Would this be the same FAA that denied the Air Transat flight permission to
land?

"Sam Whitman" wrote in message
...

L Grasso wrote:

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


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu...r.html?ex=1110
949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVE RNEWS

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.

Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when they can't
find a clear violation of any rule. Also note that 121.565
permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the destination on 3
engines. So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

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