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 ...
The Azores were well within the glideslope of the plane at the altitude he was at. Much longer and his batteries would have died (followed by everyone else on the plane), I suspect.
It has nothing to do with the fact that it's not an American aircraft. The Brits, Canadians, and Japanese build fine planes. My problem is specifically with Airbus and their concepts and execution thereof.
Here's a few of my favorite "Airbus Hits":
Airbus A300-600: Excessive rudder sensitivity (11/12/01)
Airbus A300-600: Inability to override autopilot (4/26/94)
Airbus A310: Inability to override autopilot (2/11/91)
Airbus A320: Control problems (8/26/93, 2/7/01, 3/17/01)
Airbus A330: Control problems (6/30/94)
Airbus A330: Fuel system (8/24/01)
Airbus A340: Control problems (can't find the date)
Anyone seeing a pattern here?
Makes me wonder what might have happened if United 232 in Sioux City had been a comparable Airbus instead of a DC-10. Of course, I don't know that a catastrophic engine failure would have led to a similar loss of hydraulics.
true enough. You still gotta design the bird to be able to fly when you lose one or two engines. Gotta love that.
You may be right. Did you check the weather at all of the destinations? How many hotels are available in Goose Bay? There are a lot of variables that go into a decision like this captain made. I have the feeling that the decision to continue was made in London, not in the cockpit. I just don't believe that saving the company a hundred grand or so is very high on the list of factors. At least I made it to retirement. Lets see if Capt BA is so lucky. Cheers.
My thoughts too. How did they eliminate say fuel contamination? Other than that the real issue is governmental overreach.
Boeing builds better planes period.
"I'm not certain the flight would be safe if the other engine on the same side of the aircraft failed."
Any two engines on a 747 will deliver it safely to a destination. A 747 flight over the Pacific a few years ago, destination Japan, had an engine go out, then a 2nd engine quit, then a 3rd engine shut down - the plane landed safely.
The 747 is "over-engineered" for safety. It has lifting capacity well in excess of its payload in cubic feet. Many space shuttle flights ended on a runway in California - the shuttles were all piggy-backed to Cape Canaveral on a 747. The only engineering differences between that 747 and the ones we might fly were the "brackets" or "attachments" to hold the shuttle in place.
About 25 years ago I was on a BA 747 bound from Los Angeles to London. Over Las Vegas the pilot announced that a problem with loss of oil pressure in the #3 engine meant that they had had to shut it down. He told us that we had reduced altitude to 24,000 ft and that we had a new destination - New York, saying that they obviously did not want to fly out over the ocean on three engines. We landed at JFK, were put up in a hotel for about 5 hours while they replaced the engine, then we continued on to London, same plane. Much more prudent than dumping fuel and returning to LA. I also think that this would have been much more prudent than continuing on across the Atlantic on the three engines. Saying that, I do not question the 747's capabilities.
BA 747's used Rolls Royce engines 25 years ago, I assume that is still true, but I don't know. Are those engines more suseptible to problems? I see this same plane had a recurrance of engine problems a couple weeks later. Besides my experience related here, I know personally of another instance where a BA 747 had to make an unscheduled landing because of engine failure - in Nairobi, on a flight from London to South Africa. The interesting part of that is that a replacement engine was flown into Nairobi to replace the failed engine, and the replaced engine was strapped onto the wing of that 747 for the continuation of that flight to Johannesburg.
No, both the Herald and the Tribune were long defunct New York papers. The Tribune was Horace Greeley's ("Go west, young man") paper. The Herald was best known for giving its name to Herald Square in New York.
"On October 4, 1887, Bennett Jr. launched The New York Herald's European edition in Paris, France. Following Gordon Bennett's death, the New York Herald was merged with its bitter rival, the New York Tribune, in 1922. In 1959, the New York Herald Tribune and its European edition were sold to John Hay Whitney, the then U.S. ambassador to Britain. In 1966 the New York paper ceased publication, and the Washington Post and the New York Times acquired joint control of the Paris paper, renaming it the International Herald Tribune. Now owned 100% by the New York Times, the paper remains an important and influential English language paper, printed at 26 sites around the world and for sale in more than 180 countries."
http://www.answers.com/topic/new-york-herald
My guess? 296 fatalities instead of 111, and a big smoldering crater somewhere in Iowa.
Especially with the flaps extended. LOL
I thought that was the point of making them have more engines than they needed.
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."
On a two-engine plane, there would be no question but that the loss of a single engine would warrant landing the plane as quickly as safely practical. The question is whether the loss of a single engine on a four-engine plane should warrant an immediate landing, or if the plane should continue toward the planned destination. If the four-engine plane which is operating on only three-engines could safely withstand the loss of any other engine, then such a plane operating on three-engines would have about the same safety margin as a two-engine plane operating on both engines. If the loss of another engine could create a dangerous situation, however, then the plane would not have the same safety margin as a two-engine plane.
Really? What about one-engined planes? |>]
I think she would agree with that description about the plane designers' philosophy.
Well, since BA initially said they were at altitude when the failure occured, and not during takeoff, I am sure the FAA is looking to investigate the contridiction in statements.
If BA doesn't want to land at LAX anymore, be my guest. Emirates Air will take their space.
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.