BA flies 747 on 3 engines LAX-UK - New EU comp rules

One of the advantages of this crew's decision is that the flight woudl
land in a city with a strong BA presence.

Lets say 4 hours into the flight, they realise they won't make London
and likely stop at Manchester. They COULD then radio BA in London to
prepare sufficent plane capacity at Manchester so that pax could be
transfered quickly and still make it to London within the costly EU
deadlines. (Whether they did this or not, I don't know).

It is then a short hop to BA's maintenance facilities to fix the engine
(or fix it in manchester).

Had the plane returned to LA, passengers would have been stranded
there, having to wait for BA to send another 747 to get them (or use the
limited BA presence there to try to find seats on alternate carriers.)

The EU rules are quite severe. In this case, it should have spurred
greater maintenance checks to prevent this from happening instead of
pushing pilot to take risks.

While passengers were not in any immediate danger, there is no question
in my mind that pilots did NOT err on the side of caution, and that is
not a mentality that should be tolerated in the aviation industry.

When happens when there is an accident with lives lost due to the
airline taking risks to avoid paying the penalties ? Will the outcry be
on the airline, or against the EU law that fostered those "take risks to
avoid paying the fines" mentality ?

nobody wrote:
One of the advantages of this crew's decision is that the flight woudl
land in a city with a strong BA presence.

Lets say 4 hours into the flight, they realise they won't make London
and likely stop at Manchester. They COULD then radio BA in London to
prepare sufficent plane capacity at Manchester so that pax could be
transfered quickly and still make it to London within the costly EU
deadlines. (Whether they did this or not, I don't know).

This kind of reckoning can also have disasterous consequences. I'm
thinking of the Hapag-Lloyd Airbus that crashlanded with fuel starvation
in Vienna in July 2000.
The landing gear had failed to retract after taking off from Crete.
(see http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=20000712-0)
The crew figured they could make it to Munich where there was a company
service point, but somehow failed to realize they were burning fuel
twice as fast as normal.


It is then a short hop to BA's maintenance facilities to fix the engine
(or fix it in manchester).

Had the plane returned to LA, passengers would have been stranded
there, having to wait for BA to send another 747 to get them (or use the
limited BA presence there to try to find seats on alternate carriers.)

The EU rules are quite severe. In this case, it should have spurred
greater maintenance checks to prevent this from happening instead of
pushing pilot to take risks.

While passengers were not in any immediate danger, there is no question
in my mind that pilots did NOT err on the side of caution, and that is
not a mentality that should be tolerated in the aviation industry.

When happens when there is an accident with lives lost due to the
airline taking risks to avoid paying the penalties ? Will the outcry be
on the airline, or against the EU law that fostered those "take risks to
avoid paying the fines" mentality ?

nobody wrote:
One of the advantages of this crew's decision is that the flight woudl
land in a city with a strong BA presence.

Lets say 4 hours into the flight, they realise they won't make London
and likely stop at Manchester. They COULD then radio BA in London to
prepare sufficent plane capacity at Manchester so that pax could be
transfered quickly and still make it to London within the costly EU
deadlines. (Whether they did this or not, I don't know).

This kind of reckoning can also have disasterous consequences. I'm
thinking of the Hapag-Lloyd Airbus that crashlanded with fuel starvation
in Vienna in July 2000.
The landing gear had failed to retract after taking off from Crete.
(see http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=20000712-0)
The crew figured they could make it to Munich where there was a company
service point, but somehow failed to realize they were burning fuel
twice as fast as normal.


It is then a short hop to BA's maintenance facilities to fix the engine
(or fix it in manchester).

Had the plane returned to LA, passengers would have been stranded
there, having to wait for BA to send another 747 to get them (or use the
limited BA presence there to try to find seats on alternate carriers.)

The EU rules are quite severe. In this case, it should have spurred
greater maintenance checks to prevent this from happening instead of
pushing pilot to take risks.

While passengers were not in any immediate danger, there is no question
in my mind that pilots did NOT err on the side of caution, and that is
not a mentality that should be tolerated in the aviation industry.

When happens when there is an accident with lives lost due to the
airline taking risks to avoid paying the penalties ? Will the outcry be
on the airline, or against the EU law that fostered those "take risks to
avoid paying the fines" mentality ?

Tom Peel wrote:

[]
This kind of reckoning can also have disasterous consequences. I'm
thinking of the Hapag-Lloyd Airbus that crashlanded with fuel starvation
in Vienna in July 2000.
The landing gear had failed to retract after taking off from Crete.
(see http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=20000712-0)
The crew figured they could make it to Munich where there was a company
service point, but somehow failed to realize they were burning fuel
twice as fast as normal.

As a tangent, this looks like a very interesting website!

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Tom Peel wrote:

[]
This kind of reckoning can also have disasterous consequences. I'm
thinking of the Hapag-Lloyd Airbus that crashlanded with fuel starvation
in Vienna in July 2000.
The landing gear had failed to retract after taking off from Crete.
(see http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=20000712-0)
The crew figured they could make it to Munich where there was a company
service point, but somehow failed to realize they were burning fuel
twice as fast as normal.

As a tangent, this looks like a very interesting website!

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Tom Peel wrote:

This kind of reckoning can also have disasterous consequences.
I'm thinking of the Hapag-Lloyd Airbus that crashlanded with
fuel starvation in Vienna in July 2000.

That incident was quite different.

1) The captain couldn't reach the company dispatcher to confer on the
problem because of radio problems
2) The captain flew the aircraft far above the recommended speed with
wheels down, significantly increasing the rate of fuel use.
3) The first officer wanted to land in Zagreb, but the pilot didn't.
4) The captain ignored low fuel warnings while near Zagreb, and
continued to Vienna.
5) The company's dispatcher wasn't trained in how to handle such
problems (unlike BA's) and relied on the captain to decide everything
himself.
6) The captain didn't realize the flight management system did not
calculate the rate of fuel consumption correctly when the gear was down.
By relying on the FMS over the fuel gauges, he thought he had more fuel
than he did. The FMS system does calculate fuel use correctly with
engines out.

The end result was that the captain lost his pilot's license, and was
criminally charged.

He was convicted, and given a suspended sentence. This will not happen
with the BA pilot, since he correctly followed procedures.