British Airways minus an engine
Mar 1st, 2005, 12:00 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways minus an engine
Mar 1st, 2005, 12:13 PM
#3
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying with only 3 engines doesn't scare me, but this article mentions sparks flying and popping sounds from the bad engine. That would be terrifying for someone like myself who has experienced an emergency evacuation due to an engine catching fire on take-off. And believe it or not, it was a left engine on a BA jet, just at this one was.
Mar 1st, 2005, 12:14 PM
#4
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 12,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read a long thread on this at the aviation board at pprune.org.
Most of the pilots defended the action, but I'm not sure if it's just professionals closing ranks as so often happens. Apparently this would not have occurred with a US-based airline, if I understood correctly.
Most of the pilots defended the action, but I'm not sure if it's just professionals closing ranks as so often happens. Apparently this would not have occurred with a US-based airline, if I understood correctly.
Mar 1st, 2005, 12:22 PM
#6
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robespierre, it has occurred to me 1000 times in the last 6 months how lucky we were that the fire started on take-off in Houston and not in the middle of the Atlantic. I don't know if we would have made it.
Mar 1st, 2005, 01:14 PM
#7
The FAA would require that US-based airlines dump fuel and return to the origin aiport or divert to a secondary. BA is not regulated by the FAA.
The plane had to land prematurely at Manchester because it had to fly lower and with more drag due to the missing engine, so that it was running low on mandatory fuel reserves by the time it got to the UK.
The WSJ article speculates that the decision to proceed from LA had to do with the penalties that would be due the passengers under the new EU compensation rules that went into effect recently if they're delayed more than 5 hours, plus the cost of the fuel that the plane would have had to shed in order to land at LAX (too heavy with full tanks.) The pilots and airline deny that the compensation issue played any part in their decision.
IMHO this was a really terrible decision on BA's part. I think heads should roll. Not the way to inspire passenger confidence.
The plane had to land prematurely at Manchester because it had to fly lower and with more drag due to the missing engine, so that it was running low on mandatory fuel reserves by the time it got to the UK.
The WSJ article speculates that the decision to proceed from LA had to do with the penalties that would be due the passengers under the new EU compensation rules that went into effect recently if they're delayed more than 5 hours, plus the cost of the fuel that the plane would have had to shed in order to land at LAX (too heavy with full tanks.) The pilots and airline deny that the compensation issue played any part in their decision.
IMHO this was a really terrible decision on BA's part. I think heads should roll. Not the way to inspire passenger confidence.
Mar 1st, 2005, 01:20 PM
#8
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree this was a bad decision, and I think you are right that it's based on the new compensation laws. Better to pay compensation for a delay than compensation to familes after an accident.
I wonder how the passengers must have felt, hearing popping sounds coming from the engines as they were over the ocean. Because of my experience mentioned above, this really strikes a nerve with me. I am also very surprised by this because when I was in that accident, I thought BA handled it like champs. I'm glad this pilot wasn't flying my plane.
I wonder how the passengers must have felt, hearing popping sounds coming from the engines as they were over the ocean. Because of my experience mentioned above, this really strikes a nerve with me. I am also very surprised by this because when I was in that accident, I thought BA handled it like champs. I'm glad this pilot wasn't flying my plane.
Mar 1st, 2005, 01:47 PM
#9
Well to make matters worse, the WSJ reports that they circled with gear down around LA for half an hour before deciding to take off for Greenland, during which time they were talking with London regarding the decision. Many of the pax had heard the noise and seen the sparks/flame, so I can't imagine that there wasn't a real outcry inside the cabin. I wonder how many lawyers were on board. Maybe they needed time to check the manifest.
Mar 1st, 2005, 01:54 PM
#10
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the bad press this is generating is going to cost them FAR more than a few pounds of JET-A and some passenger compensation.
Whether they were on firm technical ground or not, it was a PR boner of the first order.
Whether they were on firm technical ground or not, it was a PR boner of the first order.
Mar 1st, 2005, 02:01 PM
#11
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel for you PM. This article also strikes a nerve with me because of something that happpened many years ago. I was on a 747 that lost one engine shortly after takeoff. The plan was to continue flying since, we were all assured, a 747 can fly and land on even a single enigne.
Shortly thereafter, the plane lost a second engine. The pilot decided to dump fuel and land at the nearest airport. But there were some kinds of rules on where to dump the fuel (not in clouds or turbulence, something like that), so it didn't happen immediately.
Right after that, though, the plane lost a third engine. The pilot gave up on the dumping fuel plan and we turned to land immediately.
That was my worst flight experience. And I never found out what caused the three engines to go out, but I'm gald that fourth engine held on long enough for us to land.
In hindsight, I would rather they abort the flight immediately and not tell me why until after I was safely on the ground.
Shortly thereafter, the plane lost a second engine. The pilot decided to dump fuel and land at the nearest airport. But there were some kinds of rules on where to dump the fuel (not in clouds or turbulence, something like that), so it didn't happen immediately.
Right after that, though, the plane lost a third engine. The pilot gave up on the dumping fuel plan and we turned to land immediately.
That was my worst flight experience. And I never found out what caused the three engines to go out, but I'm gald that fourth engine held on long enough for us to land.
In hindsight, I would rather they abort the flight immediately and not tell me why until after I was safely on the ground.
Mar 1st, 2005, 03:08 PM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jolie--YIKES--that sounds scary!! Like your experience, we had no time for a fuel dump. As you probably know, there are some significant risks in landing a plane with a full load of fuel. I'm sorry this happened to you, but glad you're OK.
Mar 1st, 2005, 05:55 PM
#16
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again, Jolie.
You said you never found out the cause of the engine failures. Would you like to? The NTSB publishes reports for all accidents/incidents it investigates, and based on what you have told us, this would surely have called for an investigation. First go to this page:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
If you recall the month and year it happened, go directly to "Monthly Lists." If you don't remember the date, then scroll down and enter the info you do know, such as the airline, location where you landed, and the possible time frame.
Just FYI, in case you are interested.
You said you never found out the cause of the engine failures. Would you like to? The NTSB publishes reports for all accidents/incidents it investigates, and based on what you have told us, this would surely have called for an investigation. First go to this page:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
If you recall the month and year it happened, go directly to "Monthly Lists." If you don't remember the date, then scroll down and enter the info you do know, such as the airline, location where you landed, and the possible time frame.
Just FYI, in case you are interested.
Mar 1st, 2005, 06:51 PM
#17
Intrepid1 - Are you speculating that I'm speculating about the WSJ's speculations?
No, I'm sure that it was a well-considered matter by BA ops, without any reference whatsoever to the economic costs associatiated with returning the aircraft to LAX and sending 300+ pax off to a swell dinner and comfy night at a hotel on Century, then providing them with both the voluntary and involuntary compensation due under EU law and BA SOPs, then having an extra aircraft deadhead from LHR to LAX to carry all the passengers (as, essentially, 300+ non-revs) to London, nor having their seats on their connection flights past LHR empty and not filled, while having (probably) to issue a slug of further non-rev accommodations on BA or other carriers so that the connecting pax can get to their destinations, nor having to rely on a contract maintenance base to replace an engine (from exactly what supply of spares?) rather than getting the plane to BA's own maintenance base in the UK, nor... oh, hell, I've run out of gas.
No, I'm not speculating on anything of the kind. None of that mattered to BA I'm sure. Not.
No, I'm sure that it was a well-considered matter by BA ops, without any reference whatsoever to the economic costs associatiated with returning the aircraft to LAX and sending 300+ pax off to a swell dinner and comfy night at a hotel on Century, then providing them with both the voluntary and involuntary compensation due under EU law and BA SOPs, then having an extra aircraft deadhead from LHR to LAX to carry all the passengers (as, essentially, 300+ non-revs) to London, nor having their seats on their connection flights past LHR empty and not filled, while having (probably) to issue a slug of further non-rev accommodations on BA or other carriers so that the connecting pax can get to their destinations, nor having to rely on a contract maintenance base to replace an engine (from exactly what supply of spares?) rather than getting the plane to BA's own maintenance base in the UK, nor... oh, hell, I've run out of gas.
No, I'm not speculating on anything of the kind. None of that mattered to BA I'm sure. Not.
Mar 1st, 2005, 07:57 PM
#18
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like WillTravel, I've been following this incident on pprune.com as well as flyertalk.com for days now. I think the most disturbing thing for me is to read so many pilots saying this is SOP (standard operating procedure) and how they'll do exactly the same, blah blah blah...
Now, how almost ran out of fuel and had to declare "Mayday" to land at an airport that's not the destination can be considered SOP is beyond me. And those guys try to say the fuel problem is unrelated to the engine problem. Excuse me, but if they didn't have shut down an engine, or if they've landed in LA (or elsewhere before crossing the Atlantic), then there would not be a fuel problem, would it? So, the two are of course related.
And, if this is SOP, then why would the pilot even circle around LAX for 20 minutes talking to folks back in London and consult them? Apparently, they were considering landing back in LAX. If flying 10 hours with a failed engine and over the North Atlantic in the middle of winter is so SOP, why even consider landing in the first place?
Also, SOP doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do all the time. Sometimes a pilot just has to take charge of the situation and land the damn plane. Two tragic examples - 1) the Alaska Air MD-80 from Puerto Vallarta may be able to land in LAX safely instead of crashing trying to get to SFO, as instructed by AS personnel on the ground; 2) not all passengers of Swissair 111 may die if the pilot had decided to land at Halifax immediately, even if the plane was overweight, instead of following "SOP" and circle to dump fuel.
Another twist in the story that I haven't read elsewhere is that it's BA's crosstown rival Virgin Atlantic that emphasizes they only use 4-engine planes. I wonder if any British journal has asked Sir Richard if flying on 3 engines across the oceans all the time is what he has in mind all along...
Now, how almost ran out of fuel and had to declare "Mayday" to land at an airport that's not the destination can be considered SOP is beyond me. And those guys try to say the fuel problem is unrelated to the engine problem. Excuse me, but if they didn't have shut down an engine, or if they've landed in LA (or elsewhere before crossing the Atlantic), then there would not be a fuel problem, would it? So, the two are of course related.
And, if this is SOP, then why would the pilot even circle around LAX for 20 minutes talking to folks back in London and consult them? Apparently, they were considering landing back in LAX. If flying 10 hours with a failed engine and over the North Atlantic in the middle of winter is so SOP, why even consider landing in the first place?
Also, SOP doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do all the time. Sometimes a pilot just has to take charge of the situation and land the damn plane. Two tragic examples - 1) the Alaska Air MD-80 from Puerto Vallarta may be able to land in LAX safely instead of crashing trying to get to SFO, as instructed by AS personnel on the ground; 2) not all passengers of Swissair 111 may die if the pilot had decided to land at Halifax immediately, even if the plane was overweight, instead of following "SOP" and circle to dump fuel.
Another twist in the story that I haven't read elsewhere is that it's BA's crosstown rival Virgin Atlantic that emphasizes they only use 4-engine planes. I wonder if any British journal has asked Sir Richard if flying on 3 engines across the oceans all the time is what he has in mind all along...
Mar 2nd, 2005, 05:47 AM
#19
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't speak to this most recent incident, but investigation revealed the Swissair flight was doomed no matter what the pilot did. Plus, fire on board is a much more unpredictable scenario than a lost engine.
Mar 2nd, 2005, 08:28 AM
#20
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 37,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the Swissair crash is mentioned. They just had a program on that whole incedent on PBS last night. I watched a bit of it because I had seen it before. Actually, the plane MAY have been saved if they had landed sooner but the cause of the fire was a spark in one of the wires that ignited the insulation in the top of the plane. That insulation is extremely flammable and at this time does NOT meet requirements although half the US fleet is flying planes with that same insulation. The pilot shut down many of the systems including the air conditioning so the smoke was sucked up into the cabin and the fire was right over their heads. When the airconditioning was running it pulled the smoke toward the back of the plane so no one was aware how bad it was until the systems were shut down. So often when they find the causes of these things, and so many of them could be prevented, the airlines balk at the cost of retro fit or what ever and the TSB and the FAA cave. I get the feeling somehow that the airlines just figure it's acceptable losses..after all, major plane crashed are very rare, thank goodness, but a plane going down with 2 or three hundred people every so often is an accpetable trade off for the cost savings. By the way, the new huge Airbus that is being built has exactly the same insulation as the Swissair plane that went down. Personally, I just don't get it. Boy, I really am jaded aren't I.
