What would you do if... (Now Including The Real Story - BA 269)

[asl]

You are the pilot of a British Airways 747-400 departing LAX (Los Angeles International) with 350 passengers on board bound for LHR (London Heathrow). At 100feet off the ground during climb out your number 2 engines malfunctions and is running at idle power, you receive a call from the ATC in the control tower informing you that there are "sparks exiting the engine" You initiate an engine shut-down and re-start, but the engine remains malfunctioning.

Do you:
a) continue with the flight to London, with the engine shut down, or
b) dump fuel in the Pacific and return to LAX, or
c) try and make it to JFK with 3 engines, and ask operations to send a relief plane/crew/engineers/new engine to JFK to meet you.


Answer tomorrow (hint: check the newspapers for the actual answer, but opinions wanted as well)

[Baronman]

I would (D) divert to Honolulu, dump fuel along the way to avoid an overweight landing, call ops to have the crew van ready as well as the newscrews to call me a hero. Oh yeah, and have some of those hawaiian girls around to "lay" me!

[Kristie]

would you like me to move this thread into the "your the captain" forum? Just wondering if it's that type of scenario you want to run with this thread.

[FlyWhiteSox]

According to this website (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk) the engine did not fail at 100 feet off the ground or during climb out.

"The captain first noticed a problem an hour after take-off when engine number two on the port side of his aircraft experienced a power surge."

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne...day_alert.html

[CaptainMatt]

Is that standard to just shut down the inop engine and continue the flight across the atlantic ocean?

[asl]

The 1 hour into flight was a lie that BA Press Office tried to put out, check The Times, I read in todays's paper. The pilot crossed the Atlantic and made an emergency landing in Manchester,UK due to a fuel shortage. having flown at 29,000ft instead of 36,000ft the whole way due to the 3 engines. The story implied the airline chose this option as an alternative to incurring aproximately £10,000 in compensation to passengers under the new EU airline operators' charter. It was confirmed eventually by both BA and ATC in US that the plane's engine problem started at 100ft.

The airline's argument was it was trying to do the best for the passengers in continuing with the flight, I'm not convinced!

[I_Money]

I do not see the big deal - the aircraft flies fine with an engine inop, and I am sure they calculated the fuel burn to ensure they made it to the UK safely. The 10,000 GBP passenger cost is insignificant to the cost of dumping the fuel, an extra landing fee, and having a 3rd party do maintenance, etc. Flying into to MAN makes great sense, save on pollution, got the passenger to a place where they could easily get them to Heathrow with very little inconvenience (that flight is the last direct LAX-LHR reschedule at that time would have been a nightmare), and it probably helped them out with the maintenance, rather then a 3 engine ferry, or paying for maintenance by a 3rd party.

[Mr_Creepy]

B747 checklist does not have an emergency procedure for engine failure. It is considered an abnormal procedure (yellow tab.)

My friend who flew for Evergreen said they used to continue flights with one shut down pretty often.

[asl]

OK, I accept that the 747 flies pretty well on 3 engines, but the MAN landing was an emergency, fuel critical landing, with a runway stop, due to the in-op engine actually in contact with the ground! Also it is one thing to fly over land with 3 engines, quite another over an ocean, I think!

[asl]

article in The Times

[I_Money]

OK so here is the scoop - from my BA bros and bras.

After taking off at LAX they experienced a surge - with the EGT hitting 1200 degrees, and tower reporting 20 foot flames. The crew shut down the engine, and got intouch with company.

When you have an engine out the 3 concerns are: range (on the 747 when you go from 4 to 3 engines, you loose 10% of range), the terrain clearance due to lower altitudes (I think the highest points in greenland are 15,000 feet), and any other damamge to the aircraft or engines caused by the engine failing.

The aircraft had enough fuel onboard even with the engine out to make it to LHR. Approaching the UK they had problems moving fuel from the number 2 tank. At this point they went Pan Pann and diverted to MAN - their closest airport. At 3000' someone was number crunching, and it was determined they did not have required usable fuel to execute a go around - they went Mayday, asked for a sterile runway and informed the airport that they will be landing.

The aircraft landed with 5 tonnes of fuel, 3 in tank 2 (the one where they could not transfer fuel from), and 2 in the main tank. 2 tonnes is the Minimum Desired Landing Fuel less go around fuel. In inboard engine failure cases, an override pump is called upon to empty tank 2 and 3 - which in this case failed.

There was no parts hanging off the plane - the aircraft was 3 engine ferried to LHR's maintenance facility later that day.

It was not a miscalculation, or bad decision making that caused them to land at MAN, it was a malfunction that changed the whole dynamic of the flight. I think it really proves pilots are highly trained professionals, and know what they are doing. We as aspiring pilots/enthusiasts/general public should not second guess them, especially based on the media. This crew did a fantastic job, dealing with this malfunction that throw them such a nasty curve ball - realising at 3000 feet you have one go at it can't be fun!!!

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
In inboard engine failure cases, an override pump is called upon to empty tank 2 and 3 - which in this case failed.

It was not a miscalculation, or bad decision making that caused them to land at MAN, it was a malfunction that changed the whole dynamic of the flight.

realising at 3000 feet you have one go at it can't be fun!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they got down safely so all is well. But it is another classic case of snowballing problems. The loss of the inboard engine caused them to lose more redundancy than just that engine such as being down to just one pump for fuel extraction. And there can be no question that their fuel reserves were compromised. Cruising at 29,000' dragging a shutdown engine they were electing to fly well into their reserves, if all went well, which it didn't.

I find it a very hard decision to support. Having toasted the engine at takeoff it was just too far and over too much water to carry on. I'll be curious to see how the post-mortem on this comes out. It doesn't surprise me that some freight companies press on with an engine out. But for a 747 filled with people, I can't see it.

[I_Money]

My friend who works in mx, for another carrier with a substantial 747 operation said that 2 in flight shut downs per week on the 747s with the flight continueing and the passengers never finding out is nothing out of the ordinery. He also pointed out that it took 18 months for a 747 to fly accross the Atlantic and land with all engines operating - it was such a feet they had a party to celebrate.

I think an engine surge looks far more dramatic then it really is - especially at night (when BA269 took off). And for not having the ability to go around, it is not always a luxury in some circumstances - on a 747 if you have 2 engines out and flaps at 20 you no longer have the option.

At some point one has to trust that the people tasked with overseeing flight safety have looked at the various scenarios with dispassionate, but highly informed and educated, knowledge and deemed it safe. Three very experienced flight crew operated to company SOPs, themselves approved by the CAA.

[SteveC]

[ QUOTE ]
My friend who works in mx, for another carrier with a substantial 747 operation said that 2 in flight shut downs per week on the 747s with the flight continueing and the passengers never finding out is nothing out of the ordinery. He also pointed out that it took 18 months for a 747 to fly accross the Atlantic and land with all engines operating - it was such a feet they had a party to celebrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? That suprises me greatly. I'll be the first to admit I don't have any 747 experience, but I always understood turbines in general to be highly reliable, and I kind of think that both of those scenarios (2 in-flight shutdowns per week & 18 months to get 4 operating engines across the pond) sound rather improbable. Maybe I'm just naive.

[Doug Taylor]

Abnormal/non-normal = emergency checklist, it's largely semantics.

If BA is using the "Boeing Philosophy" checklists, chances are they've got normal procedures, non-normal procedures and supplementary procedures.

Normal procedure: Turning on the weather radar on the before takeoff checklist.
Non-Normal procedure: Correcting the situation when the weather radar doesn't function.
Supplementary procedure: How to actually use the weather radar.

[I_Money]

I am not sure if it was the 747 that took a while to accross the Atlantic with all engines operating, it could have been the 707/DC-8 era aircraft (if they had the range).

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
My friend who works in mx, for another carrier with a substantial 747 operation said that 2 in flight shut downs per week on the 747s with the flight continueing and the passengers never finding out is nothing out of the ordinery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with others that this sounds excessive. But there are many scenarios I can see where, on a 4 engine airplane, you would continue. I'm just saying that 100' AGL on takeoff on a LAX to LHR leg is not one of them.

[ QUOTE ]
He also pointed out that it took 18 months for a 747 to fly accross the Atlantic and land with all engines operating - it was such a feet they had a party to celebrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got to throw the bs flag on that one.

[ QUOTE ]
And for not having the ability to go around, it is not always a luxury in some circumstances - on a 747 if you have 2 engines out and flaps at 20 you no longer have the option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that's a tricky situation. Almost running yourself out of fuel so that you can't go around is not something you want to do many times in your career. It is all related to their decision to continue the flight with an engine out, thereby expending their reserves. The faulty pump just iced the cake.

[ QUOTE ]
At some point one has to trust that the people tasked with overseeing flight safety have looked at the various scenarios with dispassionate, but highly informed and educated, knowledge and deemed it safe. Three very experienced flight crew operated to company SOPs, themselves approved by the CAA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, on the other hand you have to know that sometimes bad decisions are made. Pressures of schedule and cost take over and not so "dispassionate" decisions are made. When it happens you look it over and put procedures in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. If it's BA policy that the 4th engine is optional for trans-Atlantic flights and the authoritites buy off on it, more power to them (or less as the case may be).

[stuckingfk]

[ QUOTE ]
He also pointed out that it took 18 months for a 747 to fly accross the Atlantic and land with all engines operating - it was such a feet they had a party to celebrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a feet lol

Or maybe ya'll in GB spell feet (like the two feet we have attached to our legs) with an e and a? And then you spell feat (notable achievement) with two e's.

[ROFCIBC]

[ QUOTE ]
Normal procedure: Turning on the weather radar on the before takeoff checklist.
Non-Normal procedure: Correcting the situation when the weather radar doesn't function.
Supplementary procedure: How to actually use the weather radar.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the Doug Taylor procedure (have to throw this one in, oh swarthy one!)

"Radar...what's a radar?"

[Doug Taylor]

[ QUOTE ]


And the Doug Taylor procedure (have to throw this one in, oh swarthy one!)

"Radar...what's a radar?"

[/ QUOTE ]

That there fancy box that you can use to determine when to slow down when you're on the arrival into FLL!

7,000 feet,335 KIAS and two miles to go until the 12 mile point!

[mrivc211]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it really proves pilots are highly trained professionals, and know what they are doing. We as aspiring pilots/enthusiasts/general public should not second guess them, especially based on the media

[/ QUOTE ]


NUFF SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flyover]

Article at WSJ.com in which Barry Schiff weighs in on the flight.

>>One former pilot questions the decision to proceed with an ailing airplane. "Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts," says Barry Schiff, a retired 747 captain with Trans World Airlines who has written books on proper flying procedures and has received a congressional commendation for his work in aviation safety.

Saga of British Airways Flight Raises Concerns at FAA

[deskjockey]

I would guess that BA has some standard procedure or at least the pilots know the general company policy for dealing with a situation like this.

In the Navy when we have an engine failure on a multi-engine aircraft we go by 1)the guidance from the aircraft standard operating procedures manual 2)guidance from a general Naval Aviation standards manual and finally 3)what is the safest thing to do. If we were to shut down an engine in flight we would continue on to our destination assuming we could satisfy a couple of things, taking into account Weather enroute, Familiarity with the route and destination, Airspace congestion, and Maintenance condition of the aircraft. Spells out WxFAM if you look closely. Then we can always fall back on what is the safest thing to do, which is generally handle the emergency and land at the nearest suitable airport, but if we always did that then there would be no need for the first two levels of guidance. Assuming all these conditions were met with satisfaction and after thorough discussion it would not be abnormal to continue a flight with an engine shut down.

I'm assuming the BA pilots went through some similar discussions, along with factoring in the companies desire to satisfy the customers, which must put pilots in a difficult position at times...

[flyover]

Pretty much the same for civilian ops. Except that it is generally considered "safest" to land after an engine failure. If you are a twin there is no discussion, except about which is the nearest safe airport. There is definitely a different perspective with hundreds of souls on board and a long flight over icy water with few alternates.

My guess is this was one of those deals where a decision by committee resulted in a boneheaded play. I'd bet that after this is reviewed it won't be repeated.

[DE727UPS]

"It doesn't surprise me that some freight companies press on with an engine out."

Are you kidding? I'd be landing and heading for the hotel.