Thialfi
:

In article
Sam Whitman wrote:


L Grasso wrote:

On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS"
wrote:


htt
p://
www.
nyti
mes.
com/
2005
/03/
08/b
usin
ess/
worl
dbus
ines
s/08
air.
html
?ex=1110949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner =MOREOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday
that they were
preparing to take strong action against British Airways,
including a
charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft,"
because it
allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with
one of its
four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not
take action
against British Airways because such issues would be
handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have
become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its
supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right
to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a
fine was more
likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments.
Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with
British Airways,
said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a
four-engine
airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one
engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three
engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on
Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline
said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the
mixture of air and
fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the
English coast,
the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in
Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on
three engines
when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to
London.

So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and
punish the
airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is
going to stick.

It's always stuck in the past.

Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when
they can't find a clear violation of any rule.

True.
And it generally wins those cases.

Also note that 121.565
permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the
destination on 3 engines.

Read it again, especially pargraph (b). Then read 121.627.
Continuing flight for several thousand miles and an ocean with a
catastrophic engine failure may seem reasonable to you, but the
NTSB has repeatedly ruled that it's not safe to THEM.
And they get to make that decision; you don't.

So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

Case law proves you wromg.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not
even required to follow 14 CFR 121.

British Airways needs a Part 129 certificate to operate in US
airspace.
The FAA has every right to revoke British Airways' Part 129
certificate for this flight.

It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the
recent negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I
don't see
what the big deal is.

That's because you're not an airline pilot.


I am, and I say the FAA won't do it. If they do, they won't win it.


Bertie


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com