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

[KevinAu 441]

I'm not sure why the mention of dispatch is disturbing. They run the numbers, they email the new plan to you, you look at it, you check whether it is more or less conservative than what you figured on your own, you might haggle with them a little, and then you both agree on a course of action. What is so disturbing about that?So basically, what you are saying though, is that entire clause that allows flight to other than nearest airport be disregarded at all times, no matter what. So what's your take on 3585? What about MEL's? How about an RVR rule dispatch? Adequate visual ref? 666? Or even better, 555?Ever notice that when something happens and you don't get to where you are going and the pilot makes a PA, he always seems to say "...since safety is our number one priority, we've decided to..." instead of "...since safety is our only priority, we've decided to..." I hate to break this to you, but when you buy a ticket and get on a plane, the paid pilots up front have three priorities, 1.safety, 2.comfort and 3.schedule. If safety was the only one, there would be no such thing as commercial aviation.

[btacon 1,788]

No Kevin...you said something else:"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."Two engines sure, but you also said the only way this would put them in jeopardy would be if they fell asleep. I think, as a matter of fact, I KNOW that a two engine 747 over the pond, especially an asymmetrical situation, would be a big darn deal...not just another ride in a 777.See here is the rub as I see it. All aircraft like this type are certificated to fly in extreme conditions, emergency conditions or at least conditions that could lead to emergencies.Thunderstorms...aircraft fly around weather daily. Make a wrong choice and fly through or over the wrong one, dead pacs.Icing. Aircraft such as these are certificated to fly in icing. Aircraft fly in known icing daily. Make a wrong choice, dead pacs.Its not just about "rules and regulations". Its about "judgment" One without the other and the whole system fails. That is why I can't agree with your point of view concerning this incident.I stand by my comments. Poor judgment, bad Airmanship, leads to dead pacs, pilots and crew.Cheers,bt

[KevinAu 441]

The Air Transat incident I was referring to involved a crew who did not realize that they were losing fuel, and then subsequently ran the wrong procedure for it, when they finally did realize it and then ended up completely running out of gas. I assumed you were familiar with that incident, and would have understood that a 2 engine 747 would ditch for running out of gas if the crew did not realize they were running out of gas. I'm not sure how you extrapolated that into saying a 747's performance on two engines is the same as a fully functioning 777. Anyways that is neither here nor there.That is absolutely your right to have an opinion on their judgement. I will however, stand by my comment that you don't have all the facts, that all we have is ill-informed media conjecture and hype, and that none of us have enough information to make a judgement on this crew.

[Guest DNelson]

>>I caught an equal amount of crap right after the Shuttle Went>down, and my theories less than 24 hours after that incident>proved out to be 100% CORRECT.>And which theories would those be? The theory that the accident was somehow caused because a LW tank was flown instead of a SLW tank? Or the related theory that the STS-107 tank was somewhat older, and the age was a causal factor?I'd love to see some evidence that these theories were "100% CORRECT".

[Guest Xmech]

I wonder how the crew determined no parts of the engine came out and puntured through anything. Which engine failed? How good of a view do you have of it from in the plane? How good of a view do you have of the outboard side of the eninge from in the plane? They did have a report of sparks and such, which sounds like something more than a flameout.

[Sonar5 3]

Context Dan, Context please.I would have sent this to you in a PM, or Email, but I guess you have those turned off for some reason. ;-)Please quote the rest of what I wrote above so you and others can understand the context of your quoted comment, please?****************I said:"I caught an equal amount of crap right after the Shuttle Went down, and my theories less than 24 hours after that incident proved out to be 100% CORRECT.You don't need a PHD, or an ATP, to have common sense and be entitled to a common sense opinion.I am pretty darn good at research, common sense, and cause and effect. I am not an expert, but on things like this, I am more often correct than incorrect. I have enough facts to form my opinion, and yes, I am entitled to it. Feel free to disagree with that opinion, but I am not out there telling you you're not entitled to your opinion, I am commenting on the facts as I know them, and limiting my comments to the crew involved and leaving the members here out of it. Why can't you & others here give the same amount of latitude.Why don't you concentrate on that instead of concentrating and diverting the topic to my right to have an opinion."**************Now Dan,My original theories are unfortunately not showing up at the the fs.com site anymore. However they were linked in pretty good detail.Start Here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchThen Go Here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchThen Here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchThen here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchThen Here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=search***And a lot of my research is summarized here: ***http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/835773/postsUnfortunately a lot of my research is now gone from the other sim site, where you may see links to fs.com enclosed in some of the above links. Unfortunately I cannot retrieve that info, and there was quite a bit. Not sure if anyone saved any of it.Finally, Dan,Go Read these links:http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/foia/index.html(I wonder if my email and reply from Michoud is in there somewhere, which I used as evidence that NASA's own press kit was wrong.)And Finally, the CAIB report where it goes into much detail about the tanks.http://www.caib.us/news/report/default.htmlSpecifically, I recommend you go to Volume #1, Page 52, where it talks about this./SNIP:"STS-107 Left Bipod Foam Ramp LossA combination of factors, rather than a single factor, led to the loss of the left bipod foam ramp during the ascent of STS-107.NASA personnel believe that testing conducted during the investigation, including the dissection of as-built hardware and testing of simulated defects, showed conclusively that pre-existing defects in the foam were a major factor, and in briefings to the Board, these were cited as a necessary condition for foam loss. However, analysis indicated that pre-existingdefects alone were not responsible for foam loss."..."Dan, Note the use of the words PRE-EXISTING DEFECTS in the foam were a Major Factor"And on Page 52, top of 53:/SNIP"The way the foam was produced and applied, particularly in the bipod region, also contributed to its variability. Foam consists of two chemical components that must be mixed in an exact ratio and is then sprayed according to strict specifications. Foam is applied to the bipod fitting by hand to make the foam ramp, and this process may be the primary source of foam variability. Board-directed dissection of foam ramps has revealed that defects (voids, pockets, and debris) are likely due to a lack of control of various combinationsof parameters in spray-by-hand applications, which is exacerbated by the complexity of the underlying hardware configuration. These defects often occur along

[MarkRey 16]

Indeed - 'popular' media reported a PIA 777 to be 'on fire' at Manchester Airport, featuring picture with flaming B707 included - all this from overheated/smoking left mains brakes.The aircraft was evacuated, checked out, reloaded and sent on it's way.regards,Mark3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256

[jagabom 21]

So if the flight was half way over the pond and the 2nd engine went out on the same side at FL350. Can the plane fly long enough to make the next runway?JimCYWG

[Sonar5 3]

British Airways may be Charged by FAAAnd the plot thickens according to the International herald Tribune, where they state:Full Article here:http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/07/news/faa.html"WASHINGTON Federal Aviation Administration officials said on Monday that they were preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because of the airline's decision to allow a Boeing 747 to fly from California to England with one engine inoperable. Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action against British Airways because such issues would be handled by Britain."**************** Interesting Article. Should be interesting to follow. BTW - I was first notified of this by Avweb newswire.http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avfl...ull.html#189309Regards,Joe****************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]

[Guest DanFraserUK]

Not be be harsh on everyone, but no-one seems to have noticed why the pilot took this course of action in the first place. The EU regs have been getting very tight, and looking at those figures, thats a pretty low estimate. The pilot seems to have judged the situation well, apart from what seem to be a few blunders. My main point being, the EU is placing an awful lot of pressure on businesses, and internal governments to do things their way, and things like this will probably start to happen a lot.

[btacon 1,788]

Mike...just had to respond again.Mike said, "I have been known to drive with broken wipers or with headlight." Braun said, "me too, but I would not go across the US in my car with a broken headlight or wiper, let alone the cold, dark, deep Atlantic."Mike said, "The whole thing is just awash with cheap shots and 'propaganda." Braun said, "It is your right Michael to feel that way, but saying that it smacks of 'cheap shots and propaganda' smacks of 'cheap shots and propaganda'" all by itself.Cheers,bt

[Guest VApilot2004]

I have always known British Airways to be one of the safest carriers around - top notch pilots - and superior maintenance standards.While I was surprised hearing this trans-Atlantic crossing with a mere :-roll three engines - I don't feel the passenger safety of this flight was compromised at all- having said that - I would have not been happy if I knew the situation and was aboard or had a loved one on board.If instead of consulting with the maintenance guys or using the operating manual as a guide - our Captain should have checked with British Airways' public relations people - they would have vetoed his decision in a millisecond.

[Guest GOP]

Curious as to what regs the EU imposes that would make the pilot take this risk? Governments have made un-wise decisions that have had bad effects on public safety, Scare Canada's Gimli Glider comes to mind! :) As a result of that airlines blunder my family switched to CP Air if we flew commercial, latter we discovered Ward Air, best dang airline that ever flew. When Ward was merged with CP to form Canadian, we switched to British Airways when we could. They always had quility service and found their planes to appear top notch in cleanness, etcetera. If the EU is imposing regs that force airlines to compromise safety, I'll never fly BA again!!!! My family only flew the above mentioned airline who had a glider service due to the fact it was a government owned/operated airline and they decided to compromise safety by imposing a ill thought out requirment that led to a pilot making a stupid decision. So it would not surprise me that the EU could have some blame in this. Ultimately though the blame and punishment should and does fall on the captain!!!!!!!!

[mgh 89]

GOPThe EU had just introduced regulations requiring airlines to compensate passengers for cancelled or severely delayed flights. I don't know the details of how the rules work, but a newpaper in the UK reported that they would have cost BA about

[Guest GOP]

Government should not be allowed to dictate how customer service is conducted by business. It seems likely that these EU regulations are to blame for the captains error in good judgement, more will follow his path. I'm not flying on any airline that falls under the EU's jurisdiction.