Pacific
Topic Author
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:51 am

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.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:55 am

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
 
ArmitageShanks
Posts: 3737
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:30 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:02 am

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.
 
FrequentFlyKid
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2001 5:04 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:04 am

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 avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11747
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:15 am

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
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:32 pm

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!
 
sfo212
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 7:26 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:48 pm

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.
 
airxliban
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:14 pm

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.
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:28 pm

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."
 
airxliban
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:31 pm

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.
 
musapapaya
Posts: 990
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:02 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:38 pm

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
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 1815
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:46 pm

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
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:59 pm

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!!!
 
musapapaya
Posts: 990
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:02 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:04 pm

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
 
daumueller
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:45 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:09 pm

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...
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:10 pm

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
 
scotron11
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm

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.
 
js
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 12:42 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:20 pm

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.
 
scotron11
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:27 pm

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?
 
js
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 12:42 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:36 pm

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).
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 1815
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:00 pm

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
 
gkirk
Posts: 23345
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:36 pm

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!
 
tungd
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:20 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax

Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:54 pm

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.
 
foxiboy
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 12:34 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:55 pm

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.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:12 pm

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.
 
blooBirdie
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 9:15 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:17 pm

"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 that we were flying eastwards towards Britain....'"

I think the direction would have been more N by NE! Another little pointer to the overall accuracy of the story?
 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:18 pm

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 before continuing:

1. It's SAFE to do so:

The nature of the failure i.e. did it go bang or did it just run down, will it effect other engines or systems or did the failure result from some other problem that may effect other engines or systems.

2. FUEL required:

a. Sufficient to Destination or suitable Enroute Airfield
b. Sufficient for a 2nd engine failure (the CX probably didn't have this)
c. Sufficient for a depressurisation.

3. Terrain:

a. Can you fly over it with 3 engines.
b. Can you fly over it with 2 engines.
c. Can you fly over it depressurised.

4. Weather:

a. Enroute. i.e. your flying lower on 3 engines than 4.
b. Destination and Enroute alternates i.e. the failure may have resulted in not being able to do a CAT 3B so your landing minima may go up.

5. Company: where would they like the A/C as it needs an engine.

Pilots know this off the top of their head so as pax you have nothing to worry about. If it wasn't safe it wouldn't be done!

Rgds CCA
P1 in A330, A340, A346, B742, B744, B748.
 
DoorsToManual
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:28 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:25 pm

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" sound from No.2 engine).

NO panic from pax, Captain calmly said he would report back as soon as they had further info.

After consultations with mx at LHR, it was decided to continue across the Atlantic on 3 engines until reaching Lisbon (at that stage we had just left Argentine airspace).

And this was before any EU legislation, so I think that this was an irrelevant factor.

It's sad to see non-pilots airing their opinions that this is all "unacceptable"...the closest they have probably come to flying such an a/c is MS Simulator, and yet they seem to know that this is somehow "wrong"....emotion before intellect....
 
oly720man
Posts: 5740
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:58 pm

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, it's big, it's got hundreds of (terrified, scared, praying.... take your pick) passengers on board and it's a story where most of the public are generally ignorant so the papers can "elaborate". It was like the "plane crash" at MAN a while ago where the wingtip of one aircraft clipped the elevator of another and you'd have thought from the coverage it was close to a repeat of the PA/KL 747 collision at Tenerife.

If the airlines announced that it was SOP to fly half way round the world on only 3 out of 4 engines, despite it being perfectly safe, the media would have a field day as ignorance trampled over physics.

The more scary problem that happened a few years ago was a MH B744 that was more or less flying on vapours as it landed at LHR and didn't have enough fuel to taxy to a stand. Just as well they didn't have to go around or they'd have been gliding onto the M25. I think they came close to being banned from UK airspace after that (or was that media hype as well?)
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:05 pm

Quoting Js (reply 17):
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.


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 DECISION

Please re-read the last line again and then give my all your "expert" opinions!

There is a big difference in having an engine failure on a 3/4 engine aircraft than a two engine aircraft. The ground rules are entirely different. On a 3/4 engine aircraft, the captain may elect to continue to his destination, assuming the fuel and weather are adaquate. On a two engine aircraft he has to divert to the nearest airport (measured in time). End of story.
Fly fast, live slow
 
osteogenesis
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 9:44 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:21 pm

Quoting ArmitageShanks (reply 2):
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.


Watch out! Concordeboy could be hearing you. Big grin
 
js
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 12:42 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:26 pm

Well, seeing as my opinions have been characterized as "uninformed", let me clarify. Airlines are in the business of making money and public relations fiasco's such as this hurt business. Just because the plane is certified to proceed on three engines doesn't mean that it should. A cargo jet, fine, do whatever the crew wants. But with 300 passengers onboard and a hoard of media waiting to report their every fear, then no.

Percieved safety and safety regulations are different concepts, a point which is obviously missed by some here.

And I for one would not be resting easy on that ten hour overnight flight knowing that one engine was out. My rational mind knows full well and good that the plane is still certified as airworthy, but my emotional mind knows that saftey margins have been reduced. Rationality and emotion are both human emotions, and they both have a purpose. Maybe you can control your emotional side more than others can. But as has been quoted all too often in this forum, the average flying public does not.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23345
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax

Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:30 pm

Don't worry, ConcordeBoy is currently banned  Big grin

And like Philsquares said, the Captain's decision was not unsafe.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11747
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:35 pm

Quoting Daumueller (reply 14):
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...


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 side of the pond, so I'll admit to being an armchair spectator!  Big grin


Quoting UA777222 (reply 8):
Which is why ETOPS procedures are in place.

Actually, in the case of the A330, ETOPS wasn't followed. (oops). Having one mechanic change both engine's filters at once is a no-no.

Quoting BlatantEcho (reply 20):
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%


Makes sense. As long as the airliner can fly with one more engine out. Note: my prior reply (post 4) was refering to the implication the engine out was before reaching cruise altitude. However, after thinking about it, I'm glad that the 744 didn't dump a 100k lbm of fuel on me.  Nuts Lightsaber flambe!  Big grin

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
SK A340
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:44 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:55 pm

Wouldn't BA have to pay the "£100,000" anyway since the passengers arrived in MAN "on time" not LHR?

/SK A340
 
BCAL
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:21 pm

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 proportion, "experts" with better knowledge than the professionals who were at the scene and had all the relevant facts, another go to stab BA in the back, etc.

Would I feel uneasy about flying on a 744 with one engine shut down? The pilot should know whether the bird is safe to continue its planned flight or if it should dump fuel and return asap. After all, he would be risking his own life and somehow being responsible for another 300 lives would make him even less likely to take a calculated risk (unless he was suicidal), so I would not worry. Perhaps I would worry if bad turbulence was encountered en route and the plane could not climb above this.

Check out the route maps from LAX to LHR. They do not fly straight across the USA and then straight over the Atlantic. I believe that the routing is up to Canadian airspace, over the Hudson Bay down over southern Greenland and then pass Iceland before heading towards UK. I think that during most of the flight the aircraft would be within 90 minutes of any airport that could handle a 744 if an emergency landing was necessary.

Sorry people but it seems to me that the press and some of the above replies are making a mountain out of a molehill.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
 
VS74741R
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:54 pm

Quoting Js (reply 17):
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.


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 think he would put his own life in danger, never mind the 300 pax  Insane
Obviously a Virgin Atlantic fan!!!
 
MYT332
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:31 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:12 pm

For your info, the aircraft was G-BNLG. Here she is after landing at MAN.
One Life, Live it.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:31 pm

Gkirk

Why is Concordeboy banned, and how long for?.
 
airgeek12
Posts: 725
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:02 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:51 pm

Quoting ArmitageShanks (reply 2):
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.


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 post the plane didn't have to land because of the engine failure, but for other reasons (fuel to be exact)?
 
Alitalia744
Posts: 3777
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 8:22 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:17 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (reply 38):
Why is Concordeboy banned, and how long for?.


he probably said something bad about the A340...and some people got their knickers in a twist about it...
Some see lines, others see between the lines.
 
trex8
Posts: 4578
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:29 pm

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 is 30 years ago!). The captain said he could go all the way on 3 engines but if we diverted to HNL, it was maybe 2 hours less flight time than continuing to TYO and maybe a little safer. I thought it was great as I had an uncle there I could stay with!
 
vigilante3
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:43 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:56 pm

Something went wrong on takeoff. Shutting down an engine solved the immediate problem but the root cause was not determined. The same cause could shortly cause the other three to fail. What causes? Fuel contamination, oil leaks, sabotage, maintenance error, metal failure in engine and on and on.

It's a sad state of aviation safety when money determines safety actions or not. I think the crew should have been arrested for endangerment as well as the ground pounders who advised continuing the flight.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:00 am

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 damage?
Most airlines say you will land at the "nearest SUITABLE airport". This considers many factors including wx, terrain, maint. facilities and MOST of all safety. No rule or policy supersedes safety. If this crew notified their dispatch and determined this was the best decision fine but I doubt it. They had several hours to make a feasible plan and if someone calculated that they could make it with all the legal reserves and they still had to land short this is a major mistake. eg.. I lost oil qty. on the way to CDG last year while still over the US. We shutdown the eng., dumped fuel and landed at EWR., waited for a replacement and continued. Granted, we probably couldn't have made it on 2 but you always have to ask yourself with a decision like this, if the least thing goes wrong what am I going to tell the feds or the chief pilot when they ask "what were you thinking!!?
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:04 am

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 still has 1 more engine than a fully powered 777, 767 etc. Under ETOPS a 777 with an IFSD can fly for 3 hours on 1 engine!
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:17 am

Something went wrong on takeoff. Shutting down an engine solved the immediate problem but the root cause was not determined. The same cause could shortly cause the other three to fail. What causes? Fuel contamination, oil leaks, sabotage, maintenance error, metal failure in engine and on and on.

It's a sad state of aviation safety when money determines safety actions or not. I think the crew should have been arrested for endangerment as well as the ground pounders who advised continuing the flight.


Firstly the problem did not occur on take-off. It occured up to an hour into flight.

Secondly, Could you explain why flying a 747 on three engines (with an ability to fly on two) is less safe than flying a twin engine 777?

Emotionally people are saying it is safest to dump fuel and land again. Fortunately SOPs are developed unemotionally and are based on careful and considered analysis.

Flight crew have the ultimate say but one would have to have extremely compelling reasons to operate outside SOPs. An emotional impulse that it is safer to dump fuel and land would not fall into that bracket.

Three highly trained and experienced pilots with many thousands of hours were happy to continue within defined parameters, refined over many years by many highly experienced and qualified people, but you say it would have been safer not to.

Could you explain your background and qualifications which give you enough insight and experience to say that everybody else is wrong?

When ETOPS was first considered everybody was aghast that it was even considered. I didn't like the idea and said I would never do it. The change of heart has come from observation, education and experience. That last numbers I saw showed that there are around 1,100 ETOPS sectors flown every 24 hours.

My emotional opposition to ETOPS was not grounded in reality. Similarly so many of the opinions posted on this thread.

(Taken from Pprune)



[Edited 2005-02-25 16:41:43]

[Edited 2005-02-25 16:51:33]
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:46 am

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 decision of the pilots in this case.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:49 am

Quoting Bennett123 (reply 38):
Why is Concordeboy banned, and how long for?.


No one knows, not even Fred himself.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
SK A340
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:44 am

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:49 am

Quoting CarbHeatIn (reply 44):
After all a 747 on 3 engines still has 1 more engine than a fully powered 777, 767 etc.


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 all aircraft types and now we know that a 744 with pax can climb and fly LAX-MAN with only three engines but if the plane would be as safe with three engins as with four as stated in the article, why did Boeing put an "extra" on and why do airlines pay for it?

/Micke
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

RE: BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax!

Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:49 am

NA, Why wouldn't you justify it?

[Edited 2005-02-25 17:52:15]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CHCalfonzo, Eljonno, flydia, Indy, nikeson13, Planesmart, stlgph, wjcandee and 159 guests