|Quoting Pgv (Reply 27):|
Difference in regards to a 3 engine ferry...I would agree, there isn't much. However, BA is being smart about this one. The LAX - LHR flight had passengers on it, and the engine loss wasn't too far from LAX. Bad call...especially if there would have been an additional engine loss in the North Atlantic. Had the loss been the backup engine in the chain, there would be no hydraulics for certain functions. Then there would have been problems.
Most 4-holer drivers have received a good bit of info about this, and the BA pilot that made the LAX - LHR decision is having some real issues flying in the US again.
1) Under the FARs there is no requirement for the PIC to land at the "nearest airport in terms of time" for a 3-4 engine aircraft as there is on a two engine aircraft. Legally he did nothing wrong and there is nothing the FAA can do. Had they gotten the NAT
track they were originally filed for, there would have been no publicity.
2) On the 744, losing an engine does not result in losing any hydraluic systems.
3) Perhaps you could provide some reference for your statement about the Capt having problems flying in the US. Since he violated no FAR
, I really find your statement to be pure conjecture not fact!
|Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 34):|
So, was this SIN-DXB-LHR flight a ferry or were there passengers involved? If you don't know the answer, don't assume and don't answer the question
On a maintenance ferry flight, normally there is a prohibition on carrying passengers or revenue cargo. On a 3 engine ferry flight, you can only take the basic crew. In addition, the reason for the DXB
stop is on a 3 engine ferry flight takeoff performance is based on losing the second engine. Thus your takeoff gross weight is reduced. Ironically, if you really look at the performance issues, you have more thrust/kg on a three engine takeoff than you would have at a MTOW with 4 engines. There is no really safety issue for a 3 engine ferry.