BA in trouble in the US

[ozzy72]

The US airline safety authority is proposing to impose its maximum fine of $25,000 (

[Woodlouse2002]

the US Federal Aviation Administration has accused BA of operating an aircraft in an "unairworthy condition"

Interesting point considering the unairworthy aircraft flew across the atlantic...

[Chris_F]

Let's see, BA avoided a 100,000 pound  fine (delay compensation?  What the heck is that?) in favor of a $25,000 fine.  Sounds like a smart choice to me!

[Tom.]

Interesting point considering the unairworthy aircraft flew across the atlantic...

Well i think that the FAA are really making a fuss over nothing  ive seen worse done like an A340 landing at heathrow without clearance  ::)

[Brett_Henderson]

I'd imagine the 100,000 expense would have been in refunds.. rebookings.. lost revenue..  etc.

Anyway .. If a pilot took ME over the Atlantic ocean in a 747 on three engines (if it barey made it on three.. imagine if a second failure happend 1/2-way across the pond) when he could have easily landed somewhere on the continent.. I'd beat the poop out of him after we landed.

[F3Hadlow]

Irresponsable and selfish behaviour from BA, they deserve every penny they get taken off them and probably more for that!

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]

Well i think that the FAA are really making a fuss over nothing

[Chris_F]

I know that in order to fly over the water a plane has to be rated to fly if it loses an engine.  Given the 747 didn't leave landfall before it lost an engine that would mean, to me, that in order to fly over water it must be capable of flying after losing another engine.  Can a 747 fly on two?

"Airworthyness", especially in the case of airline transportation, may include criteria beyond strictly the ability to stay airborne.  Sure a plane could be "airworthy" if it loses cabin pressure and the doors fly off.  But would that be safe?  If airworthyness is strictly the ability to fly then you could easily have perfectly airworthy planes which routinely kill all their passengers.

BA is definately neglegent.

[beefhole]

Well, the bare fact is that a 747 is perfectly and safely flyable on three engines (and operable on two, assuming it's not too heavy).

But, for an 11-hour 8000 mile trip that you planned to make with four engines?  I would say it wasn't a wise choice-declaring an emergency shouldnt've been necessary.  They could've continued across the pond on three engines (it's been done before), but they should've stopped for fuel on THIS side of the Atlantic.

[C]

Considering we've been in an ETOPS world for some years, what's the problem with three?

Still think it was a bad decision though, but not one that was their own fault, just one caused by the ridiculous compensation laws brought in by the EU*...

...*and people complain when fares rise!

[Brett_Henderson]

My point exactly. How can a plane be unairworthy if it flew 8000 miles?

I'm not sure a plane that couldn't

[Chris_F]

Still think it was a bad decision though, but not one that was their own fault, just one caused by the ridiculous compensation laws brought in by the EU*...

...*and people complain when fares rise!

Legislators should have suspected this would be the eventual outcome of such a law.  What's a few more fatal crashes a year so long as people get to where they're going on time...

[chomp_rock]

Bah! It made it on 3, it could've made it on two as well if another failed.  Not to mention that that kind of thing has happened quite a few times in the 747's long history, I can't recall it ever leading to a crash, or fatality for that matter.

[beefhole]

Bah! It made it on 3, it could've made it on two as well if another failed.  Not to mention that that kind of thing has happened quite a few times in the 747's long history, I can't recall it ever leading to a crash, or fatality for that matter.

But this time it lead to an unnecessary, preventable fuel emergency.  The procedures need to be rectified for the future.