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.

[Gunrunner2]

In all cases nearest suitable airport is key, and that means landing as soon as practical, not as a soon as possible. The regs are not supporting flying half-way around the world with a failed engine. It is saying you find an airport that is suitable and land.

[Gunrunner2]

>>He said if you lose an engine on a four engine plane, it's not even an emergency. You simple continue on to your destination.<<

Either he was pulling your leg or he was an idiot.

[Yo-Yo]

Not allowing to override the computer? That's a flying deathtrap!

That's nonsense. Do you want to override the antilock brakes on your car, too? The Airbus is a completely fly-by-wire design, as is the Boeing 777. The Boeing design will let the pilots place the aircraft into an unrecoverable stall, while the Airbus system will let the pilots go right up to the limit but no further. Which is better? Depends on the programming, I suppose, but I don't disable the antilock brakes on my car because I think I know better than the car's computer how hard to stomp on the brakes in an emergency.

Now, that being said, I'll stick with Boeing, too. Just not for this reason.

[Psycho_Bunny]

The thing about a fail-safe system is that once the fail-safe is utilized the system is no longer fail-safe.

 

[cynicom]

I hope they ban the captain from American airspace.

[Gunrunner2]

>>I believe one-engine planes are required to be controllable if the engine quits at any time<<

Not really.

Center-line thrust vs non-center-line thrust.

There are aircraft where they lose rudder authority before stalling. Also, there are some aircraft where if they lose an engine they simply don't have the power to continue takeoff. Also, there are some conditions where an aircraft is above abort speed but below continuation speed, thereby meaning they neither have the power to takeoff not runway length to abort.

[nikos1121]

"The issue is not whether the plane could have made it, it's about the wisdom of starting a long flight with such a major equipment failure. Unless you are certain that the failure is isolated to the engine and won't cause malfunctions elsewhere, the most responsible course of action is to land ASAP."

I tend to agree, so I guess this begs the question. "why did they dicide not to do this?"

God, it sure speaks well for Boeing planes, and I understand the one coming out is even more reliable.

nick

[Gunrunner2]

Interesting but he is what is wrong.

>>Hyperthetically: We have an engine surge and the parameters indicate no damage or adverse effects to the aircraft. <<

His whole process is based upon an assumption that there was nothing more than an "engine surge," nothing else. Question: How does he KNOW there was "no damage." Heck, the engine spit fire out the back and ATC reported seeing fire and this situation clearly proves there was damage.

His whole thought process should be geared to acting safely because HE DOES NOT KNOW what caused the engine to fall apart and he doe NOT KNOW if there is other damage that may manifest itself if the flight is continued.

This was not a case of an auto-throttle "burp," but something seriously wrong and damage being done.

[Gunrunner2]

And from that link you provided:

>>Was just talking with a NWA mechanic about the report of visible flames etc. coming from the back of an engine and he maintains that usually indicates "shelling" of an engine; ie: the expulsion of blades resulting from an uncontained or contained failure.

His point was there is no way to know and if there was molten metal coming out the back, the possibility of damage to either the flaps or horizontal stab is distinct, and if there was damage (in the form of skin damage), then over ten hours the potential of that damage to propogate was certain. <<

Like we said. . .he did not KNOW if there was damage and to what extent.

[Yo-Yo]

Final Outcome Review again:

Was it a safe landing? Yes

Was a decision process used throughout with review? Yes

Were risk factors understood and acted upon ? Yes.

*Snip*

This is exactly the sort of thinking that allowed British Airways to repeat this stunt a second time, and also allowed NASA to continue to launch Shuttles with foam shedding from the External Tank.

Did the Shuttle land safely after every incident of foam striking the Shuttle? Yes (until the last time.)

[Gunrunner2]

Anti-lock brakes are not what concern.

What concerns is the limitations of flight controls.

Airbus had a situation where an aircraft crashed because the aircraft did not allow increased throttles.

Pilot controls are sometimes necessary to be in excess of programmed expectations.

When allowing a computer to make judgment calls you are in dangerous territory.

[FreedomCalls]

What you are missing is that the engine did not "fail." It was shut down. They contemplated restarting it even, but decided to continue on with it shut down after consulting the mechanics at BA. There was no "molten metal" shooting out the back. No blade failure. It was apparently a simple "compressor stall" which to the uninitiated looks a lot worse that it is. Flames will shoot out the front and back at the same time and the engine will show an increased EGT momentarily. They could have restarted it, but shut it down and continued on instead. It's not an uncommon occurrence.

Here's a video of a series of compressor stalls. It looks and sounds a lot worse than it is. Click on the image to see the movie.

[Mr. Jeeves]

By the way, British Air did not learn their lesson. The next day that same plane flew to India on three engines.

This sounds like the same thing that happens whenever a "cost control" culture takes over a major corporation. Employees who are afraid to spend money, no matter what the circumstance, end up making dangerous, short-sighted decisions.

I'll bet the CFO of British Airways is going to have some explaining to do to the board of directors.

[brooklin]

Thanks. Why would BA do something like this?

[Gunrunner2]

The engine DID fail. It spit fire out the back. Shutting down the engine was to remove the fire source.

Having had a few compressor stalls myself, it IS serious. (And compressor stalls have fire shoot out the front as well as the back).

There is no such thing as a "simple compressor stall." After a compressor stall you have no idea what damage has been done or if it had thrown a blade or not. You simply don't know.

Compressor stalls cause significant damage, and it could have been from bird ingestion to material failure. . .you have no idea. What you do know is damage was done and you have no idea what other damage might have been done as well.

The prudent thing is to abort and land.

It is a good thing you do not fly. . .but then again, if you did, and if you ever experienced a compressor stall or loss of an engine during a critical part of flight, you would have a whole different perspective.

Fact is, the pilots made the wrong decision. Period.

[FreedomCalls]

The prudent thing is to abort and land.

But not if aborting is less safe than continuing on.

[GBA]

I've read your posts and your profile and am the first to admit that you are one of the most knowledgeable here about aviation. So when I find myself on the opposite side of this story from you, I am prepared to admit I'm wrong. However, I am hoping you would help me understand what the pilot might have been dealing with.

The assumption is that the B747 captain should have landed asap. But if the plane was carrying a full load of fuel, wouldn't it have been too heavy to land safely? If so, how long would it have taken to dump enough fuel to get down to max. landing weight?

I agree that there was damage, maybe beyond that one engine, but if the a/c was indicating that there were no other troubles and you're too heavy to land immediately, why not continue on, monitoring the situation with one eye and keeping alternate in mind with the other? From what others have said, that is what the FAA regs and the POH recommend.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but there has been so much emotional reaction from others on this topic I was hoping that you might help me and perhaps others to see the incident more clearly.

[Gunrunner2]

Thanks for your thoughtful post and the kind words.

Pilots must make judgment calls all the time, and during emergencies that is when they really earn the big bucks they are paid. In this case, I suggest the pilot abdicated his responsibility by allowing some ground-based "manager" in London decide what is a safe course of action. The pilot was flying the jet. The pilot experienced the event. The pilot knew something was wrong, very wrong, and the pilot knows best what is a safe and sound course of action.

Given that the pilot did not know if there was additional damage I submit the prudent course of action would have been to dump gas and land as soon as practicable, not necessarily as soon as possible. A difference. Many emergencies do not require an immediate landing, whereas some do and damned the gross weight.

Dumping gas on a 747 is something I am not familiar with. However, if he remained in the local area and if something else happened (likely/possible) he would have been basically on final approach and able to land ASAP if need be. If he continued on he would be (at times) over an hour away from a suitable landing field. Not good.

FAA regs recommend courses of action but at no time are the regs justification to violate the principles of sound judgment. So, FAA regs may offer guidance they may not be all-encompassing directive regarding the safe operation of your aircraft. The pilot is the ultimate authority to ensure safe operation of the aircraft.

That said, if you do have an emergency and violate regulations, the FAA will investigate and assess if your actions were prudent. Caution in how you operate an aircraft is the watchword here. No one blames a pilot for being safe. Everyone blames a pilot when he exercises poor judgment and opewrates an aircraft in an unsafe manner, and rightfully so.

I hope my comments help. I fault the pilot for not acting as a pilot.

[GBA]

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to explain your take on the story. Clearly, the vast majority of those who posted on this story agree with you and will approve of the FAA's actions post event. It will be interesting to follow this case.

The main thing is that, other than landing at their alternate, things turned out ok for the passengers. Clearly, there is something wrong with that a/c as it suffered another engine failure not long after this one.

Thanks again. I hope to one day find out just how many beers/drinks/etc. it take to get you to tell some of your F-15 and A-10 stories.

[Gunrunner2]

Gotcha. . . .and it won't take much to tell those stories, as Fighter Pilots are not shy. . .and if you are a nice Bimbet in a bar, we positively chatty.

Cheers!