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

"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. :-)

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

And I speak with first hand knowledge...I have written one of
those reports. :-(

Departed St Petersburg/Clearwater In'tl in an Air Florida L-188
Lockheed Electra destined for Miami. As we broke ground, the
number three engine fire warning sounded. The copilot and flight
engineer went through the engine shutdown procedure. There was
no evidence of a fire and the warnings ceased.

Now...in a previous life, I had spent most of my last tour in the
US Navy patrolling in the same basic airframe (Lockheed P-3B) at
200' or less with at least one and sometimes even two of its
engines feathered...no big deal!

So....we pressed-on to Miami, I submitted a report to the Director
of Operations (myself :-))and I hand carried it to the airline's
FAA PIO (Principal Operations Inspector) who after reading the
report, chuckled and asked if I missed the P-3 that much.

No Big Deal

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
Air Florida PIC, Chief Pilot, Director of Operations (1972-1973)

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?