scotron11
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:30 pm

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

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

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

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

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

How much will the fine be?
 
m404
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:43 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:06 pm

Well, if it's "was clear that FAA rules would not prevent a four-engine aircraft like the 747 continuing flight with one engine out. then what would they fine them for?
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:11 pm

M404 echoes my sentiments. If you are allowed to keep flying with 3 engines what's the problem? Unless there's something to the story which has not been revealed...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:22 pm

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

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

From my perspective, it's a waste of time and manpower on the part of the FAA.
Fly fast, live slow
 
aa777jr
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:03 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:38 pm

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

Regards.
A liberal is a man who is right most of the time, but he's right too soon.
 
lutfi
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:49 pm

What a load of horse poop.

Hopefully UKCAD can find some equally stupid reason to fine a US airline operating to UK
 
backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:07 pm

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


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

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

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

So the question becomes - was the possibility of an altitude limitation something which the crew should have considered?
 
Ready4Pushback
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:27 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:14 pm

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

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

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

You can't blame a pilot for doing something that the technical manuals say is fine to do, and there is no rule about not doing it.
 
N754PR
Posts: 2909
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 1999 10:03 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:15 pm

The FAA has spoken... BA are finished......
Bush, your a sad, sad man.
 
zonky
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:31 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:29 pm

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


Perhaps it was; adequate diversion airports were avaliable, were they not?
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:31 pm

Backfire,

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

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

Be advised that under the JARS the flight was under no obligation to return to LAX.
Fly fast, live slow
 
lutfi
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:42 pm

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

What are they being fined for - flying on 3 engines or diverting?
 
Ready4Pushback
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:27 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:48 pm

Surely this is up to Boeing or Rolls Royce to comment on? Haven't either of them said anything?
 
lutfi
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:51 pm

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

Strange
 
AlanUK
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:56 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:14 pm

Scotron11: do you have a source for your post?
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:17 pm

If true, then what will the fine be. A coffee from Starbucks, just to please the press. The FAA need to review the facts that the 744, being a superb piece of engineering, along with RR and the highly skilled people at BA, DID NOTHING WRONG. If it was wrong, then why did the controllers not force them to land when they knew of the fault.
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2524
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:31 pm

This sounds like the FAA pandering to media sensationalism:

i) The media has grabbed this subject
ii) FAA feel they have to either make an example of BA or risk appearing weak
iii) In fact it is weak of the FAA to be governed by meida attention rather than risk to the travelling public
iv) Final, more cynical, motivation could be political: put a dent in US public's image of BA as a safe carrier
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
747firstclass
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:45 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:42 pm

No doubt this will also cast a cloud of the possibility of the US raising the foregin ownership levels from 25% to 49% or higher. Cant you just imagine the uproar that will now takae place if and when the US debeates or votes on this issue?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:17 pm

As OzGlobal says, the FAA needs to rant a little. You can bet after the hubbub has died down they will quietly withdraw their complaint...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
scotron11
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:41 pm

Sorry guys, I forgot to post the source. It was a report in the NYTimes.
 
mucflyer
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 4:21 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:50 pm

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


Just 4 Info, the OTS (Organized Track System) with the daily North Atlantic Tracks are overcrowded during peaktimes. When you are suddenly unable to fligh your requestet track and level, you are 'banned' from the track system and you have to stay below with a so called 'Random Track' which is normally limited to FL300. Sorry to say, but that shouldn't surprise any cockpitcrew...
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:08 am

MUCFLYER,

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

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

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

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

But, then again, I guess with your experience you'd be able to forsee a headwind this time of year.
Fly fast, live slow
 
ual747den
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:29 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:10 am

Good the FAA should fine them. We all know that a 747 can fly on 3 engines but we also all know that if it is forced to then something is wrong. When something is wrong you put that aircraft down on the ground as soon as you can. You know a 777 can fly on 1 engine, would it be alright to fly LHR-LAX on 1? NO IT WOULDN'T. Just because it CAN do it doesnt mean that it should. If the 747 was supposed to fly on 3 they would make it with 3
/// UNITED AIRLINES
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:16 am

UAL747DEN,

Please refer to FAR 121.565. You are really comparing apples to oranges. The fact the 744 is a 4 engine aircraft makes it completely different than the 777. The FARS are very specific on what happens on a 2 engine aircraft; just as they are on a 3/4 engine aircraft.
Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:34 am

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

As PhilSquares says, the rules are it can cruise with 3. This is quite logical since it only needs 4 engines on takeoff powerwise. I'm sure PhilSquares can tell us but I'm pretty sure it can cruise on 2 engines at a reduced altitude/speed, just like twins can cruise on 1.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:17 am

Quoting PhilSquares (reply 23):
Please refer to FAR 121.565. You are really comparing apples to oranges. The fact the 744 is a 4 engine aircraft makes it completely different than the 777. The FARS are very specific on what happens on a 2 engine aircraft; just as they are on a 3/4 engine aircraft.


Everyone seems to be bantering 121.565 about as an automatic "yes" for 3- and 4-engined birds because it's an automatic "no" for twins, but that's not the case. Under 121.565, the 3- and -4 engined can only continue if the items in 121.565 (b)(1-6) have been considered. If they haven't, or can't be, the 3- or 4-engined aircraft has to go to the nearest suitable airport as if it were a twin.


Quoting Backfire (reply 6):
The real issue is whether the crew took into account all reasonable circumstances which might affect the flight before opting to go ahead.

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


That is indeed the question, and if this had been a U.S. Flight under Part 121 regs, 121.565 (b)(1-6) would have required exactly that.

Last time I looked, foreign airlines operating to/from the USA operated under Part 129, a very brief reg which essentially defaults them back to the regs of their home country. Whether the US FAA can cite a UK crew/airline for violation of a US FAR should make for some interesting legal stuff, and help keep some lawyers employed....  Wink
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
LRGT
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:29 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:21 am

What was AA fined the $45,000 for???
Don't bring up the NW DC9's unless you have to!
 
AlanUK
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:56 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:57 am

Quoting OzGlobal (reply 16):
iv) Final, more cynical, motivation could be political: put a dent in US public's image of BA as a safe carrier


Yep. That would be my opinion... Seeing BA's profits and american carriers continuing problems, the FAA (pushed by a desperate US aviation industry, and a protectionnist administration) aided by eager media attention, have here a recipe for helping other (US) airlines.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:17 am

Quoting OzGlobal (reply 16):
iv) Final, more cynical, motivation could be political: put a dent in US public's image of BA as a safe carrier


Yep. That would be my opinion... Seeing BA's profits and american carriers continuing problems, the FAA (pushed by a desperate US aviation industry, and a protectionnist administration) aided by eager media attention, have here a recipe for helping other (US) airlines.


That may be it, but I seriously doubt that it will make a difference. Do you really see the FAA forbidding BA from entering US airspace?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:23 am

Quoting AlanUK (reply 27):
Yep. That would be my opinion... Seeing BA's profits and american carriers continuing problems, the FAA (pushed by a desperate US aviation industry, and a protectionnist administration) aided by eager media attention, have here a recipe for helping other (US) airlines.


So we offically have a "conspiracy" theory then?  Wink
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
PyroGX41487
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:06 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:33 am

They honestly should clarify 744 restriction on 3/4 engine operations before they slap ANYONE on the wrist.

I think Boeing, Airbus, the FAA or someone should create some type of ETOPS certification for 747s and other four engined planes... just to make it safe. Any ideas on that?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:34 am

I think Boeing, Airbus, the FAA or someone should create some type of ETOPS certification for 747s and other four engined planes... just to make it safe. Any ideas on that?

Sure. It's known as LROPS:

http://www.airbus.com/pdf/media/library/lrop.pdf
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
AlanUK
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:56 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:39 am

Quoting Starlionblue (reply 28):
That may be it, but I seriously doubt that it will make a difference. Do you really see the FAA forbidding BA from entering US airspace?


No, but they can damage the airline's reputation to the public...
 
AlanUK
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:56 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:42 am

Quoting OPNLguy (reply 29):
So we offically have a "conspiracy" theory then?


Well, it wouldn't be the first time coming from this government. Where shall I start? Bananas? WMD? Iraq War? The days following 9/11? Steel?
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:43 am

I guess Boeing will have something to say about this as well.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
padcrasher
Posts: 1815
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:17 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:43 am

Legal yes. But BA has damaged it's good reputation in the US. These passengers up front are paying large amounts of money and don't understand the technical reasons on why it is safe to operate with 3 engines. They hear about the pops, the flames shooting out of the engines and they want to land.
These are not test pilots BA is flying around in First but demanding passengers who are easily spooked. BA blew it.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:44 am

Quoting Lrgt (reply 26):
What was AA fined the $45,000 for???


The fine, which is under appeal, was for ferrying aircraft from ORD to AFW for MX repairs. They were not revenue flights and the aircraft were flyable under restricted conditions.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12425
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:56 am

To me the FAA announcement is that they are investigating the situation with that BA flight. Their investigations are based on the accusation that BA possibly operated the a/c over USA airspace in a 'careless and wreckless' way, a general term for the reasons for their investigations. I am quite sure the FAA will examine the record of the flight, the decisions of BA management to continue the flight, the financial factors of the decision, the risks or non-risks involved, the affects of their actual flight path on other traffic, if alternative airports were available, affects on fuel burn of the 1 engine out, and if the pilots were really wreckless or careless. As I said in another related post, they should have landed within the USA or southern Canada.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:59 am

Legal yes. But BA has damaged it's good reputation in the US. These passengers up front are paying large amounts of money and don't understand the technical reasons on why it is safe to operate with 3 engines. They hear about the pops, the flames shooting out of the engines and they want to land.
These are not test pilots BA is flying around in First but demanding passengers who are easily spooked. BA blew it.


You make a good point, but I really don't think this will have much of an impact. The report on drunk and sleep deprived BA pilots certainly didn't, and IMHO that's worse!
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:00 am

Quoting AlanUK (reply 33):
Quoting OPNLguy (reply 29):
So we officially have a "conspiracy" theory then?


Quoting AlanUK (reply 33):
Well, it wouldn't be the first time coming from this government. Where shall I start? Bananas? WMD? Iraq War? The days following 9/11? Steel?


Please don't "start" anywhere, lest this thread veer off on a tangent to deep-space regarding anything/everything that has zip to do with the topic...  Wink [Edit: Too late!]  duck 


Quoting AlanUK (reply 32):
No, but they can damage the airline's reputation to the public...


I seriously doubt that's FAA's goal/intent here. As I mentioned back in reply #25, the BA flight was operating under Part 129 (the regs of the airline's home country) versus Part 121 (the regs that US-registered airlines operate under). As such, I think there's a jurisdiction issue here, and to be honest, I don't know how FAA can get around it. That said, FAA still has to appear to do "something" and I believe the following from Starlionblue and OzGlobal is entirely accurate:

Quoting Starlionblue (reply 18):
As OzGlobal says, the FAA needs to rant a little. You can bet after the hubbub has died down they will quietly withdraw their complaint...




[Edited 2005-03-08 19:13:24]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Thucydides
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:18 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:07 am

Quoting AlanUK (reply 33):
Well, it wouldn't be the first time coming from this government. Where shall I start? Bananas? WMD? Iraq War? The days following 9/11? Steel?


What does any of this have to do with the topic? It seems to me that you are just using this to rant your own wide eyed conspiracies.

First, the topic is about whether the FAA will investigate BA for proceeding with three engines on the flight in question. It has nothing to do with your conspiracy theory that the FAA is seeking to weaken BA. To do so would also "weaken" Boeing's 747 program, one of Boeing's better customers, BA, and would benefit Airbus, so it is silly conjecture on your part.

And your references to "this government", protectionism, and Iraq are just as silly and childish. And by the way, Bananas was a case of European protectionism designed to give market preference to former French colonies and was brought by the Clinton Administration. Since Blair would not pressure the French to undo their WTO illegal regime, the UK got hit by the retaliatory tariffs.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:09 am

AlanUK, given the UK government's (and BA's to a point, with the strong exception of their pilots) constant aquiesence to the US government, I really doubt this has anything to do with those things. I think this is merely a way to answer questions from the press as to the loss of the engine.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Planesmart
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:27 am

Lutfi

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

Not really odd. Which company makes the A34 and A38?

Which company is poised to stop making their only 4 engined model?

Which manufacturer has the greatest interest in clipping the wings / removing an advantage 4 engined aircraft enjoy?

Would the FAA have consulted Boeing? And could the conversation have gone something along the lines of - .......with what we have learned from ETOPS operations, it would be prudent to treat all 3 and 4 engined aircraft in the same way, with maximum diversion times imposed for engine out operations, and requirements to install upgraded fire suppressent equipment, etc.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:49 am

PlaneSmart
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 298 posts, RR: 2
Posted Tue Mar 8 2005 19:27:38 UTC+1 and read 151 times: Send an instant message to PlaneSmart User Profile Add To Resp. Users Suggest Deletion Edit Post
Reply: 42 [Quote selected text]

Lutfi

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

Not really odd. Which company makes the A34 and A38?

Which company is poised to stop making their only 4 engined model?

Which manufacturer has the greatest interest in clipping the wings / removing an advantage 4 engined aircraft enjoy?

Would the FAA have consulted Boeing? And could the conversation have gone something along the lines of - .......with what we have learned from ETOPS operations, it would be prudent to treat all 3 and 4 engined aircraft in the same way, with maximum diversion times imposed for engine out operations, and requirements to install upgraded fire suppressent equipment, etc.


Lovely theory but it sounds pretty far fetched to me...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
PDXFlyer
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 5:12 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:59 am

Or, they simply want to investigate what happened, and none of this is a conspiracy at all.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:14 am

Quoting PlaneSmart (reply 42):
'Also what is odd about this is that the FAA are the certifying body for the B747. They are now implying that the certification was incorrect - that the aircraft CANNOT BE ALLOWED to fly on three engines?'


The "implying" is in the eye of the poster, and inference that that's the FAA's position is pure conjecture, and not necessarily sound logic. It's a little bit like concluding that because roses look/smell so nice automatically means that they'll also make a nice tasty cup of tea.

What missing from many of these posts, here and elsewhere, and including the media coverage, is "context." To be sure, aircraft can fly with the loss of an engine (or two), but because they can, it doesn't necessarily mean that they SHOULD, in -ALL / LIMG), Italy">ALL- cases, and if they shouldn't fly, it also doesn't retroactively mean that the aircraft never should have been certificated....

As I said earlier, I'm curious how FAA intends to enforce a Part 91 reg (91.13 "careless and reckless") or a Part 121 reg on a Part 129 air carrier. Assuming it isn't for "show" and will later be dropped, FAA runs the risk of having other countries starting to enforce -their- regs on Part 121 airlines operating to/from other countries. Those sort of "reprisals" are seldom beneficial, for anyone...





[Edited 2005-03-08 20:23:59]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
mucflyer
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 4:21 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:18 am

Quoting PhilSquares (reply 21):
Sorry to tell you but this but I have never had any problems getting into the NAT. Sometimes it requires a modification to the flight plan, ie., switching tracks but never have I had trouble.


you are right... we don't know enough about the BA routing on that particular day and i should better say that it's not obvious to obtain your requested track or routing change. But of course, Gander and Shanwick OACC makes every endeavour to serve you as best as they can.
Anybody knows if the BA Crew told about their engine out problem with OACC ?
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:31 am

Lets have the press run the airline certification industry, they obviously know more than the airlines and manufacturers, and it seems they can get the FAA to do something also.

PhilSquares, thanks for your knowledgable input, much apreciated.
 
galapagapop
Posts: 861
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:15 pm

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:28 am

Even if it can fly with 3 engines fine, but doesn't it cross anyones mind that a lot of engine failures are a result of MX (putting wrong filters on, leaving something on too tight, anything) And usually, almost everytime, all 4 engines are done at the same time, so there is a chance they did the same to the other engines so why continue flying when they are unsure about what caused the failure? IF they had indicated it was an isolated incident they could go on, but when they are unsure they should land or continue if it is a relativly short hop (like 1/2 the max range of the aircraft when operating on all 4's) Not going LAX-LHR which is in the latter end of the 744's range. The main problem I see is why the hell did they circle the bay for 30 minutes trying to figure this thing out? Surly they could have gone on and if they had to return or land else where, they would have lost the fuel one way or another. If they hadn't of circled for 30min it would have been more likely they would have made LHR okay and this would not be a big deal.

Cheers!
Galapagapop
 
ejpilot
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:41 am

RE: FAA Accuse BA Of Recklessness

Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:53 am

I've finally decided to join airliners.net after many years purely to comment on this thread!

British Airways is world renowned for its excellence in safety and training of first class flight crews! Had the situation been in anyway illegal the flight crew, BA management and ATC will have all been involved in the decision. All these parties are fully aware of the rules and books/manuals would have been consulted if there was any doubt. There are strict procedures governing such situations.

Anyone suggesting otherwise to any of the above should do some research! I cannot believe that non-informed parties are or should be discussing this issue as mindless accusation and speculation can severely damage an airlines' reputation unnecessarily.
Second Place Is The First Loser