) is that none of
> them
> ever take a step back to look at the bigger picture.

While sometimes those departments can have pointy headed individuals who are
a bit...focussed, shall we say, decisions like this are typically not made
by one person or one department alone but are generally more of a
collaborative effort involving several perspectives and areas of expertise.
>
> Just because they "could" to it doesn't mean to say they "should" do it.

And just because they didn't have to doesn't mean they shouldn't have.

>
>
>

[Morgans]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote

> On a twin with an engine out, or even a trijet, perhaps. On a 4-engined
> aircraft which has just crossed the Atlantic on 3 engines on the basis of
> having sufficient redundancy to do so safely, that would smack a little of
> having your cake and eating it too, doesn't it? ;-)

I *love* all of the Monday morning quarterbacking going on around here.

I always make an effort, to not tell brain surgeons how to do their job.
--
Jim in NC

[ShawnD2112]

Larry, I wouldn't even know where to start and your responses to others who
have pointed out your flaws have made it clear you are not going to be
swayed by any other views. I made my sweeping generality by reading all of
your postings on this thread and I believe they speak for themselves. My
point about you is that you make accusations which question the integrity
and capability of the un-named individuals in a forum where they are not
present to defend themselves, and you do it without having all of the facts
to hand. More questioning, less speculation and accusation may have been a
better approach.

Shawn
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:30:14 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>Others, like Larry D. and Doug C., have
>>proven themselves unworthy adversaries in the debate on the issue.
>
> Sweeping generalities leading to subjective dismissal is not debate.
> If you are able to find specific flaws in my statements, call them to
> my attention and we can discuss the specifics.

[ShawnD2112]

Nope. Merely commenting on how people can declare themselves expert enough
to comment on the actions of others with only partial information and
insufficient relevant experience. Sorry it doesn't make for interesting
debating but that's how I see it.

Shawn
"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
om...
> ShawnD2112 wrote:
>
>> ...there is no reason to publish further details as the outcome was not
> unsafe...
>
> Darn, you could have saved a lot of valuable bandwidth and potential
> confusion to the FAA & JAA (whom no doubt depend on Usenet as a primary
> data source) if you had informed us of this fundamental truth a couple of
> days ago.
>
>
>> Others, like Larry D. and Doug C., have proven themselves unworthy
>> adversaries in the debate on the issue.
>
> Aw shucks Shawn, are you going to hold Usenet to the rigorous reporting
> and analysis standards of professional icons like CBS, CNN, BBC or perhaps
> the LA Times?
>
> But, upon reflection, perhaps "dumb as a bag of rocks" *is* too harsh;
> I'll go with "dumb as a bag of hammers" instead.

[Doug Carter]

ShawnD2112 wrote:
> Sorry it doesn't make for interesting debating but that's how I see it.

Mike's original question asked if others felt the collective decision of
BA was good or bad. This invited debate of specific points that were
known or reported (engine out, crossing the Atlantic, landing in
Manchester, etc.).

Your comments are, I think, better categorized as critique of those who
actually engaged in debate. Unless, perhaps I missed some substantive
arguments on specific points you made other than

"...there is no reason to publish further details as the outcome was not
unsafe..."

[Chris]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
> wrote in >::
>
>>There's
>>no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
>>going to compromised by continuing
>
>
> I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
> 2000 holding same belief.

So this BA crew were right it seems

[George Patterson]

Bob Moore wrote:
>
> None of the above.....MY safety was always my primary concern.

Good point. As Gann says in "Fate is the Hunter", the pilots are always first to
arrive at the scene of an accident.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Mike Beede]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> I always make an effort, to not tell brain surgeons how to do their job.

With all due respect, flying--even flying a 747--is not
brain surgery. And if you hose up during brain surgery,
usually it only costs you one customer.

I've never had brain surgery. I've flown commercial
probably a few hundred times. It seems natural that
people are more interested with a situation they can
imagine themselves in.

I've enjoyed the thread so far, though I'd like to see
more "here's why you're wrong" than "I've flown 20000
hours and you're a poopy butt" kind of arguments. I
think there is small danger the FAA is going to check
what public sentiment on rec.aviation.piloting is before
making an enforcement decision.


Mike Beede

[ShawnD2112]

You're absolutley right. This is like the debates that someone usually
starts after the announcement of an accident where people speculate on the
cause and how the pilot screwed up before the NTSB or AAIB have had a chance
to even do their own investigation. Someone else here mentioned that people
have commented because they can picture themselves on the airplane in
question and, while that's true, it doesn't justify the slander against BA,
the JAA, the FAA, and the flightcrew involved that we've seen here. There's
questioning of the issues and debating the decision criteria, then there's
accusing everyone of being as stupid as a bag of hammers; two very different
perspectives.

Shawn
"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
om...
> ShawnD2112 wrote:
>> Sorry it doesn't make for interesting debating but that's how I see it.
>
> Mike's original question asked if others felt the collective decision of
> BA was good or bad. This invited debate of specific points that were
> known or reported (engine out, crossing the Atlantic, landing in
> Manchester, etc.).
>
> Your comments are, I think, better categorized as critique of those who
> actually engaged in debate. Unless, perhaps I missed some substantive
> arguments on specific points you made other than
>
> "...there is no reason to publish further details as the outcome was not
> unsafe..."

[Julian Scarfe]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Julian Scarfe" > wrote
>
>> On a twin with an engine out, or even a trijet, perhaps. On a 4-engined
>> aircraft which has just crossed the Atlantic on 3 engines on the basis of
>> having sufficient redundancy to do so safely, that would smack a little
>> of
>> having your cake and eating it too, doesn't it? ;-)
>
> I *love* all of the Monday morning quarterbacking going on around here.
>
> I always make an effort, to not tell brain surgeons how to do their job.

I don't see how you can argue that a comment on Standard Operating Procedure
is Monday-morning-quarterbacking.

Julian

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> they discussed
> it with their chief ingenieer

They should have spoken to PR and marketing, too.

> But I know: An emergency sells, while a security landing after a non
> event does not. (Sorry, this was unfair, but I couldn't resist.)
>

Not sure what you mean, but this event - if anything - will have a
negative marketing effect on BA.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

>>they discussed
>>it with their chief ingenieer

> They should have spoken to PR and marketing, too.

So you think a pilot should make decisions based on marketing
considerations rather than technical ones? Ok, I'll remind you when you
rant the next time about flight restrictions over power plants and the like.

>>But I know: An emergency sells, while a security landing after a non
>>event does not. (Sorry, this was unfair, but I couldn't resist.)

Ooops, this should have been safety landing. German language at work.

> Not sure what you mean, but this event - if anything - will have a

I was talking about the journalists who reported the "event".

Stefan

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:09:22 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
>> wrote in >::
>>
>> >There's
>> >no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
>> >going to compromised by continuing
>>
>>
>> I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
>> 2000 holding same belief.
>
>And that means what?
>

The example I cited is empirical evidence that what the crew believes
may be neither relevant nor prudent. The crew's vantage point can be
inadequate to accurately assess the damage that would be readily
apparent when inspected on the ground, and in the case of the Alaska
jet, a precautionary landing, instead of attempting an in-flight "fix"
while within landing distance of an acceptable airport, might have
saved ~200 lives.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:27:22 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote in
>::

>I made my sweeping generality by reading all of
>your postings on this thread and I believe they speak for themselves. My
>point about you is that you make accusations which question the integrity
>and capability of the un-named individuals in a forum where they are not
>present to defend themselves, and you do it without having all of the facts
>to hand.

Your inference of the nature of the words I posted is inaccurate.
Most of what I posted were alternate viewpoints from those apparently
held by the crew. My intent was not to challenge the PIC's decision,
but to expose elements of the flight that may have been overlooked.

As you point out, no one has all the facts. Even the crew lacked
_all_ the facts. That is what made a precautionary landing more
prudent than continuing the transcontinental flight without all the
facts.

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> So you think a pilot should make decisions based on marketing
> considerations rather than technical ones?

No, I was making a joke.

> I was talking about the journalists who reported the "event".

Another poster now reports the magic E word was uttered...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> What fuel emergency?
>

The one where the crew, as Julian also reported, declared an emergency?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> Now..you might mean "continue the takeoff
> after V1",
>

Yes. Sorry for being unclear.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

ShawnD2112,

> have
> proven themselves unworthy adversaries
>

Well, I'm sure glad we have someone deeming himself worthy of final
judgements like these here on the board...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Chris,

> What people forget in this debate that the captain would have not done
> anything that would have put his and his crews life at risk either.
>

With all due respect: What you seem to forget is that captains quite
regularly DO things that put their and their crew's life in danger -
that's why we have accidents. They may not have the intention of doing
so, but they still do it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dave Stadt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dave,
>
> > What fuel emergency?
> >
>
> The one where the crew, as Julian also reported, declared an emergency?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Do you have reliable evidence they declared a fuel emergency? Didn't think
so. Seems a number of people here are very good at making up evidence to
support their favorite theory. I think Dan Rather would be willing hire a
few of you if he wasn't retiring.

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:09:22 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
> >> wrote in >::
> >>
> >> >There's
> >> >no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was
not
> >> >going to compromised by continuing
> >>
> >>
> >> I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
> >> 2000 holding same belief.
> >
> >And that means what?
> >
>
> The example I cited is empirical evidence that what the crew believes
> may be neither relevant nor prudent. The crew's vantage point can be
> inadequate to accurately assess the damage that would be readily
> apparent when inspected on the ground, and in the case of the Alaska
> jet, a precautionary landing, instead of attempting an in-flight "fix"
> while within landing distance of an acceptable airport, might have
> saved ~200 lives.

I see, the only decision that should ever be made is to land as soon as
possible. Interesting.

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> No, I was making a joke.

Oh, I see. Defunct irony detector. How embarrassing.

Stefan

[George Patterson]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> > What fuel emergency?
>
> The one where the crew, as Julian also reported, declared an emergency?

The crew did not declare a fuel emergency. Julian also stated that the UK does
not not recognize a "fuel emergency."

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 at 19:50:03 in message
>, Mike Rapoport
> wrote:
>I was, my error. The runways at Glasgow and Edinburgh are long enough and
>I'm certain that they are in Scottland.

They definitely are!
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 at 11:46:06 in message
>, Montblack
> wrote:
>Iceland, post-Iceland, pre-Ireland, Ireland, Manchester, London, etc. They
>had safety options. Safety was never the main issue here. Could they make
>London? THAT was the main issue and that answer is no, they could not make
>London ...safely.
>
>In the end the winds hurt them - no big deal.
>
>Wonder if any Manchester passengers said, "Hey, I'll get off here."

I accept that you guys are right about flying on but would it be
permissible to take off on three engines after landing for fuel?
--
David CL Francis

[Gary]

My thoughts exactly John, British Airways is one of the saftest airlines in
existence, and Boeing builds a great airplane (same with Airbus industrie)



"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
> > engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
> > transatlantic destination.
>
> Unless you have transcripts of all discussions made between the crew, ATC,
> BA maintenance, Boeing and any other relevant parties that were
undoubtedly
> involved, it seems you're making something out of nothing.
>
> For those claiming the jet "took off with passengers and a dead engine", I
> read "lost an engine on takeoff" as "the engine died while airborne before
> reaching cruise altitude". What does Boeing recommend in that situation?
>
> As I understand it, the B747 does not require four engines for safe
> operation of the aircraft. Until I have the transcripts or an official
> report, I think I'll wait before calling BA's personnel "idiots" or even
> getting concerned about flying on BA aircraft.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>
>

[Bob Moore]

David CL Francis wrote

> I accept that you guys are right about flying on but would it be
> permissible to take off on three engines after landing for fuel?

I don't know about the UK, but certainly not with passengers
on board here in the USofA.
It would a special three-engine ferry permit with only the
essential flight crew members on board.

Bob Moore

[Morgans]

"David CL Francis" > wrote >
> I accept that you guys are right about flying on but would it be
> permissible to take off on three engines after landing for fuel?
> --
> David CL Francis

I would be very surprised if they took off with passengers.
--
Jim in NC

[Cockpit Colin]

.... and just because they discussed it with a range of departments still
doesn't mean that they came to the 'right' decision. At the end of the day
the decision to continue can never be called "right or wrong", because it's
a subjective call - and I appreciate that it was a considered call from an
experienced crew - HOWEVER - what isn't debateable is that to continue the
flight under those circumstances resulted in a lower margin of safety than
had they stayed within the area, dumped fuel, and returned.

If another pilot in the same circumstance decided "bugger this" and returned
for landing would this now be considered the WRONG thing to do?

I wonder how the decision would have been viewed if they (by chance or due
to some unthought of connection) lost the 2nd engine on the same side -
still over weight. Yes it's controllable, but it's starting to make for a
rather steep mountain to climb to get it back on the ground safely.

In my opinion they should have landed asap whilst they still had the luxury
of a large safety margin rather than to continue on in a circumstance where
it was safe, but only so long as nothing else whet wrong - in short it was a
gamble, albeit an educated one, but still a gamble.

[Dave Stadt]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> ... and just because they discussed it with a range of departments still
> doesn't mean that they came to the 'right' decision. At the end of the day
> the decision to continue can never be called "right or wrong", because
it's
> a subjective call - and I appreciate that it was a considered call from an
> experienced crew - HOWEVER - what isn't debateable is that to continue the
> flight under those circumstances resulted in a lower margin of safety than
> had they stayed within the area, dumped fuel, and returned.

Despite your statement it is very debatable. Just because a situation is
subjective does not mean there cannot be right or wrong answers. In this
case the situation was very, but not totally objective. They had a large
number of facts at hand upon which to make the decision.

> If another pilot in the same circumstance decided "bugger this" and
returned
> for landing would this now be considered the WRONG thing to do?

Identical situations can have multiple correct options.

> I wonder how the decision would have been viewed if they (by chance or due
> to some unthought of connection) lost the 2nd engine on the same side -
> still over weight.

Where did overweight come from? The same place as "they ran out of gas?"

>Yes it's controllable, but it's starting to make for a
> rather steep mountain to climb to get it back on the ground safely.

Says who? Others in the know say the 747 is very controllable with both
engines on one side out. If a second engine goes you deal with the
situation.

> In my opinion they should have landed asap whilst they still had the
luxury
> of a large safety margin rather than to continue on in a circumstance
where
> it was safe, but only so long as nothing else whet wrong - in short it was
a
> gamble, albeit an educated one, but still a gamble.

Getting up every morning is a gamble. Getting on an airplane is a gamble.
Walking down stairs is a gamble. First hand experience.....United flight
between Chicago and Detroit on a 737. More than half way there an engine
totally conks which is a loss of 50 percent of the engines. The decision
was to return to O'Hare even though Detroit was closer. Wanna guess what
the pilot told us was the reason for returning to O'Hare?

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> Getting up every morning is a gamble. Getting on an airplane is a gamble.
> Walking down stairs is a gamble. First hand experience.....United flight
> between Chicago and Detroit on a 737. More than half way there an engine
> totally conks which is a loss of 50 percent of the engines. The decision
> was to return to O'Hare even though Detroit was closer. Wanna guess what
> the pilot told us was the reason for returning to O'Hare?

Because that is where the mechanics and spare engines were?

What do I win? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Casey Wilson]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
>> Getting up every morning is a gamble. Getting on an airplane is a
>> gamble.
>> Walking down stairs is a gamble. First hand experience.....United flight
>> between Chicago and Detroit on a 737. More than half way there an engine
>> totally conks which is a loss of 50 percent of the engines. The decision
>> was to return to O'Hare even though Detroit was closer. Wanna guess what
>> the pilot told us was the reason for returning to O'Hare?
>
> Because that is where the mechanics and spare engines were?
>
> What do I win? <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Nah, my guess is that's the pilot's home town.

Casey in the Mojave Desert
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:BhOVd.20088$QQ3.4132@trnddc02...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote
> >
> >> Getting up every morning is a gamble. Getting on an airplane is a
> >> gamble.
> >> Walking down stairs is a gamble. First hand experience.....United
flight
> >> between Chicago and Detroit on a 737. More than half way there an
engine
> >> totally conks which is a loss of 50 percent of the engines. The
decision
> >> was to return to O'Hare even though Detroit was closer. Wanna guess
what
> >> the pilot told us was the reason for returning to O'Hare?
> >
> > Because that is where the mechanics and spare engines were?
> >
> > What do I win? <g>
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >
> Nah, my guess is that's the pilot's home town.
>
> Casey in the Mojave Desert


You are both correct.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Doug Carter" wrote in message > So what? The question was "is it SOP to
>take off with passengers and a dead engine?"

The engine was not dead when they took off. Your question as it stands is
irrelevent.

> No doubt. But do you argue that going missed on two engines is as safe
> as with four?

It depends on the weight. After burning most of their fuel during the
crossing, it is likely that a 2-engine go-around would have the same results
as a 4-engine go-around. It is practiced in the simulator.

> First, From a technical perspective I remain unconvinced that crossing
> the Atlantic with a known dead and un-inspected engine is, per Part 121
> "...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

The engine did not leave the wing. I suspect that the rotor did not suffer
an uncontained burst. Therefore the shutoff handle in the cockpit (usually
used for engine fires) will shut off fuel, bleed air, hydraulic fluid, and
electricity from the generator at a point outside the engine compartment.
What is there to inspect? The fluids will be monitored (as is done routinely
with all engines running) and the airplane will be diverted to an alternate
if need be.

> Second, From a business perspective keep in mind that there is a lot of
> competition for business class ticket revenue.

Most passengers are concerned about airline safety yet are truly ignorant
about what is safe. If BA tells them that a BA B-747 can have an engine quit
and still fly around the world, that will sound pretty darn good to them.
It's all in the marketing and BA is darn good at marketing.

D.

[Doug Carter]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>>"Doug Carter" wrote in message > So what? The question was "is it SOP to
>>take off with passengers and a dead engine?"
>
>
> The engine was not dead when they took off. Your question as it stands is
> irrelevent.
>
The context of the question was the takeoff from Manchester. Apparently
moot though, it has since been reported that the plane was ferried to
London for its engine change without passengers.

Regarding two versus four engine missed approach, I never disputed that
the airplanes ability to do this; just seems an uphill argument to prove
to the FAA that a damaged airplane is as safe as an undamaged one. This
may also be moot as well; one report (Associated Press) said the FAA,
though concerned, did not have jurisdiction over the British crew.

>>Second, From a business perspective keep in mind that there is a lot of
>>competition for business class ticket revenue.

> Most passengers are concerned about airline safety yet are truly ignorant
> about what is safe.

For "most passengers" I tend to agree with you but BA lost economy fare
and freight volume in 2004; their only gain (about 6%) was in premium
fare traffic. Business class passengers pay a bit more attention the
the once in a lifetime vacationer. The readers comments in the Wall
Street Journal have been very negative.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Doug Carter" wrote in message >
> Business class passengers pay a bit more attention the
> the once in a lifetime vacationer. The readers comments in the Wall
> Street Journal have been very negative.

The only person guaranteed to have freedom of the press is the person who
owns the press (apologies to Mr. Franklin). Most WSJ readers are fairly
ignorant as to airplane safety (recent Montrose Challenger accident). Given
that their opinion of BA's actions was based on accounts written to
sensationalize the story, I'm not surprised that their reaction is negative.
They don't have years of airline safety experience to counter the
sensationalism. They have press accounts to base their opinions on. They
aren't so different from the general public in that respect.

As for BA's loss of revenue, blame the internet. As the internet gains
momemtum in the EU, discount airlines are chipping away at the legacy
carriers much the same as happened in the US. Premium class gained revenue
because more business travelers are returning to premium class from coach as
the economy rebounds. If the discounters had a premium class, BA's share in
that would have decreased as well. It has nought to do with 3-engine
flights.

D.

[Doug Carter]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>>"Doug Carter" wrote in message >
>>Business class passengers pay a bit more attention the
>>the once in a lifetime vacationer. The readers comments in the Wall
>>Street Journal have been very negative.

>... Most WSJ readers are fairly ignorant as to airplane safety ...

No argument there. Even most pilots on this Usenet believe that most
other pilots are similarly ignorant :)

Of course its far too early to tell but I still believe that, rightly or
wrongly, BA's decisions in these two flights may cost them significant
premium revenue going forward. Penny wise and Pound foolish and all that.

[Dave Stadt]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
m...
> Capt.Doug wrote:
> >>"Doug Carter" wrote in message >
> >>Business class passengers pay a bit more attention the
> >>the once in a lifetime vacationer. The readers comments in the Wall
> >>Street Journal have been very negative.
>
> >... Most WSJ readers are fairly ignorant as to airplane safety ...
>
> No argument there. Even most pilots on this Usenet believe that most
> other pilots are similarly ignorant :)
>
> Of course its far too early to tell but I still believe that, rightly or
> wrongly, BA's decisions in these two flights may cost them significant
> premium revenue going forward. Penny wise and Pound foolish and all that.

I suspect that a week from now hardly anybody will remember the incident.