[keen9a]

What I recall from the report is company policy is min arrival fuel at Heathrow is 6.5 tonne (14,300 lbs) and they landed at Manchester with 4.7 tonne?

Reread the report George. The FDR indicated that they landed with 5.8 tonnes, and the min reserve (doesn't say who set it) was 4.5 tonnes. 4.7 tonnes was the quantity measured by the engineering staff after "a short period of APU" ground running.

There was confusion about fuel. Why? Not because the crew, because they where getting fuel imbalance with one engine shut down. Fuel imbalance is not really normal. So yes it was training.

They didn't understand the fuel system, and the company procedure that they did understand was bad with only three engines running. This is why I can't stand training based soley on procedure. Understand how the system works, and you can overcome such issues. In this case, you would even have time to read up on it if the info was available. Also, the crew took the conservative route by landing early.

They knew what they had, and they where concerned.

They knew that they had enough fuel. They didn't know if it was all going to be available to them.

I took the time to make these corrections because I value your opinion on this George. I can only give an engineer and private pilot perspective, but from that I'd say, eh big deal. You still have engine redundancy; press on. I wish they were trained in on systems more, and that's what the report recommends.

As for other's comments to the effect of "don't keep flying a broken plane", where is the line? If every system has to be working perfectly on every flight, we may as well close up shop and go home, because the airlines will all be out of business soon, and it won't be because of the cost. There will be no passengers left due to all of the delays. Yes an engine seems like a big deal, but not really when you start with 4.

 

[fehdxl]

route of flight

I thought this was an interesting perspective. -Jim

 

[cytoxin]

i guess its my turn

i feel safe with the decisions made by the pros holding the yokes, but with the somewhat large fireball and 15 previous outs i will have to admit it would be a long flight and i would wish to stop as soon as practical.i would also be overly concerned about sabotoge or another engine or other related problem. imagine the family's of loved ones watching that plane depart with the fireball on the wing. .. as their wives children husbands were departing..maybe they are due some innocent bystander trauma payment now its 11 hours or whatever before they hear from them all the while hoping they are still alive and a few sick ones hoping they are not. without the fire to add to the complexity of the problem i would be ok with it but man that really adds a fear factor to it. i love to sit on the wing and look out but what a treat that would have been i bet they ran out of toilet paper on that one.

ppsel
A&P
rv builder
Master ASE auto tec
Automotive Instructor.
100 whole hours 172's 150's pa 28's
and my wife is a CPA and CFO whatever that means

 

[George in Langley BC]

Only Three Engines?

Interesting thread, so I read the report. Undecided at first but I probably would have carried on just as the BA crew did. Deregulation pressures.

Some interesting items I picked up on not mentioned in previous posts.

(1) The #2 engine had 24,539 hours and had not been overhauled or repaired during its life. It probably had been hung in the # 2 slot to live out its remaining days. Sure be nice to have that engine servicability in our RV's! My guess is that this engine was "on watch" and BA maintenance knew exactly what had happened within a few minutes of shut down from reading the ACARS readout.

Airlines switch engines around to maximize utilization and don't put four clunkers on the same airframe.

For example, our company had GE engines producing 62,500 lb. thrust on our 767-300ER's and about mid life these were switched to our 747-400's where they produced 56,000 lb thrust. Averaging the utilization between aircraft increased the average overhaul time and ensured better reliability on the twin. My company had good maintenance, it did not survive.

2) The 747 initially climbed to FL270 and cruised at M.75, that impressed me. A heavy DC10-30 going from Toronto to Tokyo can't get that high for the first three hours using all engines.

3) The crew must have been disappointed that their optimum altitude FL320
was not available for the crossing and they got stuck at 290 with winds not as forcast.

4) The North Atlantic is not that big any more and my guess is that they were never more than 90 minutes from a suitable airport.

5) I do find fault with BA's management for implementing fuel balance procedures that did not conform with Boeings.

6) Landing 150 miles short on a 5000 mile flight when things don't work out, well I have been short of fuel myself and this one really does not look all that bad.
In the good old days some carriers wanting to go to London might just flight plan to Manchester with London as an alternate and then divert to their alternate. Allows a bigger payload, stuff them in, oh, did I mention deregulation?


George in Langley B.C.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Thanks for the correction

Reread the report George. The FDR indicated that they landed with 5.8 tonnes, and the min reserve (doesn't say who set it) was 4.5 tonnes. 4.7 tonnes was the quantity measured by the engineering staff after "a short period of APU" ground running.

They didn't understand the fuel system, and the company procedure that they did understand was bad with only three engines running. This is why I can't stand training based solely on procedure. Understand how the system works, and you can overcome such issues. In this case, you would even have time to read up on it if the info was available. Also, the crew took the conservative route by landing early.


They knew that they had enough fuel. They didn't know if it was all going to be available to them.

I took the time to make these corrections because I value your opinion on this George. I can only give an engineer and private pilot perspective, but from that I'd say, eh big deal. You still have engine redundancy; press on. I wish they were trained in on systems more, and that's what the report recommends.

As for other's comments to the effect of "don't keep flying a broken plane", where is the line? If every system has to be working perfectly on every flight, we may as well close up shop and go home, because the airlines will all be out of business soon, and it won't be because of the cost. There will be no passengers left due to all of the delays. Yes an engine seems like a big deal, but not really when you start with 4.

Thanks for the corrections, noted and appreciated. I was using my faulty memory. It still does not change the arrival fuel was lower than it should be for a flight over a 1/5 th way around the world. You say you wish they knew the system better? That is a sign. I don't think it would put BA out of business by landing back at LAX. Regardless profits should be excluded from pilot decisions. Not saying that was a factor.

It's either an equivalent level of safety or it is not, but that is up to the FAA, UK CAA and the Airlines. I know what the airline wants. Without training or consulting the manufacture, FAA / CAA before hand, seems impromptu at best. YEA we can do it! Lets see how far we get. They did it, almost.

Consider this, when an airline wants to fly a new route, they take a perfectly good plane and fly empty proving runs with the FAA/CAA on board before flying passengers. Where there any 3 engine proving runs? Basically BA and that crew where doing flight test and a proving run for long range 3 engine flights in a B747-400. Oh shoot we lost and engine, lets see if we can make it! What did they crew say? "We just decided we want to set off on our flight plan route and get as far as we can." We're going to get as far as we can. You don't know? Geee does not inspire confidence. That was a sign they where not sure. If you have any doubt listen to yourself. At least they had plenty of landing places over the US and Canada for the first 4 or 5 hours.

Redundancy has always been considered to get you to a safe landing, not a guarantee to get you to the destination. The flames observed coming out of the engine and landing short made this trip less than stealthy; other wise this may have gone unnoticed. Smarter people than I, who have safety in mind I hope will come up with some common sense regulations or procedure, which can be put into the airlines operations manual. I really think the captain and the company wishes they would not have continued. Reputation is critical. Every one remembers the line in the Tom Cruise / Dustin Hoffman move, "Rain Man" about Qantas never having a fatal accident.


Thankfully engine failures are rare or should be. May be that is where they need to look? The RB211 is a very reliable engine and what I fly on the B757. However when flying twins over water there is a ETOPS program that includes strict engine and maintenance monitoring. The failure rate is therefore very low on twin engined airliners. May be the operators of 4 engine planes are taking advantage of their redundancy and going too longer before engine overhaul.

There is no perfect plane. You are right sometimes things don't work, but we still need to fly to make money. The airlines, manufactures and the FAA have developed a MEL, Min Equip List. This gives dispatch relief on maintenance items, inoperative equip or even missing parts. In some cases its a NO GO item period, it must work, fix it or don't go. I am sure with out looking you can't leave without 4 working engines. I don't have a B747-400 MEL in front of me, but I am sure the MEL addresses engines. It probably says: 4 engines installed, 4 engines needed, can be deferring only for ferry flights with the following maintenance and pilot actions or procedures. The MEL is for dispatch only BTW. Once airborne the MEL does not apply; its a different game, especially with 4 engines. On a twin if you have a surge (rare) you land. One pilot did not and got his neck into a ringer.

I respect your take as well, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on your conclusion about pressing on because of engine redundancy. I disagree that delays due to engine failures are going to put airlines out of business, with respect. The airlines have more problems than this. On the other hand if an airline has many engine failures, there is another problem, maintenance? Are they pushing engines longer? Look delays and canceled flights happen from weather or less severe mechanical problems but still ground planes and cancel flights. These events happen at significantly greater regularity than engine failures. Commercial aviation is the safest and most reliable form of transportation for a reason, part reliability of the equip, engines and maintenence, part pilot training. I think there is room to improve here.

To tie it into RV's, don't go off and fly your RV in a way you never have before with out thinking about it, planning and/or practice.

Does anyone know if this was a record flight, longest commercial revenue flight with one engine out on a 4 engine plane. Probably not a record BA wants. I know they regret the publicity, and in 20/20 hindsight, landing back at LAX looks better the day after so to speak. Unless the FAA or CAA makes them limit flying with 3 engines, sure they'll do it again, with hope it does not get press. On the other hand, I hope Captains will consider not using the "lets get as far as we can" theory of flying. It may be better to strand people in LAX, than Gander Newfoundland or Reykjavik Iceland. Bottom line if all goes to heck, the Captain is soley responsible, and the company will wash their hands, if they can.

 

[Andy Hill]

Does anyone know if this was a record flight, longest commercial revenue flight with one engine out on a 4 engine plane

Probably not - read the above - same aircraft flew most of SIN-LHR on 3 (SIN-LHR is lot further than LAX-LHR, especially with winds taken into account).

This topic has been debated endlessly elsewhere months ago and I do to wish to go over it all again. Suffice to say

• BA's policy has changed little after all this - and many other airlines the same
• The FAA have withdrawn the "fine"
• The AAIB were not overly concerned, but made some procdural and training recommendations
• There is little point in us, who are either non-experts in the field, or not aware of the full facts, debating the issue when there is an AAIB report published
• I regularly fly airliners, with paying passengers, with known defects, that have far more worrying implications than a 747 already airborne now on 3.. [e.g. Standby Horizon, and/or Generators U/S on an electric Airbus]

landing back at LAX looks better

Landing back at LAX immediately was never really an option (weight). If you enter the dumping / burn off scenario, makes little difference whether you start heading East or hang around... Plan I believe was towards JFK and review enroute.

I hope Captains will consider not using the "lets get as far as we can" theory of flying

Bear in mind that 3 eng (or even 2) landing is easier / safer the lighter you are. More importantly, you seem to imply that this was the "Captain's" decision. Whilst he might carry the overall can, I can assure you 2 very experienced First Officers would have had a clear veto over the "continue" decision, as would Ops and Engineering to an extent, all very aware via datalink (to a greater extent than the crew in some areas) of the situation...

Overall it sounds a worrying "policy" - even to me apparently defending it. However, if you step back, and think it through, and add in the other accepted practices of the airline industry, it seems fine to me. Aviation is not 100% safe, and if we wanted to improve it I can think of much more important areas than a 3 engine continuation policy (would you rather do 10:00 LAX-LHR over continental US / Canada / Iceland / Scotland on a 747 on 3, or 3:00+ on a 777 over the Pacific on 1 ??? )

 

[mike newall]

Jim,

I am not sure what the relevance of the two images are.

They look to depict a great circle track between LAX and MAN.

This is not the normal route an eastbound aircraft would take because it is not efficient.

Please give more detail if you wish it to be considered relevant.

 

[fehdxl]

Mike, Independent of wind, great-cirlce would be the shortest and most efficient. From your implied experience, how far out of the way do you fly in order to take advantage of a tailwind? Of course this changes daily. -Jim

 

[ChiefPilot]

My uninformed takeaway

This has been an extremely interesting thread. The one thing I have decided on is that if I lose an engine inflight on my RV, I will immediately prepare for landing

 

[Tandem46]

Actual flight path BA 747 LAX - Heathrow

Mike, Jim,

Hate to get involved in this but here is the actually flight path of a Heathrow bound British Airways 747 on the 25th of September provided by flightaware. I checked several days for route consistency and it's fairly consistent. It's a bit different from what Jim was showing, but I think it illustrates Jim's point, that being that the jet spent a great deal of the flight over land.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW282/history/20060925/0108Z/KLAX/EGLL



Tobin

 

[jdmunzell]

Referencing the previous post and the website that went with it, that particular flight path ( which is waaaay south BTW) is most likely taking advantage of a wicked tailwind. That route actually puts the flight into the published daily North Atlantic track system. A typical no-wind senario would most likely have that flight exiting the US border somewhere around Minnesota and heading up over the southern tip of Hudson Bay and exiting North America somewhere around Goose, Newfoundland on a ramdom track across the pond.

The rules of thumb about the way the winds aloft generally blow, would also explain why the flight path for the westbound (LHR-LAX) flights would go so far to the north as it crosses south central Greenland and enters US airspace around central Montana. The winds aloft can make such a huge difference in where the BEST fuel/time economy route will actually be.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

I can't argue, oh wait yes I can....

There is little point in us, who are either non-experts in the field, or not aware of the full facts, debating the issue when there is an AAIB report published. I regularly fly airliners, with paying passengers, with known defects, that have far more worrying implications than a 747 already airborne now on 3.. [e.g. Standby Horizon, and/or Generators U/S on an electric Airbus]

Your MEL lets you fly without a standby horizon. wow A gen I can see, even a B757 has 4 Gens, two engine, hyd driven gen (ETOPS planes) and apu.

Landing back at LAX immediately was never really an option (weight). If you enter the dumping / burn off scenario, makes little difference whether you start heading East or hang around... Plan I believe was towards JFK and review enroute. Bear in mind that 3 eng (or even 2) landing is easier / safer the lighter you are. More importantly, you seem to imply that this was the "Captain's" decision. Whilst he might carry the overall can, I can assure you 2 very experienced First Officers would have had a clear veto over the "continue" decision, as would Ops and Engineering to an extent, all very aware via datalink (to a greater extent than the crew in some areas) of the situation...

You make good comments, but I can tell you it only takes 10-20 min to dump fuel on the B747-400. I forget, I could get my dusty manual out. Yes absolutly lighter is better, no doubt. Yes it is the Captain's decision. The veto or "mutiny" decision of the two F/O's, I don't know about that. I am laughing. It all depends on the dynamics of the cockpit. I can tell you a story or two. However taking the plane from the Captain is an option, an exceedingly rare option. Yea data link is great. Yes they may have dumped all the engine data, it is dead. I think running fairly low on fuel for a B747 was poor planning, so I am not sure Ops or engineering where making great calls. I wounder what new arrival fuel they where given. The FMC figures it out, and has an engine out page. Like you say we are not experts and we where not there, but playing second guessing monday morning qurter back, it's just messy sounding at best. IT WAS NOT JUST THE ENGINE. It was the training, it was the fuel, it was Honnywell FMC...... They call this LINKS in the Chain. You also point out policy and training has changed. Good. I think the next captain who decides to "get as far as we can" will either be better prepared to make that decision and not worry about being sanctioned by management for the no go option. I have see pilots be told, not quite half way to destination (ETP), over water, with an engine loosing oil, be told by the "company" (via HF radio) to continue. I think he was convinced it was an indication? Right. If I have an oil leak indication I am going to believe it. If its faults Oh well. Well in this case it did not work out too great, no bent metal, no one hurt but it was a goat-rope. After the Captain was strung up on the rope not the goat. That is what you get when you let others on the ground make decisions in your cockpit . I don't know about this BA Captain was told, but he may have been "encouraged" with wishful and optimistic info. Like Nancy Reagan says, just say NO. I have lots more stories where the company, ops, maintenance said, hummm, yeaaa, I, I yaaa, hummm ,its OK you can go or keep going, even though the captain later told me he knew better. It's the captain that gets the royal (fill in blank w/ word that would produce **** on doug's word filter). Its the same thing as a GA pilot Got-to-Get-There-itus. Pilots want to complete the mission. I get that. If it works out you are golded. If it does not................

Overall it sounds a worrying "policy" - even to me apparently defending it. However, if you step back, and think it through, and add in the other accepted practices of the airline industry, it seems fine to me. Aviation is not 100% safe, and if we wanted to improve it I can think of much more important areas than a 3 engine continuation policy (would you rather do 10:00 LAX-LHR over continental US / Canada / Iceland / Scotland on a 747 on 3, or 3:00+ on a 777 over the Pacific on 1 ??? )

You make good points. I have at least a 100 trips across the Atlantic on a B767. Yes I did not want to loose an engine and you can't have enough engines. 3 engine, 4 engine planes even better, can't argue with that. However more smoke and hand waving. It does not really have weight on this topic, but it is fun to talk about. A two engine plane is designed with two engines because it only needs two engines. A B747-400 has 4 engines because it needs them. The engine out scenario is not for complete 11 hour flight, from A to B, including the North Atlantic with passengers. So we'll have to agree to disagree. It is just a matter of perspective. I think a lot of the outcome, press releases, report and withdrawal of fines is driven by politics, business, prestige, national pride and economics. If pure passenger safety was the only consideration they would have at least not crossed the Atlantic. What bother me most is the lack of candor and honesty. It just seems like they are reluctant to accept responsibility and down play it. If it was not for the engine tail pipe fire and the landing short, this may not have made the news. So I am glad it happened, so 4 engine captains may be more willing to just say no.

It's a pleasure Old Chap. With a Name like Hill you must be an English gentleman.

 

[mike newall]

The route published is much more what I expected. 2 of our long west routes are Manchester - Las Vegas and Manchester - Calgary/Vancouver. both of these routes usually go high westbound and low eastbound.

It can make an hour difference in flightime picking a track that hooks into tailwind on the return. We don't get involved because Jeppeson does all our flight planning based on best route/shortest flightime.

What amazes me is that the plan may have been created 3 hours prior to despatch, but as we cross a waypoint 4 or 5 hours into the journey, the forecast wind/temp on the PLOG is within 5 degrees/5 knots and 1 degree c !

 

[Andy Hill]

gmcjetpilot...

I think you are missing most of what my posts are hinting at... The BA policy has not changed substantially, the small training issue has been addressed. The CAA always gave, and still do, full backing to the continuation policy. The FAA have now backed down and withdrawn the fines... In fact, given all the fuss, but nothing substantive decided, it could be said the "continuation" policy is stronger now than before the incident.

but I can tell you it only takes 10-20 min to dump fuel on the B747-400

But, since you say you are a 767 driver... on the 767-300, when you dump it does not take you (necessarily) below MLW [if the dumps are fitted]. Are you guaranteeing to me that dumping on a -400 will get you below MLW?

A B747-400 has 4 engines because it needs them

One could disagree to an extent... it has 4 engines because it needs them to get airborne. Once airborne it does not need the thrust of 4 to cruise, can fly safely (but needs to land) on 2, and has sufficent redundancy on 3 to fly quite safey AND cope with any further forseeable single failure (which is how we always plan).

Your MEL lets you fly without a standby horizon

Yes (Airbus) - although withdrawn for some reason recently. And I know the -400 can also (or could a few years back)...

As an aside, although I have not flown the -400, I flew the A340 for another UK operator. I queried the policy after an engine out, and was told the various factors, but circumstances permitting, continuing to destination was perfectly acceptable, obviously taking into account a further failure e.g. rule of thumb, 4 Engs => 3 = +10% fuel, but 4 Engs => 2 = +25% fuel...

 

[David-aviator]

After the Captain was strung up on the rope not the goat. That is what you get when you let others on the ground make decisions in your cockpit . I don't know about this BA Captain was told, but he may have been "encouraged" with wishful and optimistic info. Like Nancy Reagan says, just say NO. I have lots more stories where the company, ops, maintenance said, hummm, yeaaa, I, I yaaa, hummm ,its OK you can go or keep going, even though the captain later told me he knew better. It's the captain that gets the royal (fill in blank w/ word that would produce **** on doug's word filter). Its the same thing as a GA pilot Got-to-Get-There-itus. Pilots want to complete the mission. I get that. If it works out you are golded. If it does not................

If pure passenger safety was the only consideration they would have at least not crossed the Atlantic. What bother me most is the lack of candor and honesty. It just seems like they are reluctant to accept responsibility and down play it. If it was not for the engine tail pipe fire and the landing short, this may not have made the news. So I am glad it happened, so 4 engine captains may be more willing to just say no.

George, you are beating this to death. There is no lack of candor or honesty, only difference of perspective. Flight is a calculated risk, always was, always is, every time. If "pure" passenger safety were the only consideration, there would be no passenger flight. There would be no Boeing 747. The effort is a balance of what is reasonable and what is not. Sometimes things go wrong (TWA's F800) but thankfully, most of the time not.

Reading the messages on this thread, it's a safe bet many guys would have made the decision to go based on the information on hand. In any event, the decision was (is) not made in a vacuum. CRM has been around long enough no Captain would make a decision contrary to crew sentiment, nor would a crew rebel contrary to the flow of information from outside sources. That's what CRM training is all about. It is not an effort to bolster individual egos or unfounded fears, but an effort to make rational decisions.
The Captain's decision to continue the flight was not irrational or impulsive and the outcome supports that conclusion.

One can go on and on speculating what might have happened, but that is true of any flight.

dd

 

[gmcjetpilot]

It ain't me

George, you are beating this to death. There is no lack of candor or honesty, only difference of perspective. Flight is a calculated risk, always was, always is, every time. If "pure" passenger safety were the only consideration, there would be no passenger flight. There would be no Boeing 747. The effort is a balance of what is reasonable and what is not. Sometimes things go wrong (TWA's F800) but thankfully, most of the time not.

Reading the messages on this thread, it's a safe bet many guys would have made the decision to go based on the information on hand. In any event, the decision was (is) not made in a vacuum. CRM has been around long enough no Captain would make a decision contrary to crew sentiment, nor would a crew rebel contrary to the flow of information from outside sources. That's what CRM training is all about. It is not an effort to bolster individual egos or unfounded fears, but an effort to make rational decisions.
The Captain's decision to continue the flight was not irrational or impulsive and the outcome supports that conclusion.

One can go on and on speculating what might have happened, but that is true of any flight.

dd

I think you are beating it to death, cut it into steaks and cooked it well done. Look we agree to disagree, OK. You're entitled to your opinion, and I mine. We disagree. The spokes person for BA right out of the box, before the report was done, they had their usual rhetoric that there was no compromise in passenger safety. Well they all got on the ground safe, so I guess that is all that matters. All the cliches about flying is risky and everything is moot in my opinion, and no offense trite. TWA 800 has nothing to do with it. STUFF HAPPENS, got that and have the bumper sticker. Flying can be really really really dangerous as well. This enlightens nothing of use.

The UK CAA report, despite the recommendations, sounds very biased and sanitized of criticism. In fact some of the "facts" sound like justification and a convincing story. A lot of the facts stated in the INCIDENT report where not known or considered at the time, but they make it sound like it was really well planned thought out like a Moon launch. Much of the report sounds like they where justifying their fuel decisions.

The whole FMC fuel prediction thing, makes me think they where "winging it". You know FMC predictions can only be as accurate as the winds entered in a long flight. You need a flight plan to compare it with, which should be more accurate. That is if dispatch had experience and 3 engine performance in their flight-plan computer. Did dispatch help with the fuel calculations for LONG RANGE fuel burn with No. 2 out. Bottom line they would have landed London with less fuel than they even wanted. Talk of 30 min, hold and approach fuel is pretty minimal. Is that really legal on FLAG CARRIER international flight? I don't think so per FAR's. Did they re-dispatch? Just sounds like they where going where no man had gone before, with passengers.

My position is so simple its lost, a WHOLE FREAKING FLIGHT with one engine down is just cheeky and they got caught. It was messy. Not to mention the human factor, higher work load, stress and less flying the plane, communicating and navigating. The report made it sound like all was normal, chip chip cheer-eo stiff upper lip. I think that report was stilted, my opinion. Comments like fines where dropped and they have not changed their policy does not impress me. Just politics.

The report should have ended with, if they would have dumped fuel and landed we would not be talking about it and none of this would have happened.


I have over 12,000 hours and only in my early 40's, a Captain with 3 Boeing type ratings; I think I can have an informed opinion and make comment. I think he should have landed in retrospect. CRM? I've taken the course, about once a year for the last 16 years now, since CRM's inception. You are 100% right, still there is info and than there are "pressures", real or imagined. "Rationalization" is not CRM. What I hear is a lot of justification for the original decision. May be I don't get it? There are so many factors, too many to go into here that affected that flight. We can talk off line about CRM if you like.

The margins where compromised my friend, that's my take. They did not need to be compromised. It was NOT a successful flight in my opinion. The definition of successful is AT NO TIME IS THERE ANY DOUBT OF THE SAFE COMPLETION OF THE FLIGHT. There was doubt, and it was avoidable, not an act of God. What ever the reason for the doubt, there was doubt. Factually the amount of fuel they would have had, if they would have landed at LHR and transferred fuel properly, was still below what they wanted, 7 tonne. Lets not ignore that.

I am not criticizing the crew. Its OK to be human. That is the point, to take three engines across was a lot more work load and more chance for errors. May be the weather was perfect, the other three engines had no history of problems (did they know that the time). You know with only three engines you can't climb as high, top weather and will burn more fuel. I don't think they really worked it all out even by the time got feet wet.

Things went wrong and they all stem from the original decision to continue on 3 engines. It's not a matter of "Badness", it is information and knowledge to learn from. Next time other factors may conspire to ruin their day.

Do you know about the Singapore B747-400 that did an inflight engine shut down, an hour or so away from land or any airport, even though they did a 180 back. After a short time the whole plane started to vibrate badly from the windmilling engine. It ripped equipment loose in the EE bay! The pilots had a hard seeing the instruments. Unforeseen things can happen. Call me crazy, too conservative but sorry, I'm not that smart.

Of the 15 or so BA B747-400 engine failures, verses all the other normal flights this is a rare event. May be they should error more on the side of ultra conservatism with engine failures. May be? If you are an airline crew member, especially a Captain, it does not benifit you to take more risk.

No one should even think about criticizing a Captain for landing after an engine failure at any time, even this case. Clearly there's a "4 engine culture" to go. Its like brilliant to fly 1-engine out any old time. If the Captain would have landed he would have be criticized. BA is almost incredulous, unrepentant, insisting safety was maintained. OK. There is always Virgin.

As the Captain you will not be a hero if it all falls apart. I would rather be in trouble for being too conservative than this mess. A friend quit, got fired flying in Alaska by refusing a trip, due to weather. The chief pilot took the trip and died. It takes courage to stand for what you believe in, even if it upsets +350 passengers or your boss. Good luck, all the best. Blue skies and tail winds.

To make this related to RV's , don't get yourself into a position that choosing to NOT flying is failure, weakness, ignorance, lack of ability, skill or because so and so does it. Oh yes if your engine fails on takeoff don't continue to your destination. Unless you fly for BA, then you can fly your RV with no engine at all.

 

[jdmunzell]

I'm with you George on this one...

George. I'm with you on this one. You've been taking a lot of heat on this issue, and I gotta tell ya'.... I agree with everything you've said.

Granted, I've never been PIC or SIC on a 4 engine anything over-the-pond, but as a twin engine ETOPS over-the-pond driver, my mindset is obviously on the conservative side.

Yes, there are times when we accept airplanes with certain items inop. We have MELs for that, and that helps keep schedule reliability in our operation.
But we, as the pilots on board with our butts strapped in, have the ultimate veto authority on some "political" decision being made by some beancounter sitting in a comfortable office chair in his/her cubicle.

Believe me folks, I'm all about getting the mission accomplished ( flight A to B ). There is a pride of workmanship involved here, and I like to be able to get folks to their destination....especially if there have been mx. or other issues trying to disuade you. Having folks want to come back to your airline in part because of your efforts to make it happen, is very gratifying.

Please understand!!!! I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking that flight crew on BA. This discussion has gone far beyond them anymore. Whatever took place with them, took place, I'm sure with the "good graces of BA management"! I may not agree with their course of action, but then again I'm just a "TWIN" pilot. Somehow though, I think that checking out on the 747 would not change my mindset about engine out philosophy.

What I am about here is making it to age 60, retiring with my mostly gutted pension (of course, that's another story!), and my chief pilot saying "Who was he?" As the Captain and as part of the flight crew, I reserve the right to decide what I think is safe and what is not. I take on that responsibility with lots of care, and am not frivoulous with my decisions.

Case in point, just last week, I had to refuse a 767 with a cracked (outer pane) windshield on a IAD-LHR flight. The ramifacations are enormous here. 200 people, who have been cleared for an international flight ( positive bag match, duty free purchases in their hands) are left with having to leave the airport that night for overnight accomodations, and then have to hassle with the TSA again the next day.

This outer pane, believe it or not, was deferrable for one flight only. That's because the inner pane was intact and is part of the pressure bulkhead. The outer pane supposedly is there only to protect the inner pane. Take the airplane to Chicago ?? Maybe.... Take it up to LGA...probably.... how about over the North Atlantic for 6:30 hours?? Absolutely Not!! ...took about a nanosecond for the three of us to come up with that decision...

My point is this ..... those company beancounters or even the flight officer duty manager won't be sitting next to you at the board of inquiry with the FAA. You will be all by yourself trying to defend your actions. That's assuming of course, you've survived whatever scenario you found yourself in with resultant actions taken.

Maybe the 747 flys just fine on three engines. How does that beast do if you went down to two motors and you are over the North Atlantic at night with a very cold ocean below you? You see, you've already given up that "cheater" ace card you had up your sleeve by accepting an engine out situation. You've also just increased your exposure to any kind of nastiness that could also come your way. Kinda' makes me really appreciate what Charles Lindberg did with only ONE engine back in 1927.

 

[fodrv7]

A Little Recognition.

Of course there IS a different philosophy (mind Set) between the Four Engine v. the Twins boys- especially the ETOPS twin boys.
I too was a twin man for years. F27, DC-9, B737, A320.
And if an engine hiccuped, I definitely wanted to land really quickly. In fact lots of things would make you want to land really quickly. 3hr aircraft don?t have a lot of redundancy, compared with 18hr ones. Couple of hydraulics systems. One blows. Land right now.
I then moved to the 747-400 and could not believe how everything was done in Slo Mo.
It took all lunch-time, just to slow it down and get the flaps out.
If you lost an engine (in the Sim) you flew off somewhere quiet (Holding Pattern) and discussed it. Discussed whether to dump fuel and land back, burn the fuel while proceeding to an airport an hour away, with better facilities or WX or where they spoke intelligible English.
If you lost a hydraulic system, you had three left. What?s the rush; besides you could be 100 tonnes over the landing weight.
So you went away, did a two page Checklist, had a coffee and discussed the options. Everything was slow and deliberate. Why would you circle for an hour dumping fuel if you could do it enroute to a better airport 300nm away?
On so many flights out of the Far East for Europe, over India you would be sent down to FL270 or FL290, due congestion, and straight away fuel burn went up and Fuel Prediction showed you couldn?t make Europe. You didn?t land and buy some more juice. You sat it out, as you knew over Istanbul you would get a climb to FL370 and the fuel burn came way back and you would make it to the destination. It was all done in slo mo.
I then went back on to Twins A330 and B777 and ETOPS, with an interlude on the A340.
When you are filing an ETOPS flight plan, do you have a VERY good look at the En-route Airports and the WX. You know you will not have the luxury of time to consider your options if an engine fails. It?s divert now.
So where has this thread gone.
We are all professionals. We have all refused to take an aircraft that the Line Manager wanted to dispatch and the Engineers had signed out.
Everybody involved in this post has bought something constructive.
If you look at some of the authors to this post, they have been around for a long time. Flying when I was in school. Probably shutting down an engine on the Connie on every second leg.
They have been, not so much defending the crew involved in this particular flight as trying to explain the philosophy behind the Four Holer operation.

A little acceptance that the four holer boys might have a better handle on Four Hole Ops. , by some of the Twin Boys, would be to recognise that they are as professional as anyone else.
They are you know.
They are not cowboys.
Pete.

 

[RV505]

All I can say is when BA puts one in the dirt/sea I won't be on it... It has influnced who I fly on and for anybody that's all that really counts..

 

[Andy Hill]

gmcjetpilot

The UK CAA report,

Could you provide some details of this please - I was unaware there was one I trust of course you are not referring to the AAIB report, who I don't think anyone would doubt the impartiality of, and are certainly no "pals" of the CAA. If you are trying to take a higher moral, technical knowledge and airmanship stance than a formal accident/incident investigation, then pleas excuse me reading further posts of yours

There is always Virgin.

VS also has a continuation policy (I had already stated as much above....)

RV505

All I can say is when BA puts one in the dirt/sea I won't be on it... It has influnced who I fly on and for anybody that's all that really counts..

I trust you will check for whichever other airlines you fly for too You'll need to knock most European ones out for starters...

 

[gmcjetpilot]

gmcjetpilot Could you provide some details of this please - I was unaware there was one I trust of course you are not referring to the AAIB report, who I don't think anyone would doubt the impartiality of, and are certainly no "pals" of the CAA. If you are trying to take a higher moral, technical knowledge and airmanship stance than a formal accident/incident investigation, then pleas excuse me reading further posts of yours

Andy I am done, OK. I reserve the right to be 100% wrong. Yes it was the AAIB report, I just used "UK CAA" haphazardly or imprecisely, like saying FAA is NTSB, also not correct; Sorry, just laziness on my part. I am sorry if I offended you. The emoticon was just a joke and no disrespect was intended. Please don't take it personally, as I think you might. I do think the "AAIB" report was an extremely well written report and very informative. In fact it was so "educational" it went to great pains to explain in a positive light, all the reasons the flight was perfectly safe and met Regs and airline policy. I understand. Just my opinion that the report was slanted or holding back. Safety "margins" may they be fuel, weather, maintenance, engine monitoring, crew duty time and training are there for a reason, and should not intentionally be marginalized or mitigated for the sake of completing a flight on 3 engines. From BA's airline history clearly in other cases they diverted when it's prudent. This not a big problem, but a one time event we are looking at. Keep that in mind.

Is BA owned by the government? Just asking, because if it is and the AAIB is government, I can't understand how that works, politics being what they are. In the USA, the FAA is hiding in the bushes to catch airlines doing something wrong. I don't want to say adversarial, because I don't believe that. There are a lot of good FAA people. (Hear that FAA I love you ) However politics do play a roll even in the US. Airlines have political pull even if privately or publicly owned. The FAA often is severely criticised for not making safety changes mandatory fast enough because of economic burden on the airlines. On the other hand many of the safety advancements have been "forced" on the carriers, TCAS, AGPWS, Doppler Radar, Zero Tolerance De-Icing/training and procedures to name a few. I love every one of them.

To be fair to me Andy I have enough criticism to go around for all government agencies, US or EU and my self. Some times, and this has been my point the whole time, political and economical pressures influence safety. What is needed is VERY critical reviews of these "incidents" after the fact to gaurd the flying public AND the crews. When given no guidance sometimes it is rope to hang yourself. De-icing is one thing that is a triumph. It cost the airlines millions to de-ice more, but it is worth it and takes the "I think it is OK" out of the loop. Just because it worked out this time does not mean 11 hour, 3-engine flights, loosing it right after take-off, is a good idea. May be BA needs to out a time limit, like 6 hours on 3-engine ops? May be 8 hours? I don't know I'm not that smart, BUT 11 HOURS on an over water ER flight. You are just asking for a problem. Just throwing it out there.

Again I am not that smart Andy, and do respect the opinion of crew, BA, AAIB and UK CAA, who are no doubt smarter than I, but sometimes smart people don't have all the answers. I have a general respectful distrust for authority. However as excellent as the AAIB report was, it was too carefully worded for my taste. Political and economics, unfortunately, makes airline flying a tight rope that crews must work with. We crews, all must stick together. Hey, I don't fly under UK rules or a 4-engine plane, but someday I might. I have flown into the Ireland and Scotland many times. Pretty country side to fly over. Who knows may be I will set an aviation record for longest revenue flight with 1-engine on a 4-engine plane. (Yankee humor)

(Andy I am kidding, I thought you Brits had a sense of humor since we kicked you rears in the American revolution. I love the Brits, but can't get behind the blood pudding or "meat (surprise) pie". It takes a real man to eat that stuff and I am a wimp. I also like my beer cold thank you.)

VS also has a continuation policy (I had already stated as much above....)

It was a joke, Virgin Atlantic is BA's competition, apologies. BTW I have flown on BA many times all over the world as far as Kuwait and love the service. There are a few Airlines in the world I will not fly on. Any one want to know I have a short list, but BA is NOT one of them. BA is in fact one of the top airlines in the world and very safe airlines. That is not in doubt, in my mind. I only address this one flight. I have focused on the negative, but they did a lot of things right, OK. Clearly a very professional crew, who did the best they could.

RV505 I trust you will check for whichever other airlines you fly for too You'll need to knock most European ones out for starters...

I can see you took this as a national pride things. It is not fun to be criticised. I have been criticized so much I had to learn to love it, but that is what makes you better, right. I am sorry you took it this way. You should see how mad I get when some one does a really bone head thing in a plane. Hey I will not publicly "knock" my self, but lets just say I never make mistakes and it won't happen again. That's my story and I am sticking to it. I have to go now and work on my power off go around.

 

[Simon Hitchen]

Get the big picture.

I fly the 747-400 for BA and it always amuses me how people comment on our decisions and choices based purely what they see on TV or the read in the paper. Our philosophy of 'make it safe' and 'keep it safe' would never allow an aircraft to enter a flight area where an additional engine failure meant disaster. You can be sure the boys were very much aware of 2 engine MSA's and emergency airfield options on 2 engines. FYI we can take off out of London at 396 tons, lose 2 engines on one side and with some careful flying clean up and head out over the channel for some fuel dumping before coming back in for a precise 2 engine ILS with an approach speed of normal Vref +25 knots to an uneventfull landing. Be aware that the 3 boys flying had many multiples of 10's of thousands of hours, all the resources of the CAA, FAA and BA ops on the end of the satcom and ACARS. They were not acting alone or uninformed. The decision was the right one and the FAA have now conceeded this to BA. Both countries rigidly enforce their own Air Regs and as a professional airline are operating procedures cover any regs of the countries into which we fly.
Get the entire story before casting judgement. Flying a 747 with 350 people on board really focuses the attention and never more so than when things go wrong.

 

[Stephen Lindberg]

Simon: I detect in your posting a note of condescension which does not serve your purpose, which should be to reassure the flying public, rightly ill at ease with the idea of flying a 747 on three engines across the Atlantic, that this is a prudent and safe thing to do. Most of us on this list are fairly well informed about aviation, and we have heard from a few professionals such as yourself, some of whom have an opinion different from you and your employer. As of now a truce seems to have been reached between the FAA and the CAA/British Airways camps. I would not be surprised to learn that this was negotiated at the secretary and minister level, but of course none of us knows. I would also not be surprised to learn that the arguments were put forth in terms of economic necessity accompanied by adequate margins of safety, as opposed to "safety first" at any price. Again, I don't know. But it seems clear to me that if a three engine 747 comes to grief for any reason whatsoever while trying to complete a 5,000 mile flight, that event will mark the end of extended flights with an engine out. The public will demand it, politicians will grandstand for the cameras, bureaucrat's heads will roll, and your policy and procedure manual will change overnight. Conventional wisdom will suddenly be, "Dump fuel and bring 'er around!"

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Justification, Pride and excuses

I fly the 747-400 for BA and it always amuses me how people comment on our decisions and choices based purely what they see on TV or the read in the paper. Our philosophy of 'make it safe' and 'keep it safe' would never allow an aircraft to enter a flight area where an additional engine failure meant disaster. Be aware that the 3 boys flying had many multiples of 10's of thousands of hours, all the resources of the CAA, FAA and BA ops on the end of the satcom and ACARS. They were not acting alone or uninformed. The decision was the right one and the FAA have now conceeded this to BA. (edit Bull) Both countries rigidly enforce their own Air Regs and as a professional airline are operating procedures cover any regs of the countries into which we fly.
Get the entire story before casting judgement. Flying a 747 with 350 people on board really focuses the attention and never more so than when things go wrong.

Simon I have three Boeing type ratings, B747-400 instructor and now fly B757 and 767's, and I'm an international long range pilot, pacific, atlantic and indian ocean; I've done the North Atlantic crossing over +100 times. As far as SATCOM and ACARS, I'm familiar, but doubt they consulted the CAA or FAA during the flight. It was the joint responsibility of the Captain and a dispatcher in the middle of the night, Oh-dark-thirty. That is it. Don't over inflate the decision making. In 20 years of flying I have never consulted the CAA or FAA inflight. They took off and said, "lets see how far we can get". That's what they said and DID!

Sure they had time to work things out over North America before getting their feet wet, but one thing's for sure, they did not get the altitude they wanted crossing the Atlantic and the crew was not proficient in single engine fuel transfer. Another link in the chain of why this flight was going down hill. IF they DID get their desired altitude and IF they had transferred fuel properly, we may not be talking about it. However those IF's did not happen and we have to work in the real world not close enough. You have to be honest in aviation and say, yea it was messed up. All this face saving is a waste of time. It was done to save the flight and BA money.

If someone made proper checks, using the proper altitudes they would have seen landing at London would be below company min reserves; They either did NOT check or did it poorly. As a Captain flying on 3 engines, with another +3 hours over water, told I'll land below allowable mins, I'd land at JFK. They thought they had enough fuel on FMC predictions only. There is a difference from preflight reserves and actual enroute changes out of your control. Regardless they landed short with fuel concerns. Even if they would have transferred fuel properly, they would have landed with less fuel than desirable. How is that dandy?

This flight degraded. They continued, degraded further and continued further, one thing leading to another. More links in the chain could have sunk their boat. How many links do you want to get to the end of your chain? The further they went the less options they had or options where even less desirable than landing back at JFK.

I read the final report. The British goverment did a lot of face saving in the report. If one more thing went wrong at the worst time, than it could have gone from pucker factor to Oh heck! Your 747 flys on two engine means nothing when you run out of fuel.

I don't get how you think landing short of your destination, due to concern of running out of fuel is good. Sure, you can justify it, but when accidents happen it means nothing to say, "missed it by that much". It's not a game of darts. Sometime margins are used for unforeseen events like weather or mechanical, but when you see it coming down the road for +10 hours, I don't get it. Something was not quite right. You make it sound like it was brilliant.

Justify it, say the crew was too cautious or did not know how to transfer fuel, regardless, the flight did NOT WORK OUT, FOR WHAT EVER THE REASON. The FAA, CAA or BA or who ever admitted the crew was not trained for this kind of +10 hour 3-engined flight. Again they did a lot of things right, but it could have been a no brainer to land. If you don't address the elephant in the room, MONEY than you're not being honest. The reason to continue is always money! You don't make money canceling flights. BA would have to pay all kinds of cost if this flight was canceled. Economic pressures are always there. It takes cajones to cancel flights. Pilots have to say NO and stop the show sometimes, even if its inconvenient and you lose money.

They used their on board FMC for fuel predictions (which turned out to be inaccurate). It's only as accurate as the winds you input. Did they have accurate forcast or actual winds at those lower altitudes they ended up flying. That's what I'd be thinking. I bet the Captain thought it as he headed out over the Atlantic, but he had gone this far so he might as well continue. Turning back and landing became harder and even less desirable as they went along. Hummmm sounds like a suck place to be, reducing options and fuel not as thought. Why would I do that? Pressure from dispatch, you can do it? Sorry dispatchers of the world but you are wrong some times.

There's a difference in pre-flight planning and enroute fuel planning. Once airborne you can violate mins if there's events outside your control. You report it to the FAA. No big deal. However there was a lot of control they could have exercised but just kept going. They flew +10 hours, basically the whole flight. In theory if this flight was planned as they flew it with 3 engines, it would have not been legal. However because they where in flight the rules can get thrown out the window, to a certain extent. All that's left if judgement and the question, can the flight continue safely. I think they got closer to not safe than I like. Was it in danger of crashing? No, but still close only counts in horse shoes and handgranates. In flying when you EAT your safety margins, fuel or what ever, you have to ask what went wrong, not WE MADE IT, good enough. All I have to know is the Captain was concerned.

I may have done the same thing as this crew? I don't know. However its fair to say, knowing what I know now, I would land at New York. That's my opinion; sorry if you disagree. I can assure you if the Captain did that, we would not be talking about it now.

You make it sound like the FAA, CAA are saying, Yea, YOU Go BA, great job! I think they wrung their hands, shook their heads and said privately don't do that again. Since it was BA, I'm am sure the FAA said you deal with it CAA/ AAIB. I just don't get that the airline and oversight is both goverment run. How does that works?

If you think this flight was great, you're fooling yourself. It was also a PR disaster, not worth the money they saved. Management needs to learn you can't compromise safety for bottom line. When a plane crashes management still gets to go home. Don't be a management yes man. Just say no. May be they will do a better job on engine maintenance and pull engines earlier so they don't put crews in difficult positions. Clear rules and guidelines avoid the "lets see how far we can get" method of flying.

In that cockpit that night and behind the scenes later people where mighty concerned. Politically the FAA backed down. If United or American airlines lost an engine out of London and flew to LAX, I'm guessing heck would be paid. Good luck telling other international heavy jet pilots they don't know what they are talking about.

To partially quote you: It always amuses me how people comment on our decisions and choices based purely.....on saving face and making excuses to justify lost safety margins that did not need to be lost.

Cheers