Author Topic: British Airways 747 loses engine, Again (Read 1686 times)

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #15 on:** March 07, 2005, 12:18:39 PM »

Yep, what Toad's said. Part 135 is where the funky stuff happens. A Santa Monica 135 charter has a Lear25 with the Nb1 engine that ALWAYS goes to idle after rotation, yet the thing always come back the next day "approved by maintenance".

The captain refused to fly it, and just got fired. Sounds like a promotion is on the horizon:D

Chairboy · « **Reply #16 on:** March 07, 2005, 12:47:36 PM »

That reminds me of the old classic:

Problem: "Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm
descent."
Signed off: "Cannot reproduce problem on ground."

Dago · « **Reply #17 on:** March 07, 2005, 01:33:25 PM »

Always interesting to hear people weigh in on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. The inaccuracies are typical of those found in the press, who also dont have a clue about aviation in the real world.

How many 747 aircraft has BA lost do to engine failure? How many years have they been operating 747s? How many flights have they flown with 747 aircraft in all those years?

How much more do they know about operating 747 aircraft than you know? (everything)

dago

Chairboy · « **Reply #18 on:** March 07, 2005, 03:06:52 PM »

I suppose you're right. Very well, then, I now know that it was absolutely inappropriate for me to think it was interesting that two seperate engines failed on the same plane one right after another.

Goodness, if it wasn't for the collective wisdom of this board, I would doubtless find MANY more things interesting that I shouldn't.

I assure you all, I shall develop my goodthink to a finer degree before posting again. Doing otherwise would be ungood.

Skydancer · « **Reply #19 on:** March 07, 2005, 08:00:50 PM »

At the end of the day, we live in a world where accidents and mechanical failure are not allowed. It always has to be somebody's fault. Blame is everywhere!

TTThats all folks!

superpug1 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 07, 2005, 08:55:06 PM »

I dunno if this was posted earlier but a 747 can maintain altitude on one engine if it is not at max passenger and or fuel copacity.
Its a incredibly safe plane. with 300 some odd people, all the pilot would have to do it be careful or altitude and speed and he could easily make it to Iceland or greenland from england on one engine, but thatd be a LONG stopover:aok

mechanic · « **Reply #21 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:07:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex
A Rook, a Knight and a Bish were seated next to each other. The captain announced that an engine was being shut down as a precaution and they would be a little late getting to their destination, but there was no safety hazard.

A short time later, the captain anounced that a second engine would have to shut down, but there was no safety hazard. The Rook calculated they would be 58 minutes late to their destination.

The captain announced again that the 3rd engine was overheating and would be shut down. The Knight calculated they would be 1 hour and 28 minutes late.

The Bish said, "I hope nothing happens to that last engine or we'll be up here all day."

Gunslinger · « **Reply #22 on:** March 08, 2005, 12:16:08 AM »

I have a question:

(not saying they are to blame but honestly curious) Do these new EU provisions, wich force airlines to refund money to passengers for delays, take into account flight safety.

Such as if a plane was grounded for mechanical failure and the airline did everything possible to get another flight set up....would they still be fined?

To me this rule just seems pretty dumb given coorporations greed and the way flight safety works. I can see if airlines over book a flight were that would be bad (even though a free market system should compensate for that due to compitition)

But it would seem that pilots would be forced to make bad decisions based on job security and not flight safety. Not saying that pilots are like that, I'm sure the majority wouldnt risk the lives of passengers to keep their jobs, but it only takes on to kill many.

mora · « **Reply #23 on:** March 08, 2005, 02:56:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Such as if a plane was grounded for mechanical failure and the airline did everything possible to get another flight set up....would they still be fined?

The reason doesn't matter, if they are late they'll be fined... Be it weather, mechanical, terrorism...

Quote

But it would seem that pilots would be forced to make bad decisions based on job security and not flight safety. Not saying that pilots are like that, I'm sure the majority wouldnt risk the lives of passengers to keep their jobs, but it only takes on to kill many.

Sadly it happens, like in the case of Alaska Airlines.

beet1e · « **Reply #24 on:** March 08, 2005, 03:13:17 AM »

Gunslinger,

No, I don't think much has changed for the major airlines. I can give a couple of examples:

In 1968 I was travelling with my parents and brother to the Portuguese island of Madeira on the national Portuguese airline, TAP. The journey involved a 4 hour stopover in Lisbon. When we boarded the second plane, the crew were messing with the air nozzles above the passengers' seats. After about 15 minutes of this, we were told that we would have to disembark. I've no idea what was wrong with the plane, but we were taken by taxi to a hotel, where we stayed overnight. It was a damned nice hotel too - not a cheapo flop house. We resumed the journey the following day. The hotel, meals and taxis were all taken care of by the airline.
In 1970, we were all travelling to Jersey, Channel Islands from Luton. Jersey was fogbound. The pilot tried to get in, but had to make a missed approach and returned to Luton. Same deal - we were put up overnight in a hotel, expenses paid by the airline.

I think the new legislation is aimed at tackling the problem of the no frills airlines simply abandoning their passengers when things go wrong. When you have an airline that is charging something ridiculous like £1 for a seat on a journey of 500 miles, it's pretty clear that no provision is being made by the airline to indemnify themselves against unavoidable cancellations due to weather, maintenance or anything else. Having 100 stranded passengers in an airport is a real headache, especially as many of them will be quite irate.

Creamo · « **Reply #25 on:** March 08, 2005, 03:22:16 AM »

There are a lot of misconceptions here, surprising from airline mechanics. ( Cobra, you work for the majors? I find that hard to believe)

But as far as the 747 that lost power in one of its engines shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport. The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the Boeing 747 ran low on fuel after facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the Federal Aviation Administration said., that is a big NONO and easy to see who is at fault.

Toad hit on the points of how this could shake down when the investigation works out, but just so you know, union lawyers aside, the Captain is pilot in command, and can call and should have put that plane down in L.A., immediately. No if’s, ands, or OPS Agents that would say otherwise. Well, they could say “Keep flying”, but a Capt. of a 747 in his role with all that experience certainly would have declared an emergency and told the operations guy to go *** himself, OPS Specs or not. Bottom line. No competent Captain of an airliner that loses an engine on take off EVER, and I mean EVER should not just return to LAX and get it fixed. Fire that retard on landing 160 miles short of his destination.

All the other posts about turbine engines failing often, and not just BITE checking the wires seems way off. What do I know, just saying.

mora · « **Reply #26 on:** March 08, 2005, 03:26:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
I think the new legislation is aimed at tackling the problem of the no frills airlines simply abandoning their passengers when things go wrong. When you have an airline that is charging something ridiculous like £1 for a seat on a journey of 500 miles, it's pretty clear that no provision is being made by the airline to indemnify themselves against unavoidable cancellations due to weather, maintenance or anything else. Having 100 stranded passengers in an airport is a real headache, especially as many of them will be quite irate.

Oh sure that's what they say... In reality it's protectionism. Personally I don't mind being stranded for a while if I paid 1£ for a flight. Those who feel other way are not forced to fly with a LCC. Why not let the markets control it? Those hotel accomodations are not "free", they are of course included in the ticket price.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #27 on:** March 08, 2005, 03:37:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo
No competent Captain of an airliner that loses an engine on take off EVER, and I mean EVER should not just return to LAX and get it fixed. Fire that retard on landing 160 miles short of his destination.

He has to dump or burn off some fuel to get it to landing weight, I would not have a problem with him flying east and landing in Minneapolis or somewhere, but flying over the pole or ocean is certainly questionable.

Creamo · « **Reply #28 on:** March 08, 2005, 04:06:35 AM »

Yeah, go to Vegas! Land and give them $12 buffet comps!

Or just fly until the fuel runs out, and land in Iceland or some chit.

Man I would have made a good airline captain. Kinda sarcastic, and often a pisser to OPS, but would have enjoyed telling everyone that even offered to make a disaster possible to blow me. I do that anyway, it's not just so dreamy and noticed.

beet1e · « **Reply #29 on:** March 08, 2005, 04:12:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mora
Oh sure that's what they say... In reality it's protectionism. Personally I don't mind being stranded for a while if I paid 1£ for a flight. Those who feel other way are not forced to fly with a LCC. Why not let the markets control it? Those hotel accomodations are not "free", they are of course included in the ticket price.

Protectionism? Who is protecting who? The regulatory body supervising aviation in this country is the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority - also known in private flying circles as the Campaign Against Aviation - lol). The CAA is an independent body which receives no government funding, and which has to recover its own costs. I'm afraid I missed reading the report about the new legislation - if it's EU legislation it would be Europe wide, but I don't think the EU is receiving kickbacks from the major airlines. Lord knows there's enough corruption in the EU already.

I tend to agree with you about using these airlines. I take the view that as I fly a lot, my benefits from being able to fly for a modest fee are substantial. In the last 8 years I have never been left stranded. The worst time was a 4 hour delay flying from Nice to Luton - election day 1997 in Britain, bomb scare at Luton Airport which was closed for 6 hours, so not the airline's fault.

The biggest risk with these airlines is the need for cancellation - it's always a no-refund deal, but I accept that in order to get a good price.

Hiya Creamo! Do you work on engines, airframe or avionics?