Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines  
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22526 times:

On 23 March 2006 - G-BNLP operated BA015.

It left the gate at LHR on time at 2145 and took off 20 minute late at 2205.
It landed in SIN at 1814 and arrived at the gate 2 minutes late at 1822.
The SIN - SYD leg of the flight was cancelled due to tech.

The aircraft was also to have flown the BA016 return flight on 25 March 2006 - this was cancelled. Passengers were transferred to Singapore Airlines Limited flight SQ222, Virgin Atlantic and various other air transport means on to Singapore and London.

From a FlyerTalk post - it now seems that BA will fly the aircraft on 3 engines from Singapore to London today or tomorrow. However, it will stop in Dubai due to "limitations" apparently.

Most intriguing.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aldo Bidini
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Je89 W.




Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
131 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22508 times:

Nothing new, a BA B744 flew LAX-LHR on 3 engines after 1 cut out after takeoff a few years back.

It must require a hell load of extra work though!

Thanks
Mike


User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4066 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22484 times:

The Nbr 1 engine failed and the aircraft is now in DXB on its way home for an engine change.

User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1343 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A 3 engine maintenance ferry isn't that big of a deal for a 744. I'm an engineer and not a pilot but it's a legitimate procedure.


Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
User currently offlineAnsett767 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1021 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22449 times:

OMG thats totally freaky

So glad I took the flight BA 15 on this day. I left LHR at 21.25 via Bangkok - was originally on BA16 but changed as I wanted to transit BKK for a change!


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22449 times:

Also, the flight is being operated with only 5 flight crew, 0 cabin crew, 0 passengers.

Flight BA9158E left SIN Unknown. It is due to arrive in DXB at 1520 and leave one hour later.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineAnsett767 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1021 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22449 times:

Quick qu though. I was flying BA World traveller plus... (premium economy)

If this was the case and was bumped to SQ or QF or whatever, would I have been compensated or upgraded or downgraded or what, as neither of these airlines have this product?


User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 22189 times:

Again ?
There is something that needs investigating, either there is something wrong with the aircraft, engines or engineering procedures.

I personaly think BA are putting too much pressure on the engineering staff (trust me I know) and this means that deadlines aren't met, or things aren't done properly to get it out on time. Wages are low and the number of engineering staff is at the lowest the airline has ever had.

Wrighbrothers
P.S- This not meant to be a personal attack on anyone, nor is it what all of BA engineering is like. This is just the thoughts of me.



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4066 posts, RR: 33
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 22101 times:

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 5):
Flight BA9158E left SIN Unknown. It is due to arrive in DXB at 1520 and leave one

ETA LHR 2030Z
and coincidently MML is back from its engine change in NBO ETA 2033Z


User currently offlineN754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 22081 times:

intriguing...... freaky...

What are you talking about. Its ALLOWED for a 747 to ferry on 3 engines the same way a MD11 can Ferry on 2.


User currently offlineBoeingfanyyz From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 991 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 21707 times:

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 7):
Wages are low and the number of engineering staff is at the lowest the airline has ever had.

But the fact of the matter is that they are getting the job done, with minimum problems!

Cheers,
Boeingfanyyz  airplane 



"If it aint boeing, it aint going!", "Friends are like condoms...they protect you when things get hard!"
User currently offlineSpeedbirdcrew From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 21503 times:

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 7):
Again ?
There is something that needs investigating, either there is something wrong with the aircraft, engines or engineering procedures.

Aircraft go Tech its one of those annoying facts of life, sometimes its human error sometimes its a mechanical problem. Its not commented on when most airlines aircraft go tech, as its a regular occurance to have minor faults. Of course an engine failure is a bigger problem but we don't know what happened so there isnt any point blaming anyone or anything at the moment is there.

[Edited 2006-03-26 17:57:48]

User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 21349 times:

Quoting Boeingfanyyz (Reply 10):
But the fact of the matter is that they are getting the job done, with minimum problems!

And that's all good and well untill saftey is comprimized, but so far, that isn't the case.

Quoting Speedbirdcrew (Reply 11):
Aircraft go Tech its one of those annoying facts of life, sometimes its human error sometimes its a mechanical problem. Its not commented on when most airlines aircraft go tech, as its a regular occurance to have minor faults. Of course an engine failure is a bigger problem but we don't know what happened so there isnt any point blaming anyone or anything at the moment is there.

Yes, I wasn's blaming anyone or anything BTW  Smile

Wrighbrothers



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 20331 times:

That's why it is called "four engines for long haul". Can a 777 fly such routes with one engine out?

User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 20280 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 1):
Nothing new, a BA B744 flew LAX-LHR on 3 engines after 1 cut out after takeoff a few years back.

It was last year. The difference is, the LAX aircraft was full of pax and they never made it to LHR. They had to make an emergency landing at MAN. The same plane lost an engine I think 2 days after the previous one was replaced. Had to fly again on 3 with pax. I guess BA caught a lot of cricisism from those 2 incidents that they didn't wanna try it again this time with pax. Is this the same aircraft by the way?


User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 20143 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 13):
That's why it is called "four engines for long haul". Can a 777 fly such routes with one engine out?

In theory yes, however it is highly unlikely.

The normal procedure is to change the engine where the aircraft is. Not too bad if its at a well equiped airport, but at some ETOPS diversion airports there isn't exactly much facilty to do engine changes.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineA319114 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 541 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 20015 times:

'3 engines 4 long haul' seems to do it just fine for BA  duck 


Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation
User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 19902 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 13):
"four engines for long haul"

What is?? That's a VS slogan for their 747's and A340's and BA could care less since they do use the 777 for long haul.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 19662 times:

Quoting N754PR (Reply 9):
MD11 can Ferry on 2.

Hmm, MD-11 without the #2 engine, sounds like it could be a succesful plane.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 13):
That's why it is called "four engines for long haul". Can a 777 fly such routes with one engine out?

When was the last time a 777 was brought down to engine failure? ETOPS 227 means that things can fly what, like 3 hours, 47 minutes on one engine, or atleast is tested to do atleast that?

Interesting thought I had once, you could effectively power a 747-400 with only two GE90-115B's. Put 4 on a 747 and you'd have something that would have to be a lot of fun to fly.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 19284 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
When was the last time a 777 was brought down to engine failure? ETOPS 227 means that things can fly what, like 3 hours, 47 minutes on one engine, or atleast is tested to do atleast that?

It's ETOPS 207, but the 777 can really do 330, which is 5.5 hours. It could likely do more than that, but do you really need more than that?

Brought down in a crash? Never. Nor would 1 engine out lead to that on this or any other multi-engine plane. It would require a systems failure or other damage.

Canceled or returned due to Engine out? Happens. CO lost an NRT a few months back due to an engine out. Had to return to IAH, canceled, took a while to fix it. BA had one go tech at MCO recently, etc.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1259 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18534 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
Hmm, MD-11 without the #2 engine, sounds like it could be a succesful plane.

It is, It's called the Boeing 777!  Big grin (I know they are totally different, it's just a joke)

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
Interesting thought I had once, you could effectively power a 747-400 with only two GE90-115B's. Put 4 on a 747 and you'd have something that would have to be a lot of fun to fly.

I have thought about this too! If most 747 engine make between 55,000 and 60,000 lbs of thrust, than 2 GE90-115Bs should do the job quite nicely! Hmm... Maybe you and I are barking up the tree of a potential Y3 plan?  Smile



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18397 times:

Quoting Ansett767 (Reply 6):
Quick qu though. I was flying BA World traveller plus... (premium economy)

If this was the case and was bumped to SQ or QF or whatever, would I have been compensated or upgraded or downgraded or what, as neither of these airlines have this product

Unfortunetly it would of been a downgrade to Y class as wtp is a premium y, same y service though, where as j is premium class. Could of been lucky subject to loads though


User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18212 times:

I guess the question went more in the direction, could a 777 do a ferry flight on one engine and if so would that be allowed?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 19):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):When was the last time a 777 was brought down to engine failure? ETOPS 227 means that things can fly what, like 3 hours, 47 minutes on one engine, or atleast is tested to do atleast that?

It's ETOPS 207, but the 777 can really do 330, which is 5.5 hours. It could likely do more than that, but do you really need more than that?

Brought down in a crash? Never. Nor would 1 engine out lead to that on this or any other multi-engine plane. It would require a systems failure or other damage.

Canceled or returned due to Engine out? Happens. CO lost an NRT a few months back due to an engine out. Had to return to IAH, canceled, took a while to fix it. BA had one go tech at MCO recently, etc.



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1336 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17780 times:

This isn't intriguing. BA are just cold-legging an aircraft from Singapore to LHR. No big deal; a few extra punters for the competition but hardly front page news!

As for the difference between this and the LAX flight, from a quick read of the above, the flight was pulled at Singapore before the flight commenced.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21857 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17734 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
Quoting Thorben (Reply 13):
That's why it is called "four engines for long haul". Can a 777 fly such routes with one engine out?

When was the last time a 777 was brought down to engine failure? ETOPS 227 means that things can fly what, like 3 hours, 47 minutes on one engine, or atleast is tested to do atleast that?

ETOPS207 means that you must be within 207 minutes of a diversion airport at all times. So you CAN fly for that long if you have to, but if there's a closer suitable airport, you're going there no matter how long you can fly for. ETOPS is not authority to continue flight on one engine, it's authority to plan flights that go more than an hour from a suitable diversion airport. Example: you're on a 777 over the North Atlantic from New York to Dublin. You have an engine failure. You can make Dublin in 150 minutes (within your ETOPS limit), but you can also make Reykjavik in 110 minutes. You're going to go to Reykjavik.

I do remember a UA 777 that had to divert to Yellowkife due to an engine failure. The plane was stuck there for a considerable time due to the need to have a replacement engine trucked in. Engine failures on twins don't happen often, but they are far more crippling compared to quads or triples.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 Zeke : No.
26 Flyf15 : No way, you have to take into account the possibility of an engine failure on the ferry flight. On a 3-engine 747 ferry, you still have 2 engines if
27 Pgv : Difference in regards to a 3 engine ferry...I would agree, there isn't much. However, BA is being smart about this one. The LAX - LHR flight had pass
28 TinkerBelle : We might be reading about you but in a different way. An A330 lost two angines on it's way to YYZ and it landed. Ever heard of 'glinding'?
29 Post contains links Dw747400 : Keep in mind that Twins need higher installed thrust in the event of an engine failure. Rather than get off topic, http://www.airliners.net/discussio
30 Flyf15 : The ability to glide to an airport in the event of a total loss of engine power in a transport category airplane is almost entirely sheer luck - no p
31 NorthstarBoy : here's a stupid question, would it not have been easier for BA to contract with SQ to have them replace the engine? the a/c is out of service no matte
32 Boo25 : Quote........."I personaly think BA are putting too much pressure on the engineering staff (trust me I know) and this means that deadlines aren't met,
33 Mir : BA uses RR engines on their 744s. I don't know what SQ uses, but it's not RR. That said, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a way to get an RR engine i
34 RandyWaldron : How amazing. This website is like reading the Enquirer. Gossip, gossip, gossip. The biggest question should be: "Is this safe?" not, "which seat was I
35 474218 : Aircraft engines cost millions of what ever currency you care to deal in, and airlines just don't loan other airlines engines. BA had two options: th
36 YVRtoYYZ : I think its more commonly referred to as gliding. Further, this was a TS flight originating in Toronto destined for Portugal. Because a part for an L
37 PhilSquares : 1) Under the FARs there is no requirement for the PIC to land at the "nearest airport in terms of time" for a 3-4 engine aircraft as there is on a tw
38 FlyDreamliner : Think of it this way - to singapore, BA is the enemy. I'm sure they could have done a special contract where BA paid an irrational price to have singa
39 Post contains images RandyWaldron : So, after you posted this answer, PhilSquares, and cited all of this techincal jargon, the question still remains. Did BA fly that a/c with or withou
40 474218 : Airlines don't act like little children. If BA had chose to change the engine in Singapore they may have contracted SQ for the change. But SQ would n
41 Tinkerbelle : You obviously haven't been reading the damn thread. The ferry flight had no passengers so I'm not sure what you're antsy about.
42 FlyDreamliner : I know this. DL and AA, intense competitors do maintanance for each other - DL maintains the PW engines on the 757s AA inheritted from TWA, and in ex
43 NAV20 : As a matter of interest, can a four still fly (and maintain height) if it loses a second engine on the same side? Strikes me they'd need an awful lot
44 Molykote : These "favors" happen all the time between airlines. I've seen 10% of a component purchase price per day charged for "borrowing" a part from another
45 Warszawa : Interesting to note that the DC-10 was originally designed as a two engine aircraft; it was American Airlines that pushed for a third engine, therefo
46 Post contains images StudentFlyer : Well, here's the answer.. read more carefully next time SQ uses PW engines for their 744s.
47 474218 : At Lockheed were kept spares at key locations around the world (Hong Kong, New York, London and Amman). L-1011 operator could lease parts from these
48 TinkerBelle : Take a chill pill, son! Read the whole thread before asking questions next time.
49 PhilSquares : There's your answer, next time perhaps you could take the time to read. And perhaps don't be so childlike! Yes, the 744 will fly on 2 engines and you
50 Post contains images Iwok : Twins need 200% of required takeoff thrust in order to allow one engine out takeoff MTOW. Quads needs 133% of required takeoff thrust in order to all
51 Post contains links and images 777WT : That is incorrect about the L1011 part. I've seen the video and read the official report. The TS A330 underwent an engine change. During the engine c
52 PhilSquares : I guess I don't follow your logic. If you lose a second engine on a quad, it's really no big deal. However, if you lose the second engine on a twin,
53 Zvezda : Actually, if reliability (MTBF) for each engine is constant, then the probability of one of three engines failing is three times higher than the prob
54 Iwok : The way I see it, you want to be 100% safe at all times. If the second engine when out over the atlantic in bad weather for example, the lower altiti
55 PhilSquares : I would agree if all three engines had the same amount of time and cycles. However, that is rarely the case. I agree with you it's much better to err
56 Post contains images Zvezda : I laughed out loud, really. I was on a flight once that departed late because a windshield wiper needed to be replaced. Should I have gotten off beca
57 Post contains images Iwok : Phil, given your profile info: B744 Captain, 21000Hrs+ B727/B757/B767/A320/B747/B744 I'll have to defer to your experience and judgement. I personall
58 Post contains images Zvezda : I apologize if I was disrespectful. I knew what you meant, but it did come off in a very funny way.
59 PhilSquares : With or without 20/20 hindsight? Again, I don't know what dispatch's and MX control's position was, but my initial thoughts would to have been to con
60 Post contains images Iwok : I tell you, I re-read my post and also laughed. Between this and my failed "defeaning silence on the orders front" thread its an 0-2 weekend. At leas
61 Zvezda : Haha! Discretion is the better part of valour, and all that, eh? Yes, PhilSquares knows his stuff and is smart enough to say he's not sure when he's
62 TristarSteve : I would just like to add that 3 engine ferry is nothing new. In the 60's BEA operated Vickers Vanguards around Europe. Four engined RR Tynes. Big airc
63 YYZYYT : Couple of points... Um, isn't it a little different when an engine is out before the take off role starts? a loaded 744 can climb out if it loses an e
64 Pihero : Some time ago, on a CDG-LAX flight, we shut an engine down over the Hudson Bay.We went down 4000 ft and reestimated an arrival time 25 min later than
65 RobertS975 : We can assume that the allowable takeoff weight of a 747 with three engines is far less than with the normal four. But the ferry flight really had no
66 AA777223 : I heard, and I may be wrong, I cannot remember where, so God help me, but that during tests the GE90 was capable of attaining sustained thrust of as
67 TristarSteve : Sory dont know about B744, but on our Tristar 2 engine ferry flights we had 3 crew and 2 engineers. No cabin crew no catering no toilet water. No wat
68 StarGoldLHR : A United 777 famously landed in Yellowknife canada a few years back, costing $100k, a new engine and a long cold trip in an A320 for some CA Mechanic
69 StarGoldLHR : It was actually going from YYZ to Lisbon, it entered the guiness book of records for the longest continuous unpowered glided flight after over 100 mi
70 StarGoldLHR : Your all focusing on Price and ignoring the real issue.. BA has over 50 747's. A Mechanical base in LHR, and doubtless at least 1 spare 747 engine lyi
71 Sllevin : FAR 91.13. Careless and Reckless operation. Intentionally going out over the North Atlantic with one engine out could easily make a case for this --
72 Starlionblue : No. A 747 can take off on three engines (obviously for a ferry). A 777 cannot take off on one. Also, if a 747 loses an engine in flight, it can conti
73 Post contains links PhilSquares : Please take a look at FAR 121.565. Tell me how the PIC violated this FAR? Again, more conjecture and no fact. In case you don't have it, here it is.
74 Zvezda : Thrust increases are driven by market demand. The next requirement for increased thrust will probably be Y3, which will need about 150,000 lbs per en
75 Post contains images Starlionblue : Sure, but the Orion is an aircraft that first flew in 1961 based on another design that first flew in 1957. I would hope we've come some way since th
76 Zvezda : True, but the point is that no one would ever have predicted that chain of events, with a single blade failure immediately (within one second) causin
77 N1120A : Except of course that you would have to completely reengineer the airplane and put it on a brand new type certificate, among various other significan
78 Zvezda : The B777-300ER has a MTOW of 775,000 lbs. The B747-400 has a MTOW of 875,000 lbs. So, a twin the weight of a B747-400 would need nearly 13% more thru
79 N1120A : It is not a 1 to 1 conversion. You have to take into account the wing, aero, balance, etc. As it is, the 744 needs ~120,000 pounds per side to go. It
80 Starlionblue : Ok I'll grant you that. But surprises happen less and less often due to better design methods. We're still all playing the odds, but they keep gettin
81 Sllevin : Okay, let's break this down: FAR121.565(b) says: (b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation
82 Zeke : Bit hard to find a spare 744 engine in Asia at the moment due to other issues. It would also be a violation to land overweight for a non-emergency si
83 Post contains images TinkerBelle : You should probably just leave the non-believers to continue non-believing Phil. It's apparent that even after they see the FAR's, they still interpr
84 Post contains links NAV20 : I don't think we can argue with the decision to 'repatriate' the Singapore aircraft for economic reasons (cheaper hassle-free repair). After all, no p
85 Sllevin : Totally agree. Ferry flights are a well understood issue with approriately defined criterion such as weight and flight conditions en-route. So you're
86 Post contains images Pihero : I really do not understand all the noise made about that BA flight, especially from people who have been so loud in claiming the superiority of ETOPS
87 Tristarsteve : The BA B744 LAX-LHR that diverted to MAN landed with sufficient fuel on board to reach LHR, but it was in the wrong tanks. Those that fly the B744 kno
88 Starlionblue : Exactly. Three engines are more that two, and hundreds of twins and triplets fly long haul every day! Even if another engine had shut down, the plane
89 Sllevin : So you lost an engine before crossing the Atlantic? We're not talking about if you are in the middle of the crossing. We're talking about the conscio
90 Pihero : Link,please ! Let's not enter a discussion on semantics: I said "most of the flight would be done over land". That reminds me of the argument about w
91 Starlionblue : Land or not is irrelevant. The availability of alternates is relevant.
92 Zvezda : Certainly. We continue to learn from our mistakes and make progress.
93 747LUVR : Ok...I want to throw an egg into this...cannot a 744 fly on ONE engine, while either cruising,decent and landing/ what about a catastrophic takeoff, l
94 Starlionblue : A 744 can maybe stay in the air on one engine at a light load, but probably not take off. Mr Squares knows. Also, how do you define cruising. Every e
95 Zvezda : It would depend on load and on whether the operative engine was inboard (better) or outboard (more drag due to more rudder). Most likely, you'd just
96 Post contains links Zeke : If I was heading towards a home base I would be more go minded, away, more return minded. That is all things being equal, that safety of the aircraft
97 Post contains images Zvezda : Once upon a time, I was flying with a UA test pilot and I asked him whether a B747 could maintain altitude on a single engine. He said a friend had t
98 747LUVR : :Once upon a time, I was flying with a UA test pilot and I asked him whether a B747 could maintain altitude on a single engine. He said a friend had
99 Zvezda : Would you try it again with an inboard engine?
100 YYZYYT : Hmmm. I guess it happens in every line of work: those who know little or nothing about it feel that have to argue with the professionals and prove th
101 TristarSteve : Sorry to doubt you but a B744 with no engines, no RAT, and an APU that cannot be started in the air, and fully powered flying controls, how do you co
102 Zeke : from 744 FCTM "Controllability With Loss of All Engine Power (Windmilling Hydraulics) If ditching, the landing gear should be up. If over land, the l
103 TristarSteve : OK I stand corrected. I didn't realise that the hyd output from windmilling engines was that good.
104 Sllevin : I assume that at least some of this was on JAR certs. Have any 743's been on Part 121 certificates? Nope. Freely admit to never having eclipsed Part
105 Womack17 : Question: I saw the Seconds from Disaster episode involving the El Al cargo jet that crashed in Amsterdam. That aircraft still had both left wing eng
106 Post contains links PhilSquares : Why don't we get the whole FAR out? Here it is: Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whene
107 Zvezda : Indeed! The overwhelming majority of CEOs of 10 person companies fail utterly. The number of people in the world who could successfully run a large a
108 Pihero : Either you don't explain yourself very well or your post smacks of intellectual dishonesty. The least you could do is say : "Thank you Phil for the i
109 Sllevin : Phil, The Captain remains liable for the decision. Saying "I considered all these things and continued" does not mean "my decision is therefore corre
110 Zvezda : I hope the FAA doesn't violate Captains as a punishment when they disagree with judgements made in flight. I've never heard of violation being being
111 Post contains images RonE : HOLY SHIT!!!!!! I am due to fly on this exact same flight in just under two weeks! I sure as hell hope they will have fixed the problem by then
112 Post contains images Sllevin : I meant strictly in the metaphorical sense. And don't let this imply I wouldn't get on a BA flight longhaul -- I would in a heartbeat. Steve
113 Zeke : Fairly standard stuff, can have a fuel build up on a flight plan to cover depressurised scenario, it can be the critical part of the whole plan. The
114 Post contains images Bellerophon : One point, that those who actually fly the B747 in US airspace, keep having to make, is that FARs and JARs do not require an immediate landing at a su
115 Sllevin : I wasn't aware the FAA could take action against the commander. Against the airline, based on their Part 129 status, yes, but not specific individual
116 Zeke : The FAA would have qualified inspectors with experience on this type of operation. Failing that in a court, an expert in the art, i.e. say a 747 flee
117 Manni : Just over 3 months ago. An Air France 777 had to divert to Irkutsk, Siberia. The 777 was flying to Paris from Seoul when one of it's engines failed.
118 Zvezda : The FAA could, for example, suspend or revoke the commander's right to fly in US airspace.
119 Starlionblue : A good point. Self-preservation will do the job if regulation does not. I'm all for long haul twins, but this does illustrate the one weakness they h
120 PhilSquares : Yes....and that has been my point. Under the FARS, the Capt was within his authority.
121 Sllevin : I know the FAA can suspend the airline's right to do so, but an individual crew? I don't believe that's correct. In what court? Where does a court fi
122 Zeke : The USA last time I looked was a democracy, in a democracy no agency is above the courts, the other problem in this case is the matter of jurisdictio
123 PhilSquares : I guess I will just have to defer to your judgement. He met all the criteria of 121.565, there was nothing wreckless about his decision. Obviously, y
124 Zvezda : I'm not a commercial airline pilot. I've never flown anything bigger than an A319. However, I find it remarkable that a regional pilot would argue wit
125 OldAeroGuy : In the latest round, the FAA is proposing to fine BA $25,000 for this incident. Obviously, the FAA thinks the BA pilot was legally in the wrong. Sour
126 Gemuser : IF this occurs I wonder which US airline the UK will fine in retalation, under their "claw back" legislation? Gemuser
127 Post contains links PhilSquares : http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php IMHO, I hope BA fights this. I can think of at least 5 other incidents that have occured on the 74
128 Post contains images Gkirk : Got to love airliners.net, the website where spotters know more about aircraft operations than actual pilots
129 BAW716 : Gkirk, I'm right with you... PhilSquares has more flying hours than probably 98% of the pilots on this forum and 100% more than the rest of us (includ
130 Post contains links Sllevin : Certainly, one can appeal, and people have, but they have never been successful on the basis of appealing the FAA's decision for being 'wrong.' The U
131 PhilSquares : I would be more than willing to bet that nothing comes of this. The major issue is the applicability of the FAR and FAA jurisdiction to a 129 carrier
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...
Wouldn't it make more sense for BA to fly DFW - ORD - LHR? posted Fri Feb 20 2004 04:38:07 by ORDnDFW777
BA To Suspend BA15/BA16 (LHR-SIN-SYD) posted Fri Jul 17 2009 03:07:06 by Flyboysp
BA To Fly To Serve - What Happened? posted Fri Apr 27 2012 08:28:41 by liverpoola380
BA To Fly Olympic Flame To The UK posted Thu Feb 2 2012 08:08:29 by tonystan
BA To Introduce Fuel Saving Paint On 777 posted Fri Dec 30 2011 01:16:59 by Sandgroper
BA 'To Fly To Serve' Crest - Which Aircraft? posted Sun Nov 27 2011 12:46:30 by bdak
Air Canada To Fly 77W YYC-LHR Starting Aug. 1 posted Fri May 4 2007 07:28:40 by Tuffer
NW To Fly 752 & 753 On DTW-PHL posted Wed Nov 29 2006 06:55:25 by PSU.DTW.SCE
Jet To Fly MAA-SIN From Dec 7 posted Tue Nov 22 2005 19:50:54 by Sshank
Least Expensive Way To Fly 11,150 EQMs On SkyTeam? posted Wed Nov 16 2005 16:44:47 by Lincoln