U.S. plans to act after 'careless' BA flight (FAA weighs steps over 747's long route w/1 engine out)

International Herald Tribune ^ | Tuesday, March 8, 2005 | Don Phillips

[Paleo Conservative]

WASHINGTON Federal Aviation Administration officials said on Monday that they were preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because of the airline's decision to allow a Boeing 747 to fly from California to England with one engine inoperable. Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action against British Airways because such issues would be handled by Britain.

But senior U.S. aviation officials have become so concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors in London that they were preparing direct action.

"We will pursue every legal option available to us," said an FAA spokeswoman, Laura Brown.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments.

"I am surprised that anyone at the FAA would make such statements," said Steve Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

In those rigorous tests, the 777 was flown on only one engine ( yes, that is correct, one engine ) , the 777 is designed to fly on one engine.
I have a book on the Boeing 747 called: Boeing 747
Design and development since 1969
by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner.
You would be amazed what amount of testing, torturer, and abuse they put those planes through before they are certified.
The wing load testing on the 747, they took weights and pulleys and bent the wing in testing to the point were it was flexed up in the air 30 feet before it broke, and in their testing, Boeing discovered that the wing of the 747 was " STRONGER " than they realized, and it was not necessary to " BEEF UP THE WING " .

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"Don't they fly a great circle route? I don't think that would take them across the US."
"The great circle route from LA to London passes pretty close to Toronto."

The typical flight path from LA to London - LA to Vegas; head north from Vegas over Salt Lake; then over Idaho & Montana into Canada; over Hudsons Bay (as your chart shows); then over Greenland, sometimes far enough north to also fly over Iceland; southward from there over Scotland and on to London. The normal flight path over Canada is somewhat farther north than Toronto.

I have made this flight, LA to London or London to LA a couple dozen times, either in DC-10's or 747's. Even enjoyed a visit to the cockpit on a DC-10 once when we were over Greenland. I always enjoyed the trip.

[BurbankKarl]

Sorry, but when they roll an ALERT 3 at LAX, there is concern...


But the controller handling the Boeing 747 after it took off from LAX said that the pilot told him that airline officials instructed him to continue on to London's Heathrow International Airport or as far as he could get on three engines, according to Anthony Vella, National Air Traffic Controllers Association representative at a radar facility north of San Diego that handles low altitude airplanes near airports.

The controller inferred from the pilot's demeanor and tone of voice that he disagreed with the decision, Vella said.

"The controller felt the pilot was not happy with the decision but followed company guidance," he said.

The veteran controller who was handling the 747 as it departed from LAX said he has never seen a plane continue on to its destination after blowing an engine on takeoff. Every other time, the aircraft has returned to LAX, he said.

---

Elliot Brann, the LAX controller who was handling the plane as it roared down the runway at 8:45 p.m., said flames began shooting from the engine when the aircraft was about three-quarters of the way into its takeoff roll. When it was just past the shoreline, a huge ball of bright orange flame erupted from the engine.

"I thought it blew up, I really did," said Brann, who is the regional runway safety representative for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "It was pretty frightening."

The LAX control tower called out fire engines, expecting the pilot would soon return to the airport. Brann said he has witnessed five or six engine blowouts in his 17 years at L.A. Tower, and pilots opted to return each time. Controllers were shocked when they learned that the plane was proceeding to its destination.

"We were saying, you've got to be kidding," Brann said. "How they continued on, I don't know."

The pilot made two large circles over Santa Monica Bay while conferring by radio with British Airways technicians in London before deciding to continue on his trip, according to airline officials.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/1337802.html

[supercat]

Really? What about one-engined planes?

I believe they're supposed to be able to land safely if the engine fails at almost any time. I don't think most runways are long enough to completely give them that luxury (if a plane lost power just before it had enough airspeed+altitude to circle back for a landing, I don't think there'd be anough runway left for a safe landing) but even there I suspect most planes will allow for a crash landing with a pretty good likelihood of the people surviving.

[supercat]

I should clarify: I believe one-engine planes are required to be controllable if the engine quits at any time, and should be able to land as safely as would be possible on available terrain.

[Nowhere Man]

10-4. The flight was not jeapordized in any way by flying on three engines - it could have continued with two, for that matter. The FAA picks its fights poorly, IMO.

I know for the longest time until the 757 and 767 came out, there were international regulations that all transoceanic planes must have 3 or 4 engines so you had your planes like the DC-4 thru 7, the Boeing Stratoliner, the Lockheed Electra and when the jets came around, the 707, DC-8, DC-10, Lockheed L-1011, 747 and others. The story is that if an engine conked out, you still had 2 or 3 left.

I don't know how true this is, but I had a friend in high school that told me that his father flew back from Vietnam on a C-141 with only one engine running, I can see two engines but one would be dubious at best.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

One could probably take out half the studs in a typical residential wall without affecting the structural integrity of the building; the requrement of having studs every 16" is to allow people to lean on walls without them bending--not because it's necessary to support the weight of the roof or upper floors.

Wall studs are spaced at 16 inches mostly for the convenience of modular wall board which comes in increments convenient for this spacing. As a result many walls have far more strength than needed for carrying loads.

This is not the case with floors and roofs. They are sized more for strength.

For non residential buildings, you can count on the savvy owner to make designers just provide enough strength to meet codes.

[Paleo Conservative]

I think this plane should have dumped fuel in the Atlantic and landed somewhere on the east coast for repairs.

Considering it took off from LAX it started out over the Pacific. In order to dump fuel over the Atlantice, it would have to cross the US first.

The Miami incident was an emergency landing. I not sure if they got down to the recommended maximum landing weight or not. They didn't have much choice, because the engines weren't going to last very long.

Considering the flight path was going to be over land for the first few hours anyway, why dump fuel when it could be burned off enroute to an alternate destination where the passengers could be switched to another plane? The other three engines seemed to be working fine. It would seem to me that flying over the continental US with three engines working would not be very risky considering the number of airports available for diversion if necessary.

[swordfish71]

ping for later

[supercat]

Wall studs are spaced at 16 inches mostly for the convenience of modular wall board which comes in increments convenient for this spacing.

Right, but the design reason for that standard has to do, I suspect, with making the walls be able to withstand reasonable 'point' horizontal loads without the wall materials having to be excessively thick.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

On that DC- 10 , the 3 rd engine ( tail engine on top of the plane in the vertical stabilizer ) is what malfunction, the fan blade hub basically disintegrated, and the shrapnel hit the electric and hydraulic lines going to the rudder and elevators.
If those hydraulic lines were placed in the floor under passenger deck, those pilots of that DC - 10 would have had control of that plane, and it might not have been as disastrous as it was.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

How is crossing the Atlantic with three engines (a 747 with one out) any less safe than crossing the Atlantic with two engines (on a two-engine A310 or 777)?

Presumably the twin engine planes are designed to fly on one engine. And presummably the four engine planes are design to fly on two engines. Three out of four would seem better than one out of two. But this is not the point. Flying on three engines is less safe than flying on four. When you have the whole length of the United States to land for repairs but don't, one has to conclude British Air will take unnecessary risks with passenger's lives. I can easily imagine unfavorable prevailing winds and being forced to fly less efficiently at lower altitudes could have caused this flight more trouble than it did.

[FreedomCalls]

The story says; " 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."

That's nice, but it completely contradicts what you said: "The next day that same plane flew to India on three engines." As I said, the facts in your quote are not true. India is not Singapore. The next day is not six days later. Outbound is not inbound.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

On the video I got on both the 747 and the 777, they say, that the 777 basically was design to fly on only one engine.
In the testing of the 777, they had to do some testing with only one engine running.
You'll be amazed in what kind of testing they put these planes through, the torture testing, and abuse, before they certify these planes.
In one test of the 777, the pilot had to land the plane, and manage to stop the plane with only the wheel breaks ( not the speed breaks in the wings, and the reverse thrusters ) only the breaks in the landing gears were used, and the plane had to sit there for 5 ( I have to watch the video again ) or 10 mins, before the fire department can come and cool the breaks down, but, the 777 passed with flying ( pardon the pun ) colors in that test.
In most testing that they put new airframes through, they either meet or exceed the requirements on that design in the testing.

[Paleo Conservative]

On the other hand, most buildings have many single-point entities whose failure would cause a significant partial or total collapse. Bridges are even worse: a failure of one of the main cables on a suspension bridge could topple the whole thing. Of course, most of the single-point-failure items are rated to withstand loads sufficiently in excess of the loads they'll face that failure is unlikely.

But those cables are made of thousands of individual strands fo steel wire so there is redundancy built in. A flaw or break in one wire won't cause the whole cable to fail. Also, the cables eventually do get replaced as part of their maintenance.

[FreedomCalls]

Flying on three engines is less safe than flying on four.

But is it less safe than flying on two? Considering that it can actually fly the 60 minute flight path to a divert airfield on just one, flying on three would still leave you two more improbable failures away from declaring an emergency, while flying on two (A310, 777) puts you just one failure away from an emergency.

[Fred Hayek]

All this reminds me of when Tex Johnson did a one-gee barrel roll with the 707 prototype in front of a demo crowd. Thus we had the KC/EC/RC-135's and the VC-137.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I have seen pictures of a 747 with 5 engines on the wings, the 5 th engine was only being carry to another destination for another plane.
About that modification on that 747 that ferries the space shuttle to Florida ?
The other modifications are ?
They had to do some structural beefing up modifications , and, they had to modify the vertical stabilizer, because the space shuttle on top of the 747 caused turbulence, and diminished the pilots ability to control the plane.
They had to ( looks like training wheels on a bike, or ears, ) attach mini vertical stabilizers to the main vertical stabilizer to allow the pilot to control the 747.
Just take a look at that huge Russian giant of a plane ? it also has those " dual mini vertical stabilizers " that looks like ears , but, the Russian plane does not have a main rear stabilizer.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Then Pray