Airline safety

probe

Excerpts from an incredible story about British Airways and safety which appears in the Wall St Journal:

A few seconds after a fully loaded British Airways 747 took off from Los Angeles on its way to London last year, one of its four engines erupted in a spectacular nighttime burst of flame.


An air-traffic controller watching the runways radioed a warning to British Airways Flight 268 and assumed the plane would quickly turn around. To controllers' surprise, the pilots checked with their company and then flew on, hoping to "get as far as we can," as the captain told the control tower. The jumbo jet ultimately travelled more than 5,000 miles with a dead engine before making an emergency landing in Manchester, England, as the crew worried about running out of fuel.


The Los Angeles air-traffic-control tapes, obtained by The Wall Street Journal under the Freedom of Information Act, show that controllers who saw the fiery engine failure with the jet just 296 feet in the air were immediately concerned about the flight and ready to guide it back to the airport. But the decision to return or keep flying rested with the captain and the airline.


An emergency landing would have required dumping $30,000 of fuel, and the airline might have owed $275,000 in compensation to passengers under European Union rules if the flight was more than five hours late.
Flight 268 also set off a feud between U.S. and United Kingdom regulators over which nation's rules would apply. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, taking a different view of the incident than British regulators, opened its own investigation and then an enforcement action, charging British Airways with flying the jet in an "unairworthy condition." The FAA proposed a $25,000 fine. But last month, the FAA quietly dropped the matter rather than fight in court with British Airways and possibly U.K. regulators as well.


You’ll find the full story at www.wsj.com (registration required)

Voice tapes of "conversation" between air traffic control in LA and BA crew:

http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird1/speedbird1.asx

http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird2/speedbird2.asx

http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird3/speedbird3.asx

http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/media.marketwatch.com/wsj/audio/20060918/speedbird4/speedbird4.asx


.probe

BrianD

Well it sounds from the recording that the BA crew did their checks and decided it was safe to proceed. "Seeing what their company says" would not be unusual as all airlines have a tech team that can advise crews on these matters (where are the tapes of this conversation?). Remember a 'flame out' might look more dramatic than it actually is. The pilots reference to 'getting as far as we can' is probably a turn of phrase.

A Boeing 747 has 4 engines and I'm sure a malfunctioning engine is not that unusual. I recall hearing that an Irish operator of 747's had a similar problem many years ago after take off and flew to it's US destination. The main problem is that it didn't have enough thrust to take off again so a reserve engine was flows out attached to the wing of another 747.

probe

BrianD wrote:

Well it sounds from the recording that the BA crew did their checks and decided it was safe to proceed. "Seeing what their company says" would not be unusual as all airlines have a tech team that can advise crews on these matters (where are the tapes of this conversation?). Remember a 'flame out' might look more dramatic than it actually is. The pilots reference to 'getting as far as we can' is probably a turn of phrase.

A Boeing 747 has 4 engines and I'm sure a malfunctioning engine is not that unusual. I recall hearing that an Irish operator of 747's had a similar problem many years ago after take off and flew to it's US destination. The main problem is that it didn't have enough thrust to take off again so a reserve engine was flows out attached to the wing of another 747.

It seems to me that if you have something on fire (especially an engine) on an aircraft, particularly at the start of a long journey, you should land, investigate and fix the problem. In the context of running an airline the cost of the fuel dumping exercise is immaterial. What if another engine packs up, mid-way across the Atlantic? There is nothing in reserve at that point.

I would never again fly with this company - I've had several experiences of landing gear problems, and have come across to many signs of neglect and bad maintenance within the cabin - which is a good indication of the general standards or lack thereof of attention to detail.

probe

jackofalltrades

What if another engine packs up, mid-way across the Atlantic? There is nothing in reserve at that point.

AFAIK the 747 is rated to run on 3 engines. And the odds of losing 2 engines on a 747 are incredibly low. As long as the pilot's had a contingency plan for landing safely had another engine falied then they behaved correctly. Although flying to the point where yo'ure almost out of fuel is dangerous.

It seems to me that if you have something on fire (especially an engine) on an aircraft, particularly at the start of a long journey, you should land, investigate and fix the problem.

From what I remember I don't think engine was on fire, but that it was some kind of common malfunction such as a compressor surge, do a search on the likes of pprune.org, they probably explain it a lot better there.

In the context of running an airline the cost of the fuel dumping exercise is immaterial.

But the cost of paying out $275,000 in compensation isn't.