Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by bmc, Mar 10, 2005.
Another example of FAA incompetence.
Yea, sounds like they're going overboard.
I mean, really. The B747 is an overpowered work of engineering art. The motors they hang off the wing are so reliable. With a twin, an engine failure presents a loss of 50% of engine capbility. A four engine is 25%. Aside from that, not only is plane capable of sustained long range flight on three, the airplane is certified to do it.
And beyond that, BA is an outstanding airline with very high maintenance standards. I would argue they have higher standards that required by the British or US authorities. Pretty slick flt ops as well.
This is typical idiocy on the part of the FAA - and its jsut typical of what were used to seeing.
The plane is certified to fly for long distances on 3 engines, hell, its certified to fly for intermediate distances on 2!
If the carrier decided it was safe and wasn't breaking the planes certification, why do the FAA feel the need to stick their noses in!?
As someone who travels the world all the time, taking shots at BA for complacency really offends me. It's my favorite airline.
If I'm not mistaken, the BA 747's have Rolls Royce engines, don't they?
My dad is an air traffic controller and he is always talking about how the FAA is headed back to the PATCO days; Lower funding, no OT, cut benefits, etc.
He only has 8 years till retirement so I don't see another strike in his future. Regardless of how bad it gets.
Well, it's always easier to put out press releases that target things that the uninformed public THINKS is important (ie nonworking engines on planes that are designed with redundency) rather than actually looking into things that are more difficult to correct.
Good for the pilots. I couldn't agree more.
You know TSA stands for? Thousands Standing Around.
And here I was hoping for a thread on cow tipping.
That'd be "udder balance." But, I can see the confusion.
why do you know about this stuff?
you've been hanging about too much with that geeky roommate of yours.
who helped me pass my physics exam
I'll ask my aviation buddy, who used to work at the Skunk Works (as did his father), and get back to y'all. He knows more about airplanes than just about anyone on the planet.
That does sound a little odd though, doesn't it? Why would someone risk flying a 747 on three engines? Did it have a full load? Were they being adequately maintained? There's something that sounds a little fishy in that story. Not sure what to make of it quite yet. I'll find out though, and post some thoughts. Stay tuned.
Turbulence is our friend.
As is flatulence.
Same difference in the end isn't it?
Well, one can result in the other.
I think the FAA was concerned that this was a flight that was flying all the way across the US and then on to England and never bothered to land to have it checked out.
OK, the 747 is certified to fly on 3 engines. No problem. What about when its midway across the Atlantic and another engine fails? Certified to fly on two engines for intermediate distances. How far is that? You did notice that the spokeswoman said that another engine failed only six days later? Maybe thats why the FAA wants to investigate.
I think BA could have avoided this whole problem by landing anywhere in the US and putting the passengers onto another BA flight. I'm not bashing BA but I personally wouldn't have wanted to be aboard that aircraft!
The likelyhood of engine failure these days is quite remote. It's a total fluke they had an engine problem on the same plane (diffferent engine, different problem). They shut the engine down and assessed all other parameters. The only downside to continuing is the extra fuel burn due to lower altitudes.
BA is a great carrier with a sound flight operations department. They would have set down if there was any risk to continuing on.
The FAA has a reputation for pulling curious moves.
BA has stated that it would have been approx 3-5 days to get all those passengers back to UK on other flights. Several of the passengers expressed gratitude to BA for having the guts to get them home. They also remarked that the whole situation was little more than a curiosity and none of them were concerned enough to be scared.
The engine did not catch fire but did spit out some very hot internal parts. The engine fire suppression was not used, the engine was shut down in a normal manner, it didn't just quit, and there was no mechanical reason the plane could not fly to the UK.
The decision to land at a different airport was made because where they landed is BA's maint facility and this saved them another complete cycling of the plane, ie, a landing, shutdown, start up, takeoff.
The crew made the most proper decisions in every aspect.
Former USAF Avionics tech and son of 30 year Boeing retiree,
Because of this man:
Cute... Isn't he?