TinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3821 times:
Well, I guess all the A.netters here who bashed BA for doing what they did will be pretty dissapointed. It wasn't dangerous as many claimed and people really need to get over that. Good call by the FAA if you ask me.
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, RR: 37 Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3808 times:
"BA said yesterday the guidance its air controllers would offer a pilot in the event of a similar incident had changed. Now, a spokesman said, it was more likely that the pilot would be told to turn back or land at another airport en route."
As a Maintenance Controller all I can do is offer recommendations of what the ideal course action is from a maintenance perspective. The final decision rests, as it always has done, with the Capt.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3484 times:
Two key excerpts from the article..
It [CAA] also questioned the FAA's rights under international law to act against a foreign-registered airline.
It's not the first time FAA seems to have been unaware of some of its own regs. It was a Part 129 operator/flight (which kicks it back to the regs of the home country), and FAA was acting as if the flight were subject to Part 91 and Part 121 rules, as a US-registered airline would have been.
However the FAA said it had been given assurances by BA that the airline had "changed its procedures" for operating a four-engine aircraft when one has failed.
That will probably raise the question with some of "if the decision to continue was really the "right" one, why would the airline have "changed" its procedures?
I'll let someone else tackle that question...
To me, the whole thing looks like it was a draw...
Airfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3464 times:
BA and everybody here seems to think the pilot did the right thing. If that is so why did BA change the policy? Someone at BA didn't think it was the right thing to do other wise they would not have changed thier policy. I think the pilot was wrong. He should have landed the plane as soon as fesable. I am sure a lot of the people who think the pilot did right would have a different opinion of the pilot if the plane would have lost another engine over the water and crashed. Then we would hear everyone saying that the pilot should have landed when he had the chance.
TinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3421 times:
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 8): I am sure a lot of the people who think the pilot did right would have a different opinion of the pilot if the plane would have lost another engine over the water and crashed.
WHAT? You're assuming that if the 4-holer lost another engine it would crash which is not the case. Just because this was a topic here for months and months after it happened, I'd recommend a search to read extensively on it. Do you really think the PIC himself didn't think of that before deciding to continue? Losing another engine does not in any way mean the plane would crash. I'll let Philsquare fill you in on that.
As the first engine failed soon after leaving LAX, IMO the most likely time for the second failure would be before passing JFK.
There is no increased probability of a second, third, or fourth engine failure as a result of a single failure. The systems are already redundant and isolated from any of the others. You cannot speculate that a failure could occur near JFK. The flight path for LAX-LHR wouldn't cross anywhere near JFK, remember the earth is round. See the picture below.
The only exception might be due to fuel starvation, but then it would not be an engine failure, as they would run out of gas, and not fail.
Spruit From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 375 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3370 times:
Quoting Jbmitt (Reply 11): The only exception might be due to fuel starvation
Which is what caused them to land at Manchester isn't it?!
As has been stated before on this, it's the PIC's decision, he made it, and BA have in part vindicated him for it! But then if they totally agreed with the decision, they wouldn't have changed the policy!
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2697 posts, RR: 49 Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3354 times:
Glad to see the FAA finally understood that:
A- BA indeed operated an airworthy plane all along, despite it loosing an engine on take off during the entire trip and that there was no need for it to turn back imediately or alternatively land somewhere along its route, rather than continue to the planned destination LHR like it did.
B- they have no jurisdiction over the operating procedures of foreign airlines if these are in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and international rules, even if these may be in conflict to local FAA rules.
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4): I think it's funny, all the "experts" who were so quick to condenm the BA Capt haven't said a thing. Perhaps, they're not so learned after all!
Indeed, still remember well how 'the expects' almost fell over eachother to tell us how we should do our job, reason for which I backed out of the discussion fairly early.
Airfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3300 times:
Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 10): Losing another engine does not in any way mean the plane would crash
Tell that to the crew that crashed in Israel. Their 747 lost two engines and crashed into an apartment building. Yes it was on takeoff but who is to say that the BA plane wouldn't have to do a missed approach.
No worries. Its an easy mistake. For others reading the thread, fuel starvation would indicate that all fuel is consumed and the engines would sputter out. Usable fuel is the amount before using required reserves and minimums. As usable fuel decreases, a diversion could be necessary.
Spruit, it takes a real person to admit a mix-up. If only other a.netters could follow your lead.
CM767 From Panama, joined Dec 2004, 639 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3249 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 9): As the first engine failed soon after leaving LAX, IMO the most likely time for the second failure would be before passing JFK.
The engine failed on LAX, controllers told the crew that they saw sparks and smoke from the engine.
The issue here is the timing of the decision, I will not discuss if the operation of a 747 on 3 engines is dangerous, because I believe that this is not. The real problem here and I believe that it is what the FAA questions, is if the engine failed on takeoff, why the crew did not handle it in the safest way and landed right away? Why not handle the problem on the ground? They circled for a while until they found that everything was ok and then, they proceeded with the flight and eventually found problems with fuel management that forced them to declare a fuel emergency.
I do not believe that the FAA is saying that BA actions were not questionable, is the opposite, BA is expressing that they would not do it again, clearly better judgment will be used from now on. Not been fined can not be confused with approval of the decision to continue a flight when an engine fails on rotation.
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3677 posts, RR: 37 Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3189 times:
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 16): Tell that to the crew that crashed in Israel. Their 747 lost two engines and crashed into an apartment building.
I assume you are referring to the one that crashed in AMSTERDAM. In that case they literally lost two engines i.e. they fell off, due to corrosion on one of the #3 Eng fuse pins. When that engine broke free it took #4 with it. An engine shutdown is something entiely different.
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 8): I think the pilot was wrong. He should have landed the plane as soon as fesable. I am sure a lot of the people who think the pilot did right would have a different opinion of the pilot if the plane would have lost another engine over the water and crashed.
On a similar theme do you know what the Boeing policy is on engine dual fire detector loop failure is? If you loose both loops on a single sector, you keep on trucking. They say the probability of a fire on the same sector so so low you shouldn't consider it.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3132 times:
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 8): BA and everybody here seems to think the pilot did the right thing. If that is so why did BA change the policy?
First of all, the FAA will have to change the FARS if they expect BA to change their policy. The FARS are very clear about the PIC's options in this case. There was no case at all!!
Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 13): They didn't land at MAN because of fuel starvation, they landed because they were short on usable fuel. Note the difference.
Suggest you re-read the AAIB report. In reality, there was no fuel shortage, the crew didn't understand and the QRH was somewhat confused about balancing the fuel.
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 16): Tell that to the crew that crashed in Israel. Their 747 lost two engines and crashed into an apartment building. Yes it was on takeoff but who is to say that the BA plane wouldn't have to do a missed approach.
As has already been pointed out, the AMS crash was a completely different situation. The BA aircraft could have done a missed without any of the same problems the El Al aircraft had.
IMO, if the first failure caused a second failure then it would happen within 1/2 hours.
In that case, the plane would still be over the US/Canada.
My recollection of the ELAL crash is that the engine detached, not merely failed.
An engine seperating from the pylon/wing is a much greater problem than what the BA crew faced. If mechanical/structural failure occurs probability of FOD to the engines, or damage to other control structures/engines increases exponentially. In such a situation I would agree with you that the odds of further damage/problems is greater. While hard to calculate, your estimate of failure within 30 min seems very generous. I would guess that any chain reaction damage would happen within moments of the initial fault.
The ElAl crew in AMS never had a chance due to the chain reaction of events right after take-off. The #3 engine and pylon detached from the wing hitting the #4 engine and causing control surface damage to the flaps.
The BA crew had an engine fail/shutdown but didn't seperate from the wing. Had it actually fallen off, I would imagine that they would have diverted immediately because of all sorts of bad possible scenarios. However, there was no damage, just a shut down engine so they continued on.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3077 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 7): That will probably raise the question with some of "if the decision to continue was really the "right" one, why would the airline have "changed" its procedures?
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 8): If that is so why did BA change the policy? Someone at BA didn't think it was the right thing to do other wise they would not have changed thier policy.
PR, thats all. This incident has been in the papers, news and in the industry rags for months now - with 'British Airways' right alongside comments along the lines of 'unsafe' 'engine failure' 'passengers at risk' etc. BA wants to avoid this in future.
We dont know what they changed, but in circumstances such as these, 'We have changed something' is what the public reading the above news articles will want to hear regardless of whether BA was at fault or not. By changing their policies they also avoid more months of negative press coverage in the future.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3059 times:
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 21): the FAA will have to change the FARS if they expect BA to change their policy.
Going purely by what the article's "FAA said it had been given assurances by BA that the airline had "changed its procedures""said, and not seeing any subsequent changes to FAR 121.565, I fail to see your suggested linkage, nor do I expect to see any changes in Part 121...
There was no case, because there was no jurisdiction. The FAA pre-supposed application of Part 91 and Part 121 regs on a Part 129 operator, and it wasn't so, as they discovered.
Had the flight in question been a US-registered airline operating under Part 121 Domestic/Flag regs, and the scenario unfolded exactly as it had on the BA flight, I'm confident that FAA would have argued that the eventual landing short of destination was a foreseeable consequence of the original decision to continue the flight after the initial failure immediately after the takeoff from LAX. As such, FAA would have violated the crew (and dispatcher) on FAR 121.565 (b)(1-2. and possibly 3-4), as well as FAA's usual catch-all of "careless or reckless" under FAR 91.13.
I suspect the above was FAA's belief and motivation in starting their proceedings, and, of course, the jurisdiction issue (the lack thereof) made the whole thing a moot issue as far as the BA case was concerned.
25 LTBEWR: While this involved an UK registered a/c operated by a UK based operator, the engine failed apparently over USA airspace. That put people in the USA a
26 VC-10: It's wonderful what you can do with hindsight. I may be wrong, but I thought the landing at MAN was a result of winds that were stronger than adverti
27 Sllevin: I completely agree with your assessment. Steve
28 Revelation: Some people said this is merely a PR move, but I think this is what FAA was after all along, and not the $25,000 penalty payment. Thus, I think the F
29 RichardPrice: According to the AAIB report, the greater use of fuel was due to unforseen stronger headwinds, and the declared emergency was made because the crew w
30 OPNLguy: My point remains that irrespective of whatever the reason for landing short was, had it been the Part 121 flight (and not the BA flight) FAA would ha
31 Sabenapilot: Nothing. The only thing the commander of a British registered plane has to take into account are CAA rules and the Boeing 747 operating procedures. N
32 Revelation: And what about BA company procedures (note I said 'BA pilot', not 'British pilot')?
33 VC-10: Isn't everybody overlooking the fact the system worked. MAN would would be an alternate on the Flt Plan for any unforeseen problem. They had a problem
34 Sabenapilot: The official report does not mention any changes made to any company procedures other than the periodic review of fuel balancing procedures. "All Boe
35 TinkerBelle: No worries Like mentioned above, that was a totally different situation.
36 Sllevin: I'm not convinced that because it isn't mentioned in the AAIB's report that it hasn't happened. Based on the first safety recommendation of the AAIB
37 PhilSquares: I disagree. This was a complex issue that boiled down to just more than continuing with an engine shutdown. First of all, BA as a 129 carrier is obli
38 OPNLguy: If the US carriers you mentioned were indeed able to continue to their intended destinations, I'd be first to agree with you. If any of them would ha
39 Sllevin: The AAIB disagrees with you -- specifically recommending clarification of this point. Obviously it wasn't so "perfectly clear" to them. Steve
40 RichardPrice: If you actually read the report, and I mean all of it, you will note that on page 36 the reasons for Safety Recommendation 2006-18 (recommendation fo
41 Sabenapilot: No they don't. Where do they say it was illegal? Right now, in the absence of any rules, it is up to the companies to come up with a policy: some pre
42 Sllevin: I did take the time to read the report -- all of it -- and I don't entirely agree with your assessment. Yes, different companies have vasstly differe
43 PhilSquares: On what basis? There are several issues here. The reason the BA flight landed short was the crew's confusion about crossfeed during a low fuel state
44 OPNLguy: With all due respect, I'm afraid that you've mis-cited me and otherwise put words in my mouth.... Specifically, I never said that (if the BA flight i
45 RichardPrice: I think what the AAIB are trying to say with the request for a review and clarification is that the current rules are due for review and this would b
46 PhilSquares: Please take a look at page 4 of the AAIB site, http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...ng%20747-436,%20G-BNLG%2006-06.pdf You have the facts somewhat
47 RichardPrice: I never said there was an 'on stand fuel requirement', I simply stated that the fuel quantity at the stand was 4.8 tonnes (and just checked this with
48 PhilSquares: Actually, had the crossfeed issue been clearer to the crew, they most likely would have proceeded to LHR. It was the "suspected unusable" fuel that t