PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:35 am

Fly fast, live slow
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:39 am

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.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
zarniwoop
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:43 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:40 am

Phil, glad to see the FAA agrees with your view on the incident!  Smile

It does seem like BA would do something different if the same incident happened again though.

"BA said yesterday the guidance its air controllers would offer a pilot in the event of a similar incident had changed."
In this qoute does air controllers mean BA company people as opposed to ATC?
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:49 am

"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.
 
PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:13 am

VC-10. I agree, the PIC has the final say, however, if he's smart he'll get as much information as he can and use it wisely to make his decision.

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!
Fly fast, live slow
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:38 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
VC-10. I agree, the PIC has the final say, however, if he's smart he'll get as much information as he can and use it wisely to make his decision.

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!

Too busy with the "A380 is crap because I said so" malarky.

Got to say I agreed with the Pilot's call - i probably would have done the same thing, but i'm not a pilot - the fact that you are, and you said it, speaks volumes. Interesting incident certainly.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
carduelis
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 8:24 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:50 am

Avoid prosecution? Rubbish! There was never a case!
Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:02 am

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...  Wink

To me, the whole thing looks like it was a draw...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:09 am

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.
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:26 am

If the plane lost a second engine, would it crash.

What is the probability of a second failure.

As the first engine failed soon after leaving LAX, IMO the most likely time for the second failure would be before passing JFK.
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:35 am

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.  wink 
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
jbmitt
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:50 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 9):
If the plane lost a second engine, would it crash.

What is the probability of a second failure.

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
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:34 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:57 am

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!

Just my thoughts.

Spru!
E=Mc2
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:02 am

Quoting Spruit (Reply 12):
Which is what caused them to land at Manchester isn't it?!

They didn't land at MAN because of fuel starvation, they landed because they were short on usable fuel. Note the difference.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:05 am

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.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 5):
Too busy with the "A380 is crap because I said so" malarky.

Well ironically, some are the same indeed...

No wonder since it is only a small step from:
'US rules rules are the norm, the rest is all crap' to 'everything not American is crap.'

[Edited 2006-08-11 21:14:45]
 
Spruit
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:34 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:07 am

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 13):
they landed because they were short on usable fuel. Note the difference.

My appologies for the mix up!
E=Mc2
 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:23 am

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.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 9):
If the plane lost a second engine, would it crash

Not necessarily, but why risk it. Planes have landed with no engines. That doesn't mean we should make it standard practice
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
jbmitt
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:26 am

Quoting Spruit (Reply 15):
My appologies for the mix up!

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
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:58 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:41 am

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.
But The Best Thing God Has Created Is A New Day
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:09 am

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.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:09 am

Jbmitt

Perhaps I was not clear.

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.
 
PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:50 am

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.
Fly fast, live slow
 
jbmitt
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:02 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 20):
Perhaps I was not clear.

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
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:15 am

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
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:23 am

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...

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 21):
There was no case at all!!

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.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12391
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:24 am

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 at risk (albeit a minor one). They should have returned to LAX or made a special landing at MSP to have the engine inspected. I am quite sure that BA's insurance carrier as to this a/c wasn't happy for this pilot's decision. This bad decision was further proven in that they had to make an landing at MAN as fuel consumption was higher than expected due to the 3 engine ops. (Maybe this guy was an ex-L-1011/DC-10 pilot  biggrin  )
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:32 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 24):
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.

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 advertised.

[Edited 2006-08-11 23:35:22]
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:33 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 24):
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 completely agree with your assessment.

Steve
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:44 am

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?

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 FAA is vindicated, not BA. I'd love to see what happens to the next BA pilot who decides to fly from LA to LHR on three engines. I'll bet his/her next BA flight would be as a passenger.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:52 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 25):
This bad decision was further proven in that they had to make an landing at MAN as fuel consumption was higher than expected due to the 3 engine ops.

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 were concerned that one of hte fuel tanks may not be usable due to confusion in procedures and crossfeeding, resulting in a reserve of less than the required 4.5 tonne minimum. The aircraft arrived at the stand with 4.9 tonnes.

I suggest that anyone wanting to comment on this incident read the full report linked below, which includes indepth analysis and recommendations.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...ne_2006/boeing_747_436__g_bnlg.cfm
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:02 am

Quoting VC-10 (Reply 26):

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 advertised.

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 have argued that it was a forseeable consequence of the previous decision to have continued. FAR 121.565 (b) (1-6) covers many of those potential reasons.

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 27):

I completely agree with your assessment.

Thank you.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28):
I think the FAA is vindicated, not BA

As I mentioned earlier, I think it's a draw/tie. Besides, as recent current events should so clearly demonstrate, the UK and US have much more important things to deal with, and cooperate on.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:02 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28):
I'd love to see what happens to the next BA pilot who decides to fly from LA to LHR on three engines.

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. None of which have chanced, so he can still take the same decision in all legality and quite rightfully so I must say. Even if flying in US Airspace, FAA rules on the matter mean nothing to him.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:07 am

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 31):
The only thing the commander of a British registered plane has to take into account are CAA rules and the Boeing 747 operating procedures.

And what about BA company procedures (note I said 'BA pilot', not 'British pilot')?
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:20 am

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 and used the alternate!
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:38 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 32):
And what about BA company procedures (note I said 'BA pilot', not 'British pilot')?

The official report does not mention any changes made to any company procedures other than the periodic review of fuel balancing procedures.

"All Boeing 747-400 flight crew have received additional training on fuel management in case of an extended period of 3-engine flight as part of their regular simulator training. Three-engine fuel management, including low fuel quantity procedures, have also been added to the recurrent training cycle".

which in itself also suggests to company policy to continue as planned after a simple engine failure hasn't changed.

I know The Telegraph reports BA's air controllers (dispatchers if you wish) would more likely advice the pilot to turn back or land at another airport en route, but this in not what the official report says nor suggests. Like somebody suggested: I suspect this to be merely a PR statement from BA and besides, dispatchers have no authority over a flight whatsoever under JAR; one point where the FARs greatly differ.

Anyway, let's leave it here, because I feel some will once again feel the need to defend 'their' FAR against 'our' JAR and I do not want to engage in yet another discussion on just how superior one of them is over the other...
Fact is a JAR operator must only comply with JAR while FAR means nothing to him and vice versa. I am glad the FAA finally understood their lack of authority.

[Edited 2006-08-12 00:42:32]
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:31 am

Quoting Spruit (Reply 15):
My appologies for the mix up!

No worries  wink 

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.

Like mentioned above, that was a totally different situation.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:10 am

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 34):
The official report does not mention any changes made to any company procedures other than the periodic review of fuel balancing procedures.

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 -- clarification of the post-IFSD guidelines -- I'd say they simply refrained from comment and thus did not include any further information.

I would not take the public statements as lightly as others -- the idea was to put this issue to rest, not to have it flare up again if it should become known that BA hasn't changed it's policies at all despite publically saying they have.

Steve
 
PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:10 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 24):
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...

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 obligated to operate to their Ops Specs, not the FARS. However, the FAA was insistent that BA operate under the same rules as a 121 carrier. That is utter nonsense. Under the CAA rules what the BA crew did was legal, just as it was under the FARs. Had the same decision been made by a US carrier and no diversion occurred, that would have been the end of the matter. However, the diversion was not caused by any "real" problem but with a systems anomaly that the BA crew didn't have a good understanding of.

Under the CAA rules/JARs the crew did nothing wrong and were perfectly legal to continue to their destination. Under the FARs the same holds true. I know of several cases where a US carrier has continued to their destination on 3 engines (4 engine aircraft) and nothing has happened. If the FAA expects 129 carriers to amend their way of doing things, then the same would/should apply to US carriers.
Fly fast, live slow
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:04 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 37):
Under the CAA rules/JARs the crew did nothing wrong and were perfectly legal to continue to their destination. Under the FARs the same holds true. I know of several cases where a US carrier has continued to their destination on 3 engines (4 engine aircraft) and nothing has happened.

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 have had to later land short of the destination, I think the FAA would be investigating the situation(s) and the potential violations I mentioned earlier.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Fligh

Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:47 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 37):
Under the CAA rules/JARs the crew did nothing wrong and were perfectly legal to continue to their destination.

The AAIB disagrees with you -- specifically recommending clarification of this point. Obviously it wasn't so "perfectly clear" to them.

Steve
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:28 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 39):
The AAIB disagrees with you -- specifically recommending clarification of this point. Obviously it wasn't so "perfectly clear" to them.

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 for clafication and review of continuation procedures) is that there are variations in ALL operators continuation policies, ranging from none existent to land at nearest. With longer flights being introduced (16 hours is the length mentioned), the CAA is suggesting that clearer guidance be given to operators for continuation following an engine shutdown inflight, thus the reason for the review.

BAs action broke no current rule.

Out of the eight safety recommendations made, six are related to Flight Data Recorder maintenance and operation, with four of those six directed at the manufacturer (Honeywell) or the FAA to direct the manufacturer and the other two of the six directed toward all operators in FAA, CAA and EASA jurisdiction.

Only a single recommendation in total is directed toward BA, and that was for extra training on three engined fuel handling.

The CAA had nothing at all to recommend about the continuation of the flight, if it broke any rules then where are the recommendations or other points within the report that deal with this issue? Indeed during the analysis stage of the report, there is no negative comments made about the flight continuation even tho it is covered indepth and under its own heading.

The reasons for the continuation are stated, a note was made that the manufacturers procedures did not require a diversion to the nearest airfield and the decision to continue was made in accordance with the operators policy.

Further engine failure possibility is also covered in the AAIB report under the flight continuation analysis heading, and it again concludes that the likelyhood of further engine failures was something that would not have affected the decision and was not a critical point in the flight.

Indeed, the report has the following:

Quote:

Thus, no evidence was found to show that the flight continuation posed a significant increase in risksystem.

Also of noteworthy attention is the following in the report:

Quote:

The operator’s continuation policy had been approved by the CAA and was similar to that used by other overseas airlines operating 4-engined aircraft.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:35 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 39):
The AAIB disagrees with you


No they don't. Where do they say it was illegal?

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 39):
specifically recommending clarification of this point

Right now, in the absence of any rules, it is up to the companies to come up with a policy: some preferring to come back, others to continue, yet another with something in between. All perfectly legal options.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Fligh

Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:25 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 40):
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 for clafication and review of continuation procedures) is that there are variations in ALL operators continuation policies, ranging from none existent to land at nearest. With longer flights being introduced (16 hours is the length mentioned), the CAA is suggesting that clearer guidance be given to operators for continuation following an engine shutdown inflight, thus the reason for the review.

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 different policies. Clearly the AAIB does and has suggested that such policies, rather than being made by the airlines, should be made by the appropriate authorities. I believe it's a reasonable implication that at least some of these policies are perhaps, shall we say, unwise --otherwise clarification wouldn't be needed.

I am still quite interested to hear some sources for some (not yours) people's claims that BA has lied in their public statements and has not in fact made the policy changes as stated.

Like OPNLguy, it's my belief that had this been a 121 crew, they would have gotten an emergency revocation notice before even getting a chance to fly home. And from a career perspective, saying "well, others have done it" isn't going to impress the FAA.

Steve
 
PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:36 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 42):
Like OPNLguy, it's my belief that had this been a 121 crew, they would have gotten an emergency revocation notice before even getting a chance to fly home. And from a career perspective, saying "well, others have done it" isn't going to impress the FAA.

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 with an engine inop. There was enough data from the ECMS to let MX control know what the engine parameters were during the surge, so there was no question about the reasons why and condition of the engine. The crew took all of that into account and then continued.

Saying they would have been subject to FAA action is really questionable. Let's take the case of a similar flight with all 4 engines running that had the same flight plan problems as this crew did. We depart LAX, can't get our planned altitude on the NAT, the winds are not as forecast and, in fact, we have a significant headwind, so to be on the safe side we divert into MAN. That crew wouldn't have faced any action. It happens all the time.

Under the FARS, the crew can continue. It happens all the time. What made this issue so "sensational" was it was in the press. After a couple of thousand NAT/NOPAC crossings, the situation the BA faced wasn't unusual/unsafe,in fact, 3/4 engine aircraft are given more leeway than a two engine aircraft in the same situation.

[Edited 2006-08-13 03:50:47]
Fly fast, live slow
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Fligh

Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:41 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 42):

Like OPNLguy, it's my belief that had this been a 121 crew, they would have gotten an emergency revocation notice before even getting a chance to fly home.

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 in question had been a US Part 121 flight) FAA would have gone after an emergency revocation of the pilot's/dispatcher's certficates.

What I did say was that I thought FAA would investigate and likely cite violations of 91.13 and multiple aspects of 121.565. If so, the actual sanctions could have run the range of letters in their file (probably too lenient) to permanent revocation (probably too severe). More likely, IMHO, would be a temporary certificate revocation, and they commonly come in 10, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 365-day denominations.

I know of a botched MEL deferral case from the late 1980s-early 1990s that was of the 180-day variety for both PIC and dispatcher. I also recall a 727-200 that made such a low approach (airline and location un-named to protect the guilty) that they hit the some of the approach lights, went around, diverted, and then found holes in the aircraft's tail on the next morning's walk around--that crew all got a year off. I'd guess that a sanction in this case (again, a hypothetical case) would be somewhere in between.

But, I digress... I never said anything about a permanent revocation...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:49 pm

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 42):
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 different policies. Clearly the AAIB does and has suggested that such policies, rather than being made by the airlines, should be made by the appropriate authorities. I believe it's a reasonable implication that at least some of these policies are perhaps, shall we say, unwise --otherwise clarification wouldn't be needed.

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 be a perfect time to do it. Remember that the FAA, AAIB etc are reactionary bodies, they dont continually trawl their rulesets fo things that can be updated.

It still doesnt change the fact that the AAIB report has nothing at all negative to say about the continuation.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 43):
The reason the BA flight landed short was the crew's confusion about crossfeed during a low fuel state with an engine inop.

Well actually no, the reason they landed short was because they were low on fuel, the reason they declared an emergency was because of the crossfeed situation. They arrived at stand with 4.9 tonnes of fuel, while the minimum allowed for reserve is, as stated in the report, 4.5 tonnes. If they had continued on to Heathrow they would have violated this limit, and if there wasnt a cross feed situation they could have landed at MAN without ever declaring an emergency, just a diversion.
 
PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:23 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 45):
They arrived at stand with 4.9 tonnes of fuel, while the minimum allowed for reserve is, as stated in the report, 4.5 tonnes. If they had continued on to Heathrow they would have violated this limit, and if there wasnt a cross feed situation they could have landed at MAN without ever declaring an emergency, just a diversion.

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 mixed up. According to the FDR the aircraft landed with 5.8 Tonnes, there is no "on stand fuel requirement". The crew was somewhat unclear about how much useable fuel they had due to the lack of understanding on the crossfeed system with a low fuel EICAS message on. If you read the AAIB, BA used a technique other than what Boeing recommended to keep the fuel tanks balanced. This technique led to confusion about how to balance the fuel when the low fuel EICAS message was displayed. As the AAIB mentions this fact on page 21.


Again, reserves apply on landing, not when the aircraft gets to the stand.
Fly fast, live slow
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:45 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 46):
You have the facts somewhat mixed up. According to the FDR the aircraft landed with 5.8 Tonnes, there is no "on stand fuel requirement".

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 the report and I was off by .1 tonne, the actual amount was 4.9 tonnes as shown on page 9). I was using the same terminology as the report, as they discuss 'on stand' fuel amounts both prior and post APU running (4.9 and 4.7 tonnes).

The minimum reserve, as stated on Page 4, is 4.5 tonnes. You are correct that they landed with 5.8 tonnes. I apologise if my comment was misconstrued (reading it now, I can see how it could be).

However, my point still stands - the diversion was made because of known low fuel amounts, and the emergency was declared as a result of the confusion surrounding the crossfeed procedures that led the crew to believe they didnt have access to all the fuel.

The diversion at that point was a forgone conclusion, they would never have attempted to go on to Heathrow with the levels of fuel indicated as it would certainly have put them below legal reserve limits.
 
PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA Avoids Prosecution For Engine Failure Flight

Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:33 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 47):
However, my point still stands - the diversion was made because of known low fuel amounts, and the emergency was declared as a result of the confusion surrounding the crossfeed procedures that led the crew to believe they didnt have access to all the fuel.

The diversion at that point was a forgone conclusion, they would never have attempted to go on to Heathrow with the levels of fuel indicated as it would certainly have put them below legal reserve limits.

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 they were concerned with. Had BA followed Boeing's recommended procedures for crossfeed/fuel tank balancing, the crew would have realized their fuel was sufficient. The additional distance from MAN-LHR would have not used all their fuel.....
Fly fast, live slow