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

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.

Jose,

There's no evidence of this as of yet,


Uh, 91.13 certainly comes to mind.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

There's no evidence of this as of yet,

Uh, 91.13 certainly comes to mind.

Uh... there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote
Uh... there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.

My dear, departed mother always maintained that simply flying
in an aircraft was "careless and reckless". :-)

Bob Moore

Jose,

there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.


Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book. Let's
see if it does in the book of the authorities, too, but I'd be very
surprised if not. After all, we're not talking about an engine failure
somewhere over Greenland - we're talking about RIGHT after take-off!

It reminds me very much of the Hapag-Lloyd accident with the Airbus
running out of fuel after flying through half of Europe with the gear
locked in the down position.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book.

I didn't know that there was an emergency.

It reminds me very much of the Hapag-Lloyd accident with the Airbus
running out of fuel after flying through half of Europe with the gear

Now *they* ran out of fuel, which is an entirely different story.

Stefan

Stefan,

I didn't know that there was an emergency.


Now *they* ran out of fuel, which is an entirely different story.


There is something very simple at work he We're judging after the fact.
In one case, it worked out, in the other, it didn't. Thus, in on case,
some here are saying "Those pilots were ok to do what they did" whereas in
the other case everyone agrees the pilots were total idiots. But the
prerequisites for something bad happening were quite similar in both
cases. I don't think safety should be judged on whether one got away with
doing something not quite smart or not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book.

What low-fuel emergency? They landed with adequate reserve.

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