Simviation Forum - 351 passengers and an engine on fire...

Reply #15 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 1:29pm

expat Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!

Gender:
Posts: 8499

Quote:

They had enough fuel to make the trip, according to the FMC, and they had the performance available to do so. Had they lost another engine they would've made an emergency landing, just like a twin. I really don't see the danger about this.

At last it has been said. I would have said sooner, but there is not just a flame risk from the engine in question Cry

I see no danger and no story here. It is sensationalism from an armchair media.

Matt

PETA People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 1:45pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

They had enough fuel to make the trip, according to the FMC, and they had the performance available to do so. Had they lost another engine they would've made an emergency landing, just like a twin. I really don't see the danger about this.

Sorry. If that is the case why did they declare an emergency & land at Manchester instead of Heathrow? The facts are somewhat different now from what was stated at the time. The whole thing stinks as far as I'm concerned.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 1:47pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Wait a minute !

If losing one engine makes a 747 fuel IN-efficient enough to barely make it.. What if they had lost another engine, out over the ocean ?

Proceeding out over the Atlantic, one engine failure away from having to ditch, is pretty darn near criminal negligence, in my book.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 1:58pm

expat Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!

Gender:
Posts: 8499

Quote:

Sorry. If that is the case why did they declare an emergency & land at Manchester instead of Heathrow? The facts are somewhat different now from what was stated at the time. The whole thing stinks as far as I'm concerned.

For the same reason that they would have declared an emergency if they landed at in the US, they were only flying with three engines. The danger is at landing, not whilst flying. As for Manchester, that was the airport that they could get safely to within the required fuel usage and remaining diversion fuel. Effectively, it was as if they had left the US with the required fuel for Manchester and not Heathrow. The fact that they were burning more fuel than normal is not in question. The question is whether they had the required fuel to get to the chosen destination. As I have already said, before they decided to carry on flying the first thing that would have been carried out is a fuel recalculation. It was calculated that they could get to Manchester within the required safety margins.

I think that this particular thread is a "Schumacher", love him or hate him.

Quote:

Wait a minute !

If losing one engine makes a 747 fuel IN-efficient enough to barely make it.. What if they had lost another engine, out over the ocean ?

Proceeding out over the Atlantic, one engine failure away from having to ditch, is pretty darn near criminal negligence, in my book.

What is with the barely make it. The aircraft in question flew past half a dozen other UK airports that could take a 747 before he landed in Manchester. Manchester was the destination, Heathrow was the destination before fuel recalculation were made.

Matt

PETA People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 2:10pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

For the same reason that they would have declared an emergency if they landed at in the US, they were only flying with three engines.

OK, I accept that but what if another engine had failed? If this had happened over the Atlantic it would have been a completely different situation.

If I remember correctly BA originally stated that the engine failed 1 hour after take-off when we now know that it caught fire during take-off. If I'd been aboard that aircraft I would have liked to return to KLAX as soon as possible rather than risk a transatlantic flight of some 11 hours on 3 engines.

Quote:

I think that this particular thread is a "Schumacher", love him or hate him.

I never trusted the BA management. It's quite obvious that they took the decision because of the new EU legislation. The captain's hands were tied. If this had been a small airline they would have had the book thrown at them.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 3:32pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Quote:

What is with the barely make it.

Well.. let's see. A flight was already shortened for fuel reasons. If (and I think this is a reasonable assumption) an engine failure, mid Atlantic would have meant ditching... I'd say that they barely made it over the pond... let alone ANY airport in the UK.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 4:11pm

expat Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!

Gender:
Posts: 8499

As I said, Schumacher

Matt

PETA People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 4:21pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

As I said, Schumacher

Matt

Not sure I understand that but whatever. Roll Eyes

I'll go along with BALPA on this. Quote:

Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Balpa’s chairman, said: “The EU regulation is poorly drafted and increases the pressure on pilots to consider commercial issues when making judgments in marginal safety situations.”

Also note that BA has since changed its procedures. Quote:

The airline has vociferously denied that the decision to press on with only 3/4 of its available engines had anything to do with financial considerations. However, BA policy has since been clarified that the plane must land if it experiences an engine failure, even if those engines remaining are running just fine

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=296d5130-8be3-4dcc-a4e0-2331d4...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 5:04pm

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

I understand the Schumacher reference..

But I don't see where it applies here. Knowingly embarking across an ocean, in a 25% disabled, commercial liner, with 351 people onboard is not defensible. It was reckless and greedy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 5:38pm

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

A 747 is safe to fly with four engines. It can lose two and keep flying. But one three engines? It can't lose two and keep flying...

... but what are the chances of that? The same as if it had four operational engines when it departed LAX. Engine failure probability is independant so the probability that each of the three remaining engines would die is the same as if the engine failure hadn't happened. In fact it may be greater since they operated the whole flight at a higher power setting.

If I were captain I wouldn't have done it, to hell with what the management told me. If they wanted me to hand in my hat I'd have done so right at the gate at LAX.

Maybe, maybe I could be convinced that flying to NYC would be okay since there are so many divert airports along the way. But across the Atlantic? Sure hard to find a good place to put a 747 on the big wet.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 5:57pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

The irony of this statement is that a regional pilot probably does have more experience than a heavy pilot.

Conversly I know several long haul pilots whose first full time commercial job has been as a direct entry captain on long haul heavies...

...the difference - they spent between 16-25 years flying (in most cases) military fast jet types first, hence having highly developed motor flying skills and captaincy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 6:05pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

Sorry. If that is the case why did they declare an emergency & land at Manchester instead of Heathrow? The facts are somewhat different now from what was stated at the time. The whole thing stinks as far as I'm concerned.

Just a thought on this one - I assume that civil flyers all have to operate in a similar fashion to military ops with a designated diversion airfield if the destination runway was to suddenly become unavailable for some reason.

If this changed from, for example, Stansted to Manchester for any numbner of reasons, the required diversion fuel would increase. If an approach could not be completed to Heathrow without the required fuel to then divert if no landing was made (again, for any number of reasons), you would go to the diversion airfield.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Sep 26^th, 2006 at 7:50pm

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

Quote:

Maybe, maybe I could be convinced that flying to NYC would be okay since there are so many divert airports along the way. But across the Atlantic? Sure hard to find a good place to put a 747 on the big wet.

The NAT routes seems okay with twins (ETOPS, remember?) Not sure why a NAT wouldn't be good (or safe?) enough for a 3 engine 747?...

Also add that there is a possibility of an even more northern routing, which only decreases the distances for an alternate aerodrome.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Sep 27^th, 2006 at 8:02am

Saitek Offline
Colonel
UK

Gender:
Posts: 7555

It's all saying the plane could fly ok on two engines, but especially if one has caught fire - its there a possibility the engine next to it could be damaged? Apart from the fact there is an unbalance amount of force there would two engines hold the plane up FULL of fuel? 351 passengers +12 hours off fuel and luggage on two engines?

Windows 7 Pro 64bit
Intel Core 2 Duo E2180 2GHz
GA-P35-DS3L Intel P35
Kingston HyperX 4GB (2x2) DDR2 6400C4 800Mhz
GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
2 x 22" monitors
200GB Sata
Be Quiet! Straight Power 650W

Flying FSX with Saitek's pro flight range:
Radio
Switch panel
Auto-pilot
Yoke and throttle quad
Pedals

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Sep 27^th, 2006 at 8:59am

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

The engine didn't catch fire. It's like if you see a shot of flame come out of an exhaust pipe. It means somethings not right and the engine shouldn't be pushed or indeed used but it doesn't mean the whole this is going to explode any minute.

Maybe management did have a say in where the plane landed but every pilot knows that once the plane is in the air he has the final say and if he didn't feel it was safe then he would have diverted. Remember it was his life on the line as well cause he wasn't flying the plane by remote control.

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: