What would you have done? (Engine out on 747-400)

[Spooky 1]

Hmm, not to split hairs, but the above numbers seems off by a small margin.
The 335,000 lbs is probably -100 numbers.
The -200 have bigger tanks, and some of them came with reserve 2 & 3 and some with reserve center tank fuel, approaching the tankage of the -400.

Ya could fly a standard -200 with max fuel and optimum altitudes about 14 hours before the flame went out.

As for a 774 engine burning 4000 lbs / hr on T/O power....Not even close.
Try 12,000 lbs or more.

These BA guys were probably in compliance with company ops. spec, procedures and all that, but it still seems like a bad idea to continue the flight as if noting happened.

On the -200 we had some flexibility in the above scenario, as in "Nearest Suitable Airport" being the one most convenient for maintenance and pax, but not across a continent AND an ocean.

The FAA definition of "nearest suitable airports" (in time), has nothing to do with pax or maintenance issues. I do not have the material here in front of me but there is a well defined definition of this and it says nothing about your pax needs and maintenance opportunities. You can read all about it's application in AC120-42A if you care to. The word "suitable" is the key to the answer whether it be 2,3, or 4 engine aircraft.

 

[CSY Mon]

Thanks for the clarification Mr. Spooky.

I was not looking for the Feds definition on nearest suitable as we had company procedures that was blessed by the feds.

If we lost 1 engine out of the 4, we had more flexibility to pick a "Suitable" airport, than if we lost 2 engines...
With 2 out it was an automatic emergency, and landing at nearest suitable was more uh, urgent.

Then "suitable" was a matter of wx and facilities rather than pax and maintenance.

 

[CatYaaak]

Actually, you know what we should do? Everybody without current or past 747 typerating and knowledge of JAA regs, should edit and clean out their posts...

Oh, I feel so chastized. I'm obviously clueless because I don't hold that whale rating. PAN/Mayday calls are the norm. Captains of 747's with 350 people onboard land short of their destintion all the time thinking they have no ability to go-around because they don't have enough fuel. Gee, I had no idea 747s were such a special case when it came to not having to make it to their destination. I'm sure the decision making process is unrecognizable to us non-holders, and the Cosmic algebraic rules of time/fuel/distance don't apply to you.

Let the beancounters at BA know they could be doing much better if they lightened fuel loads for every flight down to this standard, because tankering costs $$$ and this was perfectly OK. Inform the JAA, CAA, and FAA that arriving with reserve fuel, or lack thereof, should be left to Captain's comfort level and at whatever airport he/she chooses, because only he and any other type-rated 747 guys know best and shan't be questioned.

And lastly, since this is all apparently OK if you happen to be flying a 747...(god I wish i held that secret knowledge)..sell tickets based on "If we don't have the gas to get you to your destination, we'll at least struggle to get you inside your country". I'm sure they'll be perfectly content, and BA will be in business for a long, long time.

 

[Spooky 1]

Thanks for the clarification Mr. Spooky.

I was not looking for the Feds definition on nearest suitable as we had company procedures that was blessed by the feds.

If we lost 1 engine out of the 4, we had more flexibility to pick a "Suitable" airport, than if we lost 2 engines...
With 2 out it was an automatic emergency, and landing at nearest suitable was more uh, urgent.

Then "suitable" was a matter of wx and facilities rather than pax and maintenance.

I agree with your assessment 100%. The 4 engine aircraft just has so much more redundency in this type of a situation than than the 2 engine ETOPS approved aircraft. Don't know the fact of the BA incident, so I will with hold any and all condemnation of the guy(s) until all the facts are in. Proabably will never know them anyway so it becomes a moot point at best.

 

[jimpilot]

10%

Oh, I feel so chastized. I'm obviously clueless because I don't hold that whale rating. PAN/Mayday calls are the norm. Captains of 747's with 350 people onboard land short of their destintion all the time thinking they have no ability to go-around because they don't have enough fuel. Gee, I had no idea 747s were such a special case when it came to not having to make it to their destination. I'm sure the decision making process is unrecognizable to us non-holders, and the Cosmic algebraic rules of time/fuel/distance don't apply to you.

Let the beancounters at BA know they could be doing much better if they lightened fuel loads for every flight down to this standard, because tankering costs $$$ and this was perfectly OK. Inform the JAA, CAA, and FAA that arriving with reserve fuel, or lack thereof, should be left to Captain's comfort level and at whatever airport he/she chooses, because only he and any other type-rated 747 guys know best and shan't be questioned.

And lastly, since this is all apparently OK if you happen to be flying a 747...(god I wish i held that secret knowledge)..sell tickets based on "If we don't have the gas to get you to your destination, we'll at least struggle to get you inside your country". I'm sure they'll be perfectly content, and BA will be in business for a long, long time.

In the Air Force they had a saying about the 10%. Since then I've learned it's true in civilian life also. If you have any doubts see above.

 

[ultrarunner]

That's correct. Losing an engine on a 4-engined airplane is not automatically an emergency as it is on a twin. Continuing to the destination is a legal option.

Dassault considers it only an abnormal on the falcon 10. Other than fire, IIRC, all the different engine fail scenarios are under the abnormal tabs. Even after V1.

those french!

 

[CSY Mon]

The word "suitable" is the key to the answer whether it be 2,3, or 4 engine aircraft.

Well, I just copied this from a similar discussion on PPRuNe:
There is a difference in "Suitable" depending on how many engines ya got according to the Feds:

¤ 121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:

(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.

(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.

(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.

(4) The air traffic congestion.

(5) The kind of terrain.

(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.

(c) The pilot in command shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and shall keep that station fully informed of the progress of the flight.

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the certificate-holding district office.

 

[ultrarunner]

On a side note:
I was operating a 747 as the next aircraft behind the Avianca 707 that ran out of gas over JFK in 1990, or 91.

We were all holding in crappy weather for a couple of hours, heard those guys on the radio all the time, the kept requesting priority, low on fuel, but they never said the magic word "Emerency" and therefore never got priority.
The got cleared for the approach, a few minuttes later, we got cleared.
The 707 however had to go missed as they had neither flight director nor auto-pilot and got off the localizer on short final..(Bare minimums, snow, dark, stormy and nasty)
As we touched down, they flamed out on all 4 and crashed.

All they had to do was to decleare an Emergency, like the BA 747-400 did.

The E word wouldn't have helped them fly the approch any better. Granted, they might have been able to come around and try again, but they stil would have to nail the approach, which they obvioulsy couldn't do.

 

[Lead Sled]

Question for 747 Type Rated Pilots...

The assumption in this thread is that the loss of the engine resulted in higher fuel consumption. Well does it? My "big jet" experience is limited to the B727, but in that airplane the specific range actually increased when one was shut down. The twin engined business jets that I currently fly also have an increased in specific range with the loss of one engine. I've got a couple of buddies who are B747 captains, they say that the loss of an engine is more of an inconvienance than an emergency. Would they have continued across the pond on 3 engines? Probably not.

'Sled

 

[CSY Mon]

The assumption in this thread is that the loss of the engine resulted in higher fuel consumption. Well does it?

Yes.

The total fuel flow for a certain speed and altitude is roughly the same for 2, 3, or 4 engines.

BUT, since ya can no longer cruise at optimum altitude, ya need to descend, then the total fuel flow goes up...As it would with 4 turning at a lower altitude.

A rule of thumb on the 747-200:

If ya loose one engine, ya cruise 8000 feet lower than with 4 turning and burning, ya loose 2, ya cruise 15000 feet lower.
(The weight of the a/c and temperature obviously determines how high ya cruise with 4.)

Max certifed altitude is 45100 feet, but ya rarely see more than 410, and even then only on ferry flights...Did 430 once but we were ultra-light then some.

If ya can increase range by shutting down engines, life would be sweet.
Reality however also includes drag from the dead engine and drag from the deflected rudder, etc.

The E word wouldn't have helped them fly the approch any better. Granted, they might have been able to come around and try again, but they stil would have to nail the approach, which they obvioulsy couldn't do.

The E world could have given them an hour or more to practice a couple of approaches..
Yeah sad story, but without declearing Emergency they only had one shot, and they lost.
(The captain did not speak English at all, but he kept telling his in-experienced f/o to decleared an emergency, the f/o instead kept asking for priority, poor translation, poor airmanship, then S.O.O.L.)

 

[Spooky 1]

Well I don't have any 4 engine time, but were I a Passenger on the flight, I'd be pissed, frankly, that the crew elected to cruise on over the polar regions on three. I'd have been OK with continuing on to ORD, JFK, or Some airport in Canada where suitable maint. facilities exist; mainly because there's probably an emergency field suitable for a 747 within 45 min flying time all along the route. But I have a healthy respect for large bodies of very cold water/ice. This has nothing to do with whether a 747 flies wonderfully on two or three engines, or whether it's legal to do so. If I'm paying to be flown over a few thousand miles of desolate ice, I'd want all the major systems functioning normally. Has nothing to do with whether the aircraft has 2, 3, 4, or 6 engines.

My Dad used to do 3 engine ferries from time to time. It's a bit different in an empty airplane. He also had to cage a second engine on the same side during one. Those things do happen, (L-100-20)

Don't know why you think this flight was conducted in the "polar regions"? Not likely on a eastboumd crossing. More likely in the NAT Tracks way south of anything that could be considerd polar.

 

[JimNtexas]

on't know why you think this flight was conducted in the "polar regions"? Not likely on a eastboumd crossing. More likely in the NAT Tracks way south of anything that could be considerd polar.

More like the track of the Titanic, complete with a God-like Brit heavy metal Captain.

 

[CalB737FO]

Truce

CatYaak,


Let's just call it a day. I respect your experience and opinion -- it just differs from mine. I think the position that the BA crew found themselves in is certainly unenviable, to say the very least, but I do believe in the old adage "innocent until proven guilty," and we don't have any official basis on which to judge them.

I'm a fairly conservative aviator, and I've set down RJ's on three occassions because of instrument indications that I didn't like (on one of them, the right side elevator panel lost a bushing that caused a significant vibration in the control column) and I'd do it again. Like most pilots, I set the bar high for myself. I do, however, understand that aviation is dynamic, and unforeseen circumstances can radically change an entire plan.

Your point is that the unforeseen should be accounted for. I believe that Mr. Rumsfeld referred to these as the "unknown unknowns," and I can understand that.

At any rate, I didn't get a nic here on flightinfo to argue the finer points of 747 flying, and certainly didn't obtain one solely to argue with you. So I ask that we put it to bed, and proceed on to our next disagreement in kind.

Thanks in advance,
Pete

 

[CatYaaak]

The assumption in this thread is that the loss of the engine resulted in higher fuel consumption. Well does it? My "big jet" experience is limited to the B727, but in that airplane the specific range actually increased when one was shut down. The twin engined business jets that I currently fly also have an increased in specific range with the loss of one engine. I've got a couple of buddies who are B747 captains, they say that the loss of an engine is more of an inconvienance than an emergency. Would they have continued across the pond on 3 engines? Probably not.

'Sled

Fuel specifics may improve assuming the same or near same altitude, but info has it that the flight in question was conducted in the high 20s...hardly optimum for any jet and well below what was originally planned. I'm making the assumption the Captain checked before T/O that his planned and uploaded fuel for a 4 engined flight to Heathrow at the original altitude was sufficient, plus legal reserves. Shortly after T/O they became a 3 engine aircraft at 4 engine weights flying a turboprop altitude with jet fuel flows.

Those saying "it's only an inconvenience" assume the numbers still showed plenty of fuel for Heathrow plus reserves in that new condition,.and indeed they would have arrived there happy and content if fuel specifics were improved barring a fuel leak etc. enoute. They didn't arrive there...and were at a critical fuel state even at the closer diversion field. Why? Perhaps some 747 drivers can provide some numbers at least showing whether fuel burns on 4 at optimum altitude is more or less than burns on 3 a couple miles lower.

I agree that losing one engine of a 4 engine aircraft is an inconvenience, not an emergency, but only taken in a limited context if it's physically or OPERATIONALLY contained. If it isn't, it certainly can reach emergency status. Physical damage can produce leaks, and increase drag, and that these have a cumulative effect over time is axiomatic until a response is given. The perf book or FMC predictions based on sound airframe cease to be relevant at that point. Pilots on a 3 engine ferry flight know they don't have those problems, but if you're shutting one down due to engine surges and flames shooting out the back, you can't be so sure. Cumulative effects can certainly matter if you're planning it to the gnat's a$$ in a Time/Fuel/Distance equation.

Performance degradation after losing one is a given, and those tut-tutting any questioning of decisions made seem to be living in a fantasyland where an "inconvenience" automatically equates to "couldn't possibly have anything to do with" the central question of operational containment which obviously didn't happen to a degree anyone expects for one reason or another because in reality, they had to land short transmitting fuel state Pans and Mayday.

 

[CalB737FO]

They Already Have!

Let the beancounters at BA know they could be doing much better if they lightened fuel loads for every flight down to this standard, because tankering costs $$$ and this was perfectly OK. Inform the JAA, CAA, and FAA that arriving with reserve fuel, or lack thereof, should be left to Captain's comfort level and at whatever airport he/she chooses, because only he and any other type-rated 747 guys know best and shan't be questioned.

Reference US major airlines now flying with 5% int'l reserve instead of the previous 10% rule.

Pete

 

[Hawker rider]

Oh please!!!

You all refer to the "feds" being the FAA, well I have news for you, the FAA isn't the JAA even remotely! It's all on the internet somewhere, everybody can look it up.

How about 5 tonns of fuel upon landing... what about having 100gallons left with a cessna 172 when you land on a long cross country... is that the same stuff? Didn't think so.

When the 747 has a three engine situation there are additional requirements it has to follow for an additional flight, like 90 minultes flying time from a suitable alternate that can be reached flying with only two engines...... and you know .... what does 5 tonns equate to??? maybe it might have been at that day about 45 minutes of fuel holding in still air? I don't kn ow but that figure sounds just about right for "final fuel" for a 747, in being the lowest amount of fuel you can legally plan on landing with, let alone in case of an emergency, which as memory serves me right didn't get declared by the flight crew...


Listen>>> I didn't comment in you flying your ( twin, single-engine, turbo prop, whatever with your) so called " wrong decision" so why would you call this standing on the side line?

Please do a bit of research before you judge...

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas CSI,

Lets look at this more closely:

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:

(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.

No way of knowing what kind of damage the engine did when it cut loose. Some damage isn't obvious, but not to mention the degridation of systems associated with the engine.

(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.

Low, fat and fat. Plenty of time to consider options, but a long arduous climb to optimum 1 EO altitude.

(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.

I'm sure they passed over plenty of nice, long VFR airports over the US with more than competent CFR and MX facilities. Meanwhile, over the Atlantic, zero, other than normal divert alternates.

(4) The air traffic congestion.

Yea, a non-radar North Atlantic track is where I would like to take a beast on 3 engines.

(5) The kind of terrain.

Errr, hrmmm, again, North Atlantic in winter. Yup, my first choice.

(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.

NA, since he didn't make it that far.

(c) The pilot in command shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and shall keep that station fully informed of the progress of the flight.

This they obviously did.

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the certificate-holding district office.

THIS would make interesting bathroom reading.

Nu

 

[NuGuy]

Reference US major airlines now flying with 5% int'l reserve instead of the previous 10% rule.

Pete

All except NWA, who has some small experience with the Pacific, as well as the comparative puddle known as the Atlantic.

Nu

 

[Hawker rider]

Again guys and girls.

I don't seriously think that a company like BRITISH airways flies according to FAA regulations. I think it's rather that it's JAA or English regulations. So stop interpreting the FAA regs, it's simply that the FAA approved of their " national OPS-SPECS".

As we all are familiar with right?

 

[CatYaaak]

Yes.

The total fuel flow for a certain speed and altitude is roughly the same for 2, 3, or 4 engines.

BUT, since ya can no longer cruise at optimum altitude, ya need to descend, then the total fuel flow goes up...As it would with 4 turning at a lower altitude.

A rule of thumb on the 747-200:

If ya loose one engine, ya cruise 8000 feet lower than with 4 turning and burning, ya loose 2, ya cruise 15000 feet lower.

If ya can increase range by shutting down engines, life would be sweet.
Reality however also includes drag from the dead engine and drag from the deflected rudder, etc.
QUOTE]

Thanks for the info CYS, didn't see it before I wrote my last post.


CAL737FO:

Truce, sure. I'm a conservative flyer myself (unless it's aerobatics with only me in the airplane designed for it). As you can probably tell though, I have a very different view of fuel policy with regards how they do it in Europe, and it predates this incident. The same thing for the subservient role of Dispatchers there for air carrier ops. And having been based overseas for a quite a few years, it suprised me to see how much of the "Captain is God" myth remains alive over there and it's guarded as if someone is always trying to usurp it. As a Captain, it sure makes things easier for me, but that myth is bull$#%, and is detrimental to the enhancement of safety because it's more commonly used as a shield and discussion-stopper.

So truce. In the end we'll know whether any of those factors played a role.

 

[Hawker rider]

For the captain being smart??? well I don't know, MAYBE he just made his decision based upon all the facts that were presented upon him, ... dispatch, the co-pilot(s) ... maybe tech people that got a relay while the plane was en-route..

Just one quick question for all the well informed people, hypothetical case here... .say you had an engine flame out on the number two engine..... say a 747-400.... while departing out of SFO, San Fransisco,USA. while your scheduled flight would have brought you towards ....let's say for the sake of the case.... Heathrow, UK..... And you know that the Pratt and Wittney engines you have on your plane, only "stop" for a really serious reason, i.e. advise NOT to restart the engine when it flames out.... You know that you don't have maintenance on SFO.... you'll have to dump about 60.000 metric tonns of fuel, which will take about 50 minutes or so, to just return to SFO... what about burning that fuel towards a maintenance base without dumping it, but flying towards it, knowing that you'll have to comply with several different scenarios as the airports en-route are concerned.... so you'll be covered in case of another engine failure.... so you can still land even in that remote case, without too much trouble, BUT under a definate emergency......

How wrong would that be.

And don't forget that passenger flights are mostly allocating about half the payload of a cargo plane..... so max altitude and fuel flow would be a little on the negative side from normal operations, but not that much off........ today I flew a 747 (classic nonetheless) that with a one-enginme out would still get FL350 for cruise, and that's just normal operations, flying a cargo plane, which mostly known, are a lot more heavy than a pax plane......... I wasn't there so I am not to pass judgement on that decision that the crew in question made, but it doesn't sound like a national geographic episode waiting to happen either!

 

[Hawker rider]

"If ya loose one engine, ya cruise 8000 feet lower than with 4 turning and burning"

Really?? that's not what my FAA and JAA approved flight manual says....

"If ya can increase range by shutting down engines, life would be sweet"

You know.... I've flown airplanes that actualy did behave like that... but I have no figures on the 747 in question, on the fuel burn or fuel on board when the left.... you care to elaborate and share us in "your wisdom???

 

[CatYaaak]

Oh please!!!

How about 5 tonns of fuel upon landing... what about having 100gallons left with a cessna 172 when you land on a long cross country... is that the same stuff? Didn't think so.

When the 747 has a three engine situation there are additional requirements it has to follow for an additional flight, like 90 minultes flying time from a suitable alternate that can be reached flying with only two engines...... and you know .... what does 5 tonns equate to??? maybe it might have been at that day about 45 minutes of fuel holding in still air? I don't kn ow but that figure sounds just about right for "final fuel" for a 747, in being the lowest amount of fuel you can legally plan on landing with, let alone in case of an emergency, which as memory serves me right didn't get declared by the flight crew...
QUOTE]

So the reports of the transmission of MAYDAY calls were incorrect?

Like I said, the Euro view of reserve fuel differs from ours. If the flight was re-dispatched to the closer field of Man using Heathrow another field as an alternate, or Man was the alternate and was simply used...in the Euro view burning all your reserves just to get there is quite all right and if the engines starve out on taxi-in, you've still done a bang-up job. If the captain didn't think he had 5K of that 9K of fuel remaining useable, then indeed he didn't think he had enough to even go around at his new-primary airport and proceed anywhere.

If the JAA issues medals, perhaps you could pin one on him?

 

[CSY Mon]

Heyas CSI,

Lets look at this more closely:

Sure, look all ya want..Streight regs, and ya can surely pick 'em apart and build a case for or against whatever this BA crew did.
My point was that you DO have more options when a mill fails on the 4 engine plane....Just to clarify since another gentleman hinted that "nearest suitable" is the same regardless how many engines ya have bolted on to the craft.

Personally I am fairly neutral regarding this here topic.
Not sure I would have continued to destination if it was that far away, but then again, I don't know their ops. specs or the JARs when it comes to fuel minimums, etc.
I can only estimate that 9000 lbs of gas would give ya only 20 minuttes of powered flight at low altitude, especially with gear and flaps hanging out and more drag from windmilling engine, etc.

Hawker Rider said:

Really?? that's not what my FAA and JAA approved flight manual says....

Like I stated in my posting: RULE OF THUMB.
It is quite useful if ya loose an engine at altitude and ya can immediately request the level off altitude while the F/E checks the book to get the exact altitude (Level)
Check yer performance manual, the numbers should be real close.

"If ya can increase range by shutting down engines, life would be sweet"

You know.... I've flown airplanes that actualy did behave like that... but I have no figures on the 747 in question, on the fuel burn or fuel on board when the left.... you care to elaborate and share us in "your wisdom???

My wisdom?

Ha-ha, ya are the one that should be sharing wisdom on how to increase range:
Shut 'em down, the more the better.....

On the other hand, I know the Navy P-3s would shut down a couple of engines to increase time-on-station, but I doubt they get more RANGE out of it, rather ENDURANCE.

 

[CatYaaak]

Ha-ha, ya are the one that should be sharing wisdom on how to increase range:
Shut 'em down, the more the better.....

On the other hand, I know the Navy P-3s would shut down a couple of engines to increase time-on-station, but I doubt they get more RANGE out of it, rather ENDURANCE.

Hawkerrider, why didn't you tell the Air Force about this wisdom? They could have saved a lot of taxpayer money not buying KC-135s to refuel B-52s back in the day. He11, they could've probably made two round trips to Moscow on one bag of fuel if only they would've thought to shut down 6 or 7 of those 8.

 

[Hawker rider]

well you know.. because it's not the right thing to do..

You tell me anything about the Learjets 20 series or the 747's and I can hold my own, but when I look at your history, and at your avatar, they don't coincide. no big deal, but somebody that has multiple jet type ratings should know better.

 

[Hawker rider]

So CatYaaak,

Are you telling me that even with a B52, on top of descent with shutting down ..let's say 6 out of the 8 engines that you have and restarting them on 10 mile final for the landing, you're NOT saving fuel??



Well I happen to have been tought flying the jets by a B52 instructor, that according to his own saying flew all of the registrations that were ever built, and he would back me up on this.... it's just simple math man!!

no big deal... but let's get to the bigger picture. you haven't proved your case yet why you thought it to be a crime for the crew to did what they did...

And I'm sorry the 5 tonns I refered to earlier were actually 9 tonns as I read it now... gosh, that's enough for alternate fuel AND final reserve fuel in that airplane with that kind of load...

 

[Hawker rider]

Like I stated in my posting: RULE OF THUMB.
It is quite useful if ya loose an engine at altitude and ya can immediately request the level off altitude while the F/E checks the book to get the exact altitude (Level)
Check yer performance manual, the numbers should be real close.

excuse me, but in the planes that still have the F/e, there will ALWAYS be a little drift down sheet available before Top of climb that will give you 3 engine cruise level, drift down speed etc. etc............ and that's just normal conditions.....have you ever really flown in the "classics" than??

 

[Hawker rider]

Well I am just reading all of the postings right now, and if I have missed some crucial points I apologize.

But, the airplane in question got released to a destination before it even left the gate in SFO.

After the occurences that happened, the flight ( in my reasonable thinking) got replanned to another destination, that would in all probability comply with the fuel and alternate requirements that the company has ( fact is that as of now BA is still flying so they weren't breaking the rules that much that they immediatley got shut down) to follow.

So who says that the actual place of final landing wasn't the planned station for the flight to go into once it was replanned by dispatch and the flight crew?


Anyhow, I think a lot of wrong things are being said about this issue at hand.

When I look at the regs that BA fly under and the route that it took (so far this flight) I can't see any rules that were broken. So who am I to judge that the crew made a wrong decision on the particular flight? everybody walked away right?? so where is the major accident that surely must have followed reading about 80% of the replies in this post.)


Well I'm not going to judge. I didn't find any rules that they broke..... sure, As I look at it right now, I probably would have done it different, but I also have flown on a 747 classic while losing an engine in the climb out and diverting to an airport that was 4 hours away. Nobody got hurt, and that was the initial plan of action. So as far as I'm concerned a busy day in the office, but mission succesfull nonetheless

 

[CSY Mon]

excuse me, but in the planes that still have the F/e, there will ALWAYS be a little drift down sheet available before Top of climb that will give you 3 engine cruise level, drift down speed etc. etc............ and that's just normal conditions.....have you ever really flown in the "classics" than??__________________

Okay, you right, there is no need to know how much altitude ya will loose if one or two engines quit, totaly useless stuff...

Have a ever flown the classic?

Nah, just once or twice..