Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69 Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20757 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Whats this all about?
Air traffic controllers monitoring a British Airways jumbo jet were stunned at the pilot's decision to try to "get as far as we can" after an engine caught fire on takeoff, a transcript of discussions between the plane and the control tower revealed.
The controllers in Los Angeles expected the four-engine Boeing 747 to turn around but, after taking advice from BA's operations base, the pilot carried on towards London. He told air traffic control: "We just decided we want to set off on our flight-plan route and get as far as we can."
Lincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 20643 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 2): weird that they would rehash an old story....pretty deceptive.
I'm making the assumption that the article published in the Wall Street Journal late last week is what's stirring everything back up.
In that article, references were made to tapes released by the FAA under a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request by the Wall Street Journal -- now that we are actually hearing the discussions, it's shedding new light on the controller's concerns.
Or at least that's my take.
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
Feroze From India, joined Dec 2004, 794 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 20107 times:
Quoting David L (Reply 6): Quoting Feroze (Reply 5):
But the transcript, obtained by the Wall Street Journal under US freedom of information laws, may reignite the controversy.
I doubt it. The details were known by those concerned at the time.
I should have mentioned that I was quoting the Guardian article. I don't think the AAIB report transcripted the FAA ATC conversations, though I could be wrong.....I'm working and not able to read through it at the moment!
ThePRGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 20032 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 3): Well, it is The Guardian. Any chance to stir the pot...
With many of their left wing headlines, one would assume they are a cheap tabloid. Saying that, at least it isn't the Daily Mail, they probably would have mentioned the same story but with a few more foreign/illegal immigrants and homosexuals involved
A320ajm From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 524 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18133 times:
I don't see what all the fuss about.
The BA Pilots obviously knew what they were doing and deemed it safe. If they had lost another engine then they could have used ETOPS (only joking lol)
Anyway, nobody was hurt and i think they did they right thing.
If the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
Aviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1350 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 15984 times:
The Guardian story was probably picked up because the Wall Street Journal recently revisited the incident after the FAA (wisely) announced it was dropping its months-long inquest into the matter.
I wrote two articles about the BA 268 incident for Salon.com's "Ask the Pilot" column. The editors of Airliners will not allow me to link to any of my stories directly, but if you'd like to hear my opinions on the matter, please send me an email, either via the Airliners interface or directly.
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9483 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 14478 times:
Quoting Asturias (Reply 17): I really don't care if BA deems it safe or not to continue on 3 engines over the Atlantic. Fact remains that incidents are a chain of events and an engine-out is a chain in such an event.
It means only that I won't fly BA, won't recommend people to fly BA nor respect BA.
Have you read any of the suggested links or did you read them but still think you know better than the professionals, including Boeing?
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8090 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 14478 times:
BA judement on this was ... poor. If this had happened over Chicago at 33,000 feet or half way from New York to LHR where the plane could maintain altitude then they should have continued. I remember reading this in the Wall Street Journal in 2005 when it happened, the pilots circled Los Angeles for 20 figuring out if they should land at LAX, fly to the east coast or fly all the way to the UK, they flew to Manchester, UK. A very highly fueled 744 circling LAX on 3 engines hardly be able to climb to an optimal altitude is not my idea of a safe airplane ride. Virgin would have landed at LAX.
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2038 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 14180 times:
Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 19): You'll be be wanting to knock off quite a number of carriers from your "Airlines I Will Fly" list then...
I have no problem with this.
Quoting David L (Reply 21): Have you read any of the suggested links or did you read them but still think you know better than the professionals, including Boeing?
Of course, I've read every link and every post. know flying on three engines is safe.. However, if you lose an engine, then there may be something else wrong and it may take out more engines or do damage in a different way. Then you are flying on two engines and that isn't so safe any more.
If you're going to jam yourself in semantics, then yes, BA and Boing are right. Flying on three engines is safe.
It really comes down to statistics and the chain of events, though. I lost respect for BA when I heard that they pulled this stunt again. All of the airlines I fly with would turn back and land the plane immediately because there is nothing more important to them than passenger and crew safety.
Not this arrogant "oh odds are we'll probably make it". This sounds a lot like get-home-itis. A dangerous disease. A plane is not airworthy on three engines, so it should return to the nearest safe airport. Without hesitation. End of story.
Either way, this is my choice. I won't recommend the second-rate (safety-wise) airline British Airways again. They're not so awsome service-wise either. Passable I suppose.
Tonight we fly
25 David L
: You clearly have not read the links. You're not even close. Translation: operated within the regulations and safety guidelines. On two engines you do
: Engines catch on fire all the time and get shut down.
: The engine didn't catch fire. It suffered a surge. That's the nature of a jet engine: certain, comparatively innocuous malfunctions tend to manifest t
: Oh dear, a knowitall.. ok.. I read the links. Are you going to dispute that again? Regulations are just that. The even differ between countries. Yet t
: I think you guys are all nuts.. Obviously the pilots, BA and Boeing found it safe enough to continue, so, it was a highly educated decision which did
: The WSJ article was very well done. The Guardian article was a pickup of that article. It examines the controversy about the decision to continue on t
: My God, the arrogance of non-pilots who read a few articles, and believe that their intellect and limited, cursory knowledge of aviation somehow gran
32 David L
: So, you've read all the links, ignored the documented facts completely and made something up. Show us all where you got this from: I think you'll str
: These three articles underscore your first point very nicely. http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...05/03/04/askthepilot126/index.html http://www.sa
: And with that experience, it's your opinion that it's not even debateable whether crossing the Pond on 3 was the right move? The FAA believed that it
: It seems to me that BA receives an inordinate amount of attention in the press and HERE when they continue a flight with one engine out on one of thei
: Well, that's what the crew said at the time, but I'm not sure that that's all that happened. I thought that the AIG concluded that the "surge" fried
: Hmmm Counselor..... You're doing some assuming there, William. What I was positing is that armchair quarterbacks such as Asturias who make blanket st
: Ascending to the rank of Captain doesn't automatically and in and of itself make someone impervious to making errors. Last time I looked, pilots were
: That is not smart. If there is any emergency, then that plane should be grounded ASAP!
: A single engine failure on a four engine jet is not considered an emergency, it's considered an abnormal.
: Well, I'm a pilot and don't agree with the decisions of this BA flight crew. While I won't "never fly them again," On this particular flight I dont l
: Now that's entirely fair. Perhaps I was reading too much into your original post. FWIW, Austrius actually made a post on another thread on this subje
: This is an old story and has been beaten to death on a.net. The BA captain made a decision. We may not like the decision he made. He was legal as far
: So why was the 747 certified, if it couldn't flyon 3 engines?
: I believe from experience as an ATC and talks with airline pilot, that, even on twin engine aircraft, an engine failure is not considered an emergency
: If you look in the QRH onboard the aircraft, i belive that flying with an engine out is in the Abnormal Procedures section... NOT the Emergency Secti
47 David L
: But how much experience do you have in flying four engined airliners long haul? Kind of. They diverted to MAN. They didn't forget to recalculate the
48 David L
: Indeed. There's some interesting stuff on that site. Thanks go to the author of said articles.
: I am no expert, but would not landing the plane 'immediately' put the passengers at high risk? As I understand it this aircraft had taken off from LA
50 David L
: Plus the fact that they seem to suffer an awful lot of engine failures for him to have experienced several times something that the vast majority of
: No. There were no indications anything else was wrong with the aircraft. Aircraft are designed so that failures should not propagate. Look who's talk
: Throughout all of the dabates on this subject on several websites I have remained silent. This is such a borderline case it is quite amazing to me tha
: another compressor stall, I'm sorry you weren't looking ouside, you would have seen flames coming out of that engine. Our experts here could discuss
: Indications? Perhaps you think you are funny. The crew is quite shielded from any indications inside the cockpit, except for those they can read of t
55 David L
: Using your logic, you can never be sure something isn't wrong, even if you have all four engines running. Afterall... Exactly like you're doing with e
: Valid point, there is a world of difference between my Cessna and your 747. I actually keep my hand on the yoke to fly all the time and you press the
: We should poll the passangers. We can argue the academics all day long. Four engines, three engines, this engine, that engine. But, this is the passan
: I have joined A.net to put my input into this discussion. I think it very important to emphasise that I know of no Captain in BA that would continue i
59 David L
: Great idea, let the passengers decide how airliners should be operated. And how many passengers would vote to put the aircraft down every time they h
: Wow! They do this with passengers? I am amazed. How often does this happen? Welcome to A-Net!
61 David L
: Welcome to the looney bin! I hope you know what you've let yourself in for. Anyway, I'm glad to see yet another experienced long-hauler confirm what
: I hope I'll see more of you. Welcome to A.nuts ! where passengers vote for the flight ops, where teenagers give airmanship lessons to professional pi
: Thanks David L, no, not yet! No, because of the added risk during t/o. All passenger carrying a/c must be able to suffer the loss of an engine during
64 David L
: But you win on aggregate - my French has diminshed to "pretty useless".
: Bonsoir Pihero Thanks Pihero. I enjoyed your post. I also appreciate and agree with all you have said on this subject. BTW, don't worry about the Engl