FAA Accuses British Airways of Recklessness

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu...r=MOREOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they were
preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a
charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because it
allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with one of its
four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was more
likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways,
said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a four-engine
airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air and
fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English coast,
the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three engines
when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.

"NEWS" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu...r=MOREOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they were
preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a
charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because it
allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with one of its
four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was more
likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways,
said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a four-engine
airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air and
fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English coast,
the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three engines
when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.

Sounds like someone made up another story to sell papers.

Paul Nixon

khobar wrote:
"NEWS" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu...r=MOREOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they
were preparing to take strong action against British Airways,
including a charge of "careless and reckless operation of an
aircraft," because it allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to
Britain with one of its four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was
more likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British
Airways, said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a
four-engine airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one
engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air
and fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English
coast, the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in
Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three
engines when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.

Sounds like someone made up another story to sell papers.

Paul Nixon

I don't know about the actions of the US FAA, but the story of the
flight continuing on with three engines did make international news. I have
not seen a retraction of it.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
khobar wrote:
"NEWS" wrote in message
oups.com...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu...r=MOREOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they
were preparing to take strong action against British Airways,
including a charge of "careless and reckless operation of an
aircraft," because it allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to
Britain with one of its four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was
more likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British
Airways, said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a
four-engine airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one
engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air
and fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English
coast, the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in
Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three
engines when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.

Sounds like someone made up another story to sell papers.

Paul Nixon

I don't know about the actions of the US FAA, but the story of the
flight continuing on with three engines did make international news. I
have
not seen a retraction of it.

Actually the same plane made two flights with 3 engines - the first from LAX
to MAN, the second from SIN to LHR after the original engine had been
replaced. Coincidently, it was the #2 engine on both flights that failed -
apparently for different reasons last I read.

Regarding the supposed actions of the FAA, I was referring to the extremely
sloppy journalism in which the writer claims the FAA is going after BA for
recklessness based on what some unnamed FAA officials supposedly said. I
believe the unnamed officials are actually one person, Les Dorr, who weighed
in the other day claiming that BA was in violation of FAA rules when, in
fact, BA was not. I believe the writer of this particular story didn't do
any further research, thought it sounded good, and threw the whole thing
together.

Paul Nixon

"Joseph Meehan"
:

khobar wrote:
"NEWS" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu.../08air.html?ex
=1110949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner=MO REOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they
were preparing to take strong action against British Airways,
including a charge of "careless and reckless operation of an
aircraft," because it allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to
Britain with one of its four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was
more likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British
Airways, said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a
four-engine airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one
engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he
said. "There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air
and fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English
coast, the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in
Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three
engines when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to
London.

Sounds like someone made up another story to sell papers.

Paul Nixon

I don't know about the actions of the US FAA, but the story of the
flight continuing on with three engines did make international news.
I have not seen a retraction of it.


A retraction of the story?


Why?


Bertie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

khobar wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...


I don't know about the actions of the US FAA, but the story of
the flight continuing on with three engines did make international
news. I have not seen a retraction of it.

Actually the same plane made two flights with 3 engines - the first
from LAX to MAN, the second from SIN to LHR after the original engine
had been replaced. Coincidently, it was the #2 engine on both flights
that failed - apparently for different reasons last I read.

Yes that is what I recall.


Regarding the supposed actions of the FAA, I was referring to the
extremely sloppy journalism

I have come to expect that. In fact I would go so far as to suggest
that some of the sloppy reporting is selective, usually to make the story
appear larger than life.

in which the writer claims the FAA is
going after BA for recklessness based on what some unnamed FAA
officials supposedly said. I believe the unnamed officials are
actually one person, Les Dorr, who weighed in the other day claiming
that BA was in violation of FAA rules when, in fact, BA was not. I
believe the writer of this particular story didn't do any further
research, thought it sounded good, and threw the whole thing together.

Paul Nixon

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
khobar wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...


I don't know about the actions of the US FAA, but the story of
the flight continuing on with three engines did make international
news. I have not seen a retraction of it.

Actually the same plane made two flights with 3 engines - the first
from LAX to MAN, the second from SIN to LHR after the original engine
had been replaced. Coincidently, it was the #2 engine on both flights
that failed - apparently for different reasons last I read.

Yes that is what I recall.


Regarding the supposed actions of the FAA, I was referring to the
extremely sloppy journalism

I have come to expect that. In fact I would go so far as to suggest
that some of the sloppy reporting is selective, usually to make the story
appear larger than life.

In most instances reporters appear to intentionally exagerate the
seriousness of routine incidents to play on the fears of John Q Public IMHO.

in which the writer claims the FAA is
going after BA for recklessness based on what some unnamed FAA
officials supposedly said. I believe the unnamed officials are
actually one person, Les Dorr, who weighed in the other day claiming
that BA was in violation of FAA rules when, in fact, BA was not. I
believe the writer of this particular story didn't do any further
research, thought it sounded good, and threw the whole thing together.

Paul Nixon

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

In article , JL Grasso
wrote:

So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and punish the
airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is going to stick.

That's why the FAA has conflicting rules. You either break one or the
other, it's their call and you have no defense.

L Grasso wrote:

On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS" wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu...r=MOREOVERNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they were
preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a
charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because it
allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with one of its
four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was more
likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways,
said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a four-engine
airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air and
fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English coast,
the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three engines
when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.

So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and punish the
airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is going to stick.

Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when they can't find a clear violation of any rule. Also note that 121.565
permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the destination on 3 engines. So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even required to follow 14 CFR 121. It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the recent negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I don't see
what the big deal is.

Would this be the same FAA that denied the Air Transat flight permission to
land?

"Sam Whitman" wrote in message
...

L Grasso wrote:

On 8 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0800, "NEWS" wrote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/bu...r.html?ex=1110
949200&en=a8ef80ec613e88a4&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVE RNEWS

F.A.A. Accuses British Airways of Recklessness
By DON PHILLIPS

Published: March 8, 2005


International Herald Tribune

Federal Aviation Administration officials said yesterday that they were
preparing to take strong action against British Airways, including a
charge of "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because it
allowed a Boeing 747 to fly from California to Britain with one of its
four engines inoperable.

Under normal circumstances, the United States would not take action
against British Airways because such issues would be handled by
Britain. But senior United States aviation officials have become
concerned about the actions of the flight crew and its supervisors.

F.A.A. officials said that the United States had the right to block
entry to the United States by British Airways but that a fine was more
likely.

British Airways expressed surprise over the developments. Steve
Shelterline, general manager for the 747 program with British Airways,
said it was clear that F.A.A. rules would not prevent a four-engine
airplane like the 747 from continuing flight with one engine out.

"The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines," he said.
"There is no requirement to land."

British Airways Flight 268 took off from Los Angeles on Feb. 19 and
quickly developed trouble with one engine. Mr. Shelterline said this
was caused by an engine surge, which occurs when the mixture of air and
fuel is suddenly incorrect. As the jet approached the English coast,
the crew decided to declare an emergency and land early in Manchester.

On Feb. 25, six days later, the same 747 flew 11 hours on three engines
when an engine gave out on a flight from Singapore to London.

So, the FAA is going to ignore what FAR 121.565 allows, and punish the
airline (basically under FAR 91.3)? I don't think that is going to
stick.

Note that FAA often uses 91.3 to throw pilots in the brig when they can't
find a clear violation of any rule. Also note that 121.565
permits a 4 engine airliner to continue flying to the destination on 3
engines. So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
required to follow 14 CFR 121. It looks like FAA is grandstanding,
probably under the guise of having to "do something" after the recent
negative publicity over the incident. Personally, I don't see
what the big deal is.