FAA Accuses British Airways of Recklessness

L Grasso wrote:

On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS" wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu...r=MOREOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they were
preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a
charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because it
allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with one of its
four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was more
likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways,
said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a four-engine
airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air and
fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English coast,
the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three engines
when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.

So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and punish the
airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is going to stick.

Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when they can't find a clear violation of any rule. Also note that 121.565
permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the destination on 3 engines. So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even required to follow 14 CFR 121. It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the recent negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I don't see
what the big deal is.

Would this be the same FAA that denied the Air Transat flight permission to
land?

"Sam Whitman" wrote in message
...

L Grasso wrote:

On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS" wrote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu...r.html?ex=1110
949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVE RNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they were
preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a
charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because it
allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with one of its
four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was more
likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways,
said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a four-engine
airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air and
fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English coast,
the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three engines
when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.

So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and punish the
airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is going to
stick.

Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when they can't
find a clear violation of any rule. Also note that 121.565
permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the destination on 3
engines. So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
required to follow 14 CFR 121. It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the recent
negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I don't see
what the big deal is.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
required to
follow 14 CFR 121.

Untrue.
121.1
This part prescribes rules governing--
....
(f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
conducting proving tests.

119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
operate civil aircraft -
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
commerce;

So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
CFR 121.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
required to
follow 14 CFR 121.

Untrue.
121.1
This part prescribes rules governing--
...
(f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
conducting proving tests.

119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
operate civil aircraft -
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
commerce;

So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
CFR 121.

You're both wrong.. Part 119 and Part 121 specifically deal with Air
Carriers with an Operating Certificate issued by the FAA (US registered
aircraft). Since the BA fleet, as far as I'm aware are all UK registered
aircraft, operated out of the UK, then ICAO regulations or ANO's apply,
whatever. They *probably* (I don't know) contain something like this, which
incidentally is applicable to US registered aircraft operating under an FAA
issued certificate.

§ 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a foreign
country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country concerned and the
local airport rules, except where any rule of this part is more restrictive
and may be followed without violating the rules of that country.

which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91, and
applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.



Limey.

I believe 121 is mostly a copy of ICOA, which is reflected by both the
FAA and the JAA.

-Robert

"Limey"
:


wrote in message
oups.com...
Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
required to
follow 14 CFR 121.

Untrue.
121.1
This part prescribes rules governing--
...
(f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
conducting proving tests.

119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
operate civil aircraft -
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
commerce;

So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to
14 CFR 121.

You're both wrong.. Part 119 and Part 121 specifically deal with Air
Carriers with an Operating Certificate issued by the FAA (US
registered aircraft). Since the BA fleet, as far as I'm aware are all
UK registered aircraft, operated out of the UK, then ICAO regulations
or ANO's apply, whatever. They *probably* (I don't know) contain
something like this, which incidentally is applicable to US
registered aircraft operating under an FAA issued certificate.

§ 121.11 Rules applicable to operations in a foreign country.
Each certificate holder shall, while operating an airplane within a
foreign country, comply with the air traffic rules of the country
concerned and the local airport rules, except where any rule of this
part is more restrictive and may be followed without violating the
rules of that country.

which, as best I can tell, means they need to comply with Part 91, and
applicable Part 121 rules while in US airspace.


Yep.

Bertie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
I believe 121 is mostly a copy of ICOA, which is reflected by both the
FAA and the JAA.


I'm sure they're very similar.

Limey.

Thialfi
:

In article
Sam Whitman wrote:


L Grasso wrote:

On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS"
wrote:


htt
p://
www.
nyti
mes.
com/
2005
/03/
08/b
usin
ess/
worl
dbus
ines
s/08
air.
html
?ex=1110949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner =MOREOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday
that they were
preparing to take strong action against British Airways,
including a
charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft,"
because it
allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with
one of its
four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not
take action
against British Airways because such issues would be
handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have
become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its
supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right
to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a
fine was more
likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments.
Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with
British Airways,
said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a
four-engine
airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one
engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three
engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on
Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline
said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the
mixture of air and
fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the
English coast,
the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in
Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on
three engines
when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to
London.

So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and
punish the
airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is
going to stick.

It's always stuck in the past.

Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when
they can't find a clear violation of any rule.

True.
And it generally wins those cases.

Also note that 121.565
permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the
destination on 3 engines.

Read it again, especially pargraph (b). Then read 121.627.
Continuing flight for several thousand miles and an ocean with a
catastrophic engine failure may seem reasonable to you, but the
NTSB has repeatedly ruled that it's not safe to THEM.
And they get to make that decision; you don't.

So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

Case law proves you wromg.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not
even required to follow 14 CFR 121.

British Airways needs a Part 129 certificate to operate in US
airspace.
The FAA has every right to revoke British Airways' Part 129
certificate for this flight.

It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the
recent negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I
don't see
what the big deal is.

That's because you're not an airline pilot.


I am, and I say the FAA won't do it. If they do, they won't win it.


Bertie


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Thialfi wrote:

In article
Sam Whitman wrote:


L Grasso wrote:

On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS"
wrote:


htt
p://
www.
nyti
mes.
com/
2005
/03/
08/b
usin
ess/
worl
dbus
ines
s/08
air.
html
?ex=1110949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner =MOREOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday
that they were
preparing to take strong action against British Airways,
including a
charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft,"
because it
allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with
one of its
four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not
take action
against British Airways because such issues would be
handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have
become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its
supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right
to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a
fine was more
likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments.
Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with
British Airways,
said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a
four-engine
airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one
engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three
engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on
Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline
said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the
mixture of air and
fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the
English coast,
the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in
Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on
three engines
when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to
London.

So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and
punish the
airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is
going to stick.

It's always stuck in the past.

Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when
they can't find a clear violation of any rule.

True.
And it generally wins those cases.

Also note that 121.565
permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the
destination on 3 engines.

Read it again, especially pargraph (b). Then read 121.627.
Continuing flight for several thousand miles and an ocean with a
catastrophic engine failure may seem reasonable to you, but the
NTSB has repeatedly ruled that it's not safe to THEM.
And they get to make that decision; you don't.

NTSB won't be making any decisions regarding this.

So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

Case law proves you wromg.

Please reread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about case law.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not
even required to follow 14 CFR 121.

British Airways needs a Part 129 certificate to operate in US
airspace.
The FAA has every right to revoke British Airways' Part 129
certificate for this flight.

Which has nothing to do with 14 CFR 121.



It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the
recent negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I
don't see
what the big deal is.

That's because you're not an airline pilot.

Incorrect again.

wrote:

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
required to
follow 14 CFR 121.

Untrue.
121.1
This part prescribes rules governing--
...
(f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
conducting proving tests.

British Airways is no such applicant, nor is any other foreign flagged
carrier.

119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
operate civil aircraft -
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
commerce;

It's nice to be able to quote selected portions of the CFR. It's more
important to have a clue what you are quoting. Before claiming that part
119 refers to foreign flagged airlines operating in the USA, you might be
interested in reading part 119. See 14 CFR 119.1 (d)

So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
CFR 121.

Absolutely False.