Crossing Atlantic Engine Out To Save Money

[Big Beer Belly]

I guess I missed the part where these BA 747 heros were being shot at or dropping bombs on the enemy. Why else would one not default to the safest course of action and ... DING...DING...DING ... turn around and land the plane! Had these guys done that NO ONE would be talking about either of these incidents.

Sure there's no financial pressure to continue to destination.

 

[klhoard]

.
.
I really don't see what the big deal is. I just crossed the Atlantic twice with only three operating engines.
.
.

 

[bocefus]

"Okay...........how would this incident relate to any ETOP scenarios? Can't see the connection here. Why do you think this is bound to happen? The last I heard regarding the JAA was sniffying around the issue but no one in the US felt it necessary. Also since Airbus is big on the four engine concept along with Falcon's three engine aircraft I suspect that they enjoy seeing the Americans under the thumb of ETOPS and would not be pleased with a level playing field where ETOPS regulations are imposed upon their product lines. It's not bound to happen IMO."

How would it relate to any ETOPS scenario? Primarily, it never would have happened, following the engine shutdown, they would have been required to land, like real soon. Still don't see a connection? Why do I think this is bound to happen? Because a lot of folks beside myself have realized that the majority of diversions, incidents and emergencies that occur on long range flights are not related to the number of engines. You think only the JAA is pushing this and no one in the US feels this is neccessary? You are misinformed. Stay tuned, you will see it implemented. The statment below was taken from the Boeing site.
You can read the recommendations and proposals from the FAA here;
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/arac/aracexrangerecommendation.cfm?nav=6


On 16.12.02, ARAC, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, the advisory committee of FAA, came up with findings and recommendations for ETOPS. It
recommends that ETOPS requirements should not only apply to two-engines but to 3-or-4 engines airplanes as well. Their rationale for this was, to raise the aviation industry to a higher and uniform standard. They have recognized the high safety level already achieved by ETOPS during the last 20 years.

 

[Spooky 1]

"Okay...........how would this incident relate to any ETOP scenarios? Can't see the connection here. Why do you think this is bound to happen? The last I heard regarding the JAA was sniffying around the issue but no one in the US felt it necessary. Also since Airbus is big on the four engine concept along with Falcon's three engine aircraft I suspect that they enjoy seeing the Americans under the thumb of ETOPS and would not be pleased with a level playing field where ETOPS regulations are imposed upon their product lines. It's not bound to happen IMO."

How would it relate to any ETOPS scenario? Primarily, it never would have happened, following the engine shutdown, they would have been required to land, like real soon. Still don't see a connection? Why do I think this is bound to happen? Because a lot of folks beside myself have realized that the majority of diversions, incidents and emergencies that occur on long range flights are not related to the number of engines. You think only the JAA is pushing this and no one in the US feels this is neccessary? You are misinformed. Stay tuned, you will see it implemented. The statment below was taken from the Boeing site.
You can read the recommendations and proposals from the FAA here;
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/arac/aracexrangerecommendation.cfm?nav=6


On 16.12.02, ARAC, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, the advisory committee of FAA, came up with findings and recommendations for ETOPS. It
recommends that ETOPS requirements should not only apply to two-engines but to 3-or-4 engines airplanes as well. Their rationale for this was, to raise the aviation industry to a higher and uniform standard. They have recognized the high safety level already achieved by ETOPS during the last 20 years.

To the contrary, I am not misinformed. I have forgotten more about ETOPS than you will probably ever know. Ditto for the B744, 777, 767/757. I will continue to express my opinions based on current facts and not speculate on this crews actions. You would be significantly better off as a professional (pilot?) if you would do the same. Don't bet the house on anything you see coming out of ARAC as it pertains to THIS incident and ones like it in the future.

 

[bocefus]

Based on your response to my original post, you are indeed misinformed concerning current ETOPS procedures and how they would have made the this topic a non issue. And also based on your statement of "The last I heard regarding the JAA was sniffying around the issue but no one in the US felt it necessary." you are again misinformed. JAA always lags FAA when it comes to changing or implementing ETOPS and FAA is indeed recommending for ETOPS to include 3 and 4 engined aircraft.

 

[Spooky 1]

I quit

Based on your response to my original post, you are indeed misinformed concerning current ETOPS procedures and how they would have made the this topic a non issue. And also based on your statement of "The last I heard regarding the JAA was sniffying around the issue but no one in the US felt it necessary." you are again misinformed. JAA always lags FAA when it comes to changing or implementing ETOPS and FAA is indeed recommending for ETOPS to include 3 and 4 engined aircraft.

Okay...I quit. I have no idea what your background or qualifications are regarding ETOPS other than you can find munitia on the web. Your comment regarding my "indeed misinformed concerning current ETOPS proceures" is so out of touch with reality that it bears wittness to your own ineptness. What are your ETOPS qualifications BTW. Have you been involved in certification of a particular aircraft, or set up a maintenance program, or what? I will try not to say anymore. You and some others on this forum have your panties so up in a wad trying to burn BA and this crew that it has blinded you to operational realities of the B744.

 

[Dave Siegel]

Kind of reminds me of a joke.

There was a _____________ (Aggie, Polish person, etc.; insert your favorite) riding on a 747 when the Captain came on the PA and announced that they had an engine failure. But not to worry, we're perfectly fine, but we'll be an hour late at our destination.

A little while later the Captain announced a second engine failure, but everything's safe. But we'll be two hours late.

A bit later the captain comes on again to announce the failure of a third engine, which will now make the flight three hours late.

The ___________________ (Aggie, Polish person, etc.) turned to his seatmate and said, "I hope that fourth engine doesn't fail. We'll be up here forever."

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Maybe you should go into comedy.

 

[8vATE]

To the contrary, I am not misinformed. I have forgotten more about ETOPS than you will probably ever know. Ditto for the B744, 777, 767/757.

Wow...

Talk about another know it all..

I would think you would be one of general LEE's friends at Delta except they don't have -400s..


I hope someday I can say " I've forgotten more about "???" than you will probably ever know..."

You must be a true pleasure to fly with!!

 

[Spooky 1]

So Sorry

8VATE,

Yea, probably did over do it but when I keep seeing posts like some of your previous posts I just tip over. So what are this guys ETOPS credentials other than he can find munitia that has no application to this event on the web. Another poser I suspect. Talk about a know it all, that does not know Jack about ETOPS.

Sh#t, the guy will probably chime in and say he is a Boeing ETOPS performance engineer next.

PS, Whats an SD3?

 

[Big Beer Belly]

You and some others on this forum have your panties so up in a wad trying to burn BA and this crew that it has blinded you to operational realities of the B744.

Apparently the FAA's panties are wadded also Spooky old boy!

<<The FAA and British aviation officials are investigating the February 19 flight from Los Angeles to London to determine whether any regulations were violated.

"We are concerned," said Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman.>>


Sounds like you need to call the FAA and clue them into the ... how did you put it? .... "operational realities of the B744".

BBB