BA appeals US FAA fine for operating 747 in 'unworthy state' after engine shutdown

[TAP-A343]

British Airways (BA) has appealed a US Federal Aviation Administration claim that the carrier operated an aircraft “in an unairworthy condition” when it allowed a captain to continue a Boeing 747-400 flight from Los Angeles to London Heathrow after one of its four engines was shut down shortly after takeoff.

The two sides are scheduled to meet on May 16 in Washington, DC, when a US Department of Transportation (DoT) arbitration judge will hear the UK carrier’s defence against a January ruling that fines the airline $25,000 for the infraction.

BA says the airline believes it acted within US laws when it decided to allow a 19 February 2005 flight to continue its journey to London after Los Angeles air traffic control observed flames from the aircraft’s number two engine during take-off. The aircraft’s captain shutdown the engine and proceeded with the flight on three engines until declaring a fuel emergency and diverting to Manchester airport on the UK's northwest coast.

“British Airways operated the…aircraft with only three engines, bypassing numerous suitable alternate airfields in the USA and Canada before proceeding across the North Atlantic ocean,” says the FAA in its ruling.

“By reason of the above, British Airways operated an aircraft in the United States in an unairworthy condition,” the regulator adds.

Should the DoT judge rule against BA, the airline can then appeal the decision directly to FAA administrator Marion Blakey. A further appeal can then be made to US Court of Appeals.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...er+engine.html

I must say that I was unaware of this ruling but I think it's correct.

I believe that the fact that a B747 can fly with 3 engines or even less doesn't mean that an airline is supposed to do it unless there isn't any airport nearby. An engine failure is an emergengy situation that requires specific procedures I reckon.

Regards.

[AA 1818]

TAP A343, I agree with you. You can be sure that BA is going to state, that the heavy fines/penalties that they would have incurred if the flight was delayed/cancelled, would have been a major reason as to why they chose to continue the flight. Also, this was not an isolated case was it? IIRC, there was another incident mere months after (or maybe before) this one that made headlines for doing the same sort of thing.

[TAP-A343]

TAP A343, I agree with you. You can be sure that BA is going to state, that the heavy fines/penalties that they would have incurred if the flight was delayed/cancelled, would have been a major reason as to why they chose to continue the flight. Also, this was not an isolated case was it? IIRC, there was another incident mere months after (or maybe before) this one that made headlines for doing the same sort of thing.

Yes, there is new legislation here in the EU to compensate passengers for big delays/cancellations in European airports. I don't know if it's already being applied but I would say that it played a big role in this incident.

On the other hand, an emergency landing shortly after take-off would have meant dumping almost all the fuel for a long-haul flight with fuel prices as they are now. Not to mention all the costs associated with an almost full load of B744 pax stranded at LAX.

And yes there was another similar incident shortly before, I reckon, with another BA 744 that flew on 3 engines SIN-LHR.

Regards.

[ptbodale]

The EU rules do not apply to flights leaving North America. A $25,000 fine is actually cheaper than the cost of putting the acft down in another North American airport.

I'm not condoning what B.A. did, however an engine shut down shouldn't keep you from crossing the ocean.

[AA 1818]

I was just watching CNBC and they did a some interviews and "industry insider interviews," about it. The reporter also stated that there will also be an article in the New York Times about it. The expose became so heated that the reporter said "If they are willing to risk lives to save money then I, for one, will boycott the airline."

[JordanD]

The article will be in the Wall Street Journal. That one guest pissed me off. His only "qualification" to talk about this was that his dad used to be a pilot for AA. Load of horseshit if you ask me.

[dneedham]

The experts most news agencies grab nowadays are the ones with either the least information about the aircraft/airline/industry, or the guys who are willing to say the worst things that the agency wants them to.

Fox News, for instance, will go through airline employee one after another until they get one who can agree on camera that the plane could crash...
________
Home Made Vaporizer

[screaming_emu]

not saying I dissagree, but as far as I know, Dale is the only one that has posted thus far that is qualified to post an opinion on this.

[dneedham]

According to CNN Im an aviation expert...they found me at the airport, waiting for a flight :P
________
Girlfriend Pictures

[Squeaky]

I agree with all the comments so far. I did think that a four engined a/c could continue on 3 engines (i think that was one of the issues when they began to allow 2 engined planes across the Atlantic). When did this incident occur btw?

As far as i am concerned if the pilot believed that the a/c was safe and would not cause any problem then fly the a/c! If there was a major problem a diversion could have occured (like at MAN later on).
I liked the bit " diverting to Manchester airport on the UK's northwest coast."- made me laugh as MAN is not on the coast!

Squeaky

[AA 1818]

As I watched the "expose", I too was perturbed. I swear the guy's justification all of his statements were - and I quote - "I grew up among pilots and my dad was the cheif pilot at American, and this is just rediculuous". HE WAS AN IDIOT!!! And also, it's very funny that a man from AA would be making such a statement seeing that AA only briefly operated 747s and has never since operated quad-engined aircraft (so the policies at AA would be different anyway). Also, it just annoyed me that an "AA" spokesperson would be critisizing BA. You would think that there would be some shame within the close ties between BA and AA.

-Also - another thing that just made me mad - all of the footage was of BA's 747-100s (or maybe 200s), in the old c/s and even 757s in the old c/s. Apart from that I swear that the footage was soo old. How long has the 'new' c/s been placed on the fleet?

Oh, and the other thing - they edited the tower conversation transmissions to the point where the pilots seemed almost beligerrant and villinous.

The entire thing was soo biased. I understand the recent vibe that is there to critisize the airline industry for their safety standards, but this is rediculuous. Don't critisize a British airline according to U.S. standards...