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?

"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

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?

Doug,

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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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
news

"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

"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?

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.

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.

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,

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)