Author Topic: British Airways 747 loses engine, Again (Read 1687 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #30 on:** March 08, 2005, 04:19:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo
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.

I don't see how flying to Vegas would be any more dangerous than circling over the Pacific. In order to get to Iceland one must cross large expanses of water. In my previous post I said, "flying over the pole or ocean is certainly questionable." That would tend to rule out Iceland.

Creamo · « **Reply #31 on:** March 08, 2005, 04:29:59 AM »

All the above Beetle. It rotates per day on shift what you get assigned. We could be changing an engine on Monday, fixing a coffee maker or a tray table the next. You might have to go through the avionics system, test the autopilot, or sevice the water system. Depends on what rotation you are on.

There are not guys like Ripsnore who wishes he was in Boeing long white shop coats looking like they are prepping Apollo 11 with clipboards sorry to say, milling over engine specs and caluculating mirror and smoke sums.

It's just guys fixing what ever is wrong on a jet.

mora · « **Reply #32 on:** March 08, 2005, 04:32:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
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. :rolleyes

The legislation is EU wide. I firmly believe that it's only aim is to protect national carriers from LCC competition. The kickback is that many national carriers are goverment owned. Of course the legislation concerns everyone, but it hit's the LCC's hardest.

Here's some info about it:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/air/rights/info_en.htm

beet1e · « **Reply #33 on:** March 08, 2005, 04:35:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo
There are not guys like Ripsnore who wishes he was in Boeing long white shop coats looking like they are prepping Apollo 11 with clipboards sorry to say, milling over engine specs and caluculating mirror and smoke sums.

I wonder what his "one word answer" would be for that!

cpxxx · « **Reply #34 on:** March 08, 2005, 05:00:32 AM »

Having worked for a turbine engine MRO for nearly 14 years. I think I'm qualified to comment.

Engine shutdowns are more common than many realise. It seems in this case there was a surge just after take off. This normally produces a few bangs and flame out the back. So it was shutdown. The decision was made to continue the flight because there are SOP's that allow for this very situation. Landing at LAX would have meant lots of circling and dumping fuel. Continuing on three engines is allowed and not unsafe. Particularly when you remember that many aircraft fly across the Atlantic on two engines every day.

Perhaps someone could explain to me how three engines are less safe than two?
The second shutdown seems to be unrelated. An 'oil pressure problem' covers the range of possibilities. Maybe something was disturbed during the engine change. It happens.

The crew did nothing wrong and the the decision to continue had nothing to do with new EU rules about compensating passengers.

I think we are forgetting the point of four engined aircraft. In a twin you land when one fails. Four gives you redundancy and you can continue.

Creamo · « **Reply #35 on:** March 08, 2005, 05:19:37 AM »

Not really. MRO? You work in a shop, and repair and overhaul engines, not on the wing. You see jets on TV, and sometimes fly on them. Don’t get all knowing about them with mechanics that see and actually work on them everyday.

The Capt should have landed that crate, story over.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #36 on:** March 08, 2005, 05:25:10 AM »

Actually, three engines over water is better than ETOPS* operations of many Boeing and Airbus airframes.

*Engines turn or people swim

cpxxx · « **Reply #37 on:** March 08, 2005, 05:43:35 AM »

I'm a little offended Creamo, you are being more than a little patronising. Short of posting my resume, let me tell I have been there and out on the ramp and I do know what I'm talking about. Even though (shock horror) I'm not actually an Engineer. Fourteen years experience does count for something you know.

I could point out that you are not an airline pilot so are not qualified to comment on their job either. But that would be patronising.

You know you sound just like my brother who is an Aircraft Engineer

Must be all that skydrol you inhale.

FYI as far as I know the British rules allow for this very situation. Whatever about the FAA no rules were broken as far as the CAA was concerned. Also as I should have mentioned in the first post a surge as I'm sure you well know doesn't neccessarily mean the engine is unusable. It would be shutdown as a precaution and could potentially be restarted should the need arise.

beet1e · « **Reply #38 on:** March 08, 2005, 05:53:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mora
The legislation is EU wide. I firmly believe that it's only aim is to protect national carriers from LCC competition. The kickback is that many national carriers are goverment owned. Of course the legislation concerns everyone, but it hit's the LCC's hardest.

Here's some info about it:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/air/rights/info_en.htm

Interesting link, Mora. I've printed off the "Air Passenger Rights" leaflet, and will carry it when I travel from now on.

I know that airlines like TAP and Iberia are government run, but there are no government run airlines in Britain.

I've bookmarked that link, and will look at it again when I have more time.

Creamo · « **Reply #39 on:** March 08, 2005, 05:56:00 AM »

No Problemo Cpxxx.

If you lose an engine on takeoff, you return to LAX.

No amount of replacing turbine parts on a repair shop floor gives you any more insite to the obvious. Like than me tearing the engine off the wing after it fragged. I didn't mean to be condescending.

The crew did every thing wrong. If i was in seat 50D, and found out they flew across the pond with a engine failure, and landed short, I would have choked the flight crew. No, punched him in the gut, it hurts WAY more.

cpxxx · « **Reply #40 on:** March 08, 2005, 06:40:03 AM »

Well I was only a little offended, Creamo.

. I've worked in Engineering, Line Maintenance, Operations and Despatch. I've got my hands dirty and worn out office chairs so I've seen it from several angles, that's all. Right now I'm looking for a despatcher's job and later hope to get to fly the things. Doesn't mean I know it all though. As my mechanic brother likes to point out.

It's an arguable point. Land immediately or continue? Their decision was to continue which is exactly what they would have done a half an hour into the flight or ten hours into the flight. Yours would be to land at LAX. Both decisions are arguaby right. Hopefully I never have to make the decision.

It can go wrong, years ago a British Midland 737 suffered a fan blade failure. It showed up only as an indication of vibration in the cockpit. The crew misread the clues and shutdown the wrong engine. But the bad one continued to run. The crew decided to divert to their maintenance base instead of landing immediately. On short finals the bad engine finally failed and the 737 hit a motorway embankment. I visited the spot once and it was heartbreakingly close to the runway. Bad luck or bad judgement?

Creamo · « **Reply #41 on:** March 08, 2005, 06:52:30 AM »

Nope, not to discount your post which was interesting, it's in the end not arguable. The Captain should have just turned around and landed. I'm almost sure AA lost their Chief Pilot in Little Rock after he was tired, and just decided "F-it, we are landing".They slid off the runway and he is dead.

He killed a bunch of people in first class as I saw the pictures as well. Not worth it. It's why I never sign off on stuff that isn't right. Might piss off a stupidvisor, but I sleep well.

Nashwan · « **Reply #42 on:** March 08, 2005, 07:53:19 AM »

Quote

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?

The new rules allow an exemption for extraordinary events beyond an airline's control.

Some have speculated that doesn't mean engine failures, as they can be caused by poor maintenance, but it seems to me all an airline needs to do is show it's following proper procedures, and in event of a engine failure it's covered.

Toad · « **Reply #43 on:** March 08, 2005, 08:46:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
It's an arguable point. Land immediately or continue?

I think part of this difference of opinion is due to the difference in Ops Specs.

US airlines, the ones Creamo and I are familiar with, pretty much nail down this situation in print. The answer is "land at the nearest suitable airport" which would have been LAX.

Now BA Ops Specs may be different, the airline "culture" and history may be quite different. It may be permissible and "normal" for their pilots to continue on in this situation. Again though. BA Ops Specs have to get US FAA approval for them to operate in the US.

My training, "culture" and Ops Specs would have made this one a "no brainer"; "nearest suitable" airport is the "book answer". I understand that BA may be different... but I am interested in the FAA verdict on this one, not the CAA. If our FAA feels they violated Ops Specs, BA will be fined.

BTW, CPXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, you don't necessarily have to shut down an engine that "surges" or "compressor stalls". If the engine recovers (usually after being brought to idle, stabilized and the power slowly brought back in), you can use it normally.

Creamo · « **Reply #44 on:** March 08, 2005, 08:59:51 AM »

True in a sense, but it comes down to pilot in command Toad. You should know that. This type of argument is union stewards standing up for incompetent F-ups. I just hate the logic.

You lose an engine on take off, there is no "difference of opinion is due to the difference in Ops Specs".

There is competent pilots, and pilots that just don't get it.