Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Bashed In Wall Street Journal  
User currently offlineAA7573E From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 475 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 11174 times:

BA took a beating today on the front page of the Personal Journal section of the US edition of the WSJ. Specifically, aviation experts tore them up for their ill advised decision to fly across the pond from LAX last week when one of their 747s lost an engine on takeoff. Apparently the aircraft circled Santa Monica Bay for 20 minutes communicating with London on the issue, and decided that the flight should go on.

Odd that this decision to continue the journey was made days after the EU passed new legislation providing substantial compensation for PAX delays on flights originating or ending in an EU city. FAA is collaborating with EU authorities and investigating the rationale, and eventual decision to make the flight.

I know all the flight sim pilots out here think it is more than ok to cross the pond on three engines, but take a read of the article. Some of the most respected 747 pilots in the industry, with more stick time than most 747 crews combined, agree that the decision made by BA was ill informed, and in general a poor one.



Article from WSJ
Passengers heard the pops, and people on the ground saw sparks flying out from beneath the wing. A British Airways 747 had an engine fail during takeoff in Los Angeles 10 days ago.

But instead of returning to the airport to land, Flight 268 continued on across the U.S, up near the North Pole, across the Atlantic -- all the way to England.

The flight, with 351 passengers on board, didn't quite make it to London, its scheduled destination. It eventually made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, setting off a controversy over the risk of flying 10 hours with a dead engine hanging under the wing.

The Feb. 19 British Airways incident came just two days after the European Union began making airlines compensate passengers for delays. In the aftermath, the British Air Line Pilots' Association, the union representing British Airways pilots, issued a statement warning the industry that the new regulation could pressure pilots to take more risks to save money.


British Airways flew a 747 to the U.K. after one of its four engines died on takeoff from Los Angeles.


In addition, airline regulators, pilots and safety experts are raising questions about the crew's decision to fly such a long distance after an engine failure, since it narrows the safety margin in the unlikely event that something else goes wrong with the plane.

Engine failures on jet aircraft occur only infrequently, and pilots are trained to handle them. Jet aircraft are designed to climb and cruise after losing one engine, and the four-engine Boeing 747 can fly on just two engines (though at lower altitude, and with some strain).

British Airways says the plane was safe flying on three of its four engines. The airline also says it has flown 747s with just three engines before -- once in April 2003, for instance, on the same Los Angeles-London route. "Had there been any kind of question on safety, they would have turned back to Los Angeles or gone to another U.S. airport," says British Airways spokesman John Lampl.

For U.S. airlines, Federal Aviation Administration regulations require commercial carriers to land at the nearest suitable airport after an engine failure. However, British Air and safety experts say that British regulations don't. In the complex world of aviation law, which is governed by bilateral treaties and international agreements, the bottom line is that the FAA doesn't have jurisdiction over a British crew in this instance.

Yesterday, an FAA spokeswoman said the agency has "concerns" about the flight and is going to contact regulators in the U.K. to discuss the incident.

Turning around a plane and landing it immediately can be an expensive proposition. First, there is the cost of dumping tons of expensive jet fuel (planes have difficulty landing with full tanks), and the likely additional cost of putting up the passengers in hotels. In addition, under last month's new EU rules on passenger compensation, British Airways would have also had to pay travelers €210,600, or about $280,000 -- €600 apiece -- if they got to London's Heathrow Airport more than five hours late.

Mr. Lampl of British Airways said any suggestion that the plane continued because of financial pressure from the new EU rules is "total rubbish." The issue "most likely was never discussed with the crew," he said. British Air hasn't released the names of crew members.

Many aviation experts say most pilots won't take undue risks to keep costs down -- after all, their own lives are at stake, as well as those of hundreds of passengers. While economics can factor into airline decisions, "I don't think the crew would take a risk they thought was unacceptable solely for money," said Bernard Loeb, a former top investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board.

However, he criticizes British Air's decision to fly on to the U.K. with the disabled engine. "I don't think it was an appropriate decision at all. There are a lot of events that could have occurred that would have created a major problem."

Flight 268 took off just after 9:24 p.m. from Los Angeles, according to a track of the flight recorded by the airport. The inboard engine on the left side of the airplane experienced an unusual power surge at takeoff, and Los Angeles officials said residents near the airport reported seeing sparks and hearing "popping of engines."

The Boeing 747-400 headed southwest over Santa Monica Bay, climbed to 5,000 feet and circled for more than 20 minutes while the crew diagnosed the problem and communicated with British Airways operations center in London. After deciding the flight could get to London on three engines, the jet headed to the U.K.

Passengers heard two loud pops as the plane took off, one passenger told the Times of London, which wrote about the incident on Friday. The captain announced that the plane had lost an engine and the crew was considering whether to continue to the U.K.

One former pilot questions the decision to proceed with an ailing airplane. "Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts," says Barry Schiff, a retired 747 captain with Trans World Airlines who has written books on proper flying procedures and has received a congressional commendation for his work in aviation safety.

Unable to climb as high as planned, the plane flew at a lower altitude across the Atlantic, increasing drag. That increases fuel burn. In addition, with two engines on one side of the plane but only one on the other, the plane's rudder had to be used to keep the aircraft flying straight. That increases drag as well.

While crews are trained for all of these contingencies -- 747 pilots have special charts detailing three-engine performance -- they didn't get as much tail wind as they had expected at the lower altitude, British Air said. That made the emergency landing in Manchester necessary. Mr. Lampl said he didn't know if the airline would still end up paying penalties because of the diversion to Manchester.

Compared with the majority of planes flying across the Atlantic today, the 747 has more redundancy than most. That's because most trans-Atlantic aircraft these days have two engines, compared with the four engines on a 747. Stuart Matthews, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, a nonprofit aviation-safety group, says he's been on a 747 that had to shut down an engine while cruising, and it continued on to its destination rather than diverting to the nearest airport. "Lots of aircraft fly across the Atlantic with fewer than three engines," he said.

But he, too, said he was surprised at the decision to continue the flight when one engine was lost so early in the trip. Flying more than 5,000 miles is a long way to go without all your engines.




[Edited 2005-03-01 13:44:19]


See you up front!
106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2721 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10952 times:

If it proves to have been an objectively imprudent decision, influenced in an unseemly manner by commercial interest, then BA are compromising their key differentiator: Quality, beit safety, client service or the sum of these.

If this is the case, let this be a wake-up call to them.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineDoorsToManual From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10916 times:

Perhaps the new EU legislation had nothing to do with the decision? On at least 2 separate occasions following engine shut-down shortly after take-off from EZE (Buenos Aires), BA has elected to continue 744 flights across the Atlantic.

From what I have read of the incident from internal sources (I work for BA), the safety of the aircraft and its pax was never compromised. I also understand that the 747 is designed to, and capable of flying on 3 engines when the correct procedures are followed (which they were, according to an internal memo).

Since this is not the first time a BA 744 crew has elected to fly across the Atlantic with 3 engines, and since everything I have heard and read whilst at work indicated all normal prodecures were adhered to, I would hazard a guess that the press are engaging in speculation (and at the same time trying to sell themselves). I don't think EU legislation was really a relevant factor here (except for the press of course).

The real point here is not whether the Captain's decision was a safe one (it was), but whether it was the most prudent, taking the passengers' possible reaction into account.

Bear in mind the press are experts at misquoting...

[Edited 2005-03-01 14:03:36]

User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10880 times:

I don't mean to turn this into a political issue, but it was a very poor decision. If a UA or NW 747 crew would have done such a thing, they would be in deep S*****.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10850 times:

I think the fact that they had to make an emergency landing after all because of fuel really is the most damning evidence against their ill-advised decision.

Given that BA basically flew the entire flight on 3 engines, why don't they go ahead ask for a revision to the MMEL to make the 4th operating engine a deferrable mx item?


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10828 times:

You'd think that a respected paper like the Wall Street journal would at least get the airline in question's name right. It's British Airways !!

User currently offlineAA7573E From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10830 times:

Bear in mind the press are experts at misquoting...

What are the press experts mis-quoting?

Furthermore, the experts are not members of the press, they are pilots, and airline safety officials who have nothing to do with the Wall Street Journal. I'm not 100% convinced that BA dropped the ball on this one, but it would certainly seem that the preponderance of evidence suggests that they should have turned back. If it was a perfectly safe decision, they should have been able to make it all the way to LHR, and not divert to Manchester.



See you up front!
User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1586 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10798 times:

This has been disccused at length on two previous threads.

The first, soon after the event, but the second, and only when the London Times picked it up six days after, mentioning the irrelevant 'financial implications'!

The WSJ can have it's opinions, but, bearing in mind it has taken them ten days to report it with their 'expert' critics 'bashing BA' they can only be considered as being rather tardy, not only in their reporting, but also in their so called 'facts'!

As usual, if you want to believe the press, then do so, but I can assure you that any decisions taken were made in the interests of not only safety, but also for passenger convenience!

The BA pilots spoke directly to London Control at Compass Centre and took the decision to continue. Personally, I feel, hardly an emergency, as Manchester is on the route taken by LAX LHR. I've flown it many times.

The first thread died pretty quickly, but the second one went on to over 100 responses. If you're interested, try a search, and if you can, then forward the info to the WSJ, so that their 'experts' might learn something!



Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10792 times:

Quoting AA7573E (reply 6):
If it was a perfectly safe decision, they should have been able to make it all the way to LHR, and not divert to Manchester.


This is exactly what I am getting at.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10744 times:

Quoting Juventus (reply 3):
I don't mean to turn this into a political issue, but it was a very poor decision. If a UA or NW 747 crew would have done such a thing, they would be in deep S*****.


The captain's decision was well with the FARS. The article is incorrect in it's statement of what the FARS require of a 3/4 engine aircraft. If a NW/UA crew made the same decision, they would NOT be in ****!

Under the FARS and JARS a 3-4 engine can fly to it's destination in the event of an engine failure. (Assuming fuel reserves/wx requirements are met). The problem in this situation was the fuel burn was higher than planned. That is what caused the divert.

If this aircraft had not had an engine failure and was unable to get it's planned altitude or encountered unexpected headwinds, then it would have been in the same situation.

The simple fact was the crew/captain made the decision based on inputs from dispatch (who had the latest winds aloft).

Please don't interpret my comments as condoning the captain's decision. I wasn't there, I don't know how much extra fuel they had. But, I will argue the WSJ is incorrect.


User currently offlineAMSSpotter From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 271 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10700 times:

Even if it is not against the rules to continue the flight, I would have felt more safe if they had just returned to LAX or had landed in LAS.

To me it seems that even the most skilled pilot can not determine what exactly was wrong with engine 2 from within the cockpit. How then could they or ground maintenance come to the conclusion that it was absolutely safe to continue to LHR and that passenger safety has never been compromized(?)

According to Flight magazine, the exact problem with the troubled eninge has yet to be determined...


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10677 times:

Again, I wasn't there, but if the engine is shutdown, then the only thing wrong is it's windmilling.

It's certainly not the same situation as a fire or overheat.


User currently offlineSkidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10650 times:

As far as I can see this is another example of "BA" bashing.

While I am not a particular fan of the company, their procedures and safety systems are second to none. Certainly better than many other airlines. If the decision was made to proceed with the flight (in an American built aeroplane!) I would suggest that it was the correct decision.

Too many people think they know how to run an airline better than the airline itself and could do well to climb off their soapbox and take stock of their own infallibilities.

Personally I get fed up with those people across the pond having a go at BA, who are managing to keep their head above water without any Chapter 11 help or government interference. They may not be the best company to work for but they are one of the best at what they do.

Incidentally, I work for BACX, a subsidiary of BA and have no particular love for them. They are reducing manpower and keeping us in a state of flux regarding our jobs and future. But I don't go around slanging off everything they do.

Andy



Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10626 times:

Philsquares,

I do not think this is a question of legal versus illegality but of sound airmanship/judgment.

You are a 744 pilot, correct?

Would you elect to continue if you experienced an engine loss immediately after takeoff and you had 10 (make it about 11) hours of flight time ahead of you including overflight of remote areas?

From the left seat perspective, what is the thought process that goes into this decision? Is it simply a matter of having enough gas to make it across and favorable forecasts of winds aloft etc?

I am sure UA and NW would get it from both barrels as well if they tried it. No question.

Stronger than encountered headwinds and not getting the ideal altitude are things that airlines cannot plan for and they should not be penalized.


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10609 times:

Got to love the armchair pilots  Big thumbs up


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10583 times:

Actually, it sounds more like muck raking journalism to me. Perhaps bad judgement there.

Again, as I stated in my first post, I wasn't there. I don't have access to the information the captain/crew did. Again, the same comments would have been launched if the flight diverted due to unexpected headwinds or less than planned altitude.

That is just what happened on this flight. What I would or would not have done is really irrelevant. The crew did absolutely nothing illegal and I don't know what info they had or didn't have so I can't comment on their airmanship or judgement. I can comment on the lack of research in the WSJ report. It is factually wrong.

The simple solution is one the FAA has proposed; and that is to implement ETOPS for all aircraft. Then the ground rules change and the aircraft would have to land short of it's destination.

Sounds to me like Dispatch/MX and OPS knew the JARS/FARS and took advantage of them. Same thing happens every day with US ops. Just take a look at the redispatch flight plan system.

I do agree you have to love all the experts(?) here!

[Edited 2005-03-01 14:57:25]

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10578 times:

What was the reason given for diverting the flight to MAN ?

User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10549 times:

JGPH1A,
The passengers wanted to go shopping at the Trafford Centre...



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10496 times:

Quoting Gkirk (reply 17):
The passengers wanted to go shopping at the Trafford Centre...


Aahh - the Rain Forest Café. I understand completely !


User currently offlineAMSSpotter From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 271 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10439 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (reply 16):
What was the reason given for diverting the flight to MAN


Due to the BA-crew's desired flight-level being unavailable, they had to fly at a slightly lower altitude. This caused a higher fuelburn, resulting in the diversion to MAN (source: Flight Mag.).


User currently offlineSpike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1170 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10412 times:

Manchester is where the skallys keep the engines hidden. And they've got some good gear to go with it. I'd go with the pilot's decision on this one...

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10375 times:

Quoting Spike (reply 20):
Manchester is where the skallys keep the engines hidden


Those skallies - look what they did the aircraft. This pic was taken 20 minutes after it landed. They even nicked the paint !


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages



 Laugh out loud


User currently offlineAA7573E From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

Beyond the increased fuel burn due to the lowe altitude, the rudder had to be employed throughout the entire flight to keep the plane flying straight (2 engines on one side, one on the other), further increasing drag and fuel consumption - which in the end would seem to this observer to increase the overall cost of operating the flight, and make one wonder even more as to why they did not return to LAX to have the problem fixed.


See you up front!
User currently offlineHardiwv From Brazil, joined Oct 2004, 8780 posts, RR: 49
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10164 times:

Quoting DoorsToManual (reply 2):
On at least 2 separate occasions following engine shut-down shortly after take-off from EZE (Buenos Aires), BA has elected to continue 744 flights across the Atlantic.


Incorrect, the plane has a stop-over in GRU before continuing to LHR.


User currently offlineSpike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1170 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10090 times:

Well you wouldn't want to land in the jungle would you? Best keep going on three what ho!

25 Ready4Pushback : Absolutely - at the end of the day, if I was on that flight, and it returned to LAX, I would have been pretty pissed off to find that we could have c
26 Jc2354 : Did the passengers know what was happening?
27 Col : Only mistake the Captain made was not asking the pax to vote: 1) Do you want us to dump fuel for a few hours, return to LAX, spend a couple of hours b
28 AA7573E : Hey Col. You can move on, if you like, as you are not required to read or participate in this thread. I don't see a single reason why the PAX or crew
29 Post contains links Travelin man : It's now hit the Los Angeles Times (from today's paper): http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...0,1554462.story?coll=la-home-local British Airways jum
30 DoorsToManual : Incorrect, there was no such stop 5 years ago.
31 Kellmark : No we can't. It is ludicrous to go 10 hours or more with an engine out especially across an oceanic area , in the winter and at night. It was NOT the
32 Carduelis : As usual, more journalistic claptrap! They've just woken up to reporting an event that took place TEN days ago, and then plagiarize stories from other
33 Travelin man : You have several very experienced pilots saying that the decision was NOT correct. BA supporters are looking at this as "BA Bashing", when I think thi
34 Aerofan : well, it may have been safe, but if I were on that flight I would have wanted them to return to LAX. Thank you very much!
35 Antares : Can any of the pilots reading this thread tell me much trouble this flight would have been in had one of the three remaining engines failed, say over
36 Codeshare : How come the whole thing happened in LAX, again? That's strange...
37 DoorsToManual : Antares, as part of the factors that were taken into consideration when deciding to continue or to return or divert, the crew took into account mimimu
38 Antares : Doors toManual, Thanks for the info. The Captain concerned on the Concorde incident as told to me may have been named Bristow and was at one time the
39 Jdd1 : I would much rather fly over the Atlantic on three engines than over the North Pole on two.
40 PDXFlyer : I don't see the WSJ as bashing anyone. They simply took time to get interviews with actual 747 pilots who know something on the subject. Rather than b
41 DAYflyer : I dont see what all the hubub is about. It flew on 3 engines. So what? Now if it were a 767 or 777 I would call that nuts.
42 Antares : DoorsToManual, A few more questions since you were kind enough to answer my earlier query. What would be the sustainable two engined altitude of the 7
43 Lnglive1011yyz : I know what I'm about to say is going to spark a bitter debate, but I think it needs to be said (if it hasn't been said already). The 747 has 4 engine
44 DCAYOW : Maybe middle course would have been best - don't waste fuel and piss off environmentalists by dumping fuel off Santa Monica. Continue flight direct to
45 Post contains links and images OPNLguy : >>>Also the US has a joint responsibility dispatch/operational control system that would prevented this from happening by not giving the crew a releas
46 Post contains images Tomys : At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, does it? Just a question, do I have, as passenger, any possibility to express my concern after announcement
47 Kangar : It would be interesting to hear Boeing's views on this. Too much hysteria gets generated by the self appointed experts out there, and not enough resea
48 PhilSquares : I beg to differ with the statments that indicate that under the FARS the aircraft could not have continued. That is wrong. Under the FARS a 3/4 engine
49 Kalakaua : By the way, about Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, or Forbes, etc.... (those "business" media establishments), you might want to spell things out in th
50 Kellmark : Phil Squares. You are wrong. First of all it is 121.565, not 165. And you are not showing the whole regulation. For an aircraft with more than 3 engin
51 OPNLguy : If you're going to quote FAR 121.565 (b), please make sure you quote it fully and include sub-items 1-6 (the **following**) for accuracy and context:
52 Amy : BA would have got stick whatever the decision was, just as Delta has got stick for cancelling flights to new york and ATA has had stick for not cancel
53 PhilSquares : Kellmark, Please go back and reread all my posts. I have said exactly what the 6 provisions are in "layman's" terms. Again, my statment about an FAR r
54 Jc2354 : The purpose of the redundancies is to allow the safety of the flight to the next suitable airfield for landing. If they are going to continue my fligh
55 Kellmark : Phil Squares. I appreciate your comments, but you are incorrect here. Below is the whole regulation. The point is if the aircraft continues beyond the
56 OPNLguy : >>>Please go back and reread all my posts. I have said exactly what the 6 provisions are in "layman's" terms Exactly what reply # was that in? (If it
57 Philsquares : The PIC should have factors 2-6 already decided in trying to determine the acceptable fuel load during the preflight phase. The only real issue is poi
58 Klwright69 : I emailed my dad tonight about this. He is a retired captain, with 40 years experience in the cockpits of many different aircraft. He responded via em
59 OPNLguy : >>>The PIC should have factors 2-6 already decided in trying to determine the acceptable fuel load during the preflight phase. The only real issue is
60 OPNLguy : >>>I emailed my dad tonight about this. He is a retired captain, with 40 years experience in the cockpits of many different aircraft. >>>He responded
61 Post contains links Aviateur : As a pilot (and aviation writer), I disagree with the general consensus that BA's decision was, necessarily, a poor and ill-informed one, and will add
62 PhilSquares : My point in posting a reply was to point out the fact the WSJ was incorrect. I am not defending the Captain's decision. However, he was within his aut
63 Travelin man : People also brought up that "most passengers" would have wanted to continue due to the inconvenience of returning to LAX. I cannot imagine that flying
64 Kellmark : Aviateur; If that is your opinion that is your opinion. But if you were to ask anyone in the FAA about it, I think they would set you straight. If you
65 Klwright69 : "As a pilot (and aviation writer), I disagree with the general consensus that BA's decision was, necessarily, a poor and ill-informed one" "Moreover,
66 Galapagapop : Circling for 20 minutes??? That is ridiculous seeing as they had to land early because of low fuel. It is very clear that this decision lacked thought
67 FlyHoss : This isn't directly relevant to this flight, but don't forget that 3 or 4 engine aircraft have been, and will continue to be, ferried with an inoperat
68 Kellmark : Flyhoss. You bet I can remember one. An Eastern Airlines L-1011 on a two engine ferry out of Mexico City had another one fail just after takeoff. The
69 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>Can anyone recall an engine-out ferry flight having an accident? There was an ATI DC-8 that crashed on its second takeoff attempt at MCI a few year
70 PhilSquares : Galapagapop do you have any statistical evidence to support your statement? Your logic escapes me. Generally, the only thing done to the engines is to
71 FlyHoss : OPNLguy, Thanks for the response; do you any additional information about the accident you listed? I've searched the N.T.S.B. data base and haven't fo
72 Ckfred : The point that people forget is that aviation is not about how close one can get to the edge of safety. A friend of mine is a 757/767 F/O with a major
73 Kellmark : Phil Squares; Thanks again for your comments. I don't agree that circumstances were out of everyone's control. The reason that the BA flight declared
74 Post contains links and images OPNLguy : This do it? http://www.avsaf.org/reports/US/1995...rtInternational_DouglasDC-8-63.pdf
75 Philsquares : I guess my only comment is the crew didn't divert due to the engine malfunction, but more due to a fuel system problem. Personally, I would hesitate t
76 Travelin man : The thing is, I don't think anyone is questioning if it was legal, but people ARE questioning whether it was smart. And it seems the consensus from bo
77 BAW716 : I made a post on a similar thread earlier today. Since it is germane to this thread, I think it bears repeating...to those who have seen it already, s
78 Indianguy : IMO its not just the airline but the captain who should be bought to book. Ultimately its his call, the responsibility of the passengers lives are wit
79 Mrniji : this shows how often solely profit-driven enterprises compromise with security
80 PhilSquares : Hmmm fire him and have an enquiry. I say we just hang him now and save all the expense! Amazing how many experts are on this board. I'm surprised I'm
81 VS773ER : Billions of $$$'s, years of testing, reacting to many, many accidents occuring from illfated decisions and 'mishaps' have caused airline companies to
82 Bellerophon : There have been so many ill informed postings on this topic, based on so called facts and expert opinions, that it is pointless trying to rebut them i
83 Indianguy : The ultimate responsibility of the safety of his passengers rests with the captain of the flight. He cannot turn around and say that "oh the company o
84 PhilSquares : Indianguy, My question is "what did he do wrong?". No one on this board knows the information the Captain had or didn't have. What if nothing had happ
85 Kellmark : Bellerophon: Excellent comments and well said. I respect your comments and think you are right about many things here. I agree that the crew did nothi
86 N79969 : Armchair pilots may be bad, I would say "ramp lawyers" are worse. While BA and the crew might have been in the letter of the law, it takes quite of bi
87 PhilSquares : N79669, Without having that information, I really can't make the decision. To be honest, I don't know when the surge occurred. The posters here seem t
88 Post contains images Mucflyer : in some threads were mentioned the 'poor' JAR regulations here in Europe. Maybe right. But JAR stands for a common MINIMUM Standard. No more or less.
89 Travelin man : In the meantime travellers all over the world are reading about the pilot/airline that decided it was OK to fly 5,000 miles with an engine out, result
90 Baw716 : Well, I have re-read the posts and I must apologize for re-posting my rather lengthy post...it would seem that this thread was headed down a different
91 Col : AA753E, First part of my comment was very tongue in cheek, please forgive me for not getting everything down to the letter of the law. I have however
92 Post contains images Mrniji : Oh, please, Roy knows everything, from Civil Aviuation in India and beyond upto how to fly the A380 - , so do not challenge this
93 N79969 : Philsquares, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I read that eyewitnesses reported hearing the engine surge within seconds after takeoff. They basica
94 Post contains images Bellerophon : Kellmark Thank you for your reply. I won't rise to your bait - extolling the virtues of the US Flight Dispatcher system - except to say that in Europe
95 Kellmark : Bellerophon; Sorry about the delay in replying. Been busy here. Thanks for your reply. You donÕt want to discuss the benefits of a US style dispatch
96 N79969 : Bellerophon, Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. The FAR we are discussing addresses a failure mode and the discretion that the crew/certificate hold
97 Stealthpilot : Philsquare: Your efforts to try and explain that you neither agree nor disagree with the pilot’s decision because you weren’t there were obviously
98 Kellmark : Stealthpilot. Passengers want to know that whatever airline they fly would have the proper attitude toward safety. These passengers, after hearing of
99 Post contains images Bellerophon : Kellmark I think we are in danger of starting to repeat ourselves, and just going round in circles with this discussion. You obviously oppose what BA
100 Post contains links OPNLguy : Not differently, just "better" perhaps... We don't seem to see Avianca 52 and Hapag-Lloyd 3378 types of fuel starvations as a result.... Leaving the
101 Bellerophon : OPNLguy Thanks for your reply, with the reference to an informative earlier posting of yours. As I mentioned, I really don't want to take this thread
102 OPNLguy : Again, I'd point to Avianca 52 and Hapag-Lloyd 3378 as "non-fanciful" evidence that they are not..... I am aware of a few other situations over the y
103 Kellmark : Bellerophon. Again, thanks for your reply. Much appreciated. I hope that this response will bring us a little closer. Sorry about the length. "You obv
104 OPNLguy : >>>This was a crew with thousands of hours, with only the Captain making decisions. [Referencing the Hapag-Lloyd 3378 accident...] I should hasten to
105 Post contains images Bellerophon : OPNLguy and Kellmark Thank you both for your prompt replies, sorry for the delay in replying but I'm away from home with poor internet access. Just a
106 Post contains links and images OPNLguy : Just because you disagree is no reason to shy from the discussion... Actually, the scenario I offered was based upon an actual flight. The dispatcher
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Wall Street Journal Article On A380 posted Fri May 28 2004 06:59:38 by Mark777300
Wall Street Journal Article - "Boeing's New Baby" posted Tue Nov 18 2003 16:34:05 by TWFirst
Wall Street Journal Story On Spotting posted Mon Jan 7 2002 19:07:58 by Boeing757/767
Wall Street Journal's List Of Best Airports..... posted Fri Jan 12 2001 21:57:18 by DeltaAir
Today's Wall Street Journal posted Tue Mar 14 2000 15:30:11 by Dick
WN The Leader In Cost Management Says Wall Street posted Tue Apr 12 2005 22:44:47 by Swatpamike
BA Check In Question posted Sun Oct 15 2006 19:02:20 by Emirates773er
BA's 744's In YYZ? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 00:38:50 by FighterPilot
Thank You BA - Forever In My Heart! posted Thu Aug 17 2006 10:43:31 by AY104
BA 767 In CLT 8/4/06? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 01:50:44 by AT777