tecoyah

Sometimes....it would seem regulations and laws create a somewhat counterproductive result....Case in Point:


February 25, 2005

Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000
By Ben Webster
Turning back after engine failure would have left airline liable to pay out for delays under new rules on compensation
A BRITISH AIRWAYS jumbo jet carrying 351 passengers was forced to make an emergency landing after an 11-hour transatlantic flight with a failed engine.

The fault occurred on take-off from Los Angeles but the pilot declined all opportunities to land in the US and instead continued on three engines for 5,000 miles to Britain.

The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000.

Balpa, the British Air Line Pilots’ Association, gave warning last night that the regulation could result in pilots being pressured into taking greater risks for commercial reasons.

The regulation requires airlines to refund passengers the full cost of their tickets as well as flying them home if a delay lasts longer than five hours. Passengers must also be put up in hotels if the delay continues overnight.

The BA flight departed at 8.45pm on Saturday and the airline admitted that the delay would have been well over five hours if it had returned to Los Angeles.

BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the flight. But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only 100ft above the ground.

Air traffic controllers at Los Angeles spotted streams of sparks shooting from the engine and immediately radioed the pilot. He attempted to throttle the engine back but was forced to shut it down after it continued to overheat. The plane then began circling over the Pacific while the pilot contacted BA’s control centre in London to discuss what to do. They decided the flight should continue to London even though it would burn more fuel on just three engines.

The Boeing 747 was unable to climb to its cruising altitude of 36,000ft and had to cross the Atlantic at 29,000ft, where the engines perform less efficiently and the tailwinds are less favourable. The unbalanced thrust also meant the pilot had to apply more rudder, causing extra drag.

The pilot realised as he flew over the Atlantic that he was running out of fuel and would not make it to Heathrow. He requested an emergency landing at Manchester and was met by four fire engines and thirty firefighters on the runway.

Philip Baum, an aviation security specialist on board the flight with his wife and three daughters, said he had heard two loud bangs shortly after take-off. “The pilot came on to say we had lost an engine and he was negotiating about whether or not we should land back at Los Angeles.

“A few minutes later, I was amazed to see from the map on the TV screen that we were flying eastwards towards Britain. I would be disgusted if the issue of compensation had any bearing on the decision.”

BA said financial concerns had played no part in the decision. Captain Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet, said the only consideration had been “what was best for passengers”.

“The plane is as safe on three engines as on four and it can fly on two. It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue. The options would have been limited for passengers [if the plane had returned to Los Angeles].” He said the pilot would have had to dump more than 100 tonnes of fuel before landing at Los Angeles. “The authorities would have had words to say about that.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...499342,00.html

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

chickentribs

If the plane can't make it to Heathrow, I think it is fair to say safety was the issue! I am on planes more than anyone I know, and I get as frustrated as anyone when I miss connecting flights etc... But this seems irresponsible on a level that would make me consider legal action for endangerment. There has got to be a better system than having the airlines making safety decisions based on monetary penalties for delays - this is a disaster waiting for some innocent victims.

I'm flying to Germany this week... great.

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

maleficent

For work, I keep a timer file of how my work hours are spent. For grins and chuckles and acid indigestion, we started tracking how much time was spent in transit to customer sites and we came up with a separate category for specifically tracking flight delays. In 2004, the figure I came up with was more than 2 weeks (I week being 40 hours) worth of time (I think it was over 90 hours) were wasted waiting out flight delays. That's a lot of time..

I would love to see something in the way of compensation for flight delays, the closest I've come to it, was on an American Airlines flight that took off, had some sort of engine trouble about 100 miles into the flight, and the pilot opted to turn around and go back to Newark. We landed safely, it was the right decision, and American credited me with 10,000 miles.

I've been on another AA flight, that wasn't allowed to take off because (and I know nothing of airline mechanics) some back up whatchamacallit that is used for landing gear only in the event that the primary and secondary equipment fails didn't work. The plane wasn't allowed to fly. Engine failure should be enough to turn a plane around.

For an airline to know on take off that they have a problem, and for that problem to be ignored, then that problem gets compounded because they can't reach cruising altitude and almost run out of fuel, all because they didn't want to inconvenience people? It'd be a bigger inconvenience if that plane went down. The lawsuits would cost a bit more than 100,000 pounds. Now, I'm also sure that BA got charged for landing at Manchester instead of Heathrow, so they the money they saved they lost somewhere else.

__________________

superiorrain

Well thank you that make me feel safe. Though then again i know a pilot who mainly flys around Europe and he tells me its not that uncommen for an engine to fail once in a while. However, when it has happen to him unless its right after take off he flys as usual. But wouldn't like to hear it happen when i was 5000 miles away from destination and over water with no opportunity to land anywhere.

__________________
"The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C. Clarke

tecoyah

Guess these guys failed to learn from experience:

Engine fails on BA jet twice in a week
Fri Mar 4, 2005 10:06 AM ET



LONDON (Reuters) - A British Airways passenger jet was forced to shut down one of its engines in mid-flight twice in one week after a replacement engine failed, the airline said Friday.

In what BA described as a bizarre coincidence, the number two engine on a Boeing 747-400 plane flying from Singapore to London was shut down last month after the pilot received an oil pressure warning.

The aircraft, carrying 356 passengers, arrived safely in London after flying for more than 10 hours on three of its four engines. The 747-400 is designed to fly safely on three engines.

The same jet was forced to fly on three engines from Los Angeles to London less than a week earlier after the previous number-two engine stopped mid-way into the flight after a fuel surge.

The plane made an emergency landing at Manchester Airport after fuel ran low. The faulty engine was replaced with a new engine fresh off the production line.

"It looks like one of those freaky coincidences. It is perfectly safe to fly on three engines, and the 747 can fly on two engines," a BA spokesman said.

Britain's Civil Aviation Authority said it was monitoring the BA investigation into the incident but said it saw no reason to issue any operational guidance on engine failure to carriers.

"It is not a common event but it happens from time to time," an aviation source said.

BA has rejected any suggestion the decision to fly on only three engines was linked to new rules which force airlines to compensate passengers for major delays.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...ifferent-story

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Strange Famous

I saw that on Fark and was gonna post it, but you already did!

I know it is safe to fly one of those planes on two engines if you need to, but if it loses an engine twice in a week, you'd think they might have a look and see if there is something wrong with the plane itself!

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Manuel Hong

All I can say is that safety should be the bottom line, not money.

__________________
Believe nothing, even if I tell it to you, unless it meets with your own good common sense and experience. - Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

Carno

Since when has money taken a back seat to anything?

ScottKuma

As far as the bottom line goes, safety = money!

If an airline gets a reputation for not being safe, their passengers will find other ways to get to their reputation. Revenue will suffer, ergo, the bottom line.

I fly between the Midwest and Northeast (US) weekly. If there were EVER an incident that I believed compromised my safety, I would never fly that airline again. Period.

guthmund

Well, then you are in the minority.

My experience with the teeming masses is that cheap & convenient trump safe & secure 90% of the time.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

maleficent

Well ValueJet bit the dust after the crash in the Everglades and a bad safety record -- however... they reinvented themselves as Air Tran and people do fly them... (I personally will never fly them, I will pay a little more for a flight, than put my butt on one of their planes)

__________________

Manuel Hong

Maleficient, point taken about discount flights, but Brittish Airways is not known as a bargain basement airline. Does anyone know which airline has the record of being the safest?

edit: I just found this...interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my...est%20Airline?

It looks like America and Canada are not too bad. I've read that Qantas has had 0 accidents.

__________________
Believe nothing, even if I tell it to you, unless it meets with your own good common sense and experience. - Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

Carno

Each airline has to submit a maintenance program to the FAA for approval, and once that maintenance program is approved, it is illegal for the airline to deviate from it.

As was said before, safety = money for airlines, so none of the airlines are about to compromise safety for anything. That being said, shit happens. Despite rigorous maintenance programs, bad things still happen that are not necessarily the fault of the airline.... things still break.

IC3

Been in a plane once when i was a kid going to florida on vacation.

I won't ever step foot in a plane again, Plane goes down..you got almost zero chances of living.
I like being on solid ground and would rather drive, Bus it or train it to wherever i'm going..Even if it is florida.

Car breaks down..You sit on the side of the road and wait for tow truck, Bus breaks down you wait for another bus..Train breaks down you wait for help, Plane breaks down..Your going straight down to the ground.

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

Carno

Ahhh what's the fun in that?

I have flown nearly every day for the past three years, and I'm still here. Flying is MUCH safer statistically than any other mode of transportation. Your chances of making it out alive should you ever be involved in a plane crash are VERY slim, but chances are you will never be involved in a plane crash.

IC3

I know statistically flying is the safest..But man, I don't know..If i was in a plane and hit an air pocket where the plane drops or bounces around, I would jump out of my seat and scream like a girl or grab the hottest girl on plane and take her to the bathroom thinking that were going down

Yes..I am the biggest pussy when it comes to airplanes, When i was a kid i loved it..But kids don't have much fear.

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

MSD

Speaking of poor safety, is ValuJet still around?


Rather than criticize BA about safety, I'll take it as a good sign that a plane with one engine out can circle for half an hour (just a guess,) fly 7000 feet below the optimal altitude, and still make it across a whole continent and a whole ocean.

maleficent

Known these days as Air Tran... a discounted airline, that flies mainly to touristy destinations.

__________________

Charlatan

A few years ago I flew in an AirTran jet from Atlanta to Panama City... That was one old and poorly upkept plane. Shabby would be a fair word.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ScottKuma

I think that you're right that the aircraft did perform well under the circumstances. However, the criticism was of the decision that BA made, not in the performance of the afflicted aircraft, and was well-deserved.

If the plane had actually made it to its intended destination, I might be willing to cut BA some slack. It didn't, so I'm not.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

shakran

Actually that's a plane on 3 engines, having lost one, not the other way around.

A 747 can fly on 3 engines. It can even glide for awhile, IC3, which means if it breaks down it's not necessarilly going straight into the ground. There are programs out there that will get you over your fear of flying that you might want to consider. The media makes a big deal out of airplane crashes precisely because they're so rare - if they were an everyday thing like car wrecks, you wouldn't see 'em on TV that much.

IC3

Nah..it's not the media that makes me not want to fly. I just don't like airplanes, I don't think i will ever have the need to fly anywhere (Unless i go overseas, But i doubt that) so i'ma stick to ground travel..I feel safer travelling on anything but a plane, Might take longer to get where i'm going..But that's ok.

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

Crisis

It can actually fly on one engine. But using any less than 4 puts a lot of stress on the control surfaces. It's also consuming TONS more fuel. The only worry they really needed to factor in was enough fuel to make it to the destination which they can do onboard in 2 seconds. If they had stopped for maintenance they would have lost hundreds of custumers and paid a hefty fine. With the current financial state of airlines they can't afford losses like that.

alicat

The first time I ever flew was back around '91 because I was a guest on "Geraldo". No, I don't mean to tease but I will not comment because, yes, those shows are bullshit and I am ashamed I ever went on one.

The second time was this past Dec., thirteen years later. We flew from Mich. to South Africa. That entailed three flights each way (there and back). We just got back from Florida (thank you frequent flier miles!) and therefore I have been on 9 flights in the past two months. I know that is nothing compared to those of you who are really "frequent fliers", but for me that is a whole lot of flying recently.

I am a huge baby about planes, even though, as someone else said and hubby keeps telling me, air transport is safer than driving in a car. The logical part of my brain keeps saying "yes!", while the more rudimentary part says "don't do it, it's not natural, you'll die!".

If I found out after the fact that a plane I was on had lost an engine practically on take-off and I wasn't made aware of the fact, much less not asked my opinion on what should be done (not that mine should override the qualified pilots, but the passengers who are 99% of the plane should be made aware and therefore included), I would probably be blowing steam all over the place and I think there would be a law suit or two pending.

Airlines first responsibility should be to the safety of their passengers. Anything else whether it be comfort, service or what have you, should be secondary.

Ali

__________________
'Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun, The frumious Bandersnatch!'--Jabberwocky, Lewis Carroll

"You cannot do a kindness too soon because you never know how soon it will be too late."--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Gabbyness

You got any info on the glide ratio of a 747? Pretty frickin' miserable, I would suspect.

What really surprises me is that ATC didn't jump all in that pilot's ass when they saw sparks flying out of a kaputz engine.

Gabbyness

[QUOTE=Crisis]It can actually fly on one engine. [QUOTE]

What you mean is it can execute a controlled crash w/ one engine. Something to keep its descent rate slightly lower than if there were no engines, but I hardly believe it can "fly" on one.

hawker rider

Well I feel that I might have a different point of view on this subject. I happen to fly a jombo-jet or the 747, myself for a living. It really isn't all that uncommon to continue on towards destination once one of the engines had to have been shut down. Offcourse it is very complicated to know all the information the pilots had when they made this decision, but I can guarantee you that the new regulation didn't have anything to do with making sure that they continued.

The regulation does cater for instances of delay that are technical or even weather realted, and is meant to counter the habit that a lot of the airlines have of 'overbooking'. They sell more chairs than the airplane has, to maximise profits and are counting on a certain number of passengers that have paid for their seat, but don't show up for whatever reason, connecting flight doesn't make it on time..... or they just don't show up..


For this airplane to have returned back to the airport of departure they would have had to circle for about an hour just to dump enough fuel to make them light enough for a landing.

questone

I think it is fair to say safety was the issue! I am on planes more than anyone I know, and I get as frustrated as anyone when I miss connecting flights etc... But this seems irresponsible on a level that would make me consider legal action for endangerment.