cgksheff Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 "Air traffic controllers were "amazed" by a decision to continue a British Airways transatlantic flight after an engine caught fire on take-off. Flames were seen coming from the Boeing 747 as it took off from Los Angeles bound for London. The plane, carrying 351 passengers, eventually did declare an emergency and landed safely in Manchester." "A report earlier this year into the February 2005 incident by the UK's Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) said no evidence had been found to show that the flight continuation posed a significant increase in risk." Full BBC Report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 The plane, carrying 351 passengers, eventually did declare an emergency and landed safely in Manchester. If you read the report, the reason for them declaring the emergency was because they had not been granted as high a transatlantic crossing as they wanted, using more fuel, and they only had 3 engines, using more fuel, and they did not correctly calculate the extra fuel they required. Jumbo's are designed to be able to continue their takeoff / flight with only 3 engines perfectly safely, despite the sensationalistism of the BBCs report today. The AAIB seem to be perfectly happy with the decision of the crew to continue the flight, but were concerned at their handling of the low fuel levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted September 25, 2006 Author Share Posted September 25, 2006 "But David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, said: “It was a very odd decision to continue to London." Air Traffic Controllers were amazed at the decision to continue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Normally I like taking a shot at irresposible journalists who turn a minor incident into "aircraft plummets and narrowly misses a school". In this case I have to say that it is right an proper that journalists investiage the incident and that the reporting is reasonable. The aircraft took off at night and a loud bang was heard. Shortly afterwards ATC report seeing flames in No 2 engine. The commander then decided to continue the flight rather than dumping fuel and returning. The emergency wasn't decalared to get favourable altitudes, it was because they had difficulties maintaining the balance of fuel between the tanks and because they feared that the contents on one tank might be unusable. The AAIB note that their route took tham across the US and over "numerous suitable diversion airfields", yet they continued across the Atlantic. My own view is that they should have landed elsewhere in the US and had the problem looked at and that flying the atlantic with an engine unservicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Immediately after the aircraft took off on a night flight from Los Angeles to London, a banging sound was heard and passengers and ATC reported seeing flames from the No 2 engine. The symptoms and resultant turbine over-temperature were consistent with an engine surge; the crew completed the appropriate checklist, which led to the engine being shut down. After assessing the situation, and in accordance with approved policy, the commander decided to continue the flight as planned rather than jettison fuel and return to Los Angeles. Having reached the east coast of the USA with no indications of further abnormality and with adequate predicted arrival fuel, the crew decided to continue to the UK. The winds and available flight levels were subsequently less favourable than anticipated and, nearing the UK, the crew decided to divert to Manchester in order to maintain the required arrival fuel reserve. In the latter stages of the flight the crew encountered difficulties in balancing the fuel quantities in the four main tanks, became concerned that the contents of one tank might be unusable and declared an emergency in accordance with the operator’s procedures. The aircraft landed with low contents in both outboard main tanks, although the total fuel quantity was in excess of the planned reserve. The fuel system, in the configuration selected, should have continued to feed the operating engines until all tanks emptied. Full report here: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/june_2006/boeing_747_436__g_bnlg.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 The US newspapers are saying that BA would have had to pay out as much as £100,000 in compensation if they had turned back. Is compensation culture about to cause an air disaster I wonder? If we get several hundred people killed because of this culture then will there be a backlash and will we be able to stand on chairs in the office again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.