British Airways 747 loses engine, Again

[Habu]

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.

[Toad]

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".

[Creamo]

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.

[Toad]

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.

[Habu]

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.

[Creamo]

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?

[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.

[Habu]

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.

[Habu]

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?

[cpxxx]

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.

[Toad]

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." ?

[cpxxx]

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.

[Creamo]

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.

[Toad]

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.

[Creamo]

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.