Posted on 03/07/2005 4:56:18 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
I think airlines should buy the 777 over the A340. The 777 is much better.
See it here:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Airbus320_trees.mpg
From what I understand, the Airbus is a "fly-by-wire" aircraft. There is no direct pilot cable control of moveable wing and tail surfaces. The computer flies it. No computer, no control.
Don't they fly a great circle route? I don't think that would take them across the US.
Do you have a reference to that? The IHT article says that the plane flew from Singapore six days later. And he was several hours into the flight already. What should he have done with a single engine out over Afghanistan? Land at Kabul for repairs?
I don't know how severe the manuver was, but something on the order of "hard banks to evade SAM missile" is evidently not possible for an Airbus.
Just what I read in 29.
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)?
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.
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.
Didn't the FAA give Boeing a hard time over the two engine 777, extra rigorious testing etc? I recall reading something along those lines.
Yes they did. Here's a link to a map showing their route. Notice the light circles. Those show the radius for airfields capable of handling a 747 within 60 minutes flying time. At no time in the whole route was he ever less than an hour away from the nearest airport.
It doesn't appear to be true.
What would be the range of the aircraft if it lost another engine on the same side? Three-engine aircraft can operate on any two, but I would expect a 4-engine aircraft to be problematic at best with two same-side engines; even the case of flying with near-left and far-right or vice versa would seem difficult (there's not a whole lot of extra thrust, and some would have to be wasted to keep things balanced).
You are much less safe flying over blue water with only three engines, because you can't climb to proper cruising altitude and so burn more fuel. Which is exactly what happened - the plane barely made it to Manchester.
Another aspect of the story that seems left out is that the decision to fly on saved British Airways over $200k in compensation they would have been required to pay. What a coincidence - the compensation regs come into force on 1 March and suddenly BA allows its planes to fly minus one engine.
Fly Boeing. But don't fly BA.
The IHT was part of the Washington Post family at the time of the WP/LATimes settlement with FR.
A few weeks ago I listened as an airline captain explained why some large planes had two engines and some had four. 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.
Read it again. The A310 and 777 are not three-engine aircraft -- they are two-engine aircraft and thousands of them cross the Atlantic every day. Are you worried about asymmetrical thrust on one of those after losing an engine?
My father also was a 747 Capt. in the 1980's.
He lost 2 engines on takeoff,almost simultaneously, out of Narita. Dumped a lot of fuel (25 min.) into the sea.
Said it was very un-nerving trying to fly (near max.) 800,000 lbs. on two engines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.