BA accused over flights with one engine down

Is this the same FAA that allowed a certain 747 operator to ferry one of their aircraft, with only 3 engines physically attached to the wing, due to cracks being found on the engine mounts?

Aircraft are often ferried with failed systems but the important difference between those flights and this BA flight is that passengers are not allowed to fly on ferry flights. Not to mention that a mechanic must insure that the failed system are secured.

There is definitely a political angle here and a good way of showing this is that the FAA (as do many organisations) have a double standard on certain issues when it is convenient to them.

I guess I don’t see a double standard as the “problem” that the FAA had with the flight wasn’t that there was a 3 engine aircraft flying but that an aircraft was flying after an engine was shutdown. As others have said this was very poor airmanship which the FAA and other national aviation administrations frown upon.

This has very little to do with how many engines the aircraft has.

Is this the same FAA that allowed a certain 747 operator to ferry one of their aircraft, with only 3 engines physically attached to the wing, due to cracks being found on the engine mounts?

Yes but my question was aiming to open peoples minds to the fact that there is more to this debate than the base question. There is definitely a political angle here and a good way of showing this is that the FAA (as do many organisations) have a double standard on certain issues when it is convenient to them.

Anyway back to the question – FAA considers 4 engine ops a problem yet 1 engine ops isn’t!!! 😮 C’mon, they want to have their cake and eat it too!!! Double standards?

I think you’re missing the point of the FAA’s stance. It doesn’t matter the size of the airplane or the number of engines but the fact that someone operated an airplane with a known failure (a sizeable failure at that). The margin of error for a single engine airplane is alot smaller but that doesn’t permit a flight crew on a 2-3-4 engine airplane to act with less impunity.

Wasn’t that proven to be a case of extremely poor (arrogant) airmanship ?

Yes it was.

The pilot put the aircraft in to an attitude from which it was impossible to recover at the height (or rather lack there of) it was at.

If they don’t need 4 engines then why don’t they have only 2 or 3?

…but they do need 4 engines (I never said they didn’t!)…so that they don’t have to divert into some little hovel like the twins when the better option may be to continue somewhere safer.

Anyway back to the question – FAA considers 4 engine ops a problem yet 1 engine ops isn’t!!! 😮 C’mon, they want to have their cake and eat it too!!! Double standards?

Look at the B-52 pilot who crashed the Buff in that famous video, He was practicing for a Airshow!!! was it worth putting a 50 year old Heavy Bomber through metal bending manuevers to impress a few thousand Airshow attendees? not to mention losing his life as well as the other crewmembers!

Wasn’t that proven to be a case of extremely poor (arrogant) airmanship ?

Another question:

If the FAA aren’t keen to let 4 engined aeroplanes fly on 3, how do they sleep at night allowing single engined aeroplanes to operate public transport flights under IFR?

a very good question.

So a 4 engined plane should divert when 1 engine quits? Fair enough, but with this logic a quad has 4 chances needing to divert versus the 1 chance a twin has. Regardless of the retorts that’s what the logic of this argument boils down to.

So basicaly as I understand it one of the primary reasons for the 747 having for engines has been negated? Please note I said one of the primary reasons.

If they don’t need 4 engines then why don’t they have only 2 or 3?

Another question:

If the FAA aren’t keen to let 4 engined aeroplanes fly on 3, how do they sleep at night allowing single engined aeroplanes to operate public transport flights under IFR?

Also another consideration from a pilot’s perspective is, If you have to shut one down, perform the applicable emergency checklists and land. NOBODY WILL QUESTION your judgement!!!! If you decide to continue as the BA crew did, evrybody will question your decision, especially if later on in the flight some other incident occurs. Your license and career will be HUNG OUT TO DRY and nobody will defend you!!
Trust me, when the BA crew landed, I guarantee you that the crew wasn’t given Air Medals or bonuses for getting the pax there on time, so as a Captain you have to weigh the worst case scenarios and act accordingly.
I have this happen quite a bit as an Air Force reservist, We can get so caught up in a training mission that one tends to take unecessary risks to achieve mission sucess, but short of an actual war, the risks in a training environment are never worth the consequences of a potentially career or life ending incident! Look at the B-52 pilot who crashed the Buff in that famous video, He was practicing for a Airshow!!! was it worth putting a 50 year old Heavy Bomber through metal bending manuevers to impress a few thousand Airshow attendees? not to mention losing his life as well as the other crewmembers!

Is there a ETOPS similar engine failure guideline for 3-4 engine aircraft? ie. An engine failure doesn’t require one to land at the nearest field but you must land within the next 5 hours? (I’m making up this statement but I didn’t know how to word my question any better).

No there isn’t. I think airmanship would play a role(well you would hope so).

We have had a few engines quit in flight but the guys always returned to the departure airfield, even when it failed three hours into the flight. 😉

Is there a ETOPS similar engine failure guideline for 3-4 engine aircraft? ie. An engine failure doesn’t require one to land at the nearest field but you must land within the next 5 hours? (I’m making up this statement but I didn’t know how to word my question any better).

No there isn’t. I think airmanship would play a role(well you would hope so).

We have had a few engines quit in flight but the guys always returned to the departure airfield, even when it failed three hours into the flight. 😉

Ren,

It’s all in the language….

but what I don’t understand is why 4 engined planes are therefore considered as being safe to continue with one engine down ?

The aircraft is safe. However, it is less safe than had it had 4 normal engines running.

Some hypothetical numbers to highlight the point….

4 Engines working out of 4 = 99.9999% safe
3 Engines working our of 4 = 99.9900% safe

Both fantastically safe statistics but one is clearly less safe than the other and therefore the public are more at risk in the latter of the scenarios.

Ren,

It’s all in the language….

but what I don’t understand is why 4 engined planes are therefore considered as being safe to continue with one engine down ?

The aircraft is safe. However, it is less safe than had it had 4 normal engines running.

Some hypothetical numbers to highlight the point….

4 Engines working out of 4 = 99.9999% safe
3 Engines working our of 4 = 99.9900% safe

Both fantastically safe statistics but one is clearly less safe than the other and therefore the public are more at risk in the latter of the scenarios.

WD,

In a 3 or 4 engine jet, if you suffer an engine failure there is no requirement to land at the nearest suitable airfield, so legally they can continue to their destination but airmanship should have come in to effect. It clearly didn’t in the BA case. 😉

Is there a ETOPS similar engine failure guideline for 3-4 engine aircraft? ie. An engine failure doesn’t require one to land at the nearest field but you must land within the next 5 hours? (I’m making up this statement but I didn’t know how to word my question any better).

WD,

In a 3 or 4 engine jet, if you suffer an engine failure there is no requirement to land at the nearest suitable airfield, so legally they can continue to their destination but airmanship should have come in to effect. It clearly didn’t in the BA case. 😉

Is there a ETOPS similar engine failure guideline for 3-4 engine aircraft? ie. An engine failure doesn’t require one to land at the nearest field but you must land within the next 5 hours? (I’m making up this statement but I didn’t know how to word my question any better).

Its interesting to note that all the pilots on this site agreed that the BA flight should not have continued, yet all the enthusiasts are spouting rather scientific reasons why its perfectly fine to operate on three engines! Heres my opinion (Air Force Pilot/Commercial 727/DC-8)
You have lost an engine, so you shut it down, The fan is still windmilling out in the nacelle as you streak through the skies at 400 knots. First question you ask, whats going to lubricate that rotating mass of metal? Hopefully your oil system, but if the engine was shut down for low oil pressure, perhaps due to a small oil leak, after a few hours what will be left to lubricate a heavy mass of spinning metal filled with deadly sharpened fan blades rotating at 1000s RPM? ( I had this happen to me).
Now take into consideration your flying slower , more drag due to rudder displacement, and your fuel burn is higher for the above reasons, so all your fuel computations are thrown out the window! you have to recompute divert alternates, check weather at each one, etc etc,
Have you considered now what you would do if you lose another in this situation? a good Captain should,
Bottom line If you lose an engine its considered an emergency, land at a suitable airport in a suitable time!
Take Care,
TTP

An excellent and reasoned point of view, but what I don’t understand is why 4 engined planes are therefore considered as being safe to continue with one engine down ?

Fair enough continue to the nearest diversion airport, but why even consider continuing making a journey of thousands of miles, especially one that’s only just begun ?

Its interesting to note that all the pilots on this site agreed that the BA flight should not have continued, yet all the enthusiasts are spouting rather scientific reasons why its perfectly fine to operate on three engines! Heres my opinion (Air Force Pilot/Commercial 727/DC-8)
You have lost an engine, so you shut it down, The fan is still windmilling out in the nacelle as you streak through the skies at 400 knots. First question you ask, whats going to lubricate that rotating mass of metal? Hopefully your oil system, but if the engine was shut down for low oil pressure, perhaps due to a small oil leak, after a few hours what will be left to lubricate a heavy mass of spinning metal filled with deadly sharpened fan blades rotating at 1000s RPM? ( I had this happen to me).
Now take into consideration your flying slower , more drag due to rudder displacement, and your fuel burn is higher for the above reasons, so all your fuel computations are thrown out the window! you have to recompute divert alternates, check weather at each one, etc etc,
Have you considered now what you would do if you lose another in this situation? a good Captain should,
Bottom line If you lose an engine its considered an emergency, land at a suitable airport in a suitable time!
Take Care,
TTP

An excellent and reasoned point of view, but what I don’t understand is why 4 engined planes are therefore considered as being safe to continue with one engine down ?

Fair enough continue to the nearest diversion airport, but why even consider continuing making a journey of thousands of miles, especially one that’s only just begun ?

Just try and keep things as safe as possible, that’s all. On 3 engines they did reduce the safety margin – but is it still reasonably safe? I’d say yes.

It’s a risk to fly, full stop.

dme