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

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?

("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

"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

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...,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. ...

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?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

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.

"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.

"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.

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...,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" 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.