BA 747-400 KLAX-EGGL has engine failure - what do YOU think

[Guest Ricardo Sevarant]

Recently the American FAA imposed a $22,000 dollar fine on British Airways for the following infraction:Recently, a BA 747-400 enroute from Los Angeles to London Heathrow experienced a number 2 engine compressor stall shortly after takeoff from KLAX, this before takeoff flaps had been fully retracted. The BA crew shut down the afflicted engine (after determining anomalous engine behavior), declared an emergency, then was vectored over the Pacific by SoCal approach, ostensibly to dump fuel for landing back at LAX. After holding for approximately 20 minutes off of the coast of Los Angeles, and after having consulted BA maintainence back in England, the BA crew cancelled the emergency and continued on to Heathrow on three engines. Reaching the UK, the BA 747 flightcrew was unable to determine how to properly crossfeed fuel with the shutdown engine scenario and declared a fuel emergency, thereafter diverting for landing at Manchester without incident.The FAA fined BA for not immediately landing at the nearest suitable airport (in the case of course, LAX), and continuing the entire journey on three engines. BA argued that the 747-400 was perfectly safe on the entire route with only three working engines, given the 747's performance and systems redundancy. BA contends further that the 747 flightcrew was improperly trained on proper fuel managment, but that enough fuel had been onboard the aircraft to in fact have safely reached Heathrow had the crew used the proper procedure. The FAA contends that the BA crew violated part 121 rules in regards to engine shutdown in flight during passenger operations. What do you think? Hehe, this ought to start a good fight between the Yanks and Brits here, I need to make popcorn......

[Guest Ricardo Sevarant]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php

[Guest SAS449]

Isn't this pretty O/T ?What's the support issue here in relation to PMDG products?On the other hand - unairworthy? They flew didn't they? The passengers survived as far as I understand.Leave it to the lawyers!Johan PlaneUppsala, Sweden-http://www.scandinavian-va.net/pilots/images/SE.gif

[markadeane 272]

It's on-topic I'd have thought, after all you (or any of us) might have an engine failure on climbout from LAX tonight, irrespective of the FAA, the lawyers and everyone else, you've got just shy of 400 bods to look after. What would you do? :-)For myself, it'd depend on the weight of the aircraft, and the exact nature of the engine failure (was fire involved? Was it a birdstrike?) Also I'd want to consider what weather conditions are forecast downroute that might adversely affect my flight or otherwise slow it down.Vaugely related to this topic: why is it that a large number of airports (or is it an SOP thing?) stipulate that no emergency actions are to be performed below 400 feet?I'd have thought that if you had an engine fire after V1, you'd want the PNF to be getting onto that matter as soon as his hand was off the gear lever.

[Guest SAS449]

Mark,This is a support forum related to the commercial products sold by PMDG.The poster is debating an IRL legal "battle" between two governemental authorities. Please tell me in what respect you expect product support from PMDG in this matter, so that you can convince me that it is on-topic.Johan PlaneUppsala, Sweden-http://www.scandinavian-va.net/pilots/images/SE.gif

[markadeane 272]

Point 3 of the forum guidelines as found in the forum sticky post.-----------------------3) This forum is designed primarily as a vehicle for the PMDG development team to interact with our customers, and for customers to interact with one another in a manner that is positive, supportive and assists in the general advancement of understanding the simulation and helping to make this and future simulations better. Any other use of this forum is not permitted. -----------------------While there was an element of contention to be seen in the initial post, I was trying to turn it into a discussion that was "positive, supportive and assists in the general advancement of understanding the simulation". PMDG have given us a very realistic product and we could all benefit from considering our own "in-the-sim" reactions to such real-world scenarios. They could happen to us after all!Of course if the mods feel that I was way out-of-line in my reasoning then I accept their decision to shut the thread down, with the emphasis on it being their decision. No hard feelings.EDIT - Tell you what, I'll meet you halfway on this one. On reflection I agree the topic was started in a way that was actually quite unwarranted. However I stand by my statement that there is merit in discussing how we'd deal with the situation ourselves. I'd like to see the thread retained on the basis that the discussion proceeded in this manner.

[Guest]

I'm no expert, but taking risks all to save some money and then be shocked that the ruling body isn't too happy with that?

[Guest Ricardo Sevarant]

Johan,PMDG invites real-world aviation topics to be discussed, especially when they promote the understanding of R/W world procedure in relation to their simulation products (in this case the 747-400 and engine failure). I can't quote the PMDG forum regulations penal code on this, but PMDG have stated such in the past. I was not trying to be contentious with my intial post, the comment at the end was made in gest and I'm pretty sure most everyone understood that (uh, well, apparently except you). Finally, I made the initial post not to debate the legal proceedings, but rather to spark debate over the 747's capability and reliability in regards to in-flight engine failure. All of this contributes to furthering knowledge about 747 operational procedures and, transitively, to the enjoyment of the PMDG product.For instance, did you know that 747 pilots train to execute a go-around procedure for two-engine failure asymmetric thrust situations BELOW the QRH published asymmetric minimum go-around height with gear extended? The 747 can accelerate on the glidepath to Vsy and then retract gear and flaps and establish a safe climb rate before reaching the published MDA. All on two, same-sided engines. Impressive. Can you do this in the PMDG sim? Might be fun to try!

[Guest Ricardo Sevarant]

Al,I feel the same way. Acknowledging the 747's capability and reliability, why still compromise safety when so many accessible airports are easily within reach. Granted, the 747 is quite safe on three engines, but could the crew be absolutely certain that no collateral damage was down during the compressor stall of the number 2 engine?One cause of compressor stalls are worn/damaged turbine blades. What if shrapnel had penetrated the cowling of the affected engine and damaged something else that was not readily apparent? Computer diagnostics are very good but can everyone involved in the decision to go/no-go be completely assured the situation is safe until engineers on the ground physically inspect the engine? Crews are very knowledgable, experienced, and capable. They train relentlessly for every conceivable failure scenario. However, why let a failure possibly exacerbate into an even more difficult situation, even if the pilots are trained to deal with it? "A superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations that may require his superior skills," comes to mind :)

[Guest millimeter]

Rico - I'm not a pilot - just a humble simmer. But I'm also a passenger and if this kind of incident came to my knowledge I was done using this kind of company. To me it seems like they are more interested in making money than the safty of their passengers.Best reguardsLars Broeggerhttp://www.skovlunden99.dk/lars.html

[Guest Matthias1975]

Johan,I see you are new to this forum, so I think it

[Tabs 2,790]

Enough of the Jr. forum mod stuff please... we'll let you know if a thread is unwarranted, no need to go deciding for us.I see no problem with this thread - it's discussing a real world incident involving a plane PMDG modeled.Personally, I think they were nuts to continue on like that. It ended up costing them FAR more when they had to divert to Manchester under a fuel emergency situation that it ever would have returning to LAX to fix the problem and/or get another plane.The same aircraft involved in this had the exact same thing happen from Singapore to LHR like a week later too and they also continued that one.

[Capt. Windh 3]

Just wondering..They didn

[Guest Matthias1975]

>The same aircraft involved in this had the exact same thing>happen from Singapore to LHR like a week later too and they>also continued that one.Hmm...maybe it

[Guest B777-200ER]

That's kinda scary:)--------------------------------The air will never be conquered--------------------------------Paul Farrington