Crossing Atlantic Engine Out To Save Money

[G4G5]

What's next Polar crossings? The Pacific Ocean? These guys were/are absoute idiots. Who say flying across the North Atlantic in the middle of winter with an engine out is accepable? What's next Sydney to LAX?

This was reckless. Every major airline on the globe has tech pilots who handle engine out ferry trips. Now all of a sudden line pilots are qualified?

It's not a matter of weather the aircraft can do it, it's a matter of professional integrity. For those of you who seem to actually believe that his is somehow acceptable ask yourself this? What if you child, mother, wife was on that flight? What if you were on it?

 

[xjcaptain]

Big difference between an engine out ferry which involves a 3 engine T/O and obvious VMCG issues and a failure that happens after T.O. We may not agree with the way the regs are written, but like it or not it was a legal operation, and when other factors came to be later on in the flight, the situation was recognized and corrected in a safe manner. Winds aloft forcasts are not always optimum, so it may have taken longer to get there resulting in a higher fuel burn than PLANNED. They were obviously monitoring the situation, and then diverted to a safe and legal alternate. Ever depart using the exemptoin 3585? Probably would be safer to not depart with weather in that condition. Might get windy too, so no x-wind landings either. Low vis...Hey VFR is better let's only do that. So I guess we can only go on day/VFR/calm wind/perfect forcast/no MEL's/Highly experienced crew/NO IOE or training/not anywhere near gross weight or CG limits. Might be time to take off the rose colored glasses and rejoin the real world. All decisions involve managing some level of risk.

 

[CatYaaak]

While on the surface it may seem questionable to people who have no experience in these types of operations, it is absolutly legal. We have had many engine failures with the AVR RJ-85 where the crew continued to the destination after the failure. Granted we don't go trans-atlantic, but the rules are the same for this issue. Just a whole different set of rules and differet mindset when it comes to a single engine failure in an aircraft with MORE than two engines.

Well, engine numbers and losses aside, I hope I'm never so "absolutely legal" that I'm coasting in with 350 pax on board transmitting PAN, and Mayday due to fuel, having to land short of my intended destination and telling the tower at my new field that I don't have enough gas for a go-around, like this guy did. Yeah yeah, call me a wuss.

Oh, and I also hope I'm never British.

 

[Airbusdrvr]

There is 11 pages on this subject in the general forum.
This is an old debate and all you ETOPS flying boys think about this with your 210 minute range circles crossing the polar region, CA Newark to Hong Kong.

 

[CSY Mon]

Well, engine numbers and losses aside, I hope I'm never so "absolutely legal" that I'm coasting in with 350 pax on board transmitting PAN, and Mayday due to fuel, having to land short of my intended destination and telling the tower at my new field that I don't have enough gas for a go-around, like this guy did. Yeah yeah, call me a wuss.

Well said.

Sometimes ya have to toss the book away and just fly the airplane.
Or in this case, not fly the plane for 10 hours with a dead engine hanging out there..

Let the books rule at all times and let the f/a,s fly the airplane, or give some power to the captain and let him make a common sense decision...

Nuff said.

 

[KC-10 Driver]

Check out


http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=164208


for an interesting, thought-provoking, and fairly exhaustive discussion of this topic.

 

[LEROY]

Ya know the P-3 actually SAVES gas on three engines instead of four (only because you're allowed to fly at a higher power setting), and theoretically their SOP allows you to continue as long as you want to (similar to FARs, and I would guess, to BA rules).
BUT (and you knew that was coming) I don't know too many skypig folks who would voluntarily cross the pond with one in the bag unless they were REALLY worried about turning around (ie., weather, war, etc.)
Guess you gotta walk a mile in someone's shoes before you judge them, though...

 

[LarryinTN]

Look at the LAX-LHR great circle route. (http://gc.kls2.com/) They were never more than 60 minutes from a suitable airport. In comparison, consider a B767 or B777 flight from JFK-LHR which goes into the 180 minute ETOPS area.

Where would you rather be when the next engine fails? 30-60 minutes from an airport in a B747 with two engines out or 120-180 minutes from an airport in a B767/B777 with one engine out?

 

[8vATE]

You simply do not know anything about the B744 so quit speculating and cool off. It was legal and thats the end of the story.

GREAT LOGIC spooky...


Its LEGAL.... Then its SAFE...

what a cop out..


I'll say it again..

This is going to burn someone sometime in the future with this "get it home" logic..

Maybe you'll be one of those guys pushing to make it to destination...

I just hope I'm not flying with you ..

Or worse...

One of your passengers...

 

[Spooky 1]

GREAT LOGIC spooky...


Its LEGAL.... Then its SAFE...

what a cop out..


I'll say it again..

This is going to burn someone sometime in the future with this "get it home" logic..

Maybe you'll be one of those guys pushing to make it to destination...

I just hope I'm not flying with you ..

Or worse...

One of your passengers...

Once angain since you still seem to be confused about this subject. BA has set procedures and policies that governed this situation. I did not say that I would do the same under similar conditions but obviously they thought it was a sound decision at the time they ALL agreed to press forward for LHR. It was a mistake and probably they will not do a repeat under similar conditions in the future. have you never made an error?

Your personal insults directed towards me are childish at best. Save the preaching for someone else, please. Also, while I am getting older by the minute, I don't need your double spacing to read the message.

 

[bocefus]

This is perfect fuel for the regulating authorities who have been wanting to extend ETOPS to include 3 and 4 engined aircraft. It's bound to happen.

 

[Spooky 1]

This is perfect fuel for the regulating authorities who have been wanting to extend ETOPS to include 3 and 4 engined aircraft. It's bound to happen.

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.

 

[8vATE]

Can't see the connection here. Why do you think this is bound to happen? (re: 3 or more engine ETOPS)

There was a sizeable article in the ALPA rag a while back...

There were several issues discussed...
One was if they developed 3 or more engine ETOPS regs... it would clear up some certification/design issues for the 3 and more engined aircraft and bring them inline with some current 2 eng ETOP regs..

Also.... I believe part of the carrot/stick was letting the 2 eng ETOPs go out another 30 minutes or so...
Supposively a big incentive for the Pacific 2 engine operators...

Think there was something else in the article about enroute alternate weather and/or suitability issues?

Doesn't seem to be on the front burner though...

FWIW.....

 

[profile]

I should add that personally I would have dumped gas and landed, not sure that the "as safe as" argument would fly in this case. One thing to overfly some out of the way place that's unfamiliar and no service availability, and quite another to pass the opportunity to land at a major airport with great services, such as SEA, YVR, or return back to point of departure.

 

[Whale Rider]

3 Engines? More than 2 Engines? Its all fun and games until a bunch of people get killed. Policy or not I wouldn't try it.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

WSJ: SAME acft loses another engine and continues AGAIN!

Radio this am said Wall Street Journal reporting the same tail number lost an engine I think yesterday shortly after t/o in Singapore and continued to London. Can anyone post link?

First thing that comes to mind ... mx at BA sucks or something fishy going on there?

These BA guys are pushing their luck with this scenario, IMO.


I have the previous WSJ article that says the FAA is investigating this. If it's legal and no problem as some have suggested, then why all the fuss from the FAA? Seems they don't agree with BA's guidance apparently.

 

[G4G5]

Not a problem for BA, from what I understand the BA 3 Holler continued all the way from Singapore to LHR.


After all as some folks here suggest, "it perfectly legal"

Reuters:
BA has now determined that the money spent on intalling personal entertainment systems in thier aircraft will be diverted to installing the entertainment systems in their life rafts.

 

[hawg2hawk]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/04/ba.jet.ap/index.html

 

[Freddie Spencer]

Looking back at BA's safety record, it seems to me BA knows what they are doing. On the other hand, I think we should direct our safety concerns towards a unnamed US cargo carrier that seems to loose a hull every 18 months.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

On the other hand, I think we should direct our safety concerns towards a unnamed US cargo carrier that seems to loose a hull every 18 months.

YEEEOOOOUUUUUCCCCHHHH Freddie! You better duck.