Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!  
User currently offlinePacific From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 28057 times:

Found this article at The Times.

Main points:
- Passenger (NOT ferry!) flight.
- Engine failure on takeoff.
- Engine subsequently shutdown.
- Pilot elected to continue on to LHR.
- Insufficient fuel creates emergency landing at MAN.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html

I'd have thought the standard thing to do was to dump fuel and turn back since the engine failure occured so early into the flight. I know a CX 747 suffered an engine failure on takeoff and turned back to LAX some months back.

Is BA really compromising safety due to the costs of new EU legislation as this is what the article is implying.

120 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26338 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 27890 times:

Quoting Pacific (reply 0):
I know a CX 747 suffered an engine failure on takeoff and turned back to LAX some months back.


The CX plane had a lot farther to go and winds against it. Also, most of the flying would be over water and not as safe as an Atlantic crossing which is always much closer to an airport. Still, if this was for commercial reasons, there is no excuse



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3602 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 27831 times:

I have a friend that is a captain on a BA 744 and he says he has done this before from JKF-LHR. It was not on takeoff, but it was way before the half way mark, and they continued on to LHR. He basically said having a single engine fail on a 744 is not really an emergency at all.

User currently offlineFrequentflykid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 27807 times:

Assuming everything in the article is true and I almost shocked. We all understand that the airplane is designed to fly on two engines, but I cannot believe they continued with an engine out, let alone on flight of that distance. I think I would be very upset if I was a passenger on that flight.

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12784 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 27741 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

He basically said having a single engine fail on a 744 is not really an emergency at all. As long as the failure is not before cruise altitude all of the lore I've heard about the 747 would validate that. However, most flights less than 1 hour from departure will turn back and land with an engine out. Unfortunately, one engine out is often a sign another is about ready to go (e.g., Egypt air A330 where a mechanic didn't put back in the oil filters properly).

IF the failure had been an hour into the flight... it wouldn't have been a big deal (already at initial cruise altitude) in my opinion. But if the failure occured before end of climb... ugh. The engines haven't even been through their highest temperature. (Cooling is not as efficient at end of climb as during takeoff.)

It sounds like this new law has too much "teeth." The FAA doesn't count delays due to safety; the EU should modify the law for the same opt out. (This case is an extreme example.) From what I've heard about arbitrary flight cancelations in the EU, there needed to be a new law... but that doesn't imply the current version is correctly worded.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2092 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 27476 times:

Obviously the pilot will have looked at the performance charts, consulted with BA ground and gone with flying a safe bird to LHR. Passengers would be happy, instead of having to go back through security at LAX (hell I'd go with two engines, than run that gauntlet). I think the problem became an emergency when a fuel flow system failed, and they diverted to MAN.

Let's not blast an airline and pilot, when procedures were followed, and a fuel stop had to be made!


User currently offlineSfo212 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 27256 times:

I think the A330 you are referring to was operated by Air Transat. That is the one that ran out of gas and glided all the way to a landing. Amazing that they were able to pull it off.

User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4506 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 27049 times:

I almost can't believe this. I fly on BA 282/3 and 268/9 relatively frequently and can't imagine having to continue on to LHR on only three engines!!!!!!

Anyway, I'm not an expert, nor do I have any information or experience with this sort of thing, but if I was a passenger on board that plane I would not have been happy about continuing on with an engine not working.

Hell, when crossing over the sea and over the pole from canada, where is the nearest airport to divert to anyway?

I'm sure if BA was to do a cost benefit analysis and multiply the 100,000 pound saving by the percentage of making it safely to LHR and then multiply the cost of the worst case scenario by the percentage of it occurring, it would come out to more than the cost of compensating passengers for the delay.

Anyway, that said, I'm sure that BA made an informed decision that was not motivated solely on the basis of money.

Either way, its probably the first Manchester service that Los Angeles has seen since BA pulled the 763 service from LAX in 1993 or whenever it was.



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 27000 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (reply 4):
Egypt air A330 where a mechanic didn't put back in the oil filters properly



Which is why ETOPS procedures are in place. It's b/c of incidents like this mx processes are different depending on type of a/c. In terms of cost vs. Safety. I think that BA weighed the cost and found that flying onto LHR/MAN made more sense. Not to mention that there are no 744 operators with an alliance with BA, i think, in the US so getting parts and service would be hard and costly. Then again it couldn't have been that bad if they were willing to fly a "damaged" aircraft for that long of a time. Like stated above if one goes there's a good chance another will follow the party, not to mention that even though the engine is shut down further damage to the engine could occur during the period of time between failure and arrival.

Regardless, BA felt that to proceed with the journey made most sense so thats what happened. If the crew felt that that was not the right choice they would have over ridden the choice and landed where first possible. I think the title "3 engines...WITH Pax!" is a bit misleading seeing how a shut down of an engine can be for MANY things...

Thanks again,

Matt



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4506 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26994 times:

Quoting UA777222 (reply 8):
I think that BA weighed the cost and found that flying onto LHR/MAN made more sense. Not to mention that there are no 744 operators with an alliance with BA, i think, in the US so getting parts and service would be hard and costly.


Agreed, UA77722, about having weighed the cost etc.

However I don't think it would have been that hard to get spares. AA 752s (-223s) have RB211s, as do CX 744s and most QF 744s, all of the above present at LAX.



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineMusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26968 times:

BA is doing themselves a very bad image on the media because of this issue. Safety should always be on the top of the list and if they told the passenges about this, i am sure they are worried throughout the flight because their 744 is on 3 engines only.


Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26937 times:

Christ, you people imply this was unsafe somehow.

As far as I know, this is SOP. Why go back to LAX where you don't have a spare engine, when you're already up in the air and heading home to an mx base?

Seems it happened pretty early in the flight, and therefore the fuel penalty of dragging a lifeless engine caught up with them, but sheesh, unsafe.....hardly.

George



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2092 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26885 times:

I don't think we should believe everything we read in the press, especially the UK. I can just imagine what some of them are printing, "Jumbo runs out of fuel at 60,000', just misses Elvis driving his London Bus". Although I am not a fan of BA, they are professional, and would have considered all the options.

The 747 diverted into MAN because of fuel. OK, so how many diversions because of fuel/sick pax happen every year - 300? But this one is important because it lost one motor. Believe me, if the manual said loosing one motor you return to nearest airport the plane would have been back at LAX.

Only thing PAX would have noticed was the quietness on one side!!!


User currently offlineMusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26862 times:

Col,

I wonder if that side would be quieter? if they lose one engine on one side, the other engine on that side has to spool up a lot? Will that end up be noiser?

Regards



Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlineDaumueller From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 689 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 26848 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (reply 4):
It sounds like this new law has too much "teeth." The FAA doesn't count delays due to safety; the EU should modify the law for the same opt out. (This case is an extreme example.) From what I've heard about arbitrary flight cancelations in the EU, there needed to be a new law... but that doesn't imply the current version is correctly worded.


well, this would be the perfect backdoor since in this case, all MX related delays were security related too and nobody would ever get compensation.

on the other hand, I don't know why we need this law at all... all the money I'll get from compensations will be payed back by higher and higher fares...


User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2092 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 26840 times:

Musapapaya,

To some extent you are right, maybe the other side would be quieter as the other two spool down a little.

By the way, what are the headlines saying over there?

Cheers


User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 26807 times:

That, sadly, is the norm of the UK press, pure sensationalism! It is certainly a newsworthy story but to imply the flight continued to avoid compensation is a bit misleading.


Quoting Col (reply 12):

Believe me, if the manual said loosing one motor you return to nearest airport the plane would have been back at LAX.

And as their map illustrated, the flight initially was overland, so there would have been plenty of opportunity to land if need be. Also, the pilots did try and restart the engine inflight but it still overheated, so they shut it down permanently.

I am sure the diversion to MAN ended up costing BA money anyway.


User currently offlineJs From Malta, joined Aug 2001, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 26800 times:

I can't believe some of the opinions that I'm reading here. And don't start with the "don't believe everything you read in the newspaper crap" because if you read the article you'll realize it is not sensational journalism. The pilot shut the engine down right after takeoff and couldn't climb above 26,000 feet. He had at least five hours of flight time over the US to arrange a proper diversion. Try Las Vegas for christ's sake. There's plenty of cheap hotel rooms and activities for stranded passengers there. And in the end the pilot still had to make an emergency landing.

There was an anomaly in the operation of that aircraft and the pilot and BA put 300 pax at increased risk and stress for 10 hours and still had to "inconvenience" them with a diversion.

TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. If this is how BA makes decisions then I'm not flying BA.. EVER.


User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 26780 times:

Quoting Js (reply 17):

. And in the end the pilot still had to make an emergency landing.

And where would he have "dumped" 100 tons of jetfuel if he had landed at LAS?


User currently offlineJs From Malta, joined Aug 2001, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 26766 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (reply 18):
And where would he have "dumped" 100 tons of jetfuel if he had landed at LAS?


Let me post a thoughtful answer to your sarcastic reply. Considering that jet fuel evaporates in the atmosphere and that LAS is next to the largest uninhabited barren desert in the US, I think he would not have had any trouble disposing of 100 tonnes of fuel there. He could also have proceeded to DFW or ORD or JFK or even IND or OAK (huge UA maintenance bases there).


User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 26726 times:

Js, you are one uninformed aviation enthusiast.

You can read 170+ replies to this very incident here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...id=164208&highlight=engine+out+LAX

or you can read a choice quote:

"Continuing on 3 engines is actually fairly common among many operators. On the 744 its just means you cruise a bit lower and reduce range by about 10%. Much of what has been reported on here by spotters and second hand from cabin crew is highly speculative and to the qualified mind sounds like total BS. Continuing on three engines - sensible. Dumping fuel in a non-emergency situation then continuing on three engines - extremely unlikely. Pressing on with grave doubts over fuel levels then only discovering at 3000 ft there's not enough fuel to go around - even more unlikely."

-----------------
Or you can read this thread on a similar event with another quote:

"However, the general point I was making is that for the 2 airlines I have worked for (VS, BA), a single engine failure, secured, with no further problem is not an "emergency". No need to land..."



Stop watching so much TV.
George



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24899 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 26587 times:

Guess what people, 747s can fly on 3 engines. Get over it, I believe the landing at MAN was just precautionary anyway.
Geez, are some of you in the media or something?  Yeah sure  Yeah sure



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineTungd From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 103 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 26413 times:

Here are my views on two points...

Regarding the story: In my opinion as a journalist, the headline "Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000" is inappropriate, and amounts to a biased cheap-shot at BA (deservedly or not). Most headlines are written by editors/producers, not the author; however, the attention focused on the new compensation law within the body of the story is somewhat "sensationalistic" because BA's true reasons for not diverting are unknown to the media, passengers, and general public...the law could have played a role, but how are we to really know?

Regarding the flight: While technically speaking there may never have been any real danger with continuing the flight, from a passenger-carrying point of view this is horrible public relations for any major airline, and the incident was at the very least a horrendous error in judgement on the captain's part. As a passenger, I cannot comprehend why the captain chose to continue to the UK. I would rather have been "inconvenienced" by diverting to Chicago or New York than to even begin risking running tight on fuel and making a Mayday call into Manchester.

Again, these are my opinions, so please respect them as such. Thanks.


User currently offlineFoxiboy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 208 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 26389 times:

Sorry i have to say what right have some of the arm chair pilot to question what happened,as stated by boeing, the airlines ,faa,caa a 747 can fly on 3 engines.
Also BA would know that it would not have to pay the new compensation for a safety related issue,so i dont think that was the reason for carrying on with the flight.
So do you think they would have continued if safety was compromised ? i dont think so.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 26208 times:

Based on the contents of the article, I think BA made a really bad call. The fact that they had to make an emergency landing on the other side of the pond strikes me as evidence of bad decision making. I believe all eastbound departures out of LAX go out to sea for a bit before doing a 180 degree for reasons of noise abatement. They could have flown laps in a hold somewhere until they got below MLW.

25 BlooBirdie : "Philip Baum, an aviation security specialist on board the flight...said...'A few minutes later, I was amazed to see from the map on the TV screen tha
26 CCA : The 747 is certified to fly-on with three engines period. There is no airworthiness requirement to land. Some things the crew would have considered be
27 DoorsToManual : Guys, the very same thing occurred to me on a BA 744 from EZE to LHR a few years ago. Engine failure about 20 minutes after take-off (muffled "thud" s
28 Oly720man : The media love blowing stories like this out of all proportion because it panders to the "scare monster" that sits inside some of us. It's an aircraft
29 Philsquares : What a bunch of bollocks!!! I just love all the "experts" on this forum who have so much experience. THERE IS NOTHING UNSAFE IN THE CAPTAIN'S DECISIO
30 Post contains images Osteogenesis : Watch out! Concordeboy could be hearing you.
31 Js : Well, seeing as my opinions have been characterized as "uninformed", let me clarify. Airlines are in the business of making money and public relations
32 Post contains images Gkirk : Don't worry, ConcordeBoy is currently banned And like Philsquares said, the Captain's decision was not unsafe.
33 Post contains images Lightsaber : True, but I believe there was so much abuse but some "not to be mentioned" airlines that enough support for the law originated. Hey, I'm the other si
34 SK A340 : Wouldn't BA have to pay the "£100,000" anyway since the passengers arrived in MAN "on time" not LHR? /SK A340
35 BCAL : I have to admit I was angry after reading some of the above replies thinking here we go again: press exaggerates story and blows it all out of proport
36 Post contains images VS74741R : I don't think you realize that this "pilot that put 300 pax at increased risk" was also on the plane as well. He was the one in control and I don't t
37 Post contains links Myt332 : For your info, the aircraft was G-BNLG. Here she is after landing at MAN.
38 Bennett123 : Gkirk Why is Concordeboy banned, and how long for?.
39 Airgeek12 : Yea, I guess it's not reall like a life-threatening situation if you think about it. So it should've been fine. Sounds like in the thread-starting po
40 Alitalia744 : he probably said something bad about the A340...and some people got their knickers in a twist about it...
41 Trex8 : I was on a Pan Am 747 which had engine trouble in the 70s which diverted to HNL en route to TYO, can't remember though if we left from SFO or LAX This
42 Vigilante3 : Something went wrong on takeoff. Shutting down an engine solved the immediate problem but the root cause was not determined. The same cause could shor
43 CosmicCruiser : CCA made most of the valid points here but let me add a couple more. 1. Did the engine just spool down (and he tried a re-light)or was there suspected
44 CarbHeatIn : Do all you people who are critiscising the Captain's decision boycott Twin engine aircraft on Trans Oceanic flights? After all a 747 on 3 engines stil
45 CarbHeatIn : Something went wrong on takeoff. Shutting down an engine solved the immediate problem but the root cause was not determined. The same cause could shor
46 NA : I wouldn´t be afraid on a Quad with just 3 engines running, not more than on any twin with two engines running, although I wouldn´t justify the deci
47 N1120A : No one knows, not even Fred himself.
48 SK A340 : True, but a 777, 767 etc is designed to operate with two engines and a 747 is designed to operate with four eninges. I know that there are margins on
49 CarbHeatIn : NA, Why wouldn't you justify it?[Edited 2005-02-25 17:52:15]
50 CarbHeatIn : SK A340, a 747 is designed with 4 engines for redundancy. It is perfectly safe to fly with 3 or even 2 engines. Are you saying you would feel safer fl
51 SK A340 : The question is totally irrelevant. I can't choose between two evils but I guess that an engine designed for a twin jet has a probability of failure
52 AngelAirways : It was not a safety risk in my opinion.. and i have worked a bit in Flight Safety Analysis. Dumping all that fuel would cost very dearly and compensat
53 Shamrock_747 : Typical media nonsense trying to create hype over nothing. I do not know the details of what happened on that particular flight so cannot comment on t
54 CosmicCruiser : Hey folks, it's not a matter of are you safer on a 4-eng jet with 1 shutdown than on a 2 or 3-eng jet etc. It's a matter that you have an abnormal sit
55 N1120A : I am also guessing that given BA has a base at MAN, they were able to do the engine swap and get on to LHR with less than 5 hours delay, avoiding the
56 Post contains images Aa777jr : This is great PR for Boeing. Don't even need the 4th engine!
57 Post contains links CM767 : Has anyone been aboard during a engine failure? If so, could you please post what was going through your mind as passenger? I ask, because I was on on
58 SPREE34 : From Carbheat...."Could you explain your background and qualifications which give you enough insight and experience to say that everybody else is wron
59 Demoose : Well technically British Airways don't have a base at MAN, its British Airways Citiexpress which is based at MAN with their Embraer 145's, Dash 8's a
60 N867bx : And to think I have flown DC10's and L1011's across large bodies of water. I would like to thank some people here who have informed me that this is in
61 AeroWesty : Eons ago I was on board a CO 747 flying from LAX-EWR when the plane made a slow U-turn about 2 hours out, and the pilot announced that even though we
62 Qwerty : Why not continue to JFK, land, and then do MX or reroute passengers on other BA birds or even other carrier's? That way nearest diversion airfield is
63 Iberia340600 : Your response makes me laugh. #1. The pilot and BA did not put 300 pax at increased risk...because there was no increased risk....the engine was shut
64 Gigneil : Obviously they did, since they had to declare a fuel emergency and divert to MAN. N
65 Iberia340600 : Thats why alternate airports are on every flight plan. That does not constitute putting the passengers at risk.
66 Qwerty : I bet if you had the cabin crew take a poll of all the PAX, they would have returned to LAX. So, your argument is dead wrong here. But, I pretty much
67 Iberia340600 : In general, most pax are ignorant to the fact that the plane can continue safely on 3 engines. Im sure it was explained to the pax that there is no p
68 SPREE34 : Gigniel....."Obviously they did, since they had to declare a fuel emergency and divert to MAN." Gig, explain to us the reasons and requirements for de
69 AeroWesty : Having personally been a passenger in that situation, I disagree. If it's safe, carry on to the destination, but I wouldn't second-guess a pilot's de
70 Qwerty : You're going to be a small minority, maybe just a gaggle of other a.netters. But again, I agree with all of you on this who are saying BA did nothing
71 APFPilot1985 : Im not judging the pilots decsion because im not there nor am I trained in anyway on the 744. However how is the pilot able to determine that the fail
72 Gearup : There must be factors in this incident that none of us are aware of. It does not make sense to lose an engine before the gear is up and locked and con
73 Iberia340600 : Gearup: I think you are looking way to deep into this. There was no technical failure on board necessitating the stop in Manchester. Due to the fact
74 ANstar : Well it all worked out fine in the end. If there had of been a further problem with the aircraft, the Pilot would of had around 4 hours of over flying
75 CarbHeatIn : The same way as an ETOPS certified 777 Captain is after an IFSD 3 hours away from an available runway. BA maintain their 747 engines to ETOPS standar
76 Tguman : Half the people here agree with what the pilot did, and the other half does not. I may be wrong, but perhaps those who agree with the pilot are themse
77 CosmicCruiser : " As I've tried to point out this decision had to based on more factors than getting to a BA maint base or completing the flight. It's possible that t
78 WhiteHatter : The 744 experienced an engine surge and was throttled back as per the book. It didn't go bang or seize up, so it could windmill happily away. Chances
79 POR2GAL : Ok. So, a 744 loses an engine. Alas! It didn't fall out of the sky! It's perfectly safe to fly on 3 engines. My only concern with the judgement of the
80 WhiteHatter : The Captain had sufficient fuel for the flight, he then apparently encountered some serious headwinds across the Atlantic which caused a higher then
81 POR2GAL : Headwinds? They were flying east towards Europe! My goodness, what an unfortunate series of events!!! Xiao!
82 Digital-cavu : No pilot in his right mind starts a transatlatic journey on three engines. The aircraft is not operating in a nominal fashion and an over water journ
83 SPREE34 : Digital-CAVU...."No pilot in his right mind starts a transatlatic journey on three engines." OMG, and think I fell safely asleep in one last month wit
84 PapaNovember : First, I'll admit that I did not read each reply in the thread. I stopped after about number twenty...sorry. Out of curiousity, how far is Manchester
85 AirxLiban : Anyone know which engine it was? Do we have any confirmation foir when the offending engine was eventually shut down? Ppl have been saying on takeoff
86 Kellmark : " It's also common nowdays to have a re-release flight plan which allows the crew to proceed to a dest. that at T/O don't have legal fuel for but at p
87 Hmmmm... : The issue is not whether a 747 can fly safely on 3 engines. The issue is whether it can fly safely with two. A fully laden 747 with two engines out wi
88 Js : Let's stick to the facts, which have been misreported here. I've read through 100 or more posts on this topic over at pprune.org, as some on this boar
89 LeanOfPeak : It is true that two engines out on a quad is not the same as one engine out on a twin, but you have an excessively negative view of the performance of
90 Js : --->>> SPREE34 Why can't you share your opinions here without denigrating those with different opinions? If you are so confident that your views are c
91 AirWillie6475 : Now Ive heard of everything. Also how could the 747 run out of fuel with only 3 engines?
92 LeanOfPeak : AirWillie, fuel consumption goes up when an engine is lost for a multitude of reasons: Increased drag due to the windmilling engine and the rudder inp
93 Bellerophon : Hmmmm You are entitled to hold whatever opinions you like about this particular incident. I know very little about it, and offer no comment on it. In
94 USAFHummer : Good lord, I hope not! Greg
95 Strudders : Fascinating thread Just a side note, What would be the TOW of the 747 from LAX? Also given that the aircraft has 3 engines working what is their combi
96 Pihero : Hello,all This is one mother of a thread! And a lot of very unhappy and uninformed people. Please let me confirm a few points : 1/ the in-flight loss
97 Juventus : Sounds like- Bond, James Bond was the C/A
98 Post contains images PositiveClimb : What a thread! So I feel free to share my thoughts on that matter: I think the main question is not if the flight was safe. I am sure if it would have
99 Veeref : Pihero is correct. There was absolutely nothing legally or operationally wrong with what transpired. Just so happens this one caught the attention of
100 Pihero : Veeref :"BTW I'm still searching for factual data that says when one engine goes, it usually means the others will soon follow?" That's called "un und
101 Vs773er : Could have been a double engine surge shortly after take off, if the Atlantic crossing would have been in a single lane, then it may have had to been
102 Airlinerfreak : Personally, my opinion is that for the safety and sureity of safety of the passengers, the aircraft should have simply turned around or diverted.
103 Post contains images CrossChecked : Airlinerfreak, it DID divert. To Manchester. I say WELL DONE BRITISH AIRWAYS. The aircraft was in no immediate danger - certainly not enough to warran
104 CrossChecked : Veerfef, EXCELLENT POST mate. The press hate British Airways because they are not willing to be bullied in to anything by the public/courts/media. As
105 GDB : For those who got all excited about a sensational bit of crap in a newspaper, (really, do people who call themselves aviation enthusiasts really take
106 Post contains links CM767 : The FAA, has another point of view. Reported by the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...cles/A61698-2005Feb28.html?sub=new British
107 Carduelis : BA made the correct decision. Full stop! There was never any danger! Can you imagine the Washington Post journalists making such an excellent decision
108 Digital-cavu : Wow...I didn't realize someone was going to take my post personally. But to be fair, I'll answer your questions, Spree. I'm glad you got a nap. Good
109 Baw716 : This incident raises many questions. While I am very leery to second guess the decision of the Captain of this flight, BA Flight Ops, Maintenance and
110 Digital-cavu : Well, I guess I won't bother with the flight manual research. Looks like baw716 beat me to it. Regards all...yes, even you Spree. Del
111 Post contains links CQ : The LA Times reported on March 1st: "Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways continues nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short
112 Post contains images VS74741R : Really? Well 757, 767, A330 and MD11 pilots must be bloody crazy! It's a wonder they've still got jobs! Clearly you should have been the captain on t
113 Danialanwar : 4-engines-4-longhaul! Try doing that on a 777/330 ...
114 Philsquares : Well, after reading some of the replys on this post. I thought it might be prudent to post the FAR that covers this situation. Then all the experts on
115 Scotron11 : I would like to point out that theoretically points 2-6 are know on each flight. Point one could be ascertained after talking to RR and MX control. S
116 Digital-cavu : From the Wall Street Journal: "...FAA said the flight was a violation of U.S. regulations, but it didn't have jurisdiction over the British flight cr
117 Scbriml : The stated reason for the fuel diversion to MAN was that they didn't get the required flight level across the Atlantic.
118 Post contains links Lyzzard : The same aircraft lost an engine out or SIN and continued to LHR, days after the LAX incident. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/04/ba.jet.a
119 PhilSquares : Digital Cavu, Just because the WSJ was behind the story so what? They may be a very respected financial journal, but I think their knowledge of the FA
120 Digital-cavu : PhilSquares....I don't think the WSJ was making any statement as to their knowledge of the FARs. They were quoting the FAA. And with all due respect t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA 744 LHR-LAX posted Tue Mar 16 2004 08:21:47 by Haavig
Sim Ride With BA (744)!-Excellent posted Sat Dec 9 2000 22:24:43 by Capt.Picard
ATR42/72 With Forward Pax Door? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 13:22:26 by Vfw614
MAN-TRN With Thomsonfly posted Fri Jul 21 2006 21:09:21 by BA787
How To Mess With The Pax posted Thu Jul 20 2006 17:14:08 by Starlionblue
MAN-HRG With BY posted Wed Feb 22 2006 19:05:57 by Thomsonfly
Advice On LAX-JNB Routing (F With Miles) posted Mon Aug 8 2005 16:37:07 by Zrs70
Yet Another Incident With Drunk Pax Vs. Fa posted Tue Apr 19 2005 00:15:09 by Greyhound
Easyjet Flight To Palma With Only 2 Pax Tonight posted Sun Oct 31 2004 00:43:31 by EZYAirbus
Qantas Boeing 744 With 6 Engines? posted Sat May 22 2004 14:53:31 by FJWH
MAN - BKK With Etihad posted Thu Aug 9 2007 21:57:05 by Tramway
Thai Replace JFK/LAX Non-stop With 1-stop Flt posted Mon Feb 19 2007 19:48:10 by Jimyvr
BA To Relaunch LGW-NQY Flights With 737s posted Mon Jan 29 2007 20:14:51 by Gkirk
How Is MAN Copping With The Fog? posted Fri Dec 22 2006 17:21:43 by AirbusA346