Crossing Atlantic Engine Out To Save Money

[Spooky 1]

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

Hello BBB,

Yea the FAA is really concerned about what happened as they proably should be. Fortunetly the Brits don't need to tell them how to run an airline. No rules broken, no one hurt, the only crisis is in your beer fogged mind. get over it man, the BA guys got thrown a curve and suceeded albeit, it was not pretty at the end. You sound like maybe your a Brown suiter. How many B744s do you operate over there.

BTW, do you get all you aviation knowledge from the news papers? Some bimbo spokeswoman from the FAA says something and you snap to attention. WOW, I am impressed. Must be that strong military CeeeeOnefortyone time that you have in your career background! Givemeafukinbreak.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Spooky you old fart! <g> There's a difference between losing a motor enroute and continuing ... and losing one on t/o and blasting out for an 11hr transoceanic jaunt. In many pilots' opinion the SAFEST course in a non-wartime scenario is simply to land and have the problem fixed. Why flirt with all the other what-ifs that could (and DID!) occur later on this flight?

No doubt a little senility and stubbornness has set in with your advancing years. I sense a chip on old Spooky's shoulder ... an attitude that "I've seen this all before" and this ain't nothing ... a machismo that fogs your ability to choose the SAFEST (in your mind wimpiest) course of action.

Let's play a little "what if" scenario. Suppose you were the mighty 744 capt on the LAX-LHR flight in question and your FO and IRO both do not wish to continue and vote to turn around and land. What would you the mighty capt do, Spooky?

BBB

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Must be that strong military CeeeeOnefortyone time that you have in your career background! Givemeafukinbreak.

Actually, spooky old boy ... I've got more T-38 time than C-141.

.... I'm worried about you ... you've been even grumpier than normal here recently. <g> Are you constipated again?

 

[viking737]

Same airplane, 3 engine SIN-LHR

LONDON, England (AP) -- A British Airways jet that continued on an 11-hour flight from Los Angeles to London after one of its four engines lost power also flew on three engines on a later flight from Singapore to London, the airline said Friday.

The Boeing 747 left Singapore on February 25 and landed at London's Heathrow Airport the next day, arriving only 15 minutes behind schedule, BA spokesman Jay Marritt said.

Three hours into the 14-hour flight, an oil pressure indicator showed there was a problem with one of the engines, which the captain shut down as a precaution, Marritt said. It was the captain's decision to continue with Flight 18, which was carrying 356 passengers, he added.

"It's still very safe to fly a 747 on three engines," Marritt said. "It is certified to do so."

Six days earlier, the same aircraft lost power in one of its engines shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.

The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the Boeing 747 ran low on fuel after facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the Federal Aviation Administration said.

The failed engine was later replaced in London, Marritt said. The aircraft then flew to Melbourne, Australia, before continuing to Singapore. It was the replaced engine that had to be shut down, the spokesman said.

"It was the No. 2 engine that failed but in totally different circumstances, it's one of those very strange coincidences," Marritt said.

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.

The decision not to return that flight after the engine lost power raised concerns about a new European Union law which requires European carriers to reimburse passengers for substantial delays.

U.S. officials said they have no evidence the airline's decision to continue on was influenced by the regulation.

"We would never compromise the safety of our passengers," said British Airways spokeswoman Diane Fung on Monday. "The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to do so. The pilots are trained for such situations.




Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[Dave Siegel]

Some bimbo spokeswoman from the FAA says something and you snap to attention. WOW, I am impressed. Must be that strong military CeeeeOnefortyone time that you have in your career background! Givemeafukinbreak.

When is Spooky going to get banned? Maybe YOU need to get a little class.

 

[Spooky 1]

Poor Dave, what a pitiful guy, or maybe a gal?

 

[Spooky 1]

Actually, spooky old boy ... I've got more T-38 time than C-141.

.... I'm worried about you ... you've been even grumpier than normal here recently. <g> Are you constipated again?

Good for you BBB. The T38 must be a hoot. Was looking a the lastest version that NASA is flying down at Ellington. Slick. Right now I have got to run and change my Depends before I go out and fly. Hope things are well over at the Brown Derby. Still believe we should not fry the BA crew until all is known. That's the least I would hope folks would do for both you and I. Some on this board obviously feel differently.

Your right I am probably getting a little cranky. To many days off in a row.
All the best!

 

[bocefus]

Yeah spooky, you admit to knowing nothing about my qualifications or background in a post after you tell me that you forgot more about everything on earth than I ever knew. You are a beauty! I feel sorry for anyone that has to fly with you. I learn new things all of the time, but I think I could hold my own with you on any ETOPS discussion or any discussion regarding -76 operations, or -74 100 and 200 series operations.

 

[Spooky 1]

Yeah spooky, you admit to knowing nothing about my qualifications or background in a post after you tell me that you forgot more about everything on earth than I ever knew. You are a beauty! I feel sorry for anyone that has to fly with you. I learn new things all of the time, but I think I could hold my own with you on any ETOPS discussion or any discussion regarding -76 operations, or -74 100 and 200 series operations.[/QUOTE

Don't know Jack about the Classic 47. Why do you think I would as I have never stated otherwise. Last time I checked neither were ETOPS aircraft. Know a little about the 76ER and sounds like you must be flying the big brown version. Please don't feel sorry for my flying partners as we have more fun doing more unusual flying that your likely to see in a life time of carrying boxes around.

You must be able figure out by now that I am pimping you for the reaction I am getting out of you and one or two others here. Geeze, life is not that difficult and certainly not worth getting so defensive about. I promise you I have nothing but respect for all of you guys but it is so easy to drift into one of these rediculous debates. My only intent from the begining was to defend the BA crew before he was judged totally incompetent by some members on this board.

I will stand by my ETOPS statements and we will see what happens (together), as it applies to EO scenarios on 4 engine aircraft. Don't hold your breath regarding the "land at the nearest suitable airport (in time) scenario. Does not make sense now or later.

 

[bocefus]

Yeah, now you have gone from forgeting more than I ever knew, to "knowing a little about the 76ER." Again, you make assumptions concerning the type of flying I am doing and have done. Stand by your ETOPS statement, I never stated that it made sense, just that it will happen. I'll keep you in my "I told you so" folder for later posting when it does occur.
If you display the same lack of tact and argumentative skills with your flying buddies as you do here, I'm sure that you are real hoot to fly with.
Oh, and if you take the time to read and comprehend the posts, you will note that I never questioned the BA crew's decision, nor commented on it in any way. So if your only intent from the beginning was to defend them as you say, there was no need for you to reply to my post, or respond with your amount of overwhelmingly greater knowledge than mine.