British Airways Action Attracts FAA Questions

Washington Post ^ | March 1, 2005 | Sara Kehaulani Goo

[ConservativeStatement]

The Federal Aviation Administration said it is questioning British officials about a British Airways jet that headed for London's Heathrow airport from Los Angeles with only three of its four engines in operation. After an engine failed shortly after takeoff, the flight crew decided to continue to London but had to make an emergency landing in Manchester, England.

[ConservativeStatement]

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece on this, too, today.

[garyhope]

Manchester or London, whats the difference on an over 5000k flight? I've flown into Manchester several times, It's still a long flight even from Chicago or JFK.

[billorites]

FAR 91.13 is the reg they'd nail him on:

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

[Don Corleone]

The question the FAA always asks is.."Where were you when the FIRST engine failed? Baaaaad choice by the captain here!

[billorites]

"After an engine failed shortly after takeoff, the flight crew decided to continue to London"

If I know the way FSDO operations inspectors think, and I believe I do, this action will be considered "careless and reckless" on the face of it.

[jaydubya2]

I'm not sure if international carriers are subject to this type of regulation from the FAA.

[billorites]

"So you'd have to prove the plane was operated in such a manner ... where's the reg state you have to have all engines functioning????"

No, there is no such reg. Minimum fuel requirements for IFR flights do apply though, and an engine failure at the outset of the flight changed everything. The pilot elected to continue on nonetheless.

FAR 91.167 applies...

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to -- (1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing; (2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and (3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed. (b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if: (1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; and (2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate the following: (i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute miles...

[billorites]

"I'm not sure if international carriers are subject to this type of regulation from the FAA."

I can assure you that they are.

[bill1952]

Still a tough one, as they are not a part 91 operation.

But you may be right.
The FSDO in charge will probably do little, but really, I would be appalled to be a passenger on that flight.

I've been on flights that were canceled for way less than that, but I really don't know the operating rules for the 747.
If they state that the AC is okay to go with 3 engines, then it's a legal tossup.
But, I don't think that legal should be the determining factor...
Still, I understand your point.

[jaydubya2]

Bill,
Where does FAA juridiction end? After crossing into international waters?
Thanks

[bill1952]

Absolutely correct that they are covered by relevant FAA regs, despite the best efforts of the UN.

[bill1952]

Depends on if they are domestic or foreign carriers, but I assure you as well, that they have to sign on to all FAA regs if they want to fly into this country.

I'm not up to date on the latest regs since 2004.

[xjcsa]

bump for later

[billorites]

It's not a Part 91 operation, but 91.13 still applies.

Truth be told, whether or not this incident results in an enforcement action will be decided at a level higher than that of the lowly operations inspectors at Los Angeles FSDO.

I think about how I could defend continuing a transoceanic flight of that length after having suffered an, apparently, catastrophic engine failure at the outset.

I can't even begin to figure out how that would impact fuel calculations or how I'd puzzle that out. I presume their training does.

It appears the PIC was strong armed by London FlightOps to continue.

I would like to think that I would have opted to abort, dump and land, then figure it out on the ground.

But, I wasn't there...

[Kirkwood]

Whatever BA gained by continuing the flight, they will lose ten-fold in the bad publicity. I wouldn't fly any carrier that loses an engine on take-off and chooses to continue a trans-oceanic flight no matter what the regulations say. Gee, if the plane flies so well on 3 engines, then why don't they shut one (or more) down on all their flights? Guess there is a reason they don't purposely do that.

[bill1952]

"I can't even begin to figure out how that would impact fuel calculations or how I'd puzzle that out. I presume their training does. "

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make. (I wouldn't like to be there)

If their POH reads that they can continue in this event, then the FAA is bound by it, as they did approve that POH, correct?

I know that 91.13 is a darn good catchall, but again, I'm not certified in 747 ops, so I really don't know, and I may very well be wrong.

[bill1952]

Uhhh, not to be the Devils advocate, but some modern 2 engine passenger AC are rated to shut down one engine in flight, and do so to reach the destination.

Still, I agree with you totally about the 747.