Turbulence over British Airways' hairy flight

[tf51d 284]

>I could, but this topic has already been beat to death.>>http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=search>>As far as I can tell, they did nothing that was illegal. >Ballsy, yes. Illegal, no. Unfortunately for them, additional>technical and environmental factors later on in the flight>caused the captain to decide to land short of Heathrow. In>aviation, all risk is calculated, if you only flew when>everything was 100% A-OK, you would get nothing done. That is>why in commercial and military aviation, the rules we operate>under allow for operations under less than 100% A-OK aircraft>or weather conditions. Most passengers don't realize this. >Most passengers don't realize that the plane they are riding>may have something or another that isn't working. Or that the>weather at their destination is actually below landing>minimums. But there are two guys/gals sitting up front who>are trained and have the knowledge to make a judgement on>whether completion of the mission objective is legal and safe.> It's a judgement call on something like this, where you know>your margin is decreased, but there is no legal reason to not>complete the mission. The judgement that the captain makes is>based on all the known facts, the projected outcome for all>parties involved with each decision, and the likelihood of>each outcome. That's what he is paid to do. If he>automatically turns around at each sign of trouble, then he is>not making any decisions at all.>>Obviously, if somebody has come to the emphatic second>judgement that this captain obviously decided wrong because he>declared an emergency, I doubt that any presentation of the>facts such as the regulations or performance charts will>change the person's mind. A train will be the best choice for>long distance travel for this person. But beware, things can>go wrong on them too.>http://www.northeast.railfan.net/wreck4.html>>The safest thing to do, IMHO, is to not roll out of bed.I would agree with you if the whole fight was over land, where they could touchdown if needed safely. A flight though where the last and most crucial leg is over the ocean, then that is an unnecessary risk to put a plane loaded with passengers in. Also, if the plane was low on fuel, why did the pilot wait until landing at Manchester? Why not land earlier like say Ireland? Why was he pushing the envelope?Edit: Here's a link to the FAA rule regarding engine out procedures. Obviously point 3 Weather conditions and point 5 Type of terrain is the key points here. How anyone can argue that flying 4800 miles on 3 engines the last 2000+ miles over water is safer or as safe than landing at the nearest suitable airport baffles the mind. The pilot and the airline made a really bad decision!http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...0.11.23&idno=14

[Guest jboweruk]

He obviously knew he could make Manchester, the guys a highly trained professional and it's not for the likes of us sim pilots to critisize him.

[tf51d 284]

>He obviously knew he could make Manchester, the guys a highly>trained professional and it's not for the likes of us sim>pilots to critisize him.That's one highly trained professional I don't want in the cockpit on any plane I'm flying in! I'd be interested to hear if other real 747 pilots, that sometimes frequent this forum would have made the same decision under those circumstances? In regards to being able to make it to Manchester, the fact he had to call an emergency indicates that was a bad decision too. What's safer, landing at a earlier location without calling an emergency or waiting til the furthest location the plane could make? Remember the FAA rules say a pilot can proceed only if landing at the proposed airport is as safe as landing at the nearest one. Calling an emergency for low fuel indicates it wasn't! Edit: Is there any word on what the British Aviation Authorities is doing regarding this incident?

[KevinAu 441]

>>>I would agree with you if the whole fight was over land, where>they could touchdown if needed safely. A flight though where>the last and most crucial leg is over the ocean, then that is>an unnecessary risk to put a plane loaded with passengers in.>Also, if the plane was low on fuel, why did the pilot wait>until landing at Manchester? Why not land earlier like say>Ireland? Why was he pushing the envelope?>>Edit: Here's a link to the FAA rule regarding engine out>procedures. Obviously point 5 Type of terrain is the key point>here.>Why is the keypoint terrain? Landing a 747 on the ocean is just as problematic as landing a 747 in a cornfield. As a pilot, the first thought that should have crossed your mind as you read point #5 is not "ocean", but rather "mountains" as in whether you can clear the mountains on the remaining engines. There aren't too many mountains in the Atlantic Ocean that would be a factor here.Whether or not they are over land or water makes no difference. The pertinent issue is whether there is any place available to land. Just because they are over land does not mean there are runways long enough nearby to land a 747 just as being over water does not mean there are no islands nearby with runways long enough to land a 747. There are alternates along the transatlantic tracks, such as Keflavik and Reykjavik, Narsarsuaq, Lajes, Gander, Stornoway, and Shannon. Certainly if they should decide they needed to land while over the middle of the Atlantic, it would take them at least an hour or two to get to one of them, but that is the case whether they were on 3 engines or 4 engines. Carrying a dead compressor stalled engine is not something that would have added to the probability of having to make use of one of those alternates. If somebody had a heart attack or if a fire erupted aboard, the time it would take to land somewhere would have been almost the same whether or not they were on 3 engines. But neither of those things are related to the dead engine. Once they had calculated that they had enough gas to make it to England, there was nothing else that would have increased the probablity, compared to a normal flight, of having to divert to an alternate. If a passenger had a problem with this, then they should consider not ever crossing the Atlantic by air. Again, this goes back to the issue of whether or not to roll out of bed each morning.Their most important consideration on whether to continue or not would have been #2 ...usable fuel. According to the previously linked news report, they landed with 10,000lbs at Manchester. The minimum fuel that one should probably land a 747 with is about 9,000lbs. So their calculations on whether they could make it were pretty close. Unfortunately, about 6400lbs were inaccessible in #2 Main Tank which caused the declaration of emergency. And they may not have realized that fuel was becoming critical until they were close to London. Why did it end in an emergency? I speculate that this is due to mismanagement of the fuel configuration during the crossing. To me, it sounds like they used fuel as according to the normal FMSC logic and left it at Tank-to-Engine once that started, instead of making sure they got as much fuel out of the #2 Main Tank before switching to Tank-to-Engine for the last phase of flight. If the Captain had managed the fuel system a little smarter, there probably would have been no need to declare the fuel emergency.

[tf51d 284]

Why is the keypoint terrain? Landing a 747 on the ocean is just as problematic as landing a 747 in a cornfield. As a pilot, the first thought that should have crossed your mind as you read point #5 is not "ocean", but rather "mountains" as in whether you can clear the mountains on the remaining engines. There aren't too many mountains in the Atlantic Ocean that would be a factor here.What I meant was there are no airports over the ocean!!

[KevinAu 441]

>>What I meant was there are no airports over the ocean!!Whether or not they are over land or water makes no difference. The pertinent issue is whether there is any place available to land. Just because they are over land does not mean there are runways long enough nearby to land a 747 just as being over water does not mean there are no islands nearby with runways long enough to land a 747. There are alternates along the transatlantic tracks, such as Keflavik and Reykjavik, Narsarsuaq, Lajes, Gander, Stornoway, and Shannon. Certainly if they should decide they needed to land while over the middle of the Atlantic, it would take them at least an hour or two to get to one of them, but that is the case whether they were on 3 engines or 4 engines. Carrying a dead compressor stalled engine is not something that would have added to the probability of having to make use of one of those alternates. If somebody had a heart attack or if a fire erupted aboard, the time it would take to land somewhere would have been almost the same whether or not they were on 3 engines. But neither of those things are related to the dead engine. Once they had calculated that they had enough gas to make it to England, there was nothing else that would have increased the probablity, compared to a normal flight, of having to divert to an alternate. If a passenger had a problem with this, then they should consider not ever crossing the Atlantic by air. Again, this goes back to the issue of whether or not to roll out of bed each morning.

[tf51d 284]

I think the main driving point in this was the new rule regarding customer compensation for delays in the UK, regardless of what BA says. I would doubt the plane would have proceeded barring this rule. As long as the penalties, are less then the reimbursment costs, we'll see more incidents like this in the future. An indication of this is that 3 days later on the same plane with a replacement engine, had the same problem from Singapore to Heathrow and the pilot continued on! The argument about dumping fuel presented in the article also doesn't cut it, as it was also pointed out in the same article, the aircraft could have safely proceeded to ORD or JFK to burn the fuel off, and the airline could have used the time (6 hours) to arrange alternate transportaion.

[KevinAu 441]

There have been other instances of 747s doing this *prior* to the EU consumer rights bill. It's one of the selling points of 747s and A340s, "four engines for long haul" as they say at Airbus and they even wrote up an FAR, 121.565, as you already linked to, drawn up to cover this sort of activity. Nevertheless though, I do agree that the EU legislature should have thought things through a little bit more before enacting such a law and it's potential effect on people's behavior.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"I wonder if they'd have levied the same fine if the plane had been American Airlines. Who let's face it seem to be involved in one heckuva lot of mishaps......"Hmmmm, your profile says you're from England. Imagine that? I suppose by changing the subject to "what would have happened if it had been American Airlines" one can rationalize the risk the BA pilot took. I think if American Airlines had done the same thing flying off of British Soil, you'd find most Americans here--and hopefully the British government, raising just as much a stink. I think people who are either flyers or love aviation share no borders, but that's just my take.-John

[Guest CRJ700FO]

not to get into the politics of CAA versus FAA but I have NO idea where the reporter gets $25,000 as the maximum fine from the FAA. they have fined US carriers 8 times that amount.and yes whoever the brit was who questioned if this was an AA flight would it have been covered as much. in short the answer is yes, it would have been covered MORE. this action by BA shows where its priorities are ($$$ ok not them but pounds :-)) and where they are not (safety).

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

I agree more with KevinAu's views. Airlines are commercial entities, they have to be able to make money to exist so it is no suprise that they choose to utilise their investment of four engines. My analysis is that the decision to continue did not lead to the emergency, but possibly lack of training in the finer points of the systems, bad fuel management or simply an operationally unforseeable circumstance. These things could happen regardless and have. If there is any critisism it should be directed at the handling of the flight, not the decision per se. The same airframe's three engined pax jaunt from Singapore to Heathrow the following week reinforces that, IMHO of course.

[Guest jboweruk]

I don't think you can say BA don't care about safety, I was going on a 747 that got grounded because 1, yes 1 fuel pump on 1 tank failed, yet for that particular journey it would not have been any problem and they probably could have had a pump waiting for them where they were going. Instead we pulled another 747 from a later trip and took that while the one we were due to get had it's pump replaced and went to Delhi on the later flight. IMHO they figured it would be safe to go, maybe had they not circled a while as some pen pusher waited for clearance this would never have arisen and the aircraft would have landed at Heathrow as normal. The pilot probably had enough fuel to land at LHR anyway, but it was getting critical and he decided to call an emergency and land at Manchester instead.We don't have a clue what went on in that plane, or what was said and by who. Without all the facts we are not in any position to judge their decisions, the only ppl that are in that position are people who know the 747 way better than us. But it does prove on a long haul like that 4 engines are better than 2.And to John, it doesn't matter whether you and I are worried about borders, politics plays a huge role in Aviation. BA has one of the best (not the best) safety records in the world, only behind Air Canada and Qantas for airframe losses, surely that should say something about them. You only have to look at the whole sorry saga over Concorde then Airbus to see what I mean about Politics. I love Boeings, I don't like Airbus much at all, so it has nothing to do with me personally being a Brit or anything else. I just think US politics as anyone else's protects US interests, same as our CAA would probably levy a heavier fine on a US carrier under the same circumstances. It's just a sad fact of life. In Aviation generally safety is second to profit, you only have think about things like the exploding fuel tanks, it wasn't until they decided that it was more expensive in compensation than to do the job that fuel tanks were altered to keep air out as the fuel runs down.

[tf51d 284]

IMHO they figured it would be safe to go, maybe had they not circled a while as some pen pusher waited for clearance this would never have arisen and the aircraft would have landed at Heathrow as normal. The pilot probably had enough fuel to land at LHR anyway, but it was getting critical and he decided to call an emergency and land at Manchester instead.FAA Rules say there must be a 45 min fuel reserve at the point of destination. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think transatlantic flights the reserve must be greater. Even if they didn't take the 20 minutes flying in circles over the Pacific, even if they made LHR this still would have put them atleast 25 minutes in the hole of that reserve. That doesn't even take into consideration the distance between Manchester and LHR. Remember the FAA standard is that the final destination be as safe as the nearest airport. One can argue that dumping fuel over the Pacific to land back at LAX would not be considered as safe as proceeding to London, or that what they did was considered safe by industry standards. No one though can reasonably argue that burning off fuel and landing at an intermediate airport like ORD or JFK would not have been safer than proceeding to destination. That's the key. Proceeding may have been considered safe (Although I still disagree it was), but not as safe or safer than an alternate. That is what the FAA is going to nail them on!

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>FAA Rules say there must be a 45 min fuel reserve at the point>of destination. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think>transatlantic flights the reserve must be greater. Even if>they didn't take the 20 minutes flying in circles over the>Pacific, even if they made LHR this still would have put them>atleast 25 minutes in the hole of that reserve. That doesn't>even take into consideration the distance between Manchester>and LHR. Remember the FAA standard is that the final>destination be as safe as the nearest airport. One can argue>that dumping fuel over the Pacific to land back at LAX would>not be considered as safe as proceeding to London, or that>what they did was considered safe by industry standards. No>one though can reasonably argue that burning off fuel and>landing at an intermediate airport like ORD or JFK would not>have been safer than proceeding to destination. That's the>key. Proceeding may have been considered safe (Although I>still disagree it was), but not as safe or safer than an>alternate. That is what the FAA is going to nail them on! the FAA rule is rather "grey" 121.565(:(http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...0.11.23&idno=14i would imagine BA operates under CAA authority, but i do not know.

[KevinAu 441]

>IMHO they figured it would be safe to go, maybe had they not>circled a while as some pen pusher waited for clearance this>would never have arisen and the aircraft would have landed at>Heathrow as normal. The pilot probably had enough fuel to land>at LHR anyway, but it was getting critical and he decided to>call an emergency and land at Manchester instead.>>FAA Rules say there must be a 45 min fuel reserve at the point>of destination. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think>transatlantic flights the reserve must be greater. Even if>they didn't take the 20 minutes flying in circles over the>Pacific, even if they made LHR this still would have put them>atleast 25 minutes in the hole of that reserve. That doesn't>even take into consideration the distance between Manchester>and LHR. Remember the FAA standard is that the final>destination be as safe as the nearest airport. I'm not sure if you've read the article posted at the top of the thread or any of our other comments on the fuel management of that flight, but they actually had about 10000lbs of fuel aboard when they landed. The issue that caused them to declare the emergency was the handling of the fuel pumps and crossfeeds that left most of it inside a tank that they thought they couldn't use. 10000lbs is probably about 40 minutes of flight time left on the three engines. They declared the emergency and said they "couldn't go around" because tanks 1, 3 and 4 each only had about 1200lbs left while the captain didn't know how to get at the 6400lbs in tank 2. The 6400lbs could have been used up if the captain had opened the crossfeed valves and shut off all but the Tank 2 override pumps while enroute instead of letting the system go Tank-to-Engine with fuel still in Tank 2. If he had used up the 6400lbs earlier, he would have had enough in the remaining tanks to land without declaring an emergency.