FAA Accuses British Airways of Recklessness

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.

In which case they should cite the regulation that was infringed.

Graham

khobar wrote:

Actually the same plane made two flights with 3 engines - the first from LAX
to MAN,

Yup. Then it proceeded less pax to LHR. Where the malfunctioning engine was replaced.

the second

Third actually. Second with pax though.

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

Cheap modern journalism.

Graham

Joseph Meehan wrote:

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.

The curse of modern media !

You expect the truth in ( certain ) newspapers these days ? It's all a con.
Profitable too.


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

khobar wrote:

Actually the same plane made two flights with 3 engines - the first from LAX
to MAN,

Yup. Then it proceeded less pax to LHR. Where the malfunctioning engine was replaced.

the second

Third actually. Second with pax though.

Fifth, to be accurate. It flew MAN-LHR-SIN-MEL-SIN-LHR

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear wrote:

khobar wrote:

Actually the same plane made two flights with 3 engines - the first
from LAX
to MAN,

Yup. Then it proceeded less pax to LHR. Where the malfunctioning engine
was replaced.

the second

Third actually. Second with pax though.

Fifth, to be accurate. It flew MAN-LHR-SIN-MEL-SIN-LHR

Did it fly LHR-SIN-MEL-SIN on 3 engines?

Paul Nixon

Pooh Bear
:


NEWS wrote:

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.

In which case they should cite the regulation that was infringed.



what, so some planespotting geek like you can pontificate on it?


Bwawhhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhah!


Bertie

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

Pooh Bear
:


khobar wrote:

Actually the same plane made two flights with 3 engines - the first
from LAX to MAN,

Yup. Then it proceeded less pax to LHR. Where the malfunctioning
engine was replaced.

the second

Third actually. Second with pax though.

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

Cheap modern journalism.


Cheap netkkkoping ****.



Bertie



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

Pooh Bear
:


Joseph Meehan wrote:

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.

The curse of modern media !

You expect the truth in ( certain ) newspapers these days ? It's all a
con. Profitable too.


Hypocritical netkkoping loon.

Bertie

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

khobar wrote:

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear wrote:

khobar wrote:

Actually the same plane made two flights with 3 engines - the first
from LAX
to MAN,

Yup. Then it proceeded less pax to LHR. Where the malfunctioning engine
was replaced.

the second

Third actually. Second with pax though.

Fifth, to be accurate. It flew MAN-LHR-SIN-MEL-SIN-LHR

Did it fly LHR-SIN-MEL-SIN on 3 engines?

No. The engine that failed between LAX and MAN was replaced at LHR, and
the replacement engine was shut down on the return leg between SIN and
LHR.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and not even
required to
follow 14 CFR 121.

Untrue.
121.1
This part prescribes rules governing--
....
(f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate or
an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
conducting proving tests.

119.1(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
operate civil aircraft -
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
commerce;

So if they want to operate as an air carrier in the U.S. then for the
portion of their flight in U.S. territory they are indeed subject to 14
CFR 121.