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.

[FreedomCalls]

The IHT was part of the Washington Post family at the time of the WP/LATimes settlement with FR.

The NY Times bought out the WP share of the IHT last year.

[FreedomCalls]

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.

So what's the difference between buring more fuel due to an IFSD and burning more fuel due to excessive headwind? Planes divert to their alternate due to bad weather at their primary every day. It's not a big deal.

[Larry Lucido]

Interesting news report with video of the "Gimli Glider" here. Apparently the pilot converted kg's to lb's, and had half as much fuel as he thought he did. D'oh.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-69-240-1155-20/that_was_then/life_society/gimli_glider

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

[Paleo Conservative]

The NY Times bought out the WP share of the IHT last year.

I thought it was the Chicago Tribune that was bought out, hence the name.

[Larry Lucido]

Damn, where did that happen? Sounds like Japanese commentary in the background.

[PeterPuck]

how about the Air Transat flight that was forced to glide into the Azores in 2001... that was an Airbus A330

Just because Airbus is not an American made plane does not make it a fine aircraft.

Sounds like a bunch of kids arguing - my team is better than your team with absolutely no interest in the facts.

[PeterPuck]

it is not true

[supercat]

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?

Two-engine aircraft are designed to deal with the loss of any engine without danger. My question is whether a four-engine aircraft that is missing one will still have the safety margin of being able to withstand the loss of any other engine without danger. And asymmetrical thrust is my concern; on a 777, the engines are all located near the central axis, so the moment generated by assemmetrical thrust would be somewhat limitted. I would expect that on four-engine aircraft, the moment generated by using two same-side engines would be greater. Cutting back power on the outside engine could reduce this moment, but I don't know how much spare thrust is available. To be sure, I wouldn't expect the plane to fall out of the sky with two engines (since maintaining flight should require a lot less thrust than taking off) but I would think controllability would suffer greatly.

[FreedomCalls]

Nope. It was the NYT.

http://www.nytco.com/company-timeline-iht.html

[Western Phil]

"Remember, these things are controlled by French computers running French code. Sure, it probably passed the FAA certification tests, but do *you* want to trust a Frog computer to not suddenly decide that you're in-flight instead of taking off and cut power? I don't."

Good point - but I certainly don't care to fly on anything that uses a Windows operating system. The major point with the Airbus system is the no over-ride concept.

[ab01]

I don't know how heavy he was departing LAX, but if he was at max TKOF weight (870,000#), he would have had his hands full. You need to get down to max landing weight, or about 630,000 #. For certification, every commercial acft demonstrates its ability to land at the max tkof weight (and stop on the runway), but it is not a desirable situation. If he had lost another engine on the same side, he would have had to use a LOT of rudder, as well as dumping fuel immediately. As you know, more weight= more power required= more rudder + a turn towards the good engines. At 630,000# (max landing weight), it flys quite well on two engines. My problem with his decision is that he had very few places to divert to if he had lost the second engine. A great circle route places him well over some very desolate, nasty places. The North Atlantic isn't much better.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"The AirBus is just another dirty Fokker."

Hmmm, be careful how you pronounce that in company...:)

[Spktyr]

From what I read, it was the ground crew that screwed up and loaded the wrong amount in, and since the "fuel gauge" computer wasn't working, the pilot didn't know.

All in all, he managed to get safely get a 767 down with no thrust and only the ram air turbine generator providing power. From what I've read about the incident, he should not have been able to get the big airliner to glide nearly as far as he did. He obviously departed the recognized "recommended flight envelope" in order to do this. An Airbus product would have (assuming the control system was still getting power, ha ha) followed the max glide slope programmed into it and crashed since there is no override.

[carl in alaska]

I don't think it takes a couple of hours to dump fuel. There was a situation about twenty years ago when an Eastern Airlines mechanic in Miami forgot to reinstall oil seals in all three engines in a Lockheed L-1011. The oil was quickly burned up in all three engines and the pilot made a rapid emergency landing back in Miami. As I recall, the plane was only in the air for about 20 minutes and dumped fuel on the way home while over the Atlantic. I don't know if they dumped all the fuel, but they landed safely back in Miami.

I think this plane should have dumped fuel in the Atlantic and landed somewhere on the east coast for repairs. Considering that they didn't know for sure that the problem was isolated in one engine, it was reckless to continue on to Great Britain.

[Spktyr]

Good point - but I certainly don't care to fly on anything that uses a Windows operating system. The major point with the Airbus system is the no over-ride concept.

That's my biggest problem with the Airbus concept as well - no override and no manual backup. The Boeing approach is much better (IMHO), and it shows the Boeing heritage of building tough airplanes that can take major damage and keep flying (along with everything that implies).

[FreedomCalls]

Two-engine aircraft are designed to deal with the loss of any engine without danger.

And four-engine aircraft are designed to deal with the loss of any engine without any danger.

Two-engine aircraft are designed to deal with the loss of any engine without danger. My question is whether a four-engine aircraft that is missing one will still have the safety margin of being able to withstand the loss of any other engine without danger.

Listen to yourself! Are you not equally concerned with a two-engine aircraft losing another after losing one? Why not? Why do you consider it perfectly safe for a two-engine plane to lose one engine but not for a four-engine plane to lose one engine? You say "but what if it lost another"? Well, what if the two-engine plane lost another? That would concern me a heck of a lot more. But you simply dismiss it with "Two-engine aircraft are designed to deal with the loss of any engine without danger." But so are four-engine aircraft. You seem totally irrational.

To sum up your argument: it's a disaster for a four-engine plane to lose an engine becasue it might lose another and then it would only have two engines left even though it can still fly with two -- but that's a disaster. But for a two-engine plane to lose an engine, that's hunky-dory because they are "designed that way" and if they lose one they could never lose another even though that would leave them with NONE -- and that's perfectly safe.

[Western Phil]

This was shortly after the Canadians "went Metric." Who ever did the calculations was probably on the old system yet.

[FreedomCalls]

My problem with his decision is that he had very few places to divert to if he had lost the second engine. A great circle route places him well over some very desolate, nasty places.

Click on the link in my post #53. It shows the GC route from LAX to LHR. At no point in the entire route are they more than 60 minutes away from an airfield capable of handling a 747.