Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wolfala on March 06, 2005, 09:14:09 PM
-
Murphy's law for Aviation @ work.
A British Airways jet that continued on an 11-hour flight from Los Angeles to London after one of its four engines lost power also flew on three engines on a later flight from Singapore to London, the airline said Friday. Click on Read More for the full story.
The Boeing 747 left Singapore on Feb. 25 and landed at London's Heathrow Airport the next day, arriving only 15 minutes behind schedule, BA spokesman Jay Marritt said.
Three hours into the 14-hour flight, an oil pressure indicator showed there was a problem with one of the engines, which the captain shut down as a precaution, Marritt said. It was the captain's decision to continue with Flight 18, which was carrying 356 passengers, he added.
"It's still very safe to fly a 747 on three engines," Marritt said. "It is certified to do so."
Six days earlier, the same aircraft 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.
The failed engine was later replaced in London, Marritt said. The aircraft then flew to Melbourne, Australia, before continuing to Singapore. It was on the return flight from Singapore, covering 6,765 miles, that the replacement engine failed, The Wall Street Journal reported.
"It was the No. 2 engine that failed but in totally different circumstances. It's one of those very strange coincidences," Marritt said.
The FAA and British aviation officials are investigating the Feb. 19 flight from Los Angeles to London to determine whether any regulations were violated.
"We are concerned," said Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman.
The decision not to return that flight after the engine lost power raised concerns about a new European Union law which requires European carriers to reimburse passengers for substantial delays. Those payouts can be hundreds of dollars per passenger.
After the first incident, the British Airways pilots' union issued a statement saying the new regulation could pressure pilots to take risks to save their employers money. British Airways denied that financial considerations were part of the crew's decision to continue the flight from Los Angeles.
U.S. officials said they have no evidence the airline's decision to continue on was influenced by the regulation.
"We would never compromise the safety of our passengers," said British Airways spokeswoman Diane Fung on Monday. "The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to do so. The pilots are trained for such situations."
-
Its funny how something goes wrong, due to maintenance or some stupid thing that isn't a big deal, and people go around saying "OMG THIS IS TERRIBLE I CAN"T BELIEVE THAT STUFF WEARS OUT THE COMPANY SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN!!"
-
Yea, just some days you have bad luck. But lawyers don't like to hear that.
-
I don't think people are that astonished that the engine failed... but still a bit irked that the engine failed ON TAKEOFF at LAX and then they decided to keep going across the Atlantic.
Then it was additionally interesting that the same plane and SAME engine pod. Engine failures on 747s are rare, and that the same plane had the problem twice... and the same engine pod...
-
I'm just curious but for those you who don't work aircraft do you really think there is some magic wand that fixes something right everytime on the first shot? Do you also think that once it's all put back together after a fix there's absolutely no chance something else may have broken in the process? I'm sorry but it's not uncommon for something like this to happen. Anyone in the maintenance world can tell you that.
Something as simple as disconnecting a cannon plug from the component and fixing one failure (a wire) only to have it fail for something else (another wire) that broke in that same cannon plug once tension or vibrations were induced on the component is not abnormal.
You don't have the time to go through all 100+ wires to ensure they are all perfect. That would require atleast 5 to 6 hours of maintenance alone. You'd have to pull a wire and check it and then reinstall it. It's not as simple as it may sound. Even if it weren't a wire, turbine motors are notorious for having multiple failures. You could have one motor break as many as 3 times or more back to back. I've seen it more than once in my career.
-
Cobra,
Those of us here that are drivers in RL know this - we accept it as that. I think the story was just illustrating that '**** happens' in real life - whether in aviation or anywhere. Its just a run of the dice.
Wolf
-
I hear ya Wolfala. I just don't see why it's a huge thing is all. I can understand not wanting to fly over the pond with a motor out. Our guys won't even do that unless they are half way over the pond when it happens.
What I find kind of funny is that some say "it's suspicious the same motor failed twice". It's obvious that they have never worked in this career field.
-
121.565 Loss of an engine - must report to ATC
- on 2 engine A/C - land at nearest suitable airport in time
- on 3 or more engine A/C - can land at other than the nearest suitable airport in time if it is just as safe (but a report is the req'd to ops manager and ops manager must send a copy to FSDO in 10 days of your return to base
Most airline Ops Specs I'm familiar with require "nearest suitable" even for their 3+ engine aircraft. Not sure about BA, of course.
Funny this happens only two days prior to this flight the European Union had instituted a new policy of making airlines compensate passengers for delays.
The airline would have had to pay travellers €210,000 ($280,000) — €600 ($788) apiece — if they got to London's Heathrow Airport more than five hours late.
Coincidence?
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
What I find kind of funny is that some say "it's suspicious the same motor failed twice". It's obvious that they have never worked in this career field.
What I find funny is that someone who's unfamiliar with the story would comment with such authority. It wasn't the same engine. They replaced the engine, and the NEW engine (in the same bay) failed.
That's what I find interesting. I'm not trying to imply causation, just noting that it's odd, considering how often (not very) 747s lose engines.
-
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."
-
Chairboy it's all the same. Whether it's the same pod or the same engine. There's no magical fix for failures. Without knowing what maintenance did in regards to troubleshooting we can sit here and guess what really caused it. Simple fact is there are such things as intermittent failures. They aren't the easiest thing to trouble shoot.
If they came up with nothing when they troubleshot the initial failure they could have very well said just change the motor. It could also have been called to change the motor without troubleshooting by the maintenance supervisor. No one really knows and probably won't ever know for sure.
Simple fact is these systems are not a piece of cake to troubleshoot. I'll pay any person to come here and try to fix one of the airframes we have here when it has an intermittent failure. Heck for that matter even if it isn't intermittent. We'll see which one component out of 9 they'll choose before they find the right one. Or we'll see them change them all and then start searching through hundreds of different wires with 50 different scenarios that can cause that one particular failure.
Again no such thing as a magic wand. Sometimes you find it the first time sometimes you don't find it for days.
-
Have ta agree with Cobra on this. The engine could be fine, have you ever seen all the "plumbing" thats going into, around, through that engine? It just takes one little short or numerous other things to stop an engine from running. Normally it is the simple little wire and rarely the engine itself. Most likely is something other than the engine that is failing, which then causes the engine to fail. At work, when we have to investigate an engine that won't run we normally start with the little things and work our way up to the engine itself being the problem. Would be highly unlikely (but not impossible) that it's the engines themselves.
-
It's not necessarily a new situation. In 1976, I was with some friends returning home from a holiday in Spain, and was flying from Barcelona. The intended destination had been East Midlands, but a diversion was made to London Gatwick. We were told that a defective engine was the cause. (The aircraft was a 4 engine job - I think it might have been a B707)
On disembarking the plane after landing at Gatwick, the captain was standing by the door, discussing the matter with an interested party. His words were something like "...no real problem, just that one of the engines was not developing full power". When asked how soon into the flight the fault had come to his attention, he added "oh, I knew about it on the ground at Barcelona".
The new EU legislation? I didn't realise they had it out the door so soon. I don't think it's designed to target the major airlines as much as the cheap no-frills airlines. What has been happening is that if a flight has to be cancelled (eg. owing to bad weather), the cheapo airlines leave the passengers to fend for themselves. At best that can mean being left to bed down in an airport lounge, or else pay for their own accommodation (bang goes the cheap deal) or in some cases suffer the expense of buying a one-way ticket on another airline.
Within the last two years, predicted turbulence for the route to be flown forced easyJet to operate one of its flights with only a 90% passenger loading. How did they handle it? The unlucky 10% were deemed to be those who checked in later than the rest, and were apprised of the situation in the gate lounge, and told that they could wait to see if there was any room on another easyJet flight (the next day) or else make their own arrangements. No accommodation was provided.
-
The new legislation is total BS and it's obviously designed to protect the national carriers from LCC competition. It also favors dinosaurs like BA over small companies with small fleets and high utilization rates.
-
Sooner or later the BA Ops Specs (Operations Specifications) are going to come to light. For them to operate in the US, they have to submit their Ops Specs to our FAA and they have to be approved.
Either this decision was within their Ops Specs or it was not. If it was, this is no big deal it is literally "normal operating procedure".
If this decision was outside their Ops Specs, ie: the book says land "at the nearest suitable airport", someone at BA is going to get hammered. The pilot for certain and the dispatcher too, most likely. Someone has to take the fall and it will be a "little guy", even if it was the VP Flight Ops that directed the Dispatcher to tell him to bring it home.
VP's don't get blamed. Period.
-
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
-
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."
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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."
:lol
-
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.
-
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...
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes:
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
:rofl
I wonder what his "one word answer" would be for that!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Actually, three engines over water is better than ETOPS* operations of many Boeing and Airbus airframes.
*Engines turn or people swim
-
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 :lol 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
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.
You forgot the part about dumping thousands of gallons of Jet A into the ocean first.
Given that the first part of the flight was over land with hundreds of alternative runways to land at and it was only 4 hours into the flight that they would have to go over water the captain did the logical thing. Fly for 4 hours, burn up lots of fuel instead of fouling up the beachs and killing birds and fish. Continue on if everything is working properly.
We can all be anally safe. Abort flights for the smallest problem. But in a plane that is able to fly on 3 engines safely you must consider the risks of the alternatives that are available. Landing at LAX involved risk as well. And had enviromental considerations and obviously high costs and inconvience to the airline and passangers.
-
I can't agree with that totally.
You do have "culture" rub off on you as you go through your career.
I'm sure you've noticed the difference here between pilots of a Navy background and an Air Force background.
Now, I agree... US "culture" from about any background would have been land at LAX ASAP.
I can't speak for UK culture/training though. Maybe this is just an accepted thing over there while it's traditionally verboten here.
For what it's worth, I have refused to do things that were authorized in the Ops Specs. I figure, like you said, it's what they expect a Captain to do... use his judgement. No printed list of rules is going to cover every situation or be relevant in every situation.
It's not a thing one would take lightly. You have to be prepared to defend your decision at risk of your career. The times I did it, the Chief Pilot listened to my reasoning and backed me against the "suits".
-
Let me say this once again, and then argue amoungst yourselfs.
When you puke an engine on takeoff, fly in a circle for 3 squealing hours to please the tree huggers, fine.
BUT- if you try and take me over the Atlantic, not knowing if the local fuel $9/hr general filled you full of 90 Octane ala fuel contamination, I will be on the news.
-
Like I said, I want to see what our FAA says about it.
Me? LAX, no discussion. Dump fuel? I can't remember how many times I've dumped fuel over the ocean off LAX. Literally tons of it.
From a Lufthansas site explaining "aviation stuff" (and we know how thorough those Germans are, right?):
Fuel is usually dumped at altitudes of 4 -8 kilometers. A minimum altitude of 1,500 meters and a minimum speed of 500 km/h are required.
The aircraft may not fly a fully closed circle. The dumped kerosene forms a fine mist in the turbulence behind the aircraft. During a fuel dump at minimum altitude, 8 percent of the fuel reaches the ground statistically. At an air speed of 500 km/h this means a ground contamination of 0.02 grams per square meter.
This is as much as a shotglass-full of kerosene distributed over a surface of 1,000 square meters. Despite the use of sensitive methods of analysis, no contamination has been determined so far in plant or soil samples after fuel dumps.
-
Wouldn't it be better to climb first and see how the engines are behaving? I would imagine that the Captian probably considered the possiblity of contaminated fuel. However he knew that he cannot land a fully fueled plane for at least 30 to 45 minutes even if he wanted too without risking a gear collaspe and fire. So he decides to keep on climbing and would then think hey if another engine goes I can dump over the desert and land on that 10 mile strip dead ahead of me at Edwards AFB. Less risk to the plane and the passangers and to the population of LA.
So he climbs out and get to altitude and everything is fine. If the problem was fuel contamination then it would have showed up by then.
-
No, it would better to say “Holy watermelon dudes, we lost an engine”. Not “Why did we lose an engine? You thinks it’s fuel relate?” while they fly it into the ground. They have done THAT over a gear light bulb.
My god habu, he could do crossword puzzles and upend the #2 flight attendant, driving her forehead, pant less on the P61 panel. As long as he doesn’t go over a freaking ocean! You crap an engine, you are not going to England, see?
-
No, Habu.
One other thing... you CAN land overweight. You can land at max gross weight if you have to do so. The airplane won't fall apart, nor will the earth stop turning about its axis.
Creamo can tell you in more detail but an overweight landing merely requires an inspection. If things are found that are bent or broken, then they get fixed.
The trick to an overweight landing is to make sure and lay it down gently. You sure don't want to make a Navy carrier landing when you're at max gross. If you "kiss it on" at max gross, the airplane really won't know the difference.
Think about this.. it leaves the earth at max gross, running down the runway at speeds very close to what you'll be rolling out at. As long as you don't hammer it on, there's really no problem. I've done it more than once.
-
I guess my point was that if the engine failed and they were just about to start out over the ocean then I agree 100% with everything you said.
However if the British have different rules then this scenario was perfect for continueing the flight. First they take off. The alternative landing strip at Edwards AFB was ideal for a heavy plane and much safer than LAX if the engines crap on on approach. They could keep climbing up to the safe glide alt to reach Edwards knowing that they could always turn back for LAX if they had to.
Once they found the plane was not in dire danger and was flying normally (sans one engine) they then had 4 hours of cross US flight at cruise alt to check and recheck all systems knowing they could land safely at any major airport plus the many USAF strips in Nevada and along the way.
After 4 hours in the air the decision then becomes proceed on 3 over the water or land in NYC and wait for a new plane.
Here the difference in opinion between a US carrier and the BA proceedures comes into play. A US guy would never go over the ocean. The BA rules are different.
However what happened up till then was probably not any more dangerous once the plane climbed past 10,000' to the alternative of dumping and landing at LAX. So the captian made judgement calls along the way that always left him options if more engines died.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, Habu.
One other thing... you CAN land overweight. You can land at max gross weight if you have to do so. The airplane won't fall apart, nor will the earth stop turning about its axis.
Creamo can tell you in more detail but an overweight landing merely requires an inspection. If things are found that are bent or broken, then they get fixed.
The trick to an overweight landing is to make sure and lay it down gently. You sure don't want to make a Navy carrier landing when you're at max gross. If you "kiss it on" at max gross, the airplane really won't know the difference.
Think about this.. it leaves the earth at max gross, running down the runway at speeds very close to what you'll be rolling out at. As long as you don't hammer it on, there's really no problem. I've done it more than once.
Given the choice of landing overweight at Edwards or LAX and a full 747 loaded to the max for a flight to England what would you choose?
-
Originally posted by Toad
.e 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.
Yes indeed, it just depends on how scary the EGT reading gets. You should have seen some of the turbine blades we used to get into the shop. They were like burnt twigs sometimes. You could always tell the 'good' airlines' from the 'bad' by the state of their hot end.
-
LAX.
Can't tell you how many times we practiced that exact scenario in the sim. Lose one one takeoff, clean up, run the checklist on the downwind, normal checklists on vector to ILS final to full stop overweight landing. It's all part of the drill.
As I said, landing at max gross isn't a big deal at all. At least it shouldn't be for any Captain holding the title.
Ever heard "It's always better to be down here wishing you were up there than to be up there wishing you were down here." ?
-
A question Toad. What is the SOP for your outfit if you lose an engine in cruise, 4 engined and 2 engined? Is it the nearest suitable or continue to the destination? I imagine for a twin it's the nearest but what of the 4 engine?
I ask because for example in the second incident the 744 flew eight hours back to LHR.
-
It gets down to ETOPS rules, but of course Toad is going to say nearest airport.
A 2 engine ETOP jet never gets out of a pre-determined flight path that will take them out of route that is far from making a safe diversion. That's why it takes alot of time to fly from NRT to SJC. Thay have to go over Alaska and whatnot.
-
In my time the only 4 engine aircraft we had were DC-8's. I never bid those and didn't fly them, so I don't recall their specs.
I did fly the L-1011, and "nearest suitable" was standard for that, although there could be extenuating or mitigating circumstances where that was not the case. This usually involved "Captain's discretion". Same for the two motor aircraft.
I can say that in our "culture" and I believe this is true for all US airlines, you're not going to "coast out" with an engine inoperative. You most certainly are not continuing to a long-range destination after shutting one down on takeoff.
On short-haul stuff, Birmingham, AL to Atlanta, GA.. yeah, if you lost an engine out of Birmingham, you'd probably go to ATL. By the time you got cleaned up and the checklists run, you'd be to ATL anyway and ATL is THE maintenance base.
But you're not going from LAX to ATL after losing one on takeoff. You most surely are not going LGW to ATL after losing one on takeoff.
Still, I can understand a different "culture". I'm sure in the BOAC days it was far better to press on home than land back at the jungle airstrip where they were filtering the gas through a chamois. ;) Stuff like that gets ingrained in the corporate culture.
Yeah, ETOPS are a different case and the procedures are pretty well nailed down and "boilerplate". Still, in an ETOPS aircraft you sure as heck aren't going to even enter the tracks with an engine failure. An ETOPS aircraft losing one on takeoff isn't going anywhere.
-
It gets down to ETOPS rules, but of course Toad is going to say nearest airport.
Should have said, Toad knows the rules, and of course he would say that, as it's obvious. Sounded slighted, not the intent on my part.
Just to clarify.
-
One more tidbit ETOPS or over water rules that get anal. My friend accidentally serviced both engines IDG's on a routine check, and so they had to fly from SJC down to L.A., keeping within the coast for an hour, till they could go over water to Hawaii. That's the rules.
Kinda makes the guy losing a entire engine actions suspect, huh?
-
But then a 747 isn't an ETOPS aircraft for obvious reasons.
As I said, I'm certain a US airline wouldn't have done what BA did. From the cockpit to VP Flight Ops, it would have been a unanimous "thumbs down".
That's why I'm interested in what our FAA has to say.
-
Oops, got sidetracked, sorry 'bout that.
I do find it cool you flew a L-1011's though. Eastern? I worked at EME in Chattanooga in 89ish. Dash 8's and horribly maintained jetstreams.
-
Delta. S/O and F/O, they retired them before I could hold Captain. Man, I'd have LOVED to fly the left seat on that airplane.
I'm Boeing-biased, but I'd make an exception for the L-10. One sweet machine, nothing but fond memories of it.
-
Interesting, never actually realised there was a difference. It is the culture I suppose. But then again, for the likes of BA the nearest suitable might not be a jungle strip but Azerbijan or Lagos or Karachi or something. :eek:
I worked for a cargo airline, I don't actually remember any engine problems on the 727's but the good old L188's had one or two. I remember one limping into Dublin on three. We couldn't fix it so it was ferried to EMA only to lose another on the flight over. But then again cargo doesn't complain.
While I worked for the engine shop. One of our customers had a single 707. He was an arms dealer. The 707 lost one and they wanted to divert to DUB fully loaded as it were. :eek: Permission was not granted, surprisingly enough.
-
Ah, Atlanta based. Im slow. Knew it was Delta, just had to put in the Eastern plug. I flew a Eastern 757 in 89 and the captain was all over the PA saying it was the best, fastest ship on the planet. Pry was at the time.
LOL. It is the biggest **** I ever had to work on. I hate it.
-
Hey BA its time to open the chequebook and buy......
(http://www.brettles.com/esp/photographs/airbus.gif)
;)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Hey BA its time to open the chequebook and buy......
(A380)
;)
Absolutely. I've heard that its computer simulated reliability is as good as the computer simulated flights it's made.
RIPLEY: How may drops is this for you, Lieutenant?
GORMAN: Thirty-eight... simulated.
-
How does an airline fly a new engine to a stranded plane?
-
It's called a Semi trailer Habu. The airlines don't shut off when you have a ground breaking question.
Are you going to be stupid all day?
-
It's pretty cool, actually. I don't know about other planes, but the 747 has a hardpoint on one of the wings where you can mount an extra engine so you can fly it to an airport where the ailing plane is waiting. It looks pretty neat, you have what looks like a 5 engine 747, except of course the ferried engine is just windmilling.
Here's a pic:
(http://www.simviation.com/gallery/76G08%20GAWNJqm%20B747%20engine%20ferry%20EGPK.jpg)
Edit:
Originally posted by Creamo
It's called a Semi trailer Habu. The airlines don't shut off when you have a ground breaking question.
Are you going to be stupid all day?
Ha ha ha ha! Remember to use mouthwash, the taste of your foot in your mouth is hard to get out otherwise.
-
Hey Chairboy,absolutely, fly simulation its safer :lol
-
Originally posted by Creamo
It's called a Semi trailer Habu. The airlines don't shut off when you have a ground breaking question.
Are you going to be stupid all day?
Creamo it was a legit question. I once flew to Lagos and they were taking an engine down there to a plane that was stuck for some reason.
How do they do it? Do you know?
-
Tell the new boss, Willie Walsh, Skydancer, Just been appointed today. Did a good job on Aer Lingus until he got fed up with the government faffing around. Veeeerrry interesting to see what he does with BA. $20 to JFK anyone? And lots of job cuts.
If he buys A380's they'll have to do a good deal. But BA is a traditional Boeing airline.
Habu, you can get an engine to stricken aircraft in a couple of ways.
The 747 can actually carry a fifth engine inboard of the working engine on the left wing. That is quite common but as often as not the engine is ferried in the back of a cargo aircraft chartered for the purpose. Quite expensive in fact. For a 747 you can always three engine ferry while empty.
Of course there is always a semi trailer as creamo says, air ride suspension of course.
Edit wow that was quick I must type faster.
-
Thanks for the information.
I did not remember if they had an extra one hanging off the wing of if they had used 3 and used the fourth spot to hang the ferried engine. That is why I asked the question. It might have been another example of a legitimate time when flying on 3 is allowed.
I did remember that it was hanging on the wing so that is why I asked.
I guess they had 5 on that flight.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
It would seem our FAA is acting as I supposed they would.
U.S. plans to act after 'careless' BA flight (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/07/news/faa.html)
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.
.
-
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?)
-
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...
-
I believe it to be a Luscomb, Del.
-
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 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/07/news/faa.html)
.
Toad,
Atleast in this case we both agree the FAA is acting rationally and properly in the interest of safety.
Wolf
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
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.
Yes, that sums it up quite nicely. It comes with the 4th stripe and those that earn that stripe and use it are always aware of the baggage like this that comes with it.
Scariest moment of my airline career was in "Charm School" the, week-long trainnig you get after earning your 4th stripe. There was a 2 hour briefing by the head company lawyer on all the things we were responsible for, could be held accountable for and nasty examples of previous Captain that ran afoul of the various supervising authorities. All of us went home that night wondering if we'd made a bargain with the devil.
Still, it was worth it and I wouldn't trade it for anything. In practice, it's not quite that grim. There have only been a few times that I was excessively scrutinized for my decisions and each time I ended up being complimented for a job well done.