Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59 Posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 27651 times:
Quite interesting indeed..
"The same British Airways 747 that flew from Los Angeles to England on only three of its four engines had a repeat occurrence on its next round trip: It lost an engine en route from Singapore to London, but the crew continued, flying 11 hours with a dead engine, Friday's Wall Street Journal reported.
British Airways said Flight 18 left Singapore with 356 passengers shortly after 11:35 p.m. local time on Friday and suffered an engine failure three-and- half hours into the flight. As in the Los Angeles incident, the crew communicated with the airline's operations center in London and decided to continue. About 11 hours later, the flight landed uneventfully at London's Heathrow Airport, only about 15 minutes late, a British Airways spokeswoman said.
"It's perfectly safe to fly with three engines," the spokeswoman, Diana Fung, said.""
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 27237 times:
It might be SOP (Standard Operating Procedures or ?) but once more new sources get wind of this story BA is going to be S.O.L.
Now that I think about it, while the crew was circling figuring out what to do, did they think about the shit PR this is going to bring. Regardless of the fact that the a/c was perfectly able to fly such a distance on only 3 engines, BA just had their asses handed to them by the news and, in my opinion, from a business stand point you don't want to get back in line for that ride. I understand that the EU just passed a law and I get the fact that a 744 can fly at such a distance on up to 2 in-op engines.
On the other hand, this failure occurred later in the flight at cruise therefore allowing for them to shut the engine down, milk the tail winds if any, and arrive at the final destionation.
W/e, they felt that it was still save to fly on then they felt it was safe to fly on. If you think about it, 2 engine failures in one week............Double Trouble?
Ready4Pushback From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 27088 times:
Quoting KL911 (reply 2): I don't see what wrong with it. It's no problem flying with only 3 engines.
You are obviously right given that it landed only a few minutes late.
Quoting UA777222 (reply 7): Now that I think about it, while the crew was circling figuring out what to do, did they think about the shit PR this is going to bring. Regardless of the fact that the a/c was perfectly able to fly such a distance on only 3 engines, BA just had their asses handed to them by the news and, in my opinion, from a business stand point you don't want to get back in line for that ride. I understand that the EU just passed a law and I get the fact that a 744 can fly at such a distance on up to 2 in-op engines.
So BA should give in to the media? Someone always has it in for BA - and this is just ignorance by the public if they are shocked that they flew for such a long way on just 3 engines. Didn't they see the new 772LR roll out last week? You raise the point of the new EU regulations - but at the end of the day, these are designed to minimise the number of delays. So, even if the new EU regulations were a part of it, what's wrong with that - what they did was in the interests of the pax....
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19320 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 26628 times:
Another nice example of how these so-called experts in this thread know more about the true professionals. Why would BA risk the safety of X amount of passengers, and thus risk its reputation, when it could have diverted? Answer: because the 744 can safely fly on 3 engines so did not need to divert.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
Dbo861 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 929 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 26617 times:
Do you think they'd alert the passengers of the engine failure? It might just cause some undue panic among the people on board who wouldn't understand that it would be perfectly safe to fly on 3 engines.