Crossing Atlantic Engine Out To Save Money

[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.

 

[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

 

[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.