Jet Flies On With One Engine Out on Nonstop Trip to London

Bob Moore wrote:


From the FAA:

stuff deleted
The director of operations
shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base,
send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to
the certificate-holding district office.

Ok. Here we have a British operator and aircraft with JAA certfied pilots (or
have I got that wrong?). Is this section of the regulation applicable?

Second question -- what's the "certificate-holding district office"? To what
certificate are they referring?

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

The fact remains that this Captain made a decision to
continue that involved not only the engine scenario, but as well an ending
condition that involved an unscheduled landing due to conditions that would
not have been present without his having proceeded with the engine
condition.

I don't understand this statement. Had the captain elected to do
something else, there would still be an unscheduled landing. With more
fuel on board. In fact, by continuing, the captain ended up with the
greatest probability of =not= having an unscheduled landing.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Doug Carter wrote:

Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
destination does not help appearances.

Nobody ran out of gas. Even if they had continued to London, they would not have
run out of fuel. The report said they would have had an insufficient reserve
when they arrived. That implies that the plane still had about an hour of fuel
left when they landed. If traffic was stacked up at London, they could well have
had much more.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

Yes, this is a viable argument Jose, and very well might be the way it plays
out. In fact, there is I think, a very good chance that this is exactly how
it will play out. There is however another scenario, and it also may become
a player for this Captain. It all depends on a; if any regs were violated,
which is up for grabs at this point, then b; how the BA front office and
Chief Pilot view the decision from the company policy standpoint. I've seen
a few real good pilots go down company wise after coming up clean on a
decision regulations wise. It happens out here.
The difference between the two landings scenario is that the first option,
to dump and return, would have been an action taken to counter an existing
situation. The second landing has an additional data point missing from the
first. It was the result of a calculated decision made by the Captain to
extend into the flight plan. This decision ADDED to the situation when the
fuel came up short. In other words, the decision to extend was flawed. It's
a subtle difference, but it could be THE difference for this Captain.
There is also the matter of precedent. Committing to a flight plan with
paying passengers on three engines when the flight plan was computed and
accepted for four engine performance, and then coming up short on the flight
plan due to fuel is something the BA front office will be looking at VERY
closely.
Could be this guy will come up smelling like a bouquet of roses..........but
perhaps not. I'm not making a call on this by any means. I'm just guessing
like everybody else. I wasn't there, and I won't second guess the guy who
was.
The real culprit in this kind of thing is that in many cases for the
professional pilot, you're dammed if you do....and you're damned if you
don't. It "ain't" an easy business.
I hope he made the right decision whatever that was; for his sake; for the
sake of his passengers; and also for the company.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)


"Jose" wrote in message
...
The fact remains that this Captain made a decision to continue that
involved not only the engine scenario, but as well an ending condition
that involved an unscheduled landing due to conditions that would not
have been present without his having proceeded with the engine condition.

I don't understand this statement. Had the captain elected to do
something else, there would still be an unscheduled landing. With more
fuel on board. In fact, by continuing, the captain ended up with the
greatest probability of =not= having an unscheduled landing.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It all depends on a; if any regs were violated

There's no evidence of this as of yet, but =anytime= something comes to
the attention of the FAA I expect they will look all over for missing dots.

The second landing [...] was the result of a calculated decision made
by the Captain to extend into the flight plan. This decision ADDED to
the situation when the fuel came up short. In other words, the
decision to extend was flawed.

I don't agree. You could be correct if there were only =one= decision -
for example, to cross middle of the Atlantic, with no alternatives until
the destination. But this was not the case. I'm sure that decisions
were made all along the way that they can continue at least to point
A... then when over A, at least to point B... etc. None of those
decisions to continue a bit further would have compromised safety, and
each one takes them closer to a successful and safe outcome. Well,
finally they get to Q, and decide that they should =not= continue to R
(the destination) because to do so would adversely impact safety, so
they land at Q.

There is a safe outcome (landing with plenty of fuel and options), but
arguably not a successful one (passengers are not =at= their
destination. However, the passengers are (maybe) within a bus ride of
their destination, which is better than being an ocean away. The
airplane is much closer to home turf. The airplane landed with low fuel
rather than a fuel overload, which is safer for landing anyway, and
all the fuel was used to move the airplane and its cargo towards its
destination, rather than being wasted.

I will take it at face value (approved by FAA and BA) that the procedure
is "safe enough". I'm not going to second guess a hundred professionals
who know more about jumbo jets than I've forgotten about piston singles.

I also take what you say (about the political aspects of any situation
like this) at face value. But politics doesn't =change= the right
answer. It just sometimes punishes it.

One should always bear in mind the difference between an error and an
unfortunate outcome.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Could be" :-)
As I said, it will be interesting to follow and see how it plays out.
DH
"Jose" wrote in message
...
It all depends on a; if any regs were violated

There's no evidence of this as of yet, but =anytime= something comes to
the attention of the FAA I expect they will look all over for missing
dots.

The second landing [...] was the result of a calculated decision made
by the Captain to extend into the flight plan. This decision ADDED to
the situation when the fuel came up short. In other words, the
decision to extend was flawed.

I don't agree. You could be correct if there were only =one= decision -
for example, to cross middle of the Atlantic, with no alternatives until
the destination. But this was not the case. I'm sure that decisions were
made all along the way that they can continue at least to point A... then
when over A, at least to point B... etc. None of those decisions to
continue a bit further would have compromised safety, and each one takes
them closer to a successful and safe outcome. Well, finally they get to
Q, and decide that they should =not= continue to R (the destination)
because to do so would adversely impact safety, so they land at Q.

There is a safe outcome (landing with plenty of fuel and options), but
arguably not a successful one (passengers are not =at= their destination.
However, the passengers are (maybe) within a bus ride of their
destination, which is better than being an ocean away. The airplane is
much closer to home turf. The airplane landed with low fuel rather than a
fuel overload, which is safer for landing anyway, and all the fuel was
used to move the airplane and its cargo towards its destination, rather
than being wasted.

I will take it at face value (approved by FAA and BA) that the procedure
is "safe enough". I'm not going to second guess a hundred professionals
who know more about jumbo jets than I've forgotten about piston singles.

I also take what you say (about the political aspects of any situation
like this) at face value. But politics doesn't =change= the right answer.
It just sometimes punishes it.

One should always bear in mind the difference between an error and an
unfortunate outcome.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 04:26:21 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote in
. net::

The real culprit in this kind of thing is that in many cases for the
professional pilot, you're dammed if you do....and you're damned if you
don't. It "ain't" an easy business.

Isn't it difficult for the PIC to be reprimanded for choosing
prudence?

"Doug Carter" wrote in message -
Ran out of gas before they got home; sounds like the wrong outcome to me.

If they had circled to dump fuel and landed at their origin, would the
outcome have been different? Proceding as they did is no more inherently
dangerous provided they had alternates available if an additional problem
developed. There are good alternate landing airports along their route, even
along the Atlantic tracks, allowing for safe landings if an additional
engine had failed.

(I wonder if they took off from Manchester on three engines?)

Why not? I've done 2 engine ferry flights in B-727 numerous times overwater.

As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:
"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."
This may require careful wording to edge past the letter of the
regulations.
Of course, landing to refuel and repair *before* attempting to cross the
Atlantic may require even more tedious paperwork to be submitted to BA
management for all I know.
Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
destination does not help appearances.

The symantics of language is why we have lawyers. The lawyers draw knowledge
from their resources which includes highly experienced professional 4 engine
transport pilots. This is how precedents are set. BA, CAA, FAA, and JAA set
regulations and policies from these precedents.

The B-747 will fly on 2 engines as evidenced by a requirement for a
type-rating candidate to successfully demonstrate a precision approach with
2 engines failed on the same wing. Having 3 engines and plenty of alternate
landing sites is considered by most to be a rational way to proceed.

D.

I was on an airliner once coming out of Florida that had a gear problem
shortly after departure. At first they announced they'd land short as
a precautionary measure. To which I thought .. why? The maintenance
facility is at our destination .. STL. Then after a while they announced
they'd just continue on and have plenty of emergency vehicles
waiting when we landed. It ended up being uneventful. I thought it was a
good decision.


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
transatlantic destination.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

Jose,

There's no evidence of this as of yet,


Uh, 91.13 certainly comes to mind.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)