747 flys 5000 nm on 3 engines

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html

this.. is interesting.


--
**********
shu
105 answers Last reply
More about flys 5000 engines
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Agreed .. very interesting ...

    VC

    "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
    news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >
    > this.. is interesting.
    >
    >
    > --
    > **********
    > shu
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I can't see my own post for whatever reason so i'm replying here..

    first off. I wouldn't have done it. i would have landed..

    secondly, there is a political aspect here.. an absolutely Unwarrented govt
    regulation forced BA into a position where it was Profit /vs risk.
    this should NEVER have occured..
    if there wouldn't have been a substantial loss in money, BA would have told
    em to land.

    I blame the govt before I blame BA, I really do.. the govt doesn't have the
    foresight to see what their ,, in this case, very stupid regulation effects
    travelers.

    It is upto BA to decide to refund money or not, or give discounts etc, not
    the govt, if BA does a bad job, then they'll lose business, it's as simple
    as that.

    I don't know if it was a safe thing to do. I don't have enough information.
    the only people that can answer that is boeing..

    however.. Ba isn't going to put substatial risk to a 100 million +
    aircraft.. I would *hope* someone competent made the descision for the jet
    to fly on, and I would hope that the risk in truth was negligible, as I
    suspect it was.

    regardless.. flying sideways the whole way is really annoying, and I would
    have landed.. , I certainly wouldn't have crossed the atlantic, knowing that
    i'm running signficantly less efficient, and that the fuel is really
    carefully weighed out with limited reserve.


    --
    **********
    shu


    "VC" <vtm@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:z56dnaFfyqS3db3fRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
    > Agreed .. very interesting ...
    >
    > VC
    >
    > "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
    > news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    > >
    > > this.. is interesting.
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > **********
    > > shu
    > >
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    It is interesting. Thanks for sharing.

    I'm only a flight Sim pilot, not a real world commercial pilot, but I'm
    interested to see how many opinions are posted from those that can't
    actually " real world" fly a 747.

    I only sim a 737 - 400 with some success far less a 747 so I'm way off base
    to pass an opinion.

    However, at the end of the day, we're all in the hands of the pilot up front
    and, I have to assume, that they are as keen to get home in one piece as I
    am.

    Given this, I always assume the pilot is working in my favour.

    Perhaps Mr Oskar can offer a real world "heavy" pilots perspective?

    Al.Fraser


    "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
    news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >
    > this.. is interesting.
    >
    >
    > --
    > **********
    > shu
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Al.Fraser wrote:

    > It is interesting. Thanks for sharing.
    >
    > I'm only a flight Sim pilot, not a real world commercial pilot, but I'm
    > interested to see how many opinions are posted from those that can't
    > actually " real world" fly a 747.
    >
    > I only sim a 737 - 400 with some success far less a 747 so I'm way off base
    > to pass an opinion.
    >
    > However, at the end of the day, we're all in the hands of the pilot up front
    > and, I have to assume, that they are as keen to get home in one piece as I
    > am.

    Al, I never carried more than 6 passengers so my experience is not on a
    scale of a 747 but I did have to make a decision on one flight. I had
    the sickest Bell 206L in the fleet. It's to the pilots benefit to fly as
    many tours as possible over the Grand Canyon because we made extra money
    for each completed tour. Near the end of one tour my aircraft started
    N2 Hunting which is RPM surging and dropping. The RPM didn't go low
    enough to activate the Low RPM Warning which would have made it
    mandatory for me to land. But even with no Warning activation I decided
    to land where I was. My passengers were French. They were the only
    tourist that started yelling they didn't speak English as soon as the
    tour tape started playing. It was "FRANCAI FRANCAI FRANCAI Francai"

    At any rate I called the tower and declared a precautionary landing. It
    took quite some time for the maintenance crew to bring me another
    aircraft and would you guess...... as we were waiting, the French
    tourist talked English.

    So yes, I lost money, but I'm the one in charge of the aircraft, no one
    in the company can require me to do anything, it's the Captain's
    decision. It was perfectly legal for me to continue flight, I was only
    10 miles from the airport, but I chose not to continue. Uncle Dudley has
    a saying-- There are old pilots, there are bold pilots, but there are no
    old bold pilots. So I don't know exactly what the pilot and his
    operations talked about, but the final decision was his/hers and I can't
    imagine any pilot being prodded into doing something in the least bit
    hazardous. But then you have the fuel problem, running out of gas,
    emergency landing before final destination, not good.

    Maintenance could not duplicate the problem and cleared the aircraft
    back in service. Not too long later the aircraft had some more problems
    and they pulled the Combustion section. Inside there is a can (we called
    it) that had holes in the side where compressed air shaped the fire to
    keep it in the center of the combustion chamber. That can was burned
    through in several places which would cause the flame to vary, causing
    RPM surges.

    --

    boB

    U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.

    "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
    news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >
    > this.. is interesting.
    >
    >
    > --
    > **********
    > shu
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    It makes perfect sense to continue the flight.

    The 747-400 is perfectly capable of flying with 3 engines (it's called
    redundancy). Had they elected to stay at LAX, they would have had to dump a
    hell of a lot of fuel, would be thousands of miles away from BA maintenance,
    and would have 350 very unhappy passengers. The reason they diverted to
    Manchester in the end was due to unfavourable (and unusual) headwinds across
    the Atlantic meaning that with the extra fuel burn associated with flying on
    3 engines (lower altitude etc), they would not have been able to deal safely
    with the busy holding patterns at Heathrow.

    With regard to safety, the flight crew did everything right! They analysed
    the situation and made the correct decision to continue. There was no reason
    to abort the flight, and every reason to return back to the UK.


    "Goran" <goranm@youwish.com> wrote in message
    news:4220ed6f$0$11363$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    > To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.
    >
    > "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
    > news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >>
    >> this.. is interesting.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> **********
    >> shu
    >>
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:08 +1100, Goran wrote:

    > Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    > To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.

    You probably should quit flying altogether then. It's not that uncommon to
    be flying on only three engines.

    Bill
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I disagree. What if another engine failed over the Atlantic? Or two more? Landing and rescue at sea is whole
    different story than over land. Freak headwinds over the Atlantic is asking for an ensuing storm. Foolhardy IMO. Why
    did the engine fail? Sabotage? Poor maintenance? Both good reasons to get that bird down and fast. As it were they
    chose to fly a long flight with the plane instead of ahead of it. I think they were very lucky and fortunate to have
    made it.

    And note they did not make their destination. That's a failed mission IMO.

    --
    ....Carl Frisk
    Anger is a brief madness.
    - Horace, 20 B.C.
    http://www.carlfrisk.com


    "My T Sharp" <emailthis@myass.com> wrote in message news:Sg7Ud.2855$jY1.2162@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
    > It makes perfect sense to continue the flight.
    >
    > The 747-400 is perfectly capable of flying with 3 engines (it's called redundancy). Had they elected to stay at LAX,
    > they would have had to dump a hell of a lot of fuel, would be thousands of miles away from BA maintenance, and would
    > have 350 very unhappy passengers. The reason they diverted to Manchester in the end was due to unfavourable (and
    > unusual) headwinds across the Atlantic meaning that with the extra fuel burn associated with flying on 3 engines
    > (lower altitude etc), they would not have been able to deal safely with the busy holding patterns at Heathrow.
    >
    > With regard to safety, the flight crew did everything right! They analysed the situation and made the correct decision
    > to continue. There was no reason to abort the flight, and every reason to return back to the UK.
    >
    >
    > "Goran" <goranm@youwish.com> wrote in message news:4220ed6f$0$11363$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    >> To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.
    >>
    >> "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> wrote in message news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >>>
    >>> this.. is interesting.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> **********
    >>> shu
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I don't think so.
    Please, feel free to fly on a 747 5000 miles on 3 engines. I'm not stopping
    you. I have a dvd on the 747-400 and in the takeoff briefing, the pilot
    states that if there is an engine failure after V1, they will take off,
    monitor all warnings and receive instructions from ATC for a heavy landing
    after dumping fuel. If you think fuel and time are worth more than risking
    your life, along with 350 others, I don't envy you. Nowhere in the takeoff
    briefing do they say in the event of an engine failure, they will continue
    onto their destination. Do you happen to have a redundancy manual for a
    747? If you do, please quote me and the rest of us which page and
    paragraph, along with the actual statement, it says to fly 5000 miles on 3
    engines safely.
    350 unhappy passengers? I don't think so. If the passengers knew there was
    an engine failure, they wold be very happy to land. There was a bomb scare
    on a 747 that took off from sydney airport where a cabin crew member found a
    toilet roll with BOB written on it. After the pilot decided to land and
    passengers disembarked and were interviewed by the press, they all said they
    were very happy with the captains decision.
    By the way, are you a 747 Captain?
    you speak as if you are. Full of confidence in every statement you make.
    Like I said, if you like flying on 3 engines, feel free. But you won't see
    me on the same plane, and I feel safe in saying, most of the general public
    will agree with me.

    "My T Sharp" <emailthis@myass.com> wrote in message
    news:Sg7Ud.2855$jY1.2162@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
    > It makes perfect sense to continue the flight.
    >
    > The 747-400 is perfectly capable of flying with 3 engines (it's called
    > redundancy). Had they elected to stay at LAX, they would have had to dump
    > a hell of a lot of fuel, would be thousands of miles away from BA
    > maintenance, and would have 350 very unhappy passengers. The reason they
    > diverted to Manchester in the end was due to unfavourable (and unusual)
    > headwinds across the Atlantic meaning that with the extra fuel burn
    > associated with flying on 3 engines (lower altitude etc), they would not
    > have been able to deal safely with the busy holding patterns at Heathrow.
    >
    > With regard to safety, the flight crew did everything right! They analysed
    > the situation and made the correct decision to continue. There was no
    > reason to abort the flight, and every reason to return back to the UK.
    >
    >
    > "Goran" <goranm@youwish.com> wrote in message
    > news:4220ed6f$0$11363$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    >> To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.
    >>
    >> "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
    >> news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >>>
    >>> this.. is interesting.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> **********
    >>> shu
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Phil"
    > You know so little about flying it appears from your statements.
    > As a commercial pilot and Instructor I can tell you know nothing on how
    things work.

    "on how things work"?

    Phil, I've got to wonder about your claim to be a commercial pilot and
    instructor. It just seems to me that a commercial pilot would not structure
    a sentence in that manner.

    Can you tell us a little more about your career as a commercial pilot and
    Instructor?


    Dallas
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
    news:UjcUd.6605$MY6.3893@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Phil"
    > > You know so little about flying it appears from your statements.
    > > As a commercial pilot and Instructor I can tell you know nothing on how
    > things work.
    >
    > "on how things work"?
    >
    > Phil, I've got to wonder about your claim to be a commercial pilot and
    > instructor. It just seems to me that a commercial pilot would not
    structure
    > a sentence in that manner.
    >
    > Can you tell us a little more about your career as a commercial pilot and
    > Instructor?
    >
    >
    > Dallas

    In Phil's defense..
    the BA pilot.. did in fact fly the 5000 miles on 3 engines,
    so maybe, they know something you (or me) don't,


    ********
    shu
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >
    > this.. is interesting.
    >
    >
    > --
    > **********
    > shu
    >

    Yes indeed, it is..!.?.!.?
    There's some truth in what the pilots said, that the final decision always
    lies with the Captain .... ;-)
    However to me it seems a somewhat uncommon decision. There are of course a
    few failures that may not cause a return. There are some systems which have
    the redundancy to allow such decisions. The main help for that being the MRL
    (Minimum Requirement List). But.....(there's always a but ;-) ):
    4 engines DO NOT mean redundancy!!!
    A 4-engined A/C is CAPABLE TO FLY on 3 engines only but it is not designed
    to OPERATE on 3 engines (I'm deadly sure that the MRL states the exceptions
    for 3-engines FERRY for maintenance reasons with specifically selected ferry
    crews and of course WITHOUT payload). Yes, of course, I know that the MRL
    only applies preflight but nevertheless it gives some helpful hints how to
    handle any shortcomings during flight. Furthermore it is obvious that the
    planned fuel for a normal 4-engined flight will in no way be sufficient for
    3-engined flight. So an intermediate landing will be necessary anyway. I
    wonder how they managed to reach Manchester......
    So to make it short: I don't think that it was a wise decision to continue
    even if everything went smooth. Deciding under the aspects of commercial
    pressure is always very questionable and in fact should never happen.
    Besides that: (another commercial thought) The failed engine has windmilling
    time of around 11 hrs which may lead to somewhat extended disassembly work
    maybe worth another few 1000£.......
    --
    Oskar
    (retired captain)
    Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    It is always good to read a post by someone that knows what they are
    talking about. Years ago I was in an L1011 flying from Ft Lauderdale
    to New York, and at around 80 knots or so a compressor went belly up,
    and on came the brakes. Back to the ramp for a new aircraft. Now this
    L1011, has 3 engines so we still had 2 left, and we had airports all
    along the east coast, and we still stayed on the ground until a
    aircraft with all engines working was available.

    If BA has an SOP that says keep going, after an engine failure, I
    won't ever be flying on anything that says BA on the side of the
    aircraft. That is just beyond dumb, in my opinion.

    Bob


    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:21:53 +0100, "Oskar Wagner"
    <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote:

    >"shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    >news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >>
    >> this.. is interesting.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> **********
    >> shu
    >>
    >
    >Yes indeed, it is..!.?.!.?
    >There's some truth in what the pilots said, that the final decision always
    >lies with the Captain .... ;-)
    >However to me it seems a somewhat uncommon decision. There are of course a
    >few failures that may not cause a return. There are some systems which have
    >the redundancy to allow such decisions. The main help for that being the MRL
    >(Minimum Requirement List). But.....(there's always a but ;-) ):
    >4 engines DO NOT mean redundancy!!!
    >A 4-engined A/C is CAPABLE TO FLY on 3 engines only but it is not designed
    >to OPERATE on 3 engines (I'm deadly sure that the MRL states the exceptions
    >for 3-engines FERRY for maintenance reasons with specifically selected ferry
    >crews and of course WITHOUT payload). Yes, of course, I know that the MRL
    >only applies preflight but nevertheless it gives some helpful hints how to
    >handle any shortcomings during flight. Furthermore it is obvious that the
    >planned fuel for a normal 4-engined flight will in no way be sufficient for
    >3-engined flight. So an intermediate landing will be necessary anyway. I
    >wonder how they managed to reach Manchester......
    >So to make it short: I don't think that it was a wise decision to continue
    >even if everything went smooth. Deciding under the aspects of commercial
    >pressure is always very questionable and in fact should never happen.
    >Besides that: (another commercial thought) The failed engine has windmilling
    >time of around 11 hrs which may lead to somewhat extended disassembly work
    >maybe worth another few 1000£.......
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    But that happened during the take off. Big difference. In general for ALL
    airlines (including BA!!!), it goes like this. Before 80kts, stop for any
    malfunction. Between 80kts and V1, stop only for major
    malfunctions/emergencies (such as an engine failure), after V1, take off and
    decide in the air.

    Your experience is completely unrelated to what happened to the BA flight
    last week.

    "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    news:uig321dkp7e4gcgdg4agdvsg14mrntgoj3@4ax.com...
    > It is always good to read a post by someone that knows what they are
    > talking about. Years ago I was in an L1011 flying from Ft Lauderdale
    > to New York, and at around 80 knots or so a compressor went belly up,
    > and on came the brakes. Back to the ramp for a new aircraft. Now this
    > L1011, has 3 engines so we still had 2 left, and we had airports all
    > along the east coast, and we still stayed on the ground until a
    > aircraft with all engines working was available.
    >
    > If BA has an SOP that says keep going, after an engine failure, I
    > won't ever be flying on anything that says BA on the side of the
    > aircraft. That is just beyond dumb, in my opinion.
    >
    > Bob
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:21:53 +0100, "Oskar Wagner"
    > <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote:
    >
    >>"shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    >>news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >>>
    >>> this.. is interesting.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> **********
    >>> shu
    >>>
    >>
    >>Yes indeed, it is..!.?.!.?
    >>There's some truth in what the pilots said, that the final decision always
    >>lies with the Captain .... ;-)
    >>However to me it seems a somewhat uncommon decision. There are of course a
    >>few failures that may not cause a return. There are some systems which
    >>have
    >>the redundancy to allow such decisions. The main help for that being the
    >>MRL
    >>(Minimum Requirement List). But.....(there's always a but ;-) ):
    >>4 engines DO NOT mean redundancy!!!
    >>A 4-engined A/C is CAPABLE TO FLY on 3 engines only but it is not designed
    >>to OPERATE on 3 engines (I'm deadly sure that the MRL states the
    >>exceptions
    >>for 3-engines FERRY for maintenance reasons with specifically selected
    >>ferry
    >>crews and of course WITHOUT payload). Yes, of course, I know that the MRL
    >>only applies preflight but nevertheless it gives some helpful hints how to
    >>handle any shortcomings during flight. Furthermore it is obvious that the
    >>planned fuel for a normal 4-engined flight will in no way be sufficient
    >>for
    >>3-engined flight. So an intermediate landing will be necessary anyway. I
    >>wonder how they managed to reach Manchester......
    >>So to make it short: I don't think that it was a wise decision to continue
    >>even if everything went smooth. Deciding under the aspects of commercial
    >>pressure is always very questionable and in fact should never happen.
    >>Besides that: (another commercial thought) The failed engine has
    >>windmilling
    >>time of around 11 hrs which may lead to somewhat extended disassembly work
    >>maybe worth another few 1000£.......
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Oskar wrote:

    "So to make it short: I don't think that it was a wise decision to continue
    even if everything went smooth. Deciding under the aspects of commercial
    pressure is always very questionable and in fact should never happen."

    I heartily agree. Not many posting here have been on a 747 with a dead
    engine. I have. In a flight that departed Narita for KIAD, the All Nippon
    Air 747-400 lost it port inboard engine. The engine failed nearly 3 hours
    into the flight. Meaning that we were well on our way to the Aleutians and
    certainly could have easily made PNAC (barring any further failures), had
    the Captain decided to go for it. However, he didn't. He prudently turned
    the aircraft around and we returned to Narita, overnighted and then flew to
    KJFK the next day.

    Yes it was a hassle for the passengers and yes getting home 24 hours or more
    later than you had expected wasn't fun. But, I lived to get home and I was
    and am still grateful that Captain made the decision he did. In over 30
    years of frequent international travel, this is the only flight I have had
    where an engine failed. I am pleased the Captain made the decision he did.
    Frankly, in my opinion, BA put the 350 souls on board that flight at
    additional risk that they shouldn't have.

    --
    Best Regards,

    Tom Allensworth
    Publisher,
    AVSIM Online
    Flight Simulation's Premier Internet Resource!
    -------------------------------------
    http://www.avsim.com
    email: tom@avsim.com
    -------------------------------------
    See the rankings of your favorite Sim
    Web Sites:
    http://www.avsim.com/pages/rank_complete.html
    "Oskar Wagner" <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
    news:cvsabk$ak2$1@news.hispeed.ch...
    > "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >>
    >> this.. is interesting.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> **********
    >> shu
    >>
    >
    > Yes indeed, it is..!.?.!.?
    > There's some truth in what the pilots said, that the final decision always
    > lies with the Captain .... ;-)
    > However to me it seems a somewhat uncommon decision. There are of course a
    > few failures that may not cause a return. There are some systems which
    > have the redundancy to allow such decisions. The main help for that being
    > the MRL (Minimum Requirement List). But.....(there's always a but ;-) ):
    > 4 engines DO NOT mean redundancy!!!
    > A 4-engined A/C is CAPABLE TO FLY on 3 engines only but it is not designed
    > to OPERATE on 3 engines (I'm deadly sure that the MRL states the
    > exceptions for 3-engines FERRY for maintenance reasons with specifically
    > selected ferry crews and of course WITHOUT payload). Yes, of course, I
    > know that the MRL only applies preflight but nevertheless it gives some
    > helpful hints how to handle any shortcomings during flight. Furthermore it
    > is obvious that the planned fuel for a normal 4-engined flight will in no
    > way be sufficient for 3-engined flight. So an intermediate landing will be
    > necessary anyway. I wonder how they managed to reach Manchester......
    > So to make it short: I don't think that it was a wise decision to continue
    > even if everything went smooth. Deciding under the aspects of commercial
    > pressure is always very questionable and in fact should never happen.
    > Besides that: (another commercial thought) The failed engine has
    > windmilling time of around 11 hrs which may lead to somewhat extended
    > disassembly work maybe worth another few 1000£.......
    > --
    > Oskar
    > (retired captain)
    > Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:18:36 GMT, Phil wrote:

    > You know so little about flying it appears from your statements. You fly Flight
    > Sim and think it teaches you everything you need to know. As a commercial pilot
    > and Instructor I can tell you know nothing on how things work. You see a DVD and
    > think that is ALL the information you need to make a informed decission.

    Most of us here are just simpilots, Phil....but that doesn't mean we're
    stupid! We can read...we have the ability to ask questions...we all have
    our contacts...and we're very fortunate to have some RL pilots here.
    We've had a RL 747 pilot here too and you have no idea what these RL
    commercial pilots can teach you and how willing they are to share their
    experiences and teachings.
    So keep your condescending remarks to yourself, okay?

    Most of us have been doing this a while and have learned quite a bit over
    the years. The internet is full of information regarding aviation and
    there's plenty to learn. If you're eager enough....

    5000nm on 3 engines is a pretty long haul for such a heavy bird.
    Sure it can make it, but would an MD-11 pilot fly 5000nm on two engines
    just because a 777 can do it?
    If you're above the middle of an ocean you have no other choice but to push
    on through, but given the very first oppertunity the pilot would dump fuel
    and land ASAP.

    --

    Marcel
    (I've got a baaad feeling about this.....)
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "My T Sharp" <emailthis@myass.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:GLjUd.2196$dy3.1258@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
    > But that happened during the take off. Big difference. In general for ALL
    > airlines (including BA!!!), it goes like this. Before 80kts, stop for any
    > malfunction. Between 80kts and V1, stop only for major
    > malfunctions/emergencies (such as an engine failure), after V1, take off
    > and decide in the air.
    >
    > Your experience is completely unrelated to what happened to the BA flight
    > last week.
    >
    > "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    > news:uig321dkp7e4gcgdg4agdvsg14mrntgoj3@4ax.com...
    >> It is always good to read a post by someone that knows what they are
    >> talking about. Years ago I was in an L1011 flying from Ft Lauderdale
    >> to New York, and at around 80 knots or so a compressor went belly up,
    >> and on came the brakes. Back to the ramp for a new aircraft. Now this
    >> L1011, has 3 engines so we still had 2 left, and we had airports all
    >> along the east coast, and we still stayed on the ground until a
    >> aircraft with all engines working was available.
    >>
    >> If BA has an SOP that says keep going, after an engine failure, I
    >> won't ever be flying on anything that says BA on the side of the
    >> aircraft. That is just beyond dumb, in my opinion.
    >>
    >> Bob
    >>
    >>
    Sorry to step in again. Of course V1 is the vital speed to decide whether
    to discontinue a T/O or not (hence the wording 'decision speed'). But
    getting airborne has nothing to do with whether to continue a flight or not.
    You stated correctly "decide in the air". Without knowing BA SOP's properly
    I sincerely doubt that ANY SOP's of ANY major airline will encourage a crew
    to continue a 5000 NM flight on three engines. I'ts just NOT AIRMANSHIP. No
    matter whether the outcome is brilliant or not.
    --
    Oskar
    (retired captain)
    Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    yes but flying for 5000 miles on 3 engines with airports along the way to
    divert to?
    And I haven't been on a plane that has had an engine failure yet. And that
    in the past 25 years.


    "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1b7u47a3ze363.1941ra8608tgx.dlg@40tude.net...
    > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:08 +1100, Goran wrote:
    >
    >> Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    >> To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.
    >
    > You probably should quit flying altogether then. It's not that uncommon
    > to
    > be flying on only three engines.
    >
    > Bill
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Goran wrote:

    > yes but flying for 5000 miles on 3 engines with airports along the way to
    > divert to?
    > And I haven't been on a plane that has had an engine failure yet. And that
    > in the past 25 years.
    >
    >
    > "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:1b7u47a3ze363.1941ra8608tgx.dlg@40tude.net...
    >
    >>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:08 +1100, Goran wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    >>>To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.
    >>
    >>You probably should quit flying altogether then. It's not that uncommon
    >>to
    >>be flying on only three engines.
    >>
    >>Bill


    I don't want to catch any Flak on this subject but 30 years ago, shortly
    after take-off from Kimpo in Korea, I watched the number one engine
    catch fire and melt on the 747. I was pissed that we turned around. I
    then had to hitch-hike from Korea to West Virginia. For those that
    remember, that was the time I walked in on my wife at the time, catching
    her in bed with someone.


    --

    boB

    U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "boB" <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom> wrote in message
    news:JGbUd.56466$Bx5.47602@fe1.texas.rr.com...
    > Goran wrote:
    >
    > > yes but flying for 5000 miles on 3 engines with airports along the way
    to
    > > divert to?
    > > And I haven't been on a plane that has had an engine failure yet. And
    that
    > > in the past 25 years.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > news:1b7u47a3ze363.1941ra8608tgx.dlg@40tude.net...
    > >
    > >>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:08 +1100, Goran wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    > >>>To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.
    > >>
    > >>You probably should quit flying altogether then. It's not that uncommon
    > >>to
    > >>be flying on only three engines.
    > >>
    > >>Bill
    >
    >
    >
    > I don't want to catch any Flak on this subject but 30 years ago, shortly
    > after take-off from Kimpo in Korea, I watched the number one engine
    > catch fire and melt on the 747. I was pissed that we turned around. I
    > then had to hitch-hike from Korea to West Virginia. For those that
    > remember, that was the time I walked in on my wife at the time, catching
    > her in bed with someone.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > boB
    >
    > U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    > Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

    Yeah but if he had continued, you might not have been there to catch her,
    she and her " friend" would have pocketed your millions and laughed about
    it.

    People are always going to be pissed off if a flight is cancelled, diverted,
    or turned around, but no one is here to say how they felt when the gamble
    DIDN'T pay off and the plane ploughed into a mountain and killed everyone on
    board..

    Brian........................
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:27:15 +0100, Oskar Wagner wrote:

    > Sorry to step in again. Of course V1 is the vital speed to decide whether
    > to discontinue a T/O or not (hence the wording 'decision speed'). But
    > getting airborne has nothing to do with whether to continue a flight or not.
    > You stated correctly "decide in the air". Without knowing BA SOP's properly
    > I sincerely doubt that ANY SOP's of ANY major airline will encourage a crew
    > to continue a 5000 NM flight on three engines. I'ts just NOT AIRMANSHIP. No
    > matter whether the outcome is brilliant or not.

    I'd like to address something rather important....something I feel has been
    overlooked in this matter. I'll start by pulling a quote from that Times
    Online website:

    "The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into
    force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or
    cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los
    Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than
    £100,000."

    Anybody else see what I mean? "European Regulation"
    What I would now like to know is this:

    1) Which countries decided this?
    2) For which airlines does this apply?
    3) Does a visiting non-European airline have to enforce those same rules?

    So BA was the first airline we know of that followed the new regulation,
    but this also means (and I sincerely hope not!) that other European
    airlines who have agreed to that regulation might also take the same risks.

    In my opinion this new regulation is even worse than bad maintenance and
    then trying to cover it up just so you can cut costs.
    This is like giving a green light to making the wrong decisions.

    "BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000."

    So that's what 350+ lives and a 747 are worth these days?
    It seems to me airlines are placing bets on how long they can maintain a
    zero casualty loss!

    --

    Marcel
    (I've got a baaad feeling about this.....)
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    100,000 pounds* is pocket change to BA.

    *Sorry, I don't know where the 'pound' symbol is on my keyboard)

    Arthur

    "Marcel Kuijper" <zoepetier_nothing_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:12t7zyrfob5t3.ip81d3euwzx4.dlg@40tude.net...

    (SNIP)
    >
    > "BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000."
    >
    > So that's what 350+ lives and a 747 are worth these days?
    > It seems to me airlines are placing bets on how long they can maintain a
    > zero casualty loss!
    >
    > --
    >
    > Marcel
    > (I've got a baaad feeling about this.....)
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I guess we will just have to have an aircraft crash before somethings done
    about it... as usual...

    Companys only start taking safety seriously when ATSB is knocking on their
    door with a wrecked plane to be looked at, and deceased people to bury. Some
    accidents are freak accidents (Tenerife for example) but if you have been
    flying for 7 hours with an engine destroyed, and then crash due to an engine
    failure it's not exactly unexpected. You only had 7 hours to react to it. In
    this case it would have been more like 11 hours in the air with a destroyed
    engine. 747-400's have 4 engines for a reason, and that reason is not so you
    can have spares. ETOPS in a 747 is not particularly fun. 747's are not meant
    to be Twins. Leave that to the 777.

    "boB" <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom> wrote in message
    news:JGbUd.56466$Bx5.47602@fe1.texas.rr.com...
    > Goran wrote:
    >
    >> yes but flying for 5000 miles on 3 engines with airports along the way to
    >> divert to?
    >> And I haven't been on a plane that has had an engine failure yet. And
    >> that in the past 25 years.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:1b7u47a3ze363.1941ra8608tgx.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:08 +1100, Goran wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    >>>>To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.
    >>>
    >>>You probably should quit flying altogether then. It's not that uncommon
    >>>to
    >>>be flying on only three engines.
    >>>
    >>>Bill
    >
    >
    >
    > I don't want to catch any Flak on this subject but 30 years ago, shortly
    > after take-off from Kimpo in Korea, I watched the number one engine catch
    > fire and melt on the 747. I was pissed that we turned around. I then had
    > to hitch-hike from Korea to West Virginia. For those that remember, that
    > was the time I walked in on my wife at the time, catching her in bed with
    > someone.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > boB
    >
    > U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    > Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I have somewhat limited knowledge of aircraft procedures, regulations, etc.,
    but aren't aircraft prohibited from dumping fuel in the ocean off the coast
    now? I was of the opinion they are required to burn it off until the safe
    landing weight is achieved. Correct me if I'm wrong please. If this is the
    case, that is, if aircraft are required to burn off the fuel, how long would
    it take a fully-fueled 747 to burn off sufficient fuel to land back at the
    airport? Would it take as long to fly to its destination? I'm just
    wondering how I would feel doing 10 hours worth of circuits in a 747 and
    then landing after going nowhere....probably somewhat icky and desiring a
    shower. Speaking of that, I may be all wet. I'll leave it to someone to dry
    me off.

    Arthur

    "Trent Hopkinson" <hoppys1@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    news:42214f1e$0$31618$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >I guess we will just have to have an aircraft crash before somethings done
    >about it... as usual...
    >
    > Companys only start taking safety seriously when ATSB is knocking on their
    > door with a wrecked plane to be looked at, and deceased people to bury.
    > Some accidents are freak accidents (Tenerife for example) but if you have
    > been flying for 7 hours with an engine destroyed, and then crash due to an
    > engine failure it's not exactly unexpected. You only had 7 hours to react
    > to it. In this case it would have been more like 11 hours in the air with
    > a destroyed engine. 747-400's have 4 engines for a reason, and that reason
    > is not so you can have spares. ETOPS in a 747 is not particularly fun.
    > 747's are not meant to be Twins. Leave that to the 777.
    >
    > "boB" <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom> wrote in message
    > news:JGbUd.56466$Bx5.47602@fe1.texas.rr.com...
    >> Goran wrote:
    >>
    >>> yes but flying for 5000 miles on 3 engines with airports along the way
    >>> to divert to?
    >>> And I haven't been on a plane that has had an engine failure yet. And
    >>> that in the past 25 years.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:1b7u47a3ze363.1941ra8608tgx.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>
    >>>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:08 +1100, Goran wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    >>>>>To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.
    >>>>
    >>>>You probably should quit flying altogether then. It's not that uncommon
    >>>>to
    >>>>be flying on only three engines.
    >>>>
    >>>>Bill
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I don't want to catch any Flak on this subject but 30 years ago, shortly
    >> after take-off from Kimpo in Korea, I watched the number one engine catch
    >> fire and melt on the 747. I was pissed that we turned around. I then had
    >> to hitch-hike from Korea to West Virginia. For those that remember, that
    >> was the time I walked in on my wife at the time, catching her in bed with
    >> someone.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> boB
    >>
    >> U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    >> Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Trent Hopkinson" <hoppys1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

    >I guess we will just have to have an aircraft crash before somethings done
    >about it... as usual...

    Since the plane is perfectly capable of flying on 3 engines, as this
    incident proved. Any crash will be blamed on the pilots for following
    improper procedures.

    -=tom=-
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    yes Phil,
    enlighten us all, please

    "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
    news:UjcUd.6605$MY6.3893@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Phil"
    >> You know so little about flying it appears from your statements.
    >> As a commercial pilot and Instructor I can tell you know nothing on how
    > things work.
    >
    > "on how things work"?
    >
    > Phil, I've got to wonder about your claim to be a commercial pilot and
    > instructor. It just seems to me that a commercial pilot would not
    > structure
    > a sentence in that manner.
    >
    > Can you tell us a little more about your career as a commercial pilot and
    > Instructor?
    >
    >
    > Dallas
    >
    >
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Jvst to interject a thovght.

    The new rvles are part of the newly formed (1998) Evropean Union JAR's.
    (Joint Airworthiness Regvlations) of which the UK is a part and parcel of,
    and the UK CAA has agrees to be a participant. (The CAA are also a voting
    member
    in any changes to the JAR rvles). Whether the new rvle was any part of a
    deciding
    factor in the joint decision between the Captain and the Dvty Controller at
    BA Ops Control at Heathrow is something the pvblic may not hear. However,
    I can, withovt any dovbt, say that there will be an investigation by the
    certifying avthorities (UK CAA) to find ovt the decision processes that took
    place in determining the vltimate decision to continve on to London
    Heathrow,
    bvt landing Manchester for precavtionary fvel pvrposes. I wovld also ventvre
    to saw that the US FAA will also want a part of the investigation, as the
    Foreign Air Carrier, Principle Operations Inspector for the FAA is the
    person who signs the Operations Specifications for BA to fly in US airspace,
    and since the flight originated at a US airport, and flew in US airspace,
    and most likely carried US citizens, they have jvrisdiction and avthority
    over the flights circvmstances in US airspace, as well as the UK, CAA
    the certifying avthorities of British Airways.
    This flight will probably tvrn ovt to be fvel for another amendment to the
    JAR's
    to preclvde any fvrther flights from being made for svch an vnwarranted
    distance
    after the failvre of a major component to the integrity of the aircraft.
    I mention also, there are hvndreds of decisions made each day in civil
    airline
    bvsiness that in some way covld and in some cases do jeopardize the safety
    of
    airline operations, and not jvst this one, which made it to the media. We do
    in the so-called
    first world covntries enjoy considerable regvlatory and enforcement
    policies, that
    help in maintaining safe airline operations.
    This we depend on and encovrage throvgh private indvstry and government
    bodies.
    We also, throvgh I.C.A.O. (International Civil Aviation Avthorities, the
    civil aviation
    branch of the United Nations) channel ovr covntry's wishes and inflvence in
    aviation safety matters, and in this particvlar sitvation, I feel certain
    that this
    will be discvssed at very high government level within the regvlatory body
    of
    I.C.A.O. with the view to improving safety compliance by all member
    covntries,
    (abovt 188 covntries). So this may be an inflvential component to improve
    aviation safety.
    Specvlation is always food for discvssion within the lay persons
    environment,
    however the resvlts of an investigation by BA, the UK and US government
    will be the mechanism that will help solve and bring the sitvation back on
    track
    to safer flying. I wish yov all Happy and Safe flying. In RL or Simvlators.
    CB
    (work related experience)
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Sorry, don't see it that way. If your statement that flying on
    partial number of operating engines is OK, and the flight up the east
    coast of the US passes airports every 100 miles or so, and the plane
    is already loaded with passengers , fuel an baggage, why not take off
    and fly up to New York, according to your logic? The cost of
    unloading and reloading the passengers on another aircraft is huge,
    and if it is just a matter of the airlines SOP, they should have
    continued the takeoff.

    Truth is that any airline that would allow a fully loaded jet to cross
    the ocean on partial operating engines, is in my opinion, run by
    morons. That's what happens when bean counters run the aviation
    industry instead of people that know about airplanes. The point is, is
    it OK to fly with one engine out , or is it not OK. If it's OK, then
    continue the takeoff , even if you are not up to V1 yet, ( after V1
    you are committed), or it's not OK and abort the takeoff.

    Bob


    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:17:26 GMT, "My T Sharp" <emailthis@myass.com>
    wrote:

    >But that happened during the take off. Big difference. In general for ALL
    >airlines (including BA!!!), it goes like this. Before 80kts, stop for any
    >malfunction. Between 80kts and V1, stop only for major
    >malfunctions/emergencies (such as an engine failure), after V1, take off and
    >decide in the air.
    >
    >Your experience is completely unrelated to what happened to the BA flight
    >last week.
    >
    >"Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    >news:uig321dkp7e4gcgdg4agdvsg14mrntgoj3@4ax.com...
    >> It is always good to read a post by someone that knows what they are
    >> talking about. Years ago I was in an L1011 flying from Ft Lauderdale
    >> to New York, and at around 80 knots or so a compressor went belly up,
    >> and on came the brakes. Back to the ramp for a new aircraft. Now this
    >> L1011, has 3 engines so we still had 2 left, and we had airports all
    >> along the east coast, and we still stayed on the ground until a
    >> aircraft with all engines working was available.
    >>
    >> If BA has an SOP that says keep going, after an engine failure, I
    >> won't ever be flying on anything that says BA on the side of the
    >> aircraft. That is just beyond dumb, in my opinion.
    >>
    >> Bob
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:21:53 +0100, "Oskar Wagner"
    >> <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    >>>news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    >>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >>>>
    >>>> this.. is interesting.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> **********
    >>>> shu
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Yes indeed, it is..!.?.!.?
    >>>There's some truth in what the pilots said, that the final decision always
    >>>lies with the Captain .... ;-)
    >>>However to me it seems a somewhat uncommon decision. There are of course a
    >>>few failures that may not cause a return. There are some systems which
    >>>have
    >>>the redundancy to allow such decisions. The main help for that being the
    >>>MRL
    >>>(Minimum Requirement List). But.....(there's always a but ;-) ):
    >>>4 engines DO NOT mean redundancy!!!
    >>>A 4-engined A/C is CAPABLE TO FLY on 3 engines only but it is not designed
    >>>to OPERATE on 3 engines (I'm deadly sure that the MRL states the
    >>>exceptions
    >>>for 3-engines FERRY for maintenance reasons with specifically selected
    >>>ferry
    >>>crews and of course WITHOUT payload). Yes, of course, I know that the MRL
    >>>only applies preflight but nevertheless it gives some helpful hints how to
    >>>handle any shortcomings during flight. Furthermore it is obvious that the
    >>>planned fuel for a normal 4-engined flight will in no way be sufficient
    >>>for
    >>>3-engined flight. So an intermediate landing will be necessary anyway. I
    >>>wonder how they managed to reach Manchester......
    >>>So to make it short: I don't think that it was a wise decision to continue
    >>>even if everything went smooth. Deciding under the aspects of commercial
    >>>pressure is always very questionable and in fact should never happen.
    >>>Besides that: (another commercial thought) The failed engine has
    >>>windmilling
    >>>time of around 11 hrs which may lead to somewhat extended disassembly work
    >>>maybe worth another few 1000£.......
    >>
    >
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    MLW and ALW are very different.
    Pilots fly taking all things into consideration and land with as little fuel
    is as legally possible.
    This is different to what their maximum landing weight is. They could have
    flown to another airport on the way. A US crossing in a 747 takes roughly 3
    hours and a JFK landing was easily possible.
    I don't know about the US, but in Australia, as far as I know unless they
    have changed the regulations, you are definitely permitted to dump fuel over
    the ocean if the situation warrants the action.

    "Arthur" <alspectorz@rogers.com> wrote in message
    news:1ZKdnWTqtJvNyrzfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
    >I have somewhat limited knowledge of aircraft procedures, regulations,
    >etc., but aren't aircraft prohibited from dumping fuel in the ocean off the
    >coast now? I was of the opinion they are required to burn it off until the
    >safe landing weight is achieved. Correct me if I'm wrong please. If this
    >is the case, that is, if aircraft are required to burn off the fuel, how
    >long would it take a fully-fueled 747 to burn off sufficient fuel to land
    >back at the airport? Would it take as long to fly to its destination? I'm
    >just wondering how I would feel doing 10 hours worth of circuits in a 747
    >and then landing after going nowhere....probably somewhat icky and desiring
    >a shower. Speaking of that, I may be all wet. I'll leave it to someone to
    >dry me off.
    >
    > Arthur
    >
    > "Trent Hopkinson" <hoppys1@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:42214f1e$0$31618$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >>I guess we will just have to have an aircraft crash before somethings done
    >>about it... as usual...
    >>
    >> Companys only start taking safety seriously when ATSB is knocking on
    >> their door with a wrecked plane to be looked at, and deceased people to
    >> bury. Some accidents are freak accidents (Tenerife for example) but if
    >> you have been flying for 7 hours with an engine destroyed, and then crash
    >> due to an engine failure it's not exactly unexpected. You only had 7
    >> hours to react to it. In this case it would have been more like 11 hours
    >> in the air with a destroyed engine. 747-400's have 4 engines for a
    >> reason, and that reason is not so you can have spares. ETOPS in a 747 is
    >> not particularly fun. 747's are not meant to be Twins. Leave that to the
    >> 777.
    >>
    >> "boB" <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom> wrote in message
    >> news:JGbUd.56466$Bx5.47602@fe1.texas.rr.com...
    >>> Goran wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> yes but flying for 5000 miles on 3 engines with airports along the way
    >>>> to divert to?
    >>>> And I haven't been on a plane that has had an engine failure yet. And
    >>>> that in the past 25 years.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:1b7u47a3ze363.1941ra8608tgx.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:08 +1100, Goran wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Personally, I'm never flying BA again.
    >>>>>>To put profit before safety is just ludicrous.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>You probably should quit flying altogether then. It's not that
    >>>>>uncommon to
    >>>>>be flying on only three engines.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Bill
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I don't want to catch any Flak on this subject but 30 years ago, shortly
    >>> after take-off from Kimpo in Korea, I watched the number one engine
    >>> catch fire and melt on the 747. I was pissed that we turned around. I
    >>> then had to hitch-hike from Korea to West Virginia. For those that
    >>> remember, that was the time I walked in on my wife at the time, catching
    >>> her in bed with someone.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>>
    >>> boB
    >>>
    >>> U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    >>> Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:27:15 +0100, "Oskar Wagner"
    <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote:

    >"My T Sharp" <emailthis@myass.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    >news:GLjUd.2196$dy3.1258@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
    >> But that happened during the take off. Big difference. In general for ALL
    >> airlines (including BA!!!), it goes like this. Before 80kts, stop for any
    >> malfunction. Between 80kts and V1, stop only for major
    >> malfunctions/emergencies (such as an engine failure), after V1, take off
    >> and decide in the air.
    >>
    >> Your experience is completely unrelated to what happened to the BA flight
    >> last week.
    >>
    >> "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    >> news:uig321dkp7e4gcgdg4agdvsg14mrntgoj3@4ax.com...
    >>> It is always good to read a post by someone that knows what they are
    >>> talking about. Years ago I was in an L1011 flying from Ft Lauderdale
    >>> to New York, and at around 80 knots or so a compressor went belly up,
    >>> and on came the brakes. Back to the ramp for a new aircraft. Now this
    >>> L1011, has 3 engines so we still had 2 left, and we had airports all
    >>> along the east coast, and we still stayed on the ground until a
    >>> aircraft with all engines working was available.
    >>>
    >>> If BA has an SOP that says keep going, after an engine failure, I
    >>> won't ever be flying on anything that says BA on the side of the
    >>> aircraft. That is just beyond dumb, in my opinion.
    >>>
    >>> Bob
    >>>
    >>>
    > Sorry to step in again. Of course V1 is the vital speed to decide whether
    >to discontinue a T/O or not (hence the wording 'decision speed'). But
    >getting airborne has nothing to do with whether to continue a flight or not.
    >You stated correctly "decide in the air". Without knowing BA SOP's properly
    >I sincerely doubt that ANY SOP's of ANY major airline will encourage a crew
    >to continue a 5000 NM flight on three engines. I'ts just NOT AIRMANSHIP. No
    >matter whether the outcome is brilliant or not.

    I answered T Sharps's post before reading your's but my feeling is
    that one has to conclude that either partial engine flight over long
    distances is very safe, or it is not safe. That is the question,
    plain and simple.

    Faced with 5,000 miles to fly and an engine failure, sorry folks, I
    am turning this thing around and heading for the nearest airport and
    if my Company complains, looking for a new airline to fly for after I
    land. Simple as that in my opinion. If SOP at BA says make a Trans
    Ocean flight on 3 out of 4 engines, when you are just starting your
    trip, that tells me that the people that write their SOP's are
    totally devoid of any ability to use common sense. I don't want to
    fly on an airline that is run by nitwits .

    There are more than a few Airline Crashes over the years that have one
    common thread. A bad decision was made by the flight crew, which
    caused a problem , and then something else went wrong and the sum of
    these problems, like a chain, wound up in a crash. If you try and
    eliminate the first bad decision as much as possible, you break the
    chain right at the first link. Starting out on a long flight with a
    bum engine, is placing that first link in the chain of events leading
    up to an accident , very solidly in place.


    Bob
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:01:31 +0100, Marcel Kuijper
    <zoepetier_nothing_here@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:27:15 +0100, Oskar Wagner wrote:
    >
    >> Sorry to step in again. Of course V1 is the vital speed to decide whether
    >> to discontinue a T/O or not (hence the wording 'decision speed'). But
    >> getting airborne has nothing to do with whether to continue a flight or not.
    >> You stated correctly "decide in the air". Without knowing BA SOP's properly
    >> I sincerely doubt that ANY SOP's of ANY major airline will encourage a crew
    >> to continue a 5000 NM flight on three engines. I'ts just NOT AIRMANSHIP. No
    >> matter whether the outcome is brilliant or not.
    >
    >I'd like to address something rather important....something I feel has been
    >overlooked in this matter. I'll start by pulling a quote from that Times
    >Online website:
    >
    >"The incident happened three days after a European regulation came into
    >force requiring airlines to compensate passengers for long delays or
    >cancellations. Under the new rules, if the pilot had returned to Los
    >Angeles, BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than
    >£100,000."
    >
    >Anybody else see what I mean? "European Regulation"
    >What I would now like to know is this:
    >
    >1) Which countries decided this?
    >2) For which airlines does this apply?
    >3) Does a visiting non-European airline have to enforce those same rules?
    >
    >So BA was the first airline we know of that followed the new regulation,
    >but this also means (and I sincerely hope not!) that other European
    >airlines who have agreed to that regulation might also take the same risks.
    >
    >In my opinion this new regulation is even worse than bad maintenance and
    >then trying to cover it up just so you can cut costs.
    >This is like giving a green light to making the wrong decisions.
    >
    >"BA would have been facing a compensation bill of more than £100,000."
    >
    >So that's what 350+ lives and a 747 are worth these days?
    >It seems to me airlines are placing bets on how long they can maintain a
    >zero casualty loss!


    It is probably like any business, looking at the cost and effect of a
    business decision. When a big auto company makes a product which is
    defective, is it cheaper to recall the products and fix them or to
    payoff a few lawsuits by people that were injured in these auto's.

    So BA takes a gamble, most of the time, they will probably win. You
    just don't want to be on the losing flight.

    Bob
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:41:12 -0500, Arthur wrote:

    > 100,000 pounds* is pocket change to BA.

    Exactly! So why take enormous risks?

    --

    Marcel
    (There's no such thing as a natural-born pilot. - Chuck Yeager)
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:17:05 GMT, "Tom Allensworth"
    <tom@REMOVETHISavsim.com> wrote:

    >Oskar wrote:
    >
    >"So to make it short: I don't think that it was a wise decision to continue
    >even if everything went smooth. Deciding under the aspects of commercial
    >pressure is always very questionable and in fact should never happen."
    >
    >I heartily agree. Not many posting here have been on a 747 with a dead
    >engine. I have. In a flight that departed Narita for KIAD, the All Nippon
    >Air 747-400 lost it port inboard engine. The engine failed nearly 3 hours
    >into the flight. Meaning that we were well on our way to the Aleutians and
    >certainly could have easily made PNAC (barring any further failures), had
    >the Captain decided to go for it. However, he didn't. He prudently turned
    >the aircraft around and we returned to Narita, overnighted and then flew to
    >KJFK the next day.
    >
    >Yes it was a hassle for the passengers and yes getting home 24 hours or more
    >later than you had expected wasn't fun. But, I lived to get home and I was
    >and am still grateful that Captain made the decision he did. In over 30
    >years of frequent international travel, this is the only flight I have had
    >where an engine failed. I am pleased the Captain made the decision he did.
    >Frankly, in my opinion, BA put the 350 souls on board that flight at
    >additional risk that they shouldn't have.


    What does the BA management care , they aren't sitting on that
    aircraft at risk.

    Bob
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Goran" <goranm@youwish.com> wrote in message
    news:42215c9c$0$6164$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >.
    > I don't know about the US, but in Australia, as far as I know unless they
    > have changed the regulations, you are definitely permitted to dump fuel
    > over the ocean if the situation warrants the action.

    The recent example of a USA owned 747 ex Sydney to the USA with a suspected
    bomb on board jumped fuel and returned to Sydney. That was the flight where
    the crew found a brown paper bag with "BOB" written on it and assumed it was
    a bomb. Apparently BOB is cabin crew code for "Best on Board" referring to
    the best looking passenger on board.

    Cheers
    Peter Cokley
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Peter and Susan" <petanoz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:38d96oF5lq1moU1@individual.net...
    > The recent example of a USA owned 747 ex Sydney to the USA with a
    suspected
    > bomb on board jumped fuel and returned to Sydney.
    > Cheers
    > Peter Cokley

    Of course I meant **dumped fuel** and not **Jumped fuel**.

    Cheers
    Peter Cokley
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:41:04 -0500, Tom Orle <xspam.torle@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >"Trent Hopkinson" <hoppys1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
    >
    >>I guess we will just have to have an aircraft crash before somethings done
    >>about it... as usual...
    >
    >Since the plane is perfectly capable of flying on 3 engines, as this
    >incident proved. Any crash will be blamed on the pilots for following
    >improper procedures.
    >
    >-=tom=-


    Reminds me of the time the Northwest flight crew was stopped and
    arrested getting off their plane after it landed, because some gate
    people smelled alcohol on their breath. Their lawyer stated during
    the trial that they shouldn't be treated to harshly, since after all
    they didn't crash.

    Bet that made the passengers feel warm and fuzzy :)

    Bob
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:39242197ie62l3i0osoecqps1f9r7375r9@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:41:04 -0500, Tom Orle <xspam.torle@comcast.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Trent Hopkinson" <hoppys1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I guess we will just have to have an aircraft crash before somethings
    >>>done
    >>>about it... as usual...
    >>
    >>Since the plane is perfectly capable of flying on 3 engines, as this
    >>incident proved. Any crash will be blamed on the pilots for following
    >>improper procedures.
    >>
    >>-=tom=-
    >
    >
    > Reminds me of the time the Northwest flight crew was stopped and
    > arrested getting off their plane after it landed, because some gate
    > people smelled alcohol on their breath. Their lawyer stated during
    > the trial that they shouldn't be treated to harshly, since after all
    > they didn't crash.
    >
    > Bet that made the passengers feel warm and fuzzy :)
    >
    > Bob

    Well, isn't it a common thing nowadays that we admire people who do stupid
    things as long as they do it successfully? (I wish this could be regarded as
    a joke...)
    --
    Oskar
    (retired captain)
    Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:07:21 +0100, "Oskar Wagner"
    <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote:

    >"Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    >news:39242197ie62l3i0osoecqps1f9r7375r9@4ax.com...
    >> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:41:04 -0500, Tom Orle <xspam.torle@comcast.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Trent Hopkinson" <hoppys1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I guess we will just have to have an aircraft crash before somethings
    >>>>done
    >>>>about it... as usual...
    >>>
    >>>Since the plane is perfectly capable of flying on 3 engines, as this
    >>>incident proved. Any crash will be blamed on the pilots for following
    >>>improper procedures.
    >>>
    >>>-=tom=-
    >>
    >>
    >> Reminds me of the time the Northwest flight crew was stopped and
    >> arrested getting off their plane after it landed, because some gate
    >> people smelled alcohol on their breath. Their lawyer stated during
    >> the trial that they shouldn't be treated to harshly, since after all
    >> they didn't crash.
    >>
    >> Bet that made the passengers feel warm and fuzzy :)
    >>
    >> Bob
    >

    And the ones that don't do it successfully wind up in those Darwin
    Award stories, TV shows that video stupid people doing stuff and , oh
    I almost forgot, NTSB accident investigations.

    Bob
    >Well, isn't it a common thing nowadays that we admire people who do stupid
    >things as long as they do it successfully? (I wish this could be regarded as
    >a joke...)
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Oskar Wagner" <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
    news:cvsabk$ak2$1@news.hispeed.ch...
    > "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    > >
    > > this.. is interesting.
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > **********
    > > shu
    > >
    >
    > Yes indeed, it is..!.?.!.?
    > There's some truth in what the pilots said, that the final decision always
    > lies with the Captain .... ;-)
    > However to me it seems a somewhat uncommon decision. There are of course a
    > few failures that may not cause a return. There are some systems which
    have
    > the redundancy to allow such decisions. The main help for that being the
    MRL
    > (Minimum Requirement List). But.....(there's always a but ;-) ):
    > 4 engines DO NOT mean redundancy!!!
    > A 4-engined A/C is CAPABLE TO FLY on 3 engines only but it is not designed
    > to OPERATE on 3 engines (I'm deadly sure that the MRL states the
    exceptions
    > for 3-engines FERRY for maintenance reasons with specifically selected
    ferry
    > crews and of course WITHOUT payload). Yes, of course, I know that the MRL
    > only applies preflight but nevertheless it gives some helpful hints how to
    > handle any shortcomings during flight. Furthermore it is obvious that the
    > planned fuel for a normal 4-engined flight will in no way be sufficient
    for
    > 3-engined flight. So an intermediate landing will be necessary anyway. I
    > wonder how they managed to reach Manchester......
    > So to make it short: I don't think that it was a wise decision to continue
    > even if everything went smooth. Deciding under the aspects of commercial
    > pressure is always very questionable and in fact should never happen.
    > Besides that: (another commercial thought) The failed engine has
    windmilling
    > time of around 11 hrs which may lead to somewhat extended disassembly work
    > maybe worth another few 1000£.......
    > --
    > Oskar
    > (retired captain)
    > Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
    >
    >
    Very good point, if the engine is not under power, then I would assume that
    any oil pumps would not deliver the necessary oil pressure to ensure no
    further damage would occur to the workings, as the turbines and such are
    spun by the air being forced through them.

    Brian.....................
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    brian wrote:

    >>
    >>I don't want to catch any Flak on this subject but 30 years ago, shortly
    >>after take-off from Kimpo in Korea, I watched the number one engine
    >>catch fire and melt on the 747. I was pissed that we turned around. I
    >>then had to hitch-hike from Korea to West Virginia. For those that
    >>remember, that was the time I walked in on my wife at the time, catching
    >>her in bed with someone.
    >>

    >>
    >>boB


    > Yeah but if he had continued, you might not have been there to catch her,
    > she and her " friend" would have pocketed your millions and laughed about
    > it.
    >
    > People are always going to be pissed off if a flight is cancelled, diverted,
    > or turned around, but no one is here to say how they felt when the gamble
    > DIDN'T pay off and the plane ploughed into a mountain and killed everyone on
    > board..
    >
    > Brian........................


    I know :) :) I caught some Flak from some one already just for talking
    about it. It was a Northwest flight and I don't think ANYONE on the
    plane would have let the crew continue. The engine had pretty much
    burned up with lines and cables trailing behind.

    --

    boB

    U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Oskar Wagner" <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:cvt23m$qsf$1@news.hispeed.ch...
    > "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:39242197ie62l3i0osoecqps1f9r7375r9@4ax.com...
    >> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:41:04 -0500, Tom Orle <xspam.torle@comcast.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Trent Hopkinson" <hoppys1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I guess we will just have to have an aircraft crash before somethings
    >>>>done
    >>>>about it... as usual...
    >>>
    >>>Since the plane is perfectly capable of flying on 3 engines, as this
    >>>incident proved. Any crash will be blamed on the pilots for following
    >>>improper procedures.
    >>>
    >>>-=tom=-
    >>
    >>
    >> Reminds me of the time the Northwest flight crew was stopped and
    >> arrested getting off their plane after it landed, because some gate
    >> people smelled alcohol on their breath. Their lawyer stated during
    >> the trial that they shouldn't be treated to harshly, since after all
    >> they didn't crash.
    >>
    >> Bet that made the passengers feel warm and fuzzy :)
    >>
    >> Bob
    >
    > Well, isn't it a common thing nowadays that we admire people who do stupid
    > things as long as they do it successfully? (I wish this could be regarded as
    > a joke...)
    > --
    > Oskar
    > (retired captain)
    > Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
    >

    Thank you Oskar for summing up the whole event so succinctly.
    -
    ....Carl Frisk
    Anger is a brief madness.
    - Horace, 20 B.C.
    http://www.carlfrisk.com
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Finally, the voice of reason.
    Thanks for your input Oskar.

    "Oskar Wagner" <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
    news:cvsabk$ak2$1@news.hispeed.ch...
    > "shu" <washu@hiwaay.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:ad7ab$4220d9da$18d6c3f0$22417@KNOLOGY.NET...
    >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html
    >>
    >> this.. is interesting.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> **********
    >> shu
    >>
    >
    > Yes indeed, it is..!.?.!.?
    > There's some truth in what the pilots said, that the final decision always
    > lies with the Captain .... ;-)
    > However to me it seems a somewhat uncommon decision. There are of course a
    > few failures that may not cause a return. There are some systems which
    > have the redundancy to allow such decisions. The main help for that being
    > the MRL (Minimum Requirement List). But.....(there's always a but ;-) ):
    > 4 engines DO NOT mean redundancy!!!
    > A 4-engined A/C is CAPABLE TO FLY on 3 engines only but it is not designed
    > to OPERATE on 3 engines (I'm deadly sure that the MRL states the
    > exceptions for 3-engines FERRY for maintenance reasons with specifically
    > selected ferry crews and of course WITHOUT payload). Yes, of course, I
    > know that the MRL only applies preflight but nevertheless it gives some
    > helpful hints how to handle any shortcomings during flight. Furthermore it
    > is obvious that the planned fuel for a normal 4-engined flight will in no
    > way be sufficient for 3-engined flight. So an intermediate landing will be
    > necessary anyway. I wonder how they managed to reach Manchester......
    > So to make it short: I don't think that it was a wise decision to continue
    > even if everything went smooth. Deciding under the aspects of commercial
    > pressure is always very questionable and in fact should never happen.
    > Besides that: (another commercial thought) The failed engine has
    > windmilling time of around 11 hrs which may lead to somewhat extended
    > disassembly work maybe worth another few 1000£.......
    > --
    > Oskar
    > (retired captain)
    > Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
    >
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:11:19 +1100, Goran wrote:

    > My hostility was not directed at you, it was directed at someone else so I
    > would appreciate your hostile and patronising comments directed to me be
    > kept to a minimum.

    Since you replied to Phil's message, I certainly concluded that it was he
    to whom your "hostility was... directed."

    But, why be "hostile" at all? This is a conversation, not a life-and-death
    decision making group. Nothing written here will be made official policy
    by anyone, anywhere.

    Bill
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:48:06 +1100, Goran wrote:

    > This one kills me. Not the pilots, but BA made the decision. If it were up
    > to the pilots, they may have decided to land immediately.

    Ultimately, the PIC made the decision to continue. He is the culpable
    party here, not the BA number-crunchers.

    Granted, he may have faced some disciplinary action from his employers, but
    the safety of the pax and his fellow aircrew are HIS responsibility, no one
    else's.

    Bill
  45. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:46:05 GMT, Carl Frisk wrote:

    > Thank you Oskar for summing up the whole event so succinctly.

    Succinctly??
    Damn Carl...I had to look that one up! I though only Bill could bash us
    with big words no one else uses.... :-)

    --

    Marcel
    (There's no such thing as a natural-born pilot. - Chuck Yeager)
  46. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I got my licence back in 1975 and became a instructor 1 year later. I was also
    in the Airforce Reserve for 14 years as well as I became a Flight Safety
    Officer.

    But why bore you with the facts.

    Phil

    Dallas wrote:

    > "Phil"
    > > You know so little about flying it appears from your statements.
    > > As a commercial pilot and Instructor I can tell you know nothing on how
    > things work.
    >
    > "on how things work"?
    >
    > Phil, I've got to wonder about your claim to be a commercial pilot and
    > instructor. It just seems to me that a commercial pilot would not structure
    > a sentence in that manner.
    >
    > Can you tell us a little more about your career as a commercial pilot and
    > Instructor?
    >
    > Dallas

    --
    Seacruise http://www.seacruisechat.com
    Canal Cam Schedule http://www.seacruisechat.com/panamacanal/
    Cruise Review Archive http://www.seacruisereviews.com

    Strange but True:
    1) The longest recorded flight of a chicken is 13 seconds!
    2) Slugs have 4 noses!
  47. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Careful or I'll start talking about Liskov's Substitutability Principle (aka the Liskov Substitution Principle) and
    mutable objects as well as immutable objects as per Anders Hejlsberg's C# discussion.
    Let's start with can a rectangle derive from a square?

    Let's keep it on topic can a helicopter be derived from a Cessna 172?

    --
    ....Carl Frisk
    Anger is a brief madness.
    - Horace, 20 B.C.
    http://www.carlfrisk.com


    "Marcel Kuijper" <zoepetier_nothing_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:zeaoofk5p8k0.1j3wn6wp01hi3$.dlg@40tude.net...
    > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:46:05 GMT, Carl Frisk wrote:
    >
    >> Thank you Oskar for summing up the whole event so succinctly.
    >
    > Succinctly??
    > Damn Carl...I had to look that one up! I though only Bill could bash us
    > with big words no one else uses.... :-)
    >
    > --
    >
    > Marcel
    > (There's no such thing as a natural-born pilot. - Chuck Yeager)
  48. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I'm guessing Phil is a troll

    "Marcel Kuijper" <zoepetier_nothing_here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1rp1j5lw67kbo.u6qbnsbf4oa2$.dlg@40tude.net...
    > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:18:36 GMT, Phil wrote:
    >
    >> You know so little about flying it appears from your statements. You fly
    >> Flight
    >> Sim and think it teaches you everything you need to know. As a commercial
    >> pilot
    >> and Instructor I can tell you know nothing on how things work. You see a
    >> DVD and
    >> think that is ALL the information you need to make a informed decission.
    >
    > Most of us here are just simpilots, Phil....but that doesn't mean we're
    > stupid! We can read...we have the ability to ask questions...we all have
    > our contacts...and we're very fortunate to have some RL pilots here.
    > We've had a RL 747 pilot here too and you have no idea what these RL
    > commercial pilots can teach you and how willing they are to share their
    > experiences and teachings.
    > So keep your condescending remarks to yourself, okay?
    >
    > Most of us have been doing this a while and have learned quite a bit over
    > the years. The internet is full of information regarding aviation and
    > there's plenty to learn. If you're eager enough....
    >
    > 5000nm on 3 engines is a pretty long haul for such a heavy bird.
    > Sure it can make it, but would an MD-11 pilot fly 5000nm on two engines
    > just because a 777 can do it?
    > If you're above the middle of an ocean you have no other choice but to
    > push
    > on through, but given the very first oppertunity the pilot would dump fuel
    > and land ASAP.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Marcel
    > (I've got a baaad feeling about this.....)
  49. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Goran"
    > I'm guessing Phil is a troll

    Yeah, that was his first post to agmfs.

    Dallas
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Microsoft Video Games