Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness  
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9468 times:

FAA officials said yesterday they were prepared to take strong action against British Airways, including a charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft", because it allowed a 744 to fly from California to the UK with one engine out.

Normally, the FAA would leave it to UK authorities to take action against BA, but senior US aviation officials have become concerned about the action of the crew and their supervisors.

FAA officials said they have the right to block entry into the US by BA but that a fine was more likely.

BA expressed surprise over the developments. Steve Shelterline, GM of the 747 program with BA, said it was clear that FAA rules would not prevent a four-engine aircraft like the 747 continuing flight with one engine out.

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

How much will the fine be?

93 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2229 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9274 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, if it's "was clear that FAA rules would not prevent a four-engine aircraft like the 747 continuing flight with one engine out. then what would they fine them for?


Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9259 times:

M404 echoes my sentiments. If you are allowed to keep flying with 3 engines what's the problem? Unless there's something to the story which has not been revealed...


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9233 times:

I think no matter what the FAA says it will do, there is very little it can really do under the current FARS. As has been beat to death in other threads, there is no mandate under the FARS to have a 3/4 engine land after an engine failure.

Certainly, the crew set off with the flight plan indicating they could make LHR on 3 engines. Sadly, they couldn't get the flight levels they planned on. That isn't their fault. If the aircraft had all engines operating and landed short due to the same circumstances it would be no big deal. However, in this case, the "experts" in the press have made a bid deal of the whole thing.

From my perspective, it's a waste of time and manpower on the part of the FAA.


User currently offlineAa777jr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9204 times:

The fines FAA levies on carriers are just a slap on the wrist. AA flew those damaged a/c after they were warned to makes repairs, and the FAA tagged them with a $45,000 fine. Yippee.  Smile

Regards.


User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9184 times:

What a load of horse poop.

Hopefully UKCAD can find some equally stupid reason to fine a US airline operating to UK


User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9142 times:

Sadly, they couldn't get the flight levels they planned on. That isn't their fault.


That's not the point. The point is - was it reasonable for the crew to consider whether this limitation might have arisen before deciding to proceed.

People have wasted time debating whether the 747 is "safe" on three engines - that's just a red herring. Flying on three donks is fine.

The real issue is whether the crew took into account all reasonable circumstances which might affect the flight before opting to go ahead.

So the question becomes - was the possibility of an altitude limitation something which the crew should have considered?


User currently offlineReady4Pushback From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9126 times:

Quoting Aa777jr (reply 4):
The fines FAA levies on carriers are just a slap on the wrist. AA flew those damaged a/c after they were warned to makes repairs, and the FAA tagged them with a $45,000 fine. Yippee.

But how can they give them a slap on the wrist if they have not done anything wrong (according to their own rules). You can infer that if there is no rule to prevent something from happening, it's perfectly legal and normal to do.

If anything, the FAA may as well have just said "We think what BA has done is wrong, and this just highlights that our rules and advice to pilots is total CRAP and needs changing." How can you now have confidence in the FAA after they have said what they have said??? Hello....?

You can't blame a pilot for doing something that the technical manuals say is fine to do, and there is no rule about not doing it.


User currently offlineN754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9124 times:

The FAA has spoken... BA are finished......

User currently offlineZonky From New Zealand, joined Nov 2004, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9102 times:

Quoting Backfire (reply 6):
That's not the point. The point is - was it reasonable for the crew to consider whether this limitation might have arisen before deciding to proceed.


Perhaps it was; adequate diversion airports were avaliable, were they not?


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9092 times:

Backfire,

I suggest you take a look at FAR 121.565. After you do that, please tell me where you think the decision was unreasonable.

For the crew to plan on staying at FL290 in the NAT the whole way, is a little out of the ordinary. I can't think of an airline in the world that plans for that. In addition, they encountered headwinds. Now at this time of year with the forecast in front of you, how would you have planned for that? It's impossible. Again, had the flight been on 4 engines and the same thing happen, no one would have blinked an eye.

Be advised that under the JARS the flight was under no obligation to return to LAX.


User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9065 times:

Quite. If a UA B744 aircraft flying ORD-HKG hits strong head winds and diverts to ICN to refuel, should FAA fine them for "reckless endangerment"?

What are they being fined for - flying on 3 engines or diverting?


User currently offlineReady4Pushback From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9038 times:

Surely this is up to Boeing or Rolls Royce to comment on? Haven't either of them said anything?

User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9023 times:

Also what is odd about this is that the FAA are the certifying body for the B747. They are now implying that the certification was incorrect - that the aircraft CANNOT BE ALLOWED to fly on three engines?

Strange


User currently offlineAlanUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8987 times:

Scotron11: do you have a source for your post?

User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8899 times:

If true, then what will the fine be. A coffee from Starbucks, just to please the press. The FAA need to review the facts that the 744, being a superb piece of engineering, along with RR and the highly skilled people at BA, DID NOTHING WRONG. If it was wrong, then why did the controllers not force them to land when they knew of the fault.

User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2729 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8783 times:

This sounds like the FAA pandering to media sensationalism:

i) The media has grabbed this subject
ii) FAA feel they have to either make an example of BA or risk appearing weak
iii) In fact it is weak of the FAA to be governed by meida attention rather than risk to the travelling public
iv) Final, more cynical, motivation could be political: put a dent in US public's image of BA as a safe carrier



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8759 times:

No doubt this will also cast a cloud of the possibility of the US raising the foregin ownership levels from 25% to 49% or higher. Cant you just imagine the uproar that will now takae place if and when the US debeates or votes on this issue?

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8674 times:

As OzGlobal says, the FAA needs to rant a little. You can bet after the hubbub has died down they will quietly withdraw their complaint...


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8599 times:

Sorry guys, I forgot to post the source. It was a report in the NYTimes.

User currently offlineMUCFLYER From Germany, joined May 2004, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8572 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (reply 10):
For the crew to plan on staying at FL290 in the NAT the whole way, is a little out of the ordinary. I can't think of an airline in the world that plans for that.


Just 4 Info, the OTS (Organized Track System) with the daily North Atlantic Tracks are overcrowded during peaktimes. When you are suddenly unable to fligh your requestet track and level, you are 'banned' from the track system and you have to stay below with a so called 'Random Track' which is normally limited to FL300. Sorry to say, but that shouldn't surprise any cockpitcrew...


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8531 times:

MUCFLYER,

Sorry to tell you but this but I have never had any problems getting into the NAT. Sometimes it requires a modification to the flight plan, ie., switching tracks but never have I had trouble. Granted I only have 20+ years flying the NAT, so apparently I don't have as much experience as you do.

Just for your info, the tracks aren't really "overcrowded" as you say. There is really plenty of room in the NATS as a whole.

My point is there is more to the story than the press has reported on. Althought, they are experts too.

If they were actually not in the NATS then getting a very direct routing should not have been a problem at all.

But, then again, I guess with your experience you'd be able to forsee a headwind this time of year.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8523 times:

Good the FAA should fine them. We all know that a 747 can fly on 3 engines but we also all know that if it is forced to then something is wrong. When something is wrong you put that aircraft down on the ground as soon as you can. You know a 777 can fly on 1 engine, would it be alright to fly LHR-LAX on 1? NO IT WOULDN'T. Just because it CAN do it doesnt mean that it should. If the 747 was supposed to fly on 3 they would make it with 3


/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8487 times:

UAL747DEN,

Please refer to FAR 121.565. You are really comparing apples to oranges. The fact the 744 is a 4 engine aircraft makes it completely different than the 777. The FARS are very specific on what happens on a 2 engine aircraft; just as they are on a 3/4 engine aircraft.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8421 times:

Good the FAA should fine them. We all know that a 747 can fly on 3 engines but we also all know that if it is forced to then something is wrong.

As PhilSquares says, the rules are it can cruise with 3. This is quite logical since it only needs 4 engines on takeoff powerwise. I'm sure PhilSquares can tell us but I'm pretty sure it can cruise on 2 engines at a reduced altitude/speed, just like twins can cruise on 1.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
25 Post contains images OPNLguy : Everyone seems to be bantering 121.565 about as an automatic "yes" for 3- and 4-engined birds because it's an automatic "no" for twins, but that's no
26 Lrgt : What was AA fined the $45,000 for???
27 AlanUK : Yep. That would be my opinion... Seeing BA's profits and american carriers continuing problems, the FAA (pushed by a desperate US aviation industry,
28 Starlionblue : Quoting OzGlobal (reply 16): iv) Final, more cynical, motivation could be political: put a dent in US public's image of BA as a safe carrier Yep. That
29 Post contains images OPNLguy : So we offically have a "conspiracy" theory then?
30 PyroGX41487 : They honestly should clarify 744 restriction on 3/4 engine operations before they slap ANYONE on the wrist. I think Boeing, Airbus, the FAA or someone
31 Post contains links Starlionblue : I think Boeing, Airbus, the FAA or someone should create some type of ETOPS certification for 747s and other four engined planes... just to make it sa
32 AlanUK : No, but they can damage the airline's reputation to the public...
33 AlanUK : Well, it wouldn't be the first time coming from this government. Where shall I start? Bananas? WMD? Iraq War? The days following 9/11? Steel?
34 Gkirk : I guess Boeing will have something to say about this as well.
35 Padcrasher : Legal yes. But BA has damaged it's good reputation in the US. These passengers up front are paying large amounts of money and don't understand the tec
36 N1120A : The fine, which is under appeal, was for ferrying aircraft from ORD to AFW for MX repairs. They were not revenue flights and the aircraft were flyabl
37 LTBEWR : To me the FAA announcement is that they are investigating the situation with that BA flight. Their investigations are based on the accusation that BA
38 Starlionblue : Legal yes. But BA has damaged it's good reputation in the US. These passengers up front are paying large amounts of money and don't understand the tec
39 Post contains images OPNLguy : Please don't "start" anywhere, lest this thread veer off on a tangent to deep-space regarding anything/everything that has zip to do with the topic..
40 Thucydides : What does any of this have to do with the topic? It seems to me that you are just using this to rant your own wide eyed conspiracies. First, the topi
41 N1120A : AlanUK, given the UK government's (and BA's to a point, with the strong exception of their pilots) constant aquiesence to the US government, I really
42 PlaneSmart : Lutfi 'Also what is odd about this is that the FAA are the certifying body for the B747. They are now implying that the certification was incorrect -
43 Starlionblue : PlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 298 posts, RR: 2 Posted Tue Mar 8 2005 19:27:38 UTC+1 and read 151 times: Send an instant message to Pl
44 PDXFlyer : Or, they simply want to investigate what happened, and none of this is a conspiracy at all.
45 OPNLguy : The "implying" is in the eye of the poster, and inference that that's the FAA's position is pure conjecture, and not necessarily sound logic. It's a
46 Mucflyer : you are right... we don't know enough about the BA routing on that particular day and i should better say that it's not obvious to obtain your reques
47 Col : Lets have the press run the airline certification industry, they obviously know more than the airlines and manufacturers, and it seems they can get th
48 Galapagapop : Even if it can fly with 3 engines fine, but doesn't it cross anyones mind that a lot of engine failures are a result of MX (putting wrong filters on,
49 Ejpilot : I've finally decided to join airliners.net after many years purely to comment on this thread! British Airways is world renowned for its excellence in
50 Col : Galapagapop, I think you will find that they do engines when their hours are up, or when they have a problem. Engines are expensive. The 30 mins was s
51 Travelin man : Please. BA damaged its own reputation by flying on three engines for over 11 hours and having to make an emergency landing at the WRONG airport. Padc
52 IGUY : Though enough sh-t against the wall, some of it's going to stick.
53 Post contains links OPNLguy : Just saw this over on pprune; some commentary from someone who was actually on the flight... http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...id=164208&perpage=
54 Starlionblue : All of the legalistic arguments in the world are not going to change the fact that this looks like a terrible decision by BA in the eyes of the travel
55 Vigilante3 : The point is: Something happened that was not supposed to happen. The crew or homebase could not possibly rule out in flight that the cause of the str
56 Sllevin : The decision to continue was, IMHO, very poor. And the FAA can certainly address whatever they'd like under "careless and reckless" (I don't know the
57 Flybyguy : I support British Airways 100% in this matter. The crew, from the information divulged by the media, spent some time deliberating whether to continue
58 United4everDEN : Don't even try to begin to blame Bush for not being a part of this. It is for the FAA to handle. I think BA should have not been so cheap and just go
59 B741 : Lets GET ON WITH IT. The a/c made it safely to England without any loss.
60 Lutfi : United4ever. Uhm, that what they are doing. BA doesn't have an engine repair facility in SFO, they do in the UK... Sllevin - why do you think it was p
61 B707Stu : I'm not sure what all the belly-aching is about. 3 engines are not 4 engines. The FAA is completely right with this case. The case will become a prece
62 Wjcandee : Regardless of all the opinions expressed here about whether this was permissible for BA to do, one thing is abundantly clear: Several actually-knowled
63 Starlionblue : Had they lost another engine over the Rockies, they would have been forced into a significant situation. They would have had to dump fuel (depending o
64 Lutfi : Wjcandee. Except the FAA doesn't have authority over BA, UKCAD does. Under int'l aviation regs, US leaves it up to UK to "look after" UK airlines, and
65 Starlionblue : The FAA was right when it said "we can ban BA from flying to US" - but that is about all they can do - all or nothing. They can, (and probably should
66 PhilSquares : Wjcandee, please tell me who the posters are, I can't find them. Again please re-read FAR 121.565 and then explain to me where the FAA could go after
67 Post contains images Gkirk : Nasty BA pilots, obviously they have never been trained properly. They should have landed the plane immediatly because plane spotters on airliners.net
68 Post contains images Starlionblue : GKirk. I can see what would have happened if an A.nutter had been on board. Talking to the flight attendants: "You don't understand, my Respect Rating
69 Post contains images Gkirk : A.net member: Do you know who I am? My name is (enter name here) and I am a member of airliners.net, therefore I know everything about flying, even th
70 Starlionblue : Back to all seriousness now, why are people on this forum actually questionning the Captains judgement, obviously they are the person in control of th
71 Post contains links Scotron11 : This is a interview that Shelterline gave to NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...php?storyId=4526930&sourceCode=RSS
72 Starlionblue : Great interview. And so again we return to the question. What's the big hairy deal?
73 Oly720man : I have seen one 4 engine plane divert because of an an engine failure and that was a US C5 Galaxy en route from Frankfurt to, presumably, Dover or And
74 Scotron11 : What's the big hairy deal? Reading some of the responses, it has become a "hairy deal"! I don't think BA, or any of their pilots, would put at risk 3
75 CosmicCruiser : This will be my last post regarding this topic but it appears some of the non-pilot, non-dispatcher posters are missing the real atmosphere in an airl
76 JAFA : I don't think BA made an ethical decision. I could see continuing on the LHR if this happened sometime into the flight. But this happened during takeo
77 B741 : I read in a previous post about the FAA banning BA from US airspace. Sir Richard would sure benefit! All in all BA has an excellent record. Last accid
78 Post contains images Gemuser : This has to be the most amazing thread I have ever seen anywhere! 77 replies as I type this and ONE is right? Lutfi in reply 64! READ CAREFULLY: The F
79 Sllevin : The regulations make the implicit assumption that one has a fully functioning aircraft when getting into those positions -- not that one would fly an
80 Wjcandee : Sigh. LUFTI: I know that BA is regulated by its home authority, and the FAA technically has a "nuclear bomb" option. It does, however, have the "reckl
81 Post contains images OPNLguy : >>>I'd be interested to see where the FAA has said that it's fine to do what BA did. I think part of the problem here is that some folks seem to talk/
82 Starlionblue : Most American pilots that I have seen quoted in the media, aware of the FAA's predilictions, expressed horror at the decision Quoted in the media? Wel
83 Wjcandee : "Quoted in the media? Well if I was a journalist I would ensure that I found the most sensationalistic soundbits, so that proves nothing. Well, you're
84 Post contains images Starlionblue : Before he retired, my father had been a journalist for 30 years, working for publications deemed quite respectable. He always ensured that the articl
85 Gemuser : Wjcandee (Reply 80) What are you on about? >... and the FAA technically has a "nuclear bomb" option. I presume you mean banning BA from US airspace? I
86 Bellerophon : Sllevin ...Every twin certified in transport...that flies over the Rockies can...maintain the required altitude on a single engine... The B747 can mai
87 Post contains images Bellerophon : OPNLguy ...Problem is, many folks are ignoring the "qualifier" and the muddying the semantic waters in the process, thinking a 3- or 4-engined aircraf
88 Wjcandee : Geumuser: Obviously, you didn't carefully read either my post or the post to which it responded, so I'm not offended. For the zillionth time, I fully
89 Starlionblue : While you are right that the spirit of the law needs to be observed, this doesn't mean, like some posters seem to imply, that the Captain was trying
90 Post contains images OPNLguy : That's precisely the point; it's (here in the USA, under Part 121) -neither- an automatic "go" or an automatic "and at the nearest suitable airport"
91 Gemuser : Wjcandee > to the extent that a regulatory agency like the FAA is unhappy with a foreign carrier's conduct, it has myriad ways, formal and informal, t
92 Post contains images Lehpron : This is a weird situation. With almost all airliners being twins, I figure many citizens do not feel safe when one engines goes out on a twin and appl
93 Sllevin : Bellerophon: I don't suppose you'd quote out some of those numbers for us -- the numbers that, of course, reflect the loss of both engines on one side
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...
FAA Rehires Hundreds Of Controllers Back? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 20:52:56 by Dreamflight767
FAA - JAA Conversion Of Ratings posted Sun Sep 10 2006 20:45:37 by Vw
FAA Versus City Of Pompano Beach Helps Pilots posted Mon Jan 2 2006 15:03:21 by Eksath
FAA Orders Inspection Of Airbus Planes posted Thu Nov 24 2005 10:41:10 by Werdywerd
The FAA's Wicked Sense Of Humor posted Thu Nov 10 2005 03:05:03 by FlyMKG
Article: FAA Approves Extension Of PHL R/W 17-35 posted Thu Mar 3 2005 14:39:09 by PHLBOS
FAA Proposes Fines Of American Eagle And Delta posted Wed Jan 30 2002 22:32:36 by 777236ER
FAA Orders Inspection Of GE CF6 posted Tue Aug 22 2000 01:55:51 by TEDSKI
End Of Blocked Seats On BA posted Tue Oct 31 2006 14:08:42 by TLVFred
Any Chance Of KLM And BA To Order B777-300ER? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 23:52:46 by AirCanada014