British Airways 747 loses engine, Again

[Cobra412]

Creamo I don't work 747s but I do work F-15s and have done so for 10  years.  I'm very aware of the probabilities and possibilities of having engine failures not only on takeoff but even on engine start and shut downs.  I also worked directly with P&W troubleshooting one of their newly designed DEECs for the P&W -229 motors.  I have a very good idea of just what is monitored by these motors and what signals can be lost and cause the motor to roll back or go into fail safe operating modes.    

Just because you may work directly on a particular airframe doesn't mean you don't have the understanding of how systems can fail on another airframe.  The basic theory of operation for a particular system is virtually identical from one airframe to another.  Doesn't matter if it's a fighter with an inertial navigation system or a heavy with one the systems still operate the same.

My whole point in this thread was there is no such thing as magical fixes for anything.  Anyone with a maintenace background can tell you that.  They can also tell you just how often they run across intermittent failures that can't always be detected the first time around.  

I've heard to many aircrews try to troubleshoot from the cockpit too many times and some posters here sound just like them.  Just because you fly and aircraft doesn't mean you have the ability to fix one nor have the knowledge to understand the complexity of these systems and just what it takes to get that one ground or voltage from one side of the jet to the other.

[Habu]

Cobra

Regarding your trouble shooting from the cockpit remark.

I have been dancing around this but there seems to be a difference between BA and the US carriers as regards to how much authority you give the captains.

If you regard your crews as unqualified to know the difference between a time you can do something and it is safe and a different time where it would be not safe then you simply make a unbendible rule that removes all authority for the decision from the crew. The US carriers seem to have done this.

But if you train your flight crew to a standard where you can trust their judgement to know the difference then you leave such decisions up to them by letting them know the times it is safe to take a course of action and the times it is not so, then trusting them to make the call.

This would involve such information such nature of the engine problem, immeadiate route, history of the plane, weather etc etc. Based on all these factors the captian could make the call to continue and be perfectly safe doing so. Just because the US has decided to remove that authority from the captain does not make it wrong.

[Cobra412]

Habu I regard my crews as unqualified to troubleshoot at my level.  Emergency procedures are a different animal.  They have or should have a checklist for that.  If they are authorized to fly with a single motor gone then so be it.  There should be guidelines on that kind of failure though.

In a scenario like this if the motor had failed prior to hopping the pond then they should have guidelines stating whether or not they are authorized to continue across an area with limited or no immediate landing areas in the event of a second motor failure.  This should be an FAA thing and a company policy to ensure the safety of their workers and the people who they are transporting.  

Anything not covered in an emergency checklist should obviously be dealt with to the best of the pilots abilities.  If in any way shape or form their decision may put their crew and passengers in harms way then they need to land and get it fixed.  I know that not every scenario is covered in emergency check lists but what may seem to be something simple isn't always just that.

I do know though that something that may seem like a nuisance like a flickering light can turn into something bigger.  I've seen it on our F-15s and luckily in all cases the aircrews landed immediately.  A problem that started out as a flickering light in the cockpit turned out to be a wire harness chaffing against a hydraulic line which eventually chaffed enough to bust the line itself.

So do you take the chance to please you customers or do you land because the customers really don't have a clue that something minor can turn into something major and in the end cost them their lives.  I'm sorry but some things aren't worth saving your customers some time or saving the company some money.  The military pushes these limits because that's what we do.  It's called Operational Risk Management.  The difference is the airline industry doesn't have the option to eject people to safety when something goes wrong after a bad choice was made.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Habu
I have been dancing around this but there seems to be a difference between BA and the US carriers as regards to how much authority you give the captains.

[/b]

In the end, there is no difference. A Captain can do anything he feels is necessary to safely conduct the flight. This is the essence of "Captain's Authority".

However, that DOES NOT mean that the Captain will not be questioned on a) his decision to invoke "Captain's Authority" and b) the decisions he subsequently makes to safely conduct the flight to a landing. If his decisions are found to be incorrect, punishment will follow. In short, you can invoke "Captain's Authority" anytime... but you will be held accountable for your decsions.

If you regard your crews as unqualified to know the difference between a time you can do something and it is safe and a different time where it would be not safe then you simply make a unbendible rule that removes all authority for the decision from the crew. The US carriers seem to have done this.

[/b]

The crews are not regarded as "unqualified". However, in this litigious society, there is ever more "guidance" in the Ops Specs. When I started out in 1980, the FOPM (Flight Operations Procedures Manual) was a very thin, very brief set of general guidelines. Over the ensuing 23 years, it grew thicker all the time, to the point that when I left, it was as thick as the Pilot's Manual for the 767. This isn't because the crews were less trained or less capable. Au contraire; we were more highly trained than we were in 1980. Nope, this was the result of lawsuit after lawsuit over stupid stuff, like people getting hit on the head when they opened a bag bin.  Duh! Ya simple shirts... you shouldn't try to open the bin and get your computer while you're still sitting down!

It was also the result of FAA actions that changed the way we handle in-flight situations. Some things are a matter of regulation, not choice. Like the lawsuits, there seems to be an unending flow of new, improved regulations.

But if you train your flight crew to a standard where you can trust their judgement to know the difference then you leave such decisions up to them by letting them know the times it is safe to take a course of action and the times it is not so, then trusting them to make the call.

[/b]

There are areas where this is allowed and areas where it isn't. FAA regulations again. "Nearest suitable" is directive in nature, it's not an "option" unless the Captain has an incredibly good reason not do to do it.  

This BA flight shows no incredibly good reason to bypass the nearest suitable airport and to go all the way back to Jolly Olde. Again, this is FAA regulation, not a matter of choice.... unless the FAA approved a different set of Ops Specs for BA and they might have done so.

This would involve such information such nature of the engine problem, immeadiate route, history of the plane, weather etc etc. Based on all these factors the captian could make the call to continue and be perfectly safe doing so. Just because the US has decided to remove that authority from the captain does not make it wrong.

It would make it wrong if the FAA did not approve that option for a BA Captain in the BA Ops Specs. While in our airspace, they conform to our laws and as I mentioned our FAA has to approve their Ops Specs for them to operate here.

Let this one simmer a while; there's going to be more to the story.

[Habu]

Very interesting read.

Thanks for your insight. I wonder how long it will take for the whole story to come out and the final verdict. Is the FAA conducting an investigation?

A 747 cargo plane crashed on takeoff in Toronto last year. I am still trying to find out what happened. I thought it sounded like a tail heavy center of gravity situation but until they release a report there is no way of knowing.

[cpxxx]

I think as Toad says there will be more to this story. I'm not completely sure if the FAA has juristicion in this case. If you were to follow that logic to it's then you would have to comply completely with the the the Aviation regs in every country you happen to fly over. So for example if you happen to fly over Belgium and they had a land at the nearest destination rule. They would have to land. It sounds like a job for the lawyers. I hopped over to the http://www.pprune.org/forums to check out the views there. Not surprisingly it's a hot topic. BA was quoted as saying the FAR's allow for that scenario. Lots of varying views to be found. It actually has an interesting account from a passenger on board. He actually felt that they should have landed on the East coast or something. Which if you were to believe the FAA would still be in breach of the FAR's.

As I said this will be handed to the Lawyers. It's more than I can figure.

[john9001]

i thought the route from LA to england was the great circle route over the arctic?

about landings, some are so rough it feels like a was a crash landing, some are so smooth the only way you know you have landed is by the tire noise, i always complement the pilot on a smooth landing.

was exiting a plane after a really good landing and both crew were standing by the cockpit, i said to the older one "nice landing", he pointed to the younger one and said " he did it".

[Toad]

Any country can make their regulations more restrictive than the ICAO standards and an air carrier operating in that country must comply. So as yet BA's contention that they are within FAR's would require more information as far as I can see.

I can pretty much assure you that the FAA has jursidiction over anything that happens in our airspace. If the BA incident is found to be against FAA regs, BA will either pay a fine and promise to comply (or some such) or they will not be allowed to operate here until they do. (That would be if it got to the "incredibly stupid" point, which it will not.)

It'll be worked out. It may or may not be a problem, but I assure you the FAA has jurisdiction.

As I said, I'm interested to see how this one turns out.

[Toad]

It would seem our FAA is acting as I supposed they would.

U.S. plans to act after 'careless' BA flight

Senior U.S. aviation officials, who asked not to be quoted by name because they would be directly involved in legal actions against the airline, said the actions would be based on sections of U.S. aviation law dealing with careless and reckless operation of an aircraft and continuing operation of an aircraft in an unairworthy condition.

"There was an absence of judgment," said a senior official. "This is an indictment of the safety culture of British Airways."...

...Senior officials said the United States always has the right to block entry to the United States by British Airways, but that action is unlikely. Instead, a heavy fine seems more likely, they said. The U.S. agency was still considering its penalty options on Monday.

The officials said there is simply no way the airline could claim that continued operation of the flight was safe. The crew could not determine whether there might have been other damage in the area, the officials said.

"The crew could not assess why the engine failed, nor could they determine damage," said an official. In addition, with only three engines operating, the plane was forced to fly at lower altitudes in more dense air.

"You are sucking fuel like you are Exxon itself," an official said.

It is clear that the crew should have dumped fuel and returned to the airport in Los Angeles, the official said. On Feb. 25, six days later, the same BA 747 flew 11 hours on three engines when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London. However, in that case, the aircraft had been in flight several hours before the engine stopped functioning.

.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Skydancer
Hey BA its time to open the chequebook and buy...... A 380

Without research, I would venture a guess that BA would have Rolls Royce engines on either airframe... (this is an engine problem, no?)

[Del]

WoW Wulf,, you sure stired the Poopy Pot this time...

A glider buddy of mine told me that the prop on my Cessna was just a cooling fan for me. I asked what do you mean, He states that if that fan quits turning, I start sweating,,, Ya know, he is right. Doesn't keep me too cool in a temp inversion layer... 85f at 5500 msl,,, ugggg..

I like the Avtar of the Piper (looks like one) going through the sonic vortex...

[Holden McGroin]

I believe it to be a Luscomb, Del.

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by Toad
It would seem our FAA is acting as I supposed they would.

U.S. plans to act after 'careless' BA flight


.

Toad,

Atleast in this case we both agree the FAA is acting rationally and properly in the interest of safety.

Wolf

[Habu]

Originally posted by john9001
i thought the route from LA to england was the great circle route over the arctic?

 

Actually although that distance is shorter they fly a more southern route right now.

It all depends where the jet stream is. Right now it is dipping south below the great lakes and then east. So the European bound flights are flying much farther south than they normally do at this time of year when the stream should be farther north.

ATC in Canada basically gives each trans altlantic plane a number based on its call in time and eta to the departure waypoint. Then they assign them a flight level and lane in the jetstream to fly over. Once the plane is out over the atlantic it drops off the radar so it is important that it flys the exact FL and route it was assigned.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
In the end, there is no difference. A Captain can do anything he feels is necessary to safely conduct the flight. This is the essence of "Captain's Authority".

However, that DOES NOT mean that the Captain will not be questioned on a) his decision to invoke "Captain's Authority" and b) the decisions he subsequently makes to safely conduct the flight to a landing. If his decisions are found to be incorrect, punishment will follow. In short, you can invoke "Captain's Authority" anytime... but you will be held accountable for your decsions.

Well that sucks. So they expect you to make a snap decision in a stressful situation with hundreds of lives hingeing on it, but they afford themselves the luxury of poring over your report and spending hours or days doing it, and then wonder why you didn't pick a better option than the one they arrived at after many man days/weeks of deliberations.

Holden - yes, BA aircraft operate Rolls Royce engines; I'm pretty sure that Virgin Atlantic does too.

John9001 I flew from SFO to LHR in May 2001, and the route was NE up over Canada to the 64th parallel, then along the 64th until dropping down through Icelandic airspace, Scotland and home. So no, we did not fly over the Arctic circle which, as you know, begins at N66½.