It ain't me
David-aviator said:
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.