I'm NEVER flying BA !

I don't go to many 'other' sites, so this is the first I have heard about
it, and since it was on the national news in the US last night, I would
expect a bit more 'ad nauseum' discussions

There is a huge difference between shutting down an engine in flight, and
having and engine fire on takeoff at the beginning of a 7000 mile flight, a
good part over water. There is no way the crew could have determined any
additional damage to the plane from the fire, and as I said, in my opinion,
for what it's worth, continuing that flight without landing and checking
damage was a criminal act. Every life on that plane was in jeopardy.

I have had a few engine failures in my life, and not once would I ever have
considered not landing, and then calling the company for instructions. This
sounds to me like a strictly economic decision because they would have had
to dump approx 80,000 lbs of fuel to get to landing weight....what's a life
worth?



"Ian" <ian.baines.DeleteThis@NOSPAMuk.com> wrote in message
news:kOmdnfdAMopwN4vYRVnyrA@pipex.net...

> This has been discussed ad nauseum on many different sites. Suffice to say
> Flying a 747 with 3 engines is not unsafe. But google and you will come up
> with much more detail.
>
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

Just out of curiosity, I did 'Google' it...click the video on this link...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Travel/story?id=2484183&page=1

As he said, in the US, you land, period. Foreign carriers dance to a
different drummer apparently.
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

PPS <pps.DeleteThis@none.net> wrote:
> I have a friend who flys for USAir and has been a line check pilot for 14
> years. He tells me stories about the new breed of pilots, but this one takes
> it to a new level of incompetence.

Thats pretty funny. Do you realize that when the radial engine was king
(DC-4, Constellation era) it was *routine* to shutdown an engine on
purpose to conserve fuel? It was not uncommon in some situations to
shutdown two of them.

All that aside, would you rather make an emergency landing in a plane full
of fuel, or one that closer to empty? Realize that many commercial
aircraft cannot be safely landed at their take take off weight. Yes, the
fuel can be dumped, but if there was no risk, you might as well burn it.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

See other post Frank, there is a huge difference between shutting one down
and having one on fire.


"Frank Stutzman" <stutzman.DeleteThis@skylane.kjsl.com> wrote in message
news:ef6bck$1q0j$1@stationair.kjsl.com...
> PPS <pps.DeleteThis@none.net> wrote:
>> I have a friend who flys for USAir and has been a line check pilot for 14
>> years. He tells me stories about the new breed of pilots, but this one
>> takes
>> it to a new level of incompetence.
>
> Thats pretty funny. Do you realize that when the radial engine was king
> (DC-4, Constellation era) it was *routine* to shutdown an engine on
> purpose to conserve fuel? It was not uncommon in some situations to
> shutdown two of them.
>
> All that aside, would you rather make an emergency landing in a plane full
> of fuel, or one that closer to empty? Realize that many commercial
> aircraft cannot be safely landed at their take take off weight. Yes, the
> fuel can be dumped, but if there was no risk, you might as well burn it.
>
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR
>
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

PPS writes:

> Saw a piece last night about a British Airways 747, non stop from LA to
> Heathrow....#2 engine caught on fire on takeoff...instead of landing they
> called the 'office' for instructions, and continued the flight ! And came up
> 150 miles short and had to land at another airport for fuel.

Is that the old case that happened a few years ago, or is it a new
one?

Obviously money is more important than safety for British Airways.

> I have a friend who flys for USAir and has been a line check pilot for 14
> years. He tells me stories about the new breed of pilots, but this one takes
> it to a new level of incompetence.

What's the "new breed of pilots" like?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

Frank Stutzman writes:

> All that aside, would you rather make an emergency landing in a plane full
> of fuel, or one that closer to empty? Realize that many commercial
> aircraft cannot be safely landed at their take take off weight. Yes, the
> fuel can be dumped, but if there was no risk, you might as well burn it.

Some newer aircraft cannot dump fuel. You either burn it off, or you
land with it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

As has been previously said, this topic has been discussed extensively here
some time ago. Nevertheless I must state that I fully agree with your
opinion. However I know that the economical pressure - even on flightcrews -
is getting tougher and tougher. So it will be inevitable in the future that
such decisions will be taken with the economical scope rather than the
safety scope. Beileve it or not, today a majority of passengers are willing
to take a certain risk for the benefit of a cheaper ticket, as weird as that
may sound. And of course such decisions will furter be encouraged as finally
"nothing happened"...... besides a fuel shortage, which seems to be a "minor
mishap" at the end of the journey.... . In that respect I'm quite happy to
be retired from that business as during my career I have been taught to find
decisions based on captaincy and airmanship in combination with extensive
crew resource management but I'm sure that an engine shutdown during initial
climb for whatever reason it might have been would never have led me to
cross the atlantic on 3 engines..... but I admit, I'm definitely old
fashioned in that respect......... )
--
Oskar Wagner
(retired Captain)

Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes....

"PPS" <pps.TakeThisOut@none.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:R4SdnQmv6-7MLIvYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>I don't go to many 'other' sites, so this is the first I have heard about
>it, and since it was on the national news in the US last night, I would
>expect a bit more 'ad nauseum' discussions
>
> There is a huge difference between shutting down an engine in flight, and
> having and engine fire on takeoff at the beginning of a 7000 mile flight,
> a good part over water. There is no way the crew could have determined any
> additional damage to the plane from the fire, and as I said, in my
> opinion, for what it's worth, continuing that flight without landing and
> checking damage was a criminal act. Every life on that plane was in
> jeopardy.
>
> I have had a few engine failures in my life, and not once would I ever
> have considered not landing, and then calling the company for
> instructions. This sounds to me like a strictly economic decision because
> they would have had to dump approx 80,000 lbs of fuel to get to landing
> weight....what's a life worth?
>
>
>
> "Ian" <ian.baines.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMuk.com> wrote in message
> news:kOmdnfdAMopwN4vYRVnyrA@pipex.net...
>
>> This has been discussed ad nauseum on many different sites. Suffice to
>> say Flying a 747 with 3 engines is not unsafe. But google and you will
>> come up with much more detail.
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

Yes, but not the really heavy ones. The largest that I know of ist the
Airbus A330 with a MTOW of 230 tons and an max. allowed overweight landing
weight of 230 tons .... ad no fuel dump devices.
--
Oskar Wagner
(retired Captain)

Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes....

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic.RemoveThis@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:r3jdh2tcfjup076rkl82sc2c71q0kp3cpt@4ax.com...
> Frank Stutzman writes:
>
>> All that aside, would you rather make an emergency landing in a plane
>> full
>> of fuel, or one that closer to empty? Realize that many commercial
>> aircraft cannot be safely landed at their take take off weight. Yes, the
>> fuel can be dumped, but if there was no risk, you might as well burn it.
>
> Some newer aircraft cannot dump fuel. You either burn it off, or you
> land with it.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

Well maybe you are right - I haven't seen the report so only know what
you say.

Why do you think they weren't 'sacked as soon as they landed' then?
The CAA is pretty strict...
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

That's the scary part Oskar, us 'old timers' are coming to the end of the
career and the 'new breed' don't have the same skill set and
experience....scary stuff.




"Oskar Wagner" <rengaw.TakeThisOut@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:50f$4516cd38$544a6ba3$9671@news.hispeed.ch...
> As has been previously said, this topic has been discussed extensively
> here some time ago. Nevertheless I must state that I fully agree with your
> opinion. However I know that the economical pressure - even on
> flightcrews - is getting tougher and tougher. So it will be inevitable in
> the future that such decisions will be taken with the economical scope
> rather than the safety scope. Beileve it or not, today a majority of
> passengers are willing to take a certain risk for the benefit of a cheaper
> ticket, as weird as that may sound. And of course such decisions will
> furter be encouraged as finally "nothing happened"...... besides a fuel
> shortage, which seems to be a "minor mishap" at the end of the journey....
> . In that respect I'm quite happy to be retired from that business as
> during my career I have been taught to find decisions based on captaincy
> and airmanship in combination with extensive crew resource management but
> I'm sure that an engine shutdown during initial climb for whatever reason
> it might have been would never have led me to cross the atlantic on 3
> engines..... but I admit, I'm definitely old fashioned in that
> respect......... )
> --
> Oskar Wagner
> (retired Captain)
>
> Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes....
>
> "PPS" <pps.TakeThisOut@none.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:R4SdnQmv6-7MLIvYnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>I don't go to many 'other' sites, so this is the first I have heard about
>>it, and since it was on the national news in the US last night, I would
>>expect a bit more 'ad nauseum' discussions
>>
>> There is a huge difference between shutting down an engine in flight, and
>> having and engine fire on takeoff at the beginning of a 7000 mile flight,
>> a good part over water. There is no way the crew could have determined
>> any additional damage to the plane from the fire, and as I said, in my
>> opinion, for what it's worth, continuing that flight without landing and
>> checking damage was a criminal act. Every life on that plane was in
>> jeopardy.
>>
>> I have had a few engine failures in my life, and not once would I ever
>> have considered not landing, and then calling the company for
>> instructions. This sounds to me like a strictly economic decision because
>> they would have had to dump approx 80,000 lbs of fuel to get to landing
>> weight....what's a life worth?
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ian" <ian.baines.TakeThisOut@NOSPAMuk.com> wrote in message
>> news:kOmdnfdAMopwN4vYRVnyrA@pipex.net...
>>
>>> This has been discussed ad nauseum on many different sites. Suffice to
>>> say Flying a 747 with 3 engines is not unsafe. But google and you will
>>> come up with much more detail.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

I don't know that they weren't sacked, but since BA authorized the flight
and backed up the decision, I imagine they are still flying for them.



"Martin S." <ms DeleteThis @ms.com> wrote in message
news:mkldh2l3r62ooinm2glfu25eumivho7etf@4ax.com...
> Well maybe you are right - I haven't seen the report so only know what
> you say.
>
> Why do you think they weren't 'sacked as soon as they landed' then?
> The CAA is pretty strict...
>
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> What's the "new breed of pilots" like?


younger, otherwise pretty much the same - management is a different
story.......
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA ! 

Old school pilots:
Scratched for every minute of flight time to build hours to get a commercial
job. Lots of experience in many varied duties which help with decision
making under pressure when confronted with an in-flight emergency.

New Breed:
Pay beau coup dollars to go from 0 time to ATP in a flight school that
guarantees a job on graduation. Damn little real world experience and
decision making, more oriented to procedures and following the book rather
than using their heads.


"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ridh21utp1lsauc81h3c071p8c980v6di@4ax.com...

>
> What's the "new breed of pilots" like?
 >> Stay informed about: I'm NEVER flying BA !