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

[btacon 1,807]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.htmlThe FAA and British officials are investigating the pilots

[clayton4115 56]

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

[KevinAu 441]

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

[kerosene31 349]

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?

[btacon 1,807]

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

[KevinAu 441]

>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

[KevinAu 441]

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.

[Guest oyvindhansen]

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.-

[Sonar5 3]

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

[JP_Visser 3]

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.

[Guest Terry_ABQ]

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

[michal 44]

>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

[KevinAu 441]

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.

[btacon 1,807]

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

[KevinAu 441]

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.