Sign in to follow this  
btacon

British Airways in hot water over 3-engine flight...

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

v v interesting article, i wonder what the bill would have been for BA if all souls or board perished?

Share this post


Link to post

Why would they have perished? With three engines, they still had more engines than a twin does.

Share this post


Link to post

That is really scary. You would think the airlines would have standard procedures in place for something like this? I could see flying on 3 to Chicago to burn fuel as the article mentioned, but across the Atlantic?

Share this post


Link to post

Why perish? What if they lost a second engine, mid-atlantic?What if instead of making Manchester, they went Bingo Fuel 40 miles from the British Isle and ended up ditching?Just a few thoughts.bt

Share this post


Link to post

>That is really scary. You would think the airlines would>have standard procedures in place for something like this? I>could see flying on 3 to Chicago to burn fuel as the article>mentioned, but across the Atlantic? >It actually is standard.....and happens a lot more often than you think.Here's a slightly more informed discussion on the subject.http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.ph...threadid=151273

Share this post


Link to post

Then you'd have two engines. About the same as a 777. You'd ditch only if you fell asleep like that Air Transat crew did.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think this sounds so bad. The aircraft can fly fine on three or even two engines, and there's always the possibiliy to divert to Greenland or Iceland if problems occur in the Atlantic. Also I donn't think it is such a scandal that they had to land in Manchester. They probably knew a long time in advance how far they could make it, and Manchester sounds like it was chosen out of convenience (for BA and the passengers) rather than necessity as it isn't the first airport you reach after the atlantic crossing. Beats being stranded in Chicago.-

Share this post


Link to post

Yowsa....Not sure about the decisions on that one. It's not like they were already half way there before this occurred.It happened on takeoff.The article said this:"Air traffic controllers at Los Angeles spotted streams of sparks shooting from the engine and immediately radioed the pilot. He attempted to throttle the engine back but was forced to shut it down after it continued to overheat. The plane then began circling over the Pacific while the pilot contacted BA

Share this post


Link to post

well,seeing as he was the Captain,and i'm just a lowly flightsimmer,i don't consider him doing anything stupid.he has discussed it with ba tech ops,and undoubtedlyalso with co-pilot and maybe reliefpilot.the three of them have more experience flying 747's asi do i presume.besides,everyday,a few hundred twin engined planes croos the atlantic.i guess they too make a big mistake then.i mean,the afore mentioned boeing had THREE engines left.what's the big deal?do you REALLY think they'd jeopardize passenger safety?do you?i think they don't,they have considered all options,and chosethe one probably best for both ba and the passengers.we as desktop pilots can shout in shock and horror,but i believe we have nothing to say now do we.as usual,the best captains are on the ground.d'oh!tataJP.

Share this post


Link to post

For those that wrote that even if they lost two engines they would still have the same number as a B-777, and if by chance you are a

Share this post


Link to post

>I would suspect>a hefty fine and maybe suspensions and some retraining for the>crews, dispatch, and the rest of the management team that>allowed this flight to continue.I would bet nothing of this sort will happen. I simply doubt this was the first case of this sort and aviation has had a long enough history to iron out what is allowed/not allowed in such cases. I bet this crew did not do anything that violated laws of any aviation regulatory agency (either in UK or USA).Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously, you didn't bother to read any of the posts from the linked Pprune thread about this topic by some of the guys who do fly four engine planes for a living. If this is how you really feel, you really should stick with Amtrak.

Share this post


Link to post

Ad Hominem attacks serve nothing. As the originator of this thread, as a 15 year air traffic controller with a PPL/SEL, and as a citizen who is forced to use air travel when the situation demands, I feel compelled to say this about that.What the BA crew did was a severe lapse of judgment, just bad airmanship. Can I tell you a story that is much closer to my home.Alaskan Airlines Flight # departs PDX on a 2+ hour flight. During climb out, PIC/CO fails to pressurize the cabin. Masks drop at 14,500, and oxygen starts to deploy. The flight crew assesses the point of failure (turns on cabin pressure), does a successful pressurization, and decide to "press on". Stews throw a major fit.Plane continues to altitude, and all arrive safely in 2.3 or something. Only one problem. PACs and Crew had no oxygen for major duration of flight. Once the canisters deploy, its a 30 minute countdown. In the event of a real depressurization from altitude, folks would be oxygen deprived. 39,000 feet to 12,000 feet takes 4.5 minutes at a 6000fpm. Pretty darn fast.Same root cause, poor judgement.My 2 cents,bt

Share this post


Link to post

What you don't realize is that there is plenty in commercial aviation that would strike the layperson and the PPL/SEL type as "insane" that are normal and accepted practices. Planes can be dispatched with all sorts of broken equipment or weather that is below minimums at the destination. All of which is legal and outlined in company manuals. What people who get paid to fly do is look at the situation and make an informed decision based on a risk analysis. That is why they are trained on these rules and paid to sit in the front seat. And yes, getting the revenue from A to B is a factor. That is why they are COMMERCIAL pilots. They engage in commerce. Not just fly for hamburgers and hangar the plane when the clouds build. You, the layperson and the PPL/SEL type do not have the information or knowledge of the rules to make an informed risk analysis and make the kind of judgements on this crew that you are making. You people sound like the media.The BA crew had plenty of outs. Three engine flight on the 747 is an abnormal, not an emergency. Take a look in any 747 QRH. They were simply redispatched using three engine performance. Meaning all the requirements for alternates and fuel reserves are all still being met. They had no reason to turn around and land, except for emotional ones.Your comparison with the oxygen masks is disingenious. Here is why. that Alaska crew, assuming the masks were pulled and activated, had no out. Once that equipment became unavailable, they were illegal. The difference is that the Alaska crew did not consider all the factors when they looked at the situation. The did not realize that they became illegal for the portion of flight after the O2 was exhausted. As it stands now, the BA crew and dispatchers apparently had dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's in the consideration for continuing that flight. They had no compelling equipment or legal reason to turn that plane around.

Share this post


Link to post

Having flown on BA in their 747s I now consider my self quite lucky that I made it across the pond and back after hearing this story.I still believe the upper management is putting pressure on operational managers and crews to cut costs any way possible. Ten years ago on a trip to Europe, the BA 757 we were to have taken ground aborted at LHR. Then the spare broke and we waited nearly 5 hours for a third aircraft. BA did give us a vouchers for something to eat and free drinks once we pushed back from the gate. We sat in the penalty box or what ever they call it over there for another 45 minutes until we could get permission from the French to over fly their airspace in route to Geneva. Today, I am afraid we might have been forced to take either the primary or spare jet in order to keep on schedule and make a greater proffit. As safe as air travel is, you still cannot pull over to the side of the road when something breaks. Terry

Share this post


Link to post

And also, now that you've decided you want to take such a high and mighty road, let me ask you this braun. In your 15 years as a controller, how many times did you ask an airliner holding for wx, the rvr that they needed to start the approach? And when the visibility finally came up to that rvr value, how many times did the airliner on the other end of the radio decide that they wanted to hold a bit while longer to get just a bit more rvr so that they can have a bigger safety margin. Did you ever offer to hold them further to give it rvr+some so that they could be safer? Of course not. Once it was legal, the approach was started. So were all those prefectly legal approaches done to minimums unsafe? How much of a cushion do you add to the published minimums before you would consider it safe? So if that BA crew met all their equipment and legal requirements to continue across the ocean, how is that different than all those low wx approaches you worked?

Share this post


Link to post

KevinAu, Let me ask you a question since you seem to know everyone

Share this post


Link to post

TerryI have slightly mixed feelings on this. The thought of loosing an engine from a passenger angle is probably a flying passengers nightmare.Many passengers are nervous at best of times and most passengers know little about aviation.Those passengers knowing they were flying all the way from America to the UK over unhospitable territory minus an engine must have been scared stiff even with reassurance from the Captain.To have spent the whole trip in a state of hightened anxiety is hardly what airlines want for their passengers.How many would have been put off flying for good who knows?From that Angle alone it would have been better to have flown to another airport where some fuel could have been burned off and some dumped and then to have landed.They could have then at least given the passengers the option of getting off before taking off again on three engines to complete the trip ;-)I am sure the "new situation" regarding fuel burn, lower levels etc would have been carefully worked out and I tend to go with Kevin on the fact that there probably was little risk involved.From a public relations point of view it can only have been a bad descisionPeter

Share this post


Link to post

not to change the subject, but can you feather a jet engine? I would think that it would generate a lot of drag if you couldn't.

Share this post


Link to post

"We would never compromise the safety of our passengers," said British Airways spokeswoman Diane Fung on Monday. "The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to do so. The pilots are trained for such situations."furthermore,there were no flames and no smoke,there were sparks.evidence of an engine surge.what is it with you people?you never ever flew that plane,yet youbluntly slaughter the captain and crew,because,-without you knowing all the facts-,you thinka crew trained to do just what they did,did it wrong.is it that hard to admit they knew better?is it that hard to say "they are pro's,they know what they do?"yuk.and all that on a flightsim forum.if any,we should understand they make decisions based on performance charts,extensive abnormal checklists and them being there,thinking logically and objectively,not based on one finger in the air or "ini mini miney mo"that's why they are paid what they get.and what every Tom Dick or Harry thinks when they land doesn't matter much.they were there,they did the most logical,safe thing they could do.you were not,so quit whining.it's not like these guys are clowns or something.tata!JP.

Share this post


Link to post

>>>KevinAu,>> Let me ask you a question since you seem to know everyone

Share this post


Link to post

>event like this, esp with ATC talking about smoke and flames>shooting out the engine. I think folks make too much drama about this smoke and flames. This was the bad engine that was doing it. Once they shut down the engine, cut the fuel off, etc there was no more "smoke & flames". At this point it was a perfectly well functioning 747 minus one dead engine. No sane pilot would continue the flight with some smoke & fire raging on.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

Share this post


Link to post

This is so funny. Gotta love the deskflyers/deskmechs LOL How many heard that the SAME BA B744, did a 3 engine flight from Singapore to London 3 or 4 flights after the LAX-MAN flight?Sure did. The engine that was replacd after the LAX-MAN flight crapped out on a flight from Singapore to London. This flight docked a whopping 15 mins behind schedule.http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/04...t.ap/index.htmlReminds me of our "CHIPS Light Tour 2000" Were we bounced around the Western Pacific on 3 engines, to finally change out said engine then have the "new" one crap out on the next flight. :):-outtahttp://publish.hometown.aol.com/p3superb/i...s/sign_name.jpgThere is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness".- unknown"My daddy gives me up, to fight for you"- a US Military Members Child

Share this post


Link to post

Let's see:BA may have LIED according to the article, where it states:"BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the flight. But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only 100ft above the ground."hmmm.... Now why did they lie about that I wonder. (covering for themselves)Then the Pilot or flight crew acting as Pilot In Command screw up their calculations and HAVE TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. READ That again, they had to declare an emergency.This wasn't some typical divert, they declared an emergency, because they screwed up, IMHO, and didn't have the required reserves to make it to their original destination.From The article:"The pilot realized as he flew over the Atlantic that he was running out of fuel and would not make it to Heathrow. He requested an emergency landing at Manchester and was met by four fire engines and thirty firefighters on the runway."That means he screwed up, IMHO, and the fact that BA first may have lied about it based upon the article. He didn't ask for a divert, and had many fire engines meeting him on the field as well.Sorry, but I reserve my opinion on this. The Pilot In Command made bad decisions which put his passengers at UNDUE Risk by not calculating proper fuel and didn't realize it until somewhere over the Atlantic. Further errors in this chain of events was not diverting after his first engine sparks and cutoff, IMHO. (And I am entitled like anyone else to have these opinions based on what we know thus far)Please.... He screwed up, at least agree on that. This was not a typical divert, or a typical flight.I would be interested to know how much fuel was on board when he landed, if anyone is privy to that.And for those quoting such and such procedures, unless you can produce the actual BA procedures, it is all conjecture, IMHO.I'd like to know if BA does something to this pilot, and if so, what?Sonar5****************Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this