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

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
. com...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Doug Carter" wrote in message
. com...

Mike Rapoport wrote:

So, is this good or bad?

Whoever wrote this SOP for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks.


Along with the JAA and FAA...Or are you just another PP ASEL with strong
opinions on flying 747s and how to run a global airline...?


Oops! I overlooked the implication that you were only interested in
hearing from BA, JAA &/or FAA experts; Sorry, I am just another dumb ass
PP ASEL... with 30 years of system failures analysis experience.

I think I'll stay with my opinion until I learn enough to feel good about
riding over the pond with a known major systems failure.

Perhaps these engines are instrumented well enough that the pilot knew
that the failure did not result in severed fuel, oil or electrical lines;
that there were no overloaded buses, etc; time will tell.


The list of disasters that started with a controllable problem that was
allowed to compound out of control is long.

An example of pushing the maintenance edge can be seen at:
http://www.rhythm.com/~will/asian747.html.


By the way, do I refer from your reply that you think this is a good
practice?

I didn't mean to offend you, but when a PP SEL says "Whoever wrote this SOP
for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks" and that SOP is approved by the
FAA and JAA and known by thousands of BA employees (who aren't complaining
or pointing out problems with it), it occurs to me that the PPASEL probably
knows a whole lot less than ANY of the people that wrote or approved it and
is just spouting off without knowing any of the issues. Kind of like Jane
Fonda educating people about nuclear power.

Apparently, a single failed engine on a four engine jet airliner is not an
emergency nor an automatic reason to terminate a flight.

Like you said: "Perhaps these engines are instrumented well enough that the
pilot knew that the failure did not result in severed fuel, oil or
electrical
lines; that there were no overloaded buses, etc; time will tell." Indeed
time will tell. In the meantime, you look like a fool jumping up and
declaring that the guy (It was actually a bunch of people all of whom know
more about airlines and airliners than you or I) who wrote the SOP for BA is
an idiot.

Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
land immediately because it is too heavy. So it has to fly for a while
regardless. The crew decide to head in the direction that they were
originally going. This was all thought out years before by the airline, the
regulators and probably Boeing and incorportated into the crew's training.
There are numerous large commerical airports along the way that are just as
suitable as LAX (PMD, RNO, SLC ect). We haven't even gotten into what the
weather might have been like at LAX. By the time the flight starts over
water, it has been flying for many hours over thousands of miles and, even
then, is always well under an hour from a suitable airport. The flight
lands safely and then some PP ASEL declares that they did it all wrong.

I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA, FAA,
JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid stunt than
to accept your assertion that it was.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote
I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA,
FAA, JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid
stunt than to accept your assertion that it was.

From the FAA:

Section 121.565: Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an
engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is
stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the
airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a
safe landing can be made.

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more
engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may
proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the
following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as
landing at the nearest suitable airport:

(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical
difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.

(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.

(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.

(4) The air traffic congestion.

(5) The kind of terrain.

(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.

(c) The pilot in command shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in
flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and
shall keep that station fully informed of the progress of the flight.

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest
suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of
operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an
airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action
as landing at the nearest suitable airport. 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.

Bob Moore wrote:
....

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more
engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may
proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the
following, he decides that proceeding to that airport *is as safe as
landing at the nearest suitable airport:*


So the crew (and quite probably BA Operations) apparently concluded that
continuing to London was *as safe as landing at the nearest suitable
airport* Ouch

....

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest
suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate...

I'd hate to write that report...


Doug
PP ASEL, Fool

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
news
Bob Moore wrote:
...

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more
engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may
proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the
following, he decides that proceeding to that airport *is as safe as
landing at the nearest suitable airport:*


So the crew (and quite probably BA Operations) apparently concluded that
continuing to London was *as safe as landing at the nearest suitable
airport* Ouch

The crew and BA ops apparently were correct in their decision. Evidence
otherwise?

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest
suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate...

I'd hate to write that report...

Why? Sounds simple and straight forward.

Doug
PP ASEL, Fool

Dave Stadt wrote:
The crew and BA ops apparently were correct in their decision. Evidence
otherwise?

Ran out of gas before they got home; sounds like the wrong outcome to me.

However I will concede that the unscheduled stop in Manchester to refuel
and possibly repair the engine may have been cheaper than stopping to do
the same thing on this side of the Atlantic.

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

... he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate...

I'd hate to write that report...

Why? Sounds simple and straight forward.


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.

Doug
PP, ASEL IA, Fool

Doug Carter wrote:

Ran out of gas before they got home;

Um, more like they landed before they dipped into their reserves. Big
difference.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. wrote:
Doug Carter wrote:

Ran out of gas before they got home;

Um, more like they landed before they dipped into their reserves. Big
difference.

Sigh... well, you have me by the short hair there! Gee, I really
thought I could fool (tm) everyone into believing that they flamed out
before reaching Manchester...

While I don't think it has been reported as such, I do presume they
landed with legal reserves. No doubt they could have selected another
alternate (possibly requiring their reserves) if Manchester had been
closed for any reason.

Regardless, they couldn't make it to London. Landing in Manchester was
no doubt embarrassing but clearly the right decision (finally).


--
Doug
PP, ASEL IA, Fool

Doug Carter wrote:

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..."

I think it's the job of the FAA to prove the opposite. BTW: Why should
the FAA care at all? They flew safely in the USA, they made a security
landing only when they were under the regulation of the British CAA.

Stefan

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 00:28:52 +0100, Stefan
wrote in ::

BTW: Why should the FAA care at all? They flew safely in the USA, ...

According to the regulation posted by Bob More, the PIC must write a
report:

... stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an
airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of
action as landing at the nearest suitable airport.

In light of the fact, that the nearest suitable airport (LAX) does not
require flying over the heads of those inhabitants of the continent of
North America, I would say the PIC better be of creative bent. :-)

Stefan wrote:
/snip/
I think it's the job of the FAA to prove the opposite. BTW: Why should
the FAA care at all?/snip/

Stefan,

You've obviously never dealt with the FAA, have you?