I do have a question for a UK pilot

[MarcoAviator]

what do you make of this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html

isn't this stupid or what?

What kind of an idiotic rule is that?

I would hate to be a pilot put in that position. Keep going without an engine or else ...

[EditorASC]

what do you make of this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html

isn't this stupid or what?

What kind of an idiotic rule is that?

I would hate to be a pilot put in that position. Keep going without an engine or else ...

I agree with your conclusion. But, the kind of discussion of this case, which is required to adequately explore the unintended consequences of such a regulation, is not allowed in this forum. :shakehead

But, there is a solution. We do allow that kind of discussion, in a separate section of our FOF board.

Go to:

http://groups.msn.com/FearofFlyingForum/general.msnw

and then click the "Political Stuff" section on the left side. That will take you to the separate section, where you can start a new thread (or, post in an existing one, if you think that kind of subject matter fits into an existing thread), on this subject.

Capt. Bob,

:type:

[Falcon]

Oh boy! So you are going to start me on the easy ones first then. Capt Bob is right but I feel our readers deserve an answer.

I have read the article and will reserve my opinion untill the report comes out. The AAIB investigate all incidents no matter how trivial. The only thing I will say is that any descision made is very unlikely to have been made lightly. The flight crew (who on a flight like that would have consisted of more than two pilots) would have discussed thoroughly all the options and any descision made would have been re-evaluated regularly over the many hours. What we don't know untill the report is published is whether the enigne could have been restarted for a short time if needed.

[Falcon]

I have spoken with some friends of mine who have flown the 747 with BA and can put this to bed. If the engine failure lead to a precautionary shut down i.e. not the Egine fire, severe damage or separation checklist the procedure allows to continue the flight as long as the crew are satisfied that no damage has been done. This procedure has been in place for years and has nothing to do with the recent European legislation.

[EditorASC]

FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FARS)

FARs (file:///data/FARS/) > Part 121 (file:///data/FARS/part_121.html) > Section 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.

[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19219, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-207, 54 FR 39293, Sept. 25, 1989; Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2614, Jan. 26, 1996]

(http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:fars_print%28%29;)

[EditorASC]

Here are the parts of that article, which bother me considerably, IF THEY ARE TRUE................

=========================

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1499342,00.html (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html)


A BRITISH AIRWAYS jumbo jet carrying 351 passengers was forced to make an emergency landing after an 11-hour transatlantic flight with a failed engine.

The fault occurred on take-off from Los Angeles but the pilot declined all opportunities to land in the US and instead continued on three engines for 5,000 miles to Britain.


BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the flight. But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only 100ft above the ground.

Air traffic controllers at Los Angeles spotted streams of sparks shooting from the engine and immediately radioed the pilot. He attempted to throttle the engine back but was forced to shut it down after it continued to overheat. The plane then began circling over the Pacific while the pilot contacted BA’s control centre in London to discuss what to do. They decided the flight should continue to London even though it would burn more fuel on just three engines.

The Boeing 747 was unable to climb to its cruising altitude of 36,000ft and had to cross the Atlantic at 29,000ft, where the engines perform less efficiently and the tailwinds are less favourable. The unbalanced thrust also meant the pilot had to apply more rudder, causing extra drag.

The pilot realised as he flew over the Atlantic that he was running out of fuel and would not make it to Heathrow. He requested an emergency landing at Manchester and was met by four fire engines and thirty firefighters on the runway.

Philip Baum, an aviation security specialist on board the flight with his wife and three daughters, said he had heard two loud bangs shortly after take-off. “The pilot came on to say we had lost an engine and he was negotiating about whether or not we should land back at Los Angeles.

“The plane is as safe on three engines as on four and it can fly on two. It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue...."


==========================


EditorASC:


The 747 can be landed overweight. It is not always necessary to dump fuel. I know, because I did it once, when on a flight from LAX to NRT. One of our flight attendants fell down the stairs, just as we were passing by SFO. We had 9 more hours to go, and she was in considerable pain, so I elected to land at SFO to allow her to go to an American hospital, right away.


I landed the plane at about 50,000 lbs over allowed max landing weight. That required a log book write-up and a maintenance inspection, which they did while we refueled. Took only about 49 minutes, from touchdown to takeoff again for NRT. Didn't have to dump any fuel that way.

As to the claim that “The plane is as safe on three engines as on four and it can fly on two. It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue...."
I must vigorously disagree. It was a safety issue, if the story as reported, is complete and accurate.

[Falcon]

Which brings us to waiting for the full report. The two bangs could have been a compressor stall. We will not know for sure untill the full report comes out.

[Passenger Mark]

Good answer Royd!


In my profession the worse thing to do is speculate. It may take a while, but always best to wait for the facts.

[EditorASC]

Good answer Royd!


In my profession the worse thing to do is speculate. It may take a while, but always best to wait for the facts.

I must respectfully disagree. The story is out there; it is not speculation to say so and discuss what it says.

Whether or not there are any inaccuracies in the original story, will eventually be made clear. In the meantime, I think it is healthy and beneficial for Fearful Fliers to discuss it further, if they feel they have a need to do that.

To avoid conflicting with your "no politics" rule, I have started a thread on this story, in our "Political Stuff" section of our MSN Fearful Flying forum. I invite any who want to discuss this issue further, to post there, so that there will be no rule violation in this forum.

http://groups.msn.com/FearofFlyingForum/politicalstuff.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=2986

Capt. Bob

:type:

[CaptainStark]

The Navy has shut down motors on their P-3 aniti-sub aircraft for years and flown three motors to save fuel. Never heard of an accident resulting from prolonged three-motored flight. The nickname for the plane is the "Lockheed Tri-Motor."

Without commenting on the details because they are not yet available (or confirmed), I am not convinced the pilot did something catastrophically incorrect. While the FAA requires a plane to land, once 12 miles off shore, the FAA rules don't mean diddly. Royd is the expert on British Aviation. Perhaps it allows for three motored flight with suitable alternates along the way and under conservative guidelines.

Time will tell.

:ray:

[LeslieDEN]

Monica, I would disagree only in that I don't see myself as a person in some special class that needs to be protected from honest speculation and discussion about the incident. Either I'm no longer a fearful flyer or the emotional capacity of fearful flyers is stronger than you estimate?

Lord knows there's enough garbage speculation and discussion about the planes I fly on every other week (United is dangerous because it's in bankruptcy! It must be cutting corners on maintenance! The A320 is dangerous because it's controlled by computers that could crash at any time!).

Compared to that, an honest discussion about a truly questionable situation is welcome to me. Capt. Bob doesn't toss criticism around lightly. If he takes this seriously, I take it seriously too. I think he did a good thing by directing folks to his own board, where those interested can see a more complete discussion about it.

[Passenger Mark]

Well... I can answer this one...

Mon has made a good point, and one that I agree with.

I do not play a heavy hand here, and am fairly liberal in what is allowed.

But speculation leads to guessing, guessing leads to the "what ifs" the "what ifs" lead to anxiety.

We are here to overcome Fear of Flying, to become successes in flying. This type of drama only serves to destroy that work.

Therefore... when it comes to subjects like this... facts are what we will discuss, NOT speculation.

I said it once... in a kind way... now I will say it in a FIRM way.

This subject is CLOSED until the OFFICIAL FACTS come out, and our Resident UK Aviation Authority (Royd) updates us.

The only other option is if anyone can find the BA Captain, have him/her come here, and explain their actions. GOOD LUCK!

I hope this request is respected.

Thank You

[CaptainStark]

For everyone out there....ignoring the "why" question for a moment....

Did anyone miss the fact that a 747 loaded with people and fuel flew half way around the world and landed safely with one motor asleep?

If that isn't a confidence builder, I don't know what is.

Ray

[Falcon]

Time to answer some points.

Thank you Bob for placing the FARs up. They are not relevant in this case. The flight was a British aircraft operating with a British crew under JAR-OPS.
Your incident is different and reading your post seemed to be handled well. If I had read a paper article I could wonder what on earth tempted a Captain to endanger all those people by performing a heavy landing in a 747, not a trivial thing in an aircraft the wrong side of 100 tonnes, for the sake of the comfort of one person. However you were there. You were in command, you had all the information,you KNEW how badly injured the person was, you had the training and experience to make a decision based on your professional judgment.
I am disappointed you have not extended the same courtesy to another highly trained, professional crew.