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]

Well, yes, it was certified to fly 180 mins of flying time on one engine to be able to fly safely to the nearest available airport in the event that one engine fails.

[longtermmemmory]

must be hiring based on politics instead of merits.

[sam_paine]

Didn't you see that Twilight Zone with Shatner?

[investigateworld]

Question from a low time Private pilot. Could the 747 handle it if both engines on a wing went out?

[sam_paine]

Focus on what point you're arguing! Notice that I never quarrelled with you on what you're NOW going on about.

Admit you jumped the shark and let's get on with freeping!

[Spktyr]

They've never gone anywhere with the closed control system - they just keep revising it to keep it from making prior mistakes. Of course, one of these days, the codebase is going to get too large and too cumbersome, and then we'll see a bunch of really confused Airbus airplanes start crashing for no apparent reason - or so I fear. That doesn't even account for French QC or lack thereof.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Well, as long as the 747 can handle that extra weight of that 5 th engine being ferried to it's destination, and there are no control and balance problems in handling the plane, then, it's no problem.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

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.

My original point was that it was a bad judgment for British Air to fly on three engines from LA to London. I once flew British Air. I will never again.

To answer your question about four engine craft versus two, you need to know what the reliability the engines are rated for each design. I would imagine that the Federal government requires a performance standard for airliner reliability. This means the designer of two engine aircraft have got to provide the same reliability that a four engine aircraft would have. They both have to have the same chance of meeting that standard. More reliable engines is one way to solve the design problem.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I think, I think I also saw a take on that same thing on a Wanerbrothers ( either bugs bunny, or elmerfudd ) cartoon.

[HolgerDansk]

A lot of people seem to be under the mistaken impression that aircraft are equipped with multiple engines for saftey and redundancy. The reality is of course that those extra engines are there for performance -- speed and lifting capacity -- and not saftey. And in fact, those multiple engines have plenty of common failure modes -- common fuel systems, control systems, maintenance screwups, and of course if one engine shreds itself, it may shrapnel the engine next to it.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Neither can a AirRUST ( Airbus ) survive this incident of a 747SP on Febuary 5 , 1985.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/new%20pages/103.htm
This story is a testament on how well and the enormous structural strength of the 747-SP.
Once the pilot and flight crew gained control of the aircraft ( After the plane fell into a spiral dive at the speed of sound, the flight crew was fighting for control of the 747 SP as pieces of the control surfaces and under carriage were ripped off ) the plane still managed to land safely at San Francisco airport.
Here is the same plane 8 years later after this incident.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/067630/L

[ab01]

Yes, it flys quite well with two engines out. Sent you a private mail with more info.

[Paleo Conservative]

The reality is of course that those extra engines are there for performance -- speed and lifting capacity -- and not saftey. And in fact, those multiple engines have plenty of common failure modes -- common fuel systems, control systems, maintenance screwups, and of course if one engine shreds itself, it may shrapnel the engine next to it.

They are there for both performance and redundancy. A twin engined plane must be able to take off even if one engine shuts down at the most critical time during takeoff. Of course it won't be a low noise takeoff for people near the airport but it will take off on one engine. Because of the reserve power required for twin engined planes, they have much more than enough power than multiengined planes of the same size. In normal operations when both engines are working, this allows them to climb faster to cruising altitude and decreases the noise around the airport.

ETOPS rules require twin engined planes that are flown more than 60 minutes from a possible diversion airport to have engines and other critical systems maintained by different crews. Mainetenance crews are not allowed to service both engines at the same time. This is done precisely to prevent the same mistake being made in maintaining them. It was improper procedures identically performed on all three engines during an oil change that caused the problem with the L-1011 in Miami. Many operators of three and four engined aircraft have started using ETOPS rules for maintenance even though they are not presently required, because it improves the reliability of they planes and cuts operating costs.

[Squawk 8888]

I understand your point that proceeding as filed was not entirely reckless, however the fact that they had to declare a fuel emergency shows that at minimum, they made an error in judgement about their range. They should have been aware far sooner that they would need a closer alternate.

[Gunrunner2]

>>"I am surprised that anyone at the FAA would make such statements,"<<


I'm surprised BA took the action they did.

[Gunrunner2]

>>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.<<

Not so. The loss of an engine on takeoff is a serious matter. And once airborne the prudent course of action is to abort and land.

The reason are simple, really;

1) You have no idea what caused the engine failure in the first place---and that reason may cause the other engines to fail

2) When the engine failed you have no idea if any structural damage was done to the engine, engine mounts or the airframe, and over the Atlantic is not the place to find out damage was done when the engine falls off. (And recall the tower reported seeing engine problems, so there was some spectacular failures going on.)

3) You don't know if the other engines are about to fail because the failed engine threw a blade or introduced FOD damage that will cause the other engines to fail.

Too many unknowns.

Basically, you have no idea if the aircraft/engines suffered additional damage and, by the way, if flying on 3-engines is no big deal then heck, why not taxi and takeoff with 3-engines if you have an engine failure in the chocks.

The pilots were wrong in this case and the London supervisors were also wrong.

The FAA has it right in this case (every once in a while the FAA get's it right).

[Gunrunner2]

Exactly

[Gunrunner2]

>>Any aircraft is required to be able to takeoff if one engine shuts down during takeoff.<<

Ahhhh. . .explain that, please. (Decision-speed, abort speed, continuation speed, take-off Cat I, II, II. . .etc.