British Airways pilots who carried on with a jumbo jet flight right across the Atlantic despite an engine failure, were not sufficiently knowledgeable about how the fuel system worked with only three engines operating, an accident report has said.
The crew on the four-engined London-bound Boeing 747, which was carrying 352 passengers, had to shut down an engine after flames were seen coming from it immediately after take off from Los Angeles.
The pilots decided not to return to Los Angeles but to carry on to London but, in the end, declared an emergency and diverted to Manchester, where the plane landed safely, a report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said.
The report said that in the latter stages of the February 2005 flight, the crew encountered difficulties in balancing the fuel quantities in the four main tanks.
The AAIB said the crew became concerned that the contents of one tank might be unusable.
The report continued: "No evidence was found to show that the flight continuation posed a significant increase in risk, and the investigation established that the aircraft landed with more than the required minimum fuel reserves. However, there were indications of deficiencies in the training regarding fuel management provided to the flight crew. The three qualified pilots were not confident that all the fuel was available, and their difficulties with fuel management indicated that their knowledge of the fuel system with three engines operating was insufficient."
The AAIB said the final decision to continue to London was in accordance with BA's policy of continuing the flight provided the indications suggested that "the aircraft is in a safe condition for extended onward flight".
But the report added that AAIB investigations of other airlines' policies showed differing guidance to pilots in the event of an engine failure on a four-engined plane.
The AAIB recommended the Civil Aviation Authority and America's Federal Aviation Administration should review the policy on flight continuation in such circumstances so that clear guidance could be given to airlines.
The AAIB also recommended BA include relevant instruction on three-engined fuel handling during training. The report added that BA had accepted this and had implemented the recommendation.
I guess the pilots had economy rather than safety on their minds. They would have to dump fuel and return to LA costing money and time. However, if flames were seen then it would have made more sense to return rather than continue.
vivekman wrote: I guess the pilots had economy rather than safety on their minds. T
Maybe, maybe not. This decision was not taken solely by the captain, im pretty sure the crew would have contacted (at a minimum) both their maintenance base and dispatch. I (and I can speak for all of us) don’t know what they said, or who suggested what, but the captain obviously thought it was safe to continue. It's worth remembering that irrespective of what dispatch or maintenances says, the final decision is with the PIC. I know lots of pilots who have not taken dispatches advice, but I would like to think that they would listen to maintenance :) Anyway, if their training or SOPS were ‘deficient’ then obviously corrective action needs to be taken. eP007