Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Pilot Flies Despite Fire On 747  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20849 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."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/ba/story/0,,1880285,00.html

130 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20816 times:

Sounds like the same incident talked about here:
FAA Drops Its 3 Engine 744 Case Against BA (by Zeke Sep 24 2006 in Civil Aviation)



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20816 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

weird that they would rehash an old story....pretty deceptive.

User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20761 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 2):
weird that they would rehash an old story....pretty deceptive.

Well, it is The Guardian. Any chance to stir the pot...


User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20735 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.

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineFeroze From India, joined Dec 2004, 794 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 20451 times:

Lincoln,

I have just read the hard copy version of the article and it was indeed the WSJ obtaining the information that you mention that was the precursor for today's article in the G:

Quote:
But the transcript, obtained by the Wall Street Journal under US freedom of information laws, may reignite the controversy.

Feroze


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 20369 times:

Quoting Feroze (Reply 5):
Quote:
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.

See here, as well:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/156420


User currently offlineFeroze From India, joined Dec 2004, 794 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 20199 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 6):
Quoting Feroze (Reply 5):
Quote:
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!

Regards,

Feroze


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 20158 times:

Quoting Feroze (Reply 7):
I should have mentioned that I was quoting the Guardian article.

That's why I included the word "quote".  Smile

Nevertheless, I don't think there's anything new here, other than that FAA is dropping the case and BA are changing their four-engine, engine-out procedures while flying in the US.


User currently offlineThePRGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 20124 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
Thanks
PR


User currently offlineA320ajm From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 18225 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.'
User currently offlineDC8FanJet From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 18225 times:

Old news. The incident was completely within BA operating procedures and FAA doesn't have any regulatory say.

User currently offlineLee From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17708 times:

Its funny how this has only just surfaced in the media when it happened ages ago. Its like that Onur Air story that was posted her weeks ago, was only in the papers in the last few days.

User currently offlineAviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16076 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.

PS

Aviateur@askthepilot.com



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15954 times:

Quoting DC8FanJet (Reply 11):
The incident was completely within BA operating procedures

And Boeing's!


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15874 times:

This is getting confusing. I'm going to suggest deletion so we can focus on the earlier thread:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 1):
Sounds like the same incident talked about here:
FAA Drops Its 3 Engine 744 Case Against BA (by Zeke Sep 24 2006 in Civil Aviation)

 Smile


User currently offlineCharliejag1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15679 times:

Good old BA and their huge stones.

User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2078 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15429 times:

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.

cheers

Asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineSteve6666 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15222 times:

Quoting Asturias (Reply 17):
It means only that I won't fly BA, won't recommend people to fly BA nor respect BA.

In that case, you are welcome to the vastly superior service on Iberia.

If I am going down, I will damn well do it in style. On BA, sipping champagne as we hurtle to our doom.



eu nasci ha dez mil anos atras, e nao tem nada nesse mundo que eu nao saiba demais
User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 14802 times:

Quoting Steve6666 (Reply 18):
If I am going down, I will damn well do it in style. On BA, sipping champagne as we hurtle to our doom.

Style... BA... In the same sentance? I dont think so...  stirthepot 

Quoting Asturias (Reply 17):
It means only that I won't fly BA, won't recommend people to fly BA nor respect BA

You'll be be wanting to knock off quite a number of carriers from your "Airlines I Will Fly" list then...



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2078 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 14802 times:

Quoting Steve6666 (Reply 18):
In that case, you are welcome to the vastly superior service on Iberia.

They're only impolite to non-Iberians  goodvibes  (especially Brits and Italians)

cheers

Asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 14570 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?


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8282 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14570 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4389 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14306 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 22):
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,

Most of the dicussion was about the windmilling engine which could be irreparably damaged if operated too long without proper lubrification.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 22):
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

They never did circle LAX. And are you familiar with the climb capability of a 744 on three engines ?



Contrail designer
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2078 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14272 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.  Smile

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.

cheers

Asturias



Tonight we fly
25 Post contains images 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
26 PlainSmart : Engines catch on fire all the time and get shut down.
27 Aviateur : 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
28 Asturias : 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
29 Slashd0t : 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
30 TVNWZ : 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
31 LJDRVR : 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 Post contains images 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
33 Post contains links Halls120 : 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
34 Wjcandee : 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
35 Richie87 : 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
36 Wjcandee : 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
37 LJDRVR : Hmmm Counselor..... You're doing some assuming there, William. What I was positing is that armchair quarterbacks such as Asturias who make blanket st
38 OPNLguy : 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
39 Cessna057 : That is not smart. If there is any emergency, then that plane should be grounded ASAP!
40 LJDRVR : A single engine failure on a four engine jet is not considered an emergency, it's considered an abnormal.
41 Futurecaptain : 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
42 Wjcandee : 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
43 BAW716 : 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
44 Gkirk : So why was the 747 certified, if it couldn't flyon 3 engines?
45 Aerofede : 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
46 Kaddyuk : 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images David L : Indeed. There's some interesting stuff on that site. Thanks go to the author of said articles.
49 VV701 : 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
51 Post contains images Starlionblue : 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
52 LuckyEddie : 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
53 Post contains images Pihero : 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
54 Post contains links Asturias : 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 Post contains images 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
56 Futurecaptain : 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
57 TVNWZ : 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
58 BA777ER236 : 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 Post contains images 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
60 TVNWZ : Wow! They do this with passengers? I am amazed. How often does this happen? Welcome to A-Net!
61 Post contains images 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
62 Post contains images Pihero : 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
63 BA777ER236 : 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".
65 Post contains images BA777ER236 : 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
66 Post contains images David L : Anyone care to start that thread?
67 TVNWZ : So, in theory, if the BA flight were to have lost another engine over the North Atlantic it could have kept airborne with just two engines? Interesti
68 Pihero : Actually, in your sarcastic way, you just nailed the truth ! Yes,at all points of the route we assume the loss of another engine,prove that the airpl
69 Starlionblue : Not with pax. But remember that taking off with three and continuing with three are very different things. Indeed. The applies same on twins, triplet
70 BA777ER236 : Yes, I can see why you were so strident in your views: The crew would not have continued the flight if their performance manuals and Flight Managemen
71 Asturias : No, I present logic and explain why I hold the opinion that I do. The funny thing is that it seems to be about 50/50 between experienced airline pilo
72 TVNWZ : I am not feeling very safe, here. Not to me. Built for 4. I want 4, or let me off. This is not Las Vegas. Exactly. YES! Theory vs reality. Theory: It
73 BA777ER236 : Hi Asturias Actually, I think this is incorrect. It is my understanding that had the crew transferred fuel correctly, then they would have had the fue
74 Post contains images BA777ER236 : What Pihero was saying, is that in the EXTREMELY unlikely event of the loss of another engine, the a/c would still maintain at least 12,000ft - what'
75 Starlionblue : Indeed it is not. But there was no gambling with lives involved. The aircraft was operated legally and within airline and manufacturer recommended pa
76 Post contains images Asturias : Lives are always on the line. Flying is a calculated risk, which passengers accept. They don't accept further unnecessary additional elements to this
77 Post contains images Starlionblue : That may be so, but if we went on pax opinions and the pax knew the whole story, few aircraft would get off the ground Very true. But since BA hasn't
78 Wjcandee : But unquestionably not within FAA regulations, which you all keep refusing to admit, and when you do, you then characterize them as stupid. Swell. On
79 Post contains images Pihero : In AF case,we have operated 98 different 747s since 1971, and we have lost only one - a cargo plane, after a wheel fire,with the help of Madras' fire
80 Starlionblue : I did not call them stupid. And I think it is very questionable whether it was not within FAA regulations. Did they? They dropped the case, which at
81 Post contains images TVNWZ : So, this crew made another error? What are air disasters made of? A sequence of errors. Strike two. So, what you are saying is that despite years of
82 Starlionblue : That is not what happened. I will let those more knowledgeable explain what happened, but basically there was no reason to believe there was not enou
83 Wjcandee : Glad you do. The FAA didn't. When they dropped the case, they dropped it because BA agreed not to conduct extended 3-engine operations, not because t
84 TVNWZ : I know what you are saying. I just think that the more you cut the margin of error, or take more chances, the more you are looking for trouble. Flyin
85 DAL7e7 : Ok, so I'll contribute my gathered information from this thread. It is a calculated risk, but so is breathing, walking, running, swimming, typing, etc
86 Asturias : Why yes smartypants. How about finishing my quote on 'calculated risk'. Picking out a line like that is just impolite. With omissions like that, how
87 BA777ER236 : Wjcandee - I enjoy your posts, and respect your opinion, especially as I have just spotted your occupation - therefore, can you please clarify: Do you
88 BCAL : May I join the band wagon and welcome you to a.net. It is good to read your informative posts that are such a refreshing change from those of the arm
89 BA777ER236 : Thanks BCAL, I'm finding A.NET rather addictive already! I agree with everything you say. As I mentioned in a previous post, even with advise from BA
90 Post contains images David L : BA777ER236 and Starlionblue: I had a humongous post ready - thanks for sparing me the need. It also provided time for me to calm down. Absolutely. The
91 DAL7e7 : I'm not here to impress. I'm here to improve my knowledge. To elaborate on my previous post, think about this. Does ever aircraft take off at exactly
92 Post contains images David L : If you take a look at the rest of StarlionBlue's posts, I think you'll find you are pretty much in agreement with him. Good post, by the way. Obvious
93 Asturias : Yes, this is what is called drawing a point ad absurdum. It is worthless reasoning. All these things you brought up are known and accepted. Flying on
94 Post contains images SmokinL1011 : "...and dramatic tongues of flame." That line got me picturing a BA cabin, the purser on the p.a. with proper, upper-crust accent - "Ladies and gentl
95 Futurecaptain : Wow dude. No reason for that tone. Doesn't matter your age, we all have an opinion and are free to state it. It's up to you if you want to believe it
96 Post contains images David L : How arrogant... and wrong. How arrogant... and wrong. How arrogant and... wait, that's only arrogant. Just who on earth do you think you are? Ah! The
97 Post contains links Khobar : I thought this was an interesting video - I seem to recall someone mentioning the old DC-6 - this isn't one of those but it's interesting nonetheless
98 BA777ER236 : This is an interesting illustration of a 3 engine ferry flight, but if the crew really took 2 hrs to get it right then the methodology might be quest
99 Post contains images BA777ER236 : Wow! Your racial stereotypes are way out of date, don't you realise that watching Mike Myers and old copies of the 'Avengers' is not very representat
100 DAL7e7 : Ah yes, the common age quote. Notice the whole paragraph this time, by the way. Also, take note that it is not considered talking back if you didn't
101 Post contains images David L : You might have if you hadn't been spectacularly outdone on that score by your accuser.
102 VinnieWinnie : This has been the best debate I have seen for ages on A.net!!! Kudos to everyone! I don't post that much on A.net. Simply because I feel ignorant. I l
103 Starlionblue : But they didn't "convict". A telling point.
104 TVNWZ : One of the things lost in this thread is that this whole business--is for the convience, comfort and saftey of the passangers. We are not flying these
105 TVNWZ : sorry double post / / /[Edited 2006-09-28 04:56:06]
106 Khobar : Well done in painting with an equally broad brush. At least SmokinL1011's comments were funny. And, for the record, his description is accurate to th
107 BA777ER236 : Well, I really object to this! If you think my posts 'feeble' then I'm amazed and will not bother to post again. I was mearly trying to give you a di
108 LuckyEddie : Thankfully, operating an airliner is not, and never will be, a democratic process involving the passengers as the electorate. Here's why. Almost ever
109 Ferrypilot : I think you are not entitled to comment on the operation of a 747 unless you are qualified to fly a 747 yourself.
110 Post contains images We're Nuts : Oh my God!
111 Starlionblue : Or perhaps a mechanic, or a dispatcher, or an engineer on the type, or maybe an A.nutter... You're wildly overdramatizing. As LuckyEddie points out,
112 Post contains images David L : Excellent post. Unfortunately, a lot of those facts will be conveniently ignored by some. I warned you! There's always a certain amount of posturing
113 BA777ER236 : Yes you did, and I will try! Thanks for this, I was beginning to get depressed!! I quite agree!
114 Ferrypilot : I respect all the guys above who work hard to get the aircraft airworthy. ...But my comment relates to operation of the aircraft in flight by the pil
115 TVNWZ : Okay...I will amend that. The pilot was prodded to continue because of corporate greed. I think if it were left to him, he would have landed the plan
116 Post contains images David L : Then they should amend FAR Section 121.565(b).
117 Post contains images Starlionblue : If they thought they had a case, as per their own regulations, they would have sanctioned BA and the pilots. After investigation, they found they did
118 David L : Just in case you don't see how ridiculous that is, just suppose you have "run flat" tyres on your car that can be driven for one hundred miles, no fa
119 TVNWZ : No, you don't stick a knife in it. And if a knife is stuck in it you change the tire... Better analogy: You are in a big bus filled with paying custo
120 UKCO : I would have, and I am not a Pilot, just a simple pax. I would have preffered my flight to arrive on time rather than divert, if the captain deemed i
121 UKCO : You seem to miss the point that pax probably wouldnt appreciate a fuel dump and a diversion if it wasn't necessary. It's more likely he did it in pax
122 Starlionblue : Except that your bus is overweight and unsafe to land.
123 TVNWZ : As a passenger...I would. What I would not appreciate would be the lessening of the margin of safety. This is a new one for me. Arguing that dumping
124 Threepoint : I think you have convinced most of us to do just that. To BA777ER236, thank you for your eloquence. I welcome you for your opinion and insight you br
125 Post contains images Starlionblue : Why dump fuel when you have plenty of diversions in route? If another engine fails after three or four hours, you can land in Canada. As was stated e
126 Post contains images BA777ER236 : Thanks for your comments Threepoint. I'm sure this would cause me great distress as well! I will revise my thoughts on North American humour to applyi
127 BA777ER236 : Sorry, double post! Having problems with internet connection![Edited 2006-09-29 07:15:42]
128 BA777ER236 : And again, sorry eveyone, will get the hang of this....eventually!!!![Edited 2006-09-29 07:16:57]
129 Post contains images David L : So, if you get a puncture on your way home, you would stop immediately pull over and call a tow truck? You wouldn't drive home at 40 mph and get the
130 RichardPrice : The safest decision is to never ever fly, scrap all those dangerous flying machines, infact any mechanical moving device, stay within walking distanc
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...
Indian BA Pilot Flies Aid Flight Out To India posted Sun Feb 4 2001 02:38:03 by Capt.Picard
Pilot/Columnist Patrick Smith On The 747-8 posted Fri Dec 2 2005 18:53:44 by LHMARK
CNN U.S. Airways Plane Catches Fire On Runway posted Thu Aug 31 2006 19:47:22 by Monkey
Upper Deck On 747-100s posted Sun Jul 2 2006 14:53:49 by Robertmalpass
787-style Interior On 747-8 - Why Not? posted Tue Jun 27 2006 15:54:59 by 1337Delta764
BA Issues Detailed Press Release On LHR T5 posted Mon Jun 12 2006 19:46:37 by VV701
HKG-CGN On 747-400 posted Thu Jun 8 2006 19:19:05 by TommyBP251b
Little Market For Extras On 747-8 posted Wed May 17 2006 08:10:22 by Sangas
BA Pilot 120 Days In The Nick For Drunkflying posted Tue Mar 28 2006 14:40:42 by 747400F
Question Re: Front Pax Windows On 747 posted Fri Mar 24 2006 22:20:43 by JAAlbert
777 Total Sales Close In On 747 posted Thu Sep 15 2011 10:43:44 by OldAeroGuy
BA To Go All B777 On HKG-LHR? posted Mon Aug 29 2011 12:24:20 by United Airline
PTV's On 747 Classics posted Sun Dec 12 2010 16:11:59 by 747fan