"Doug Carter" wrote in message -
Ran out of gas before they got home; sounds like the wrong outcome to me.

If they had circled to dump fuel and landed at their origin, would the
outcome have been different? Proceding as they did is no more inherently
dangerous provided they had alternates available if an additional problem
developed. There are good alternate landing airports along their route, even
along the Atlantic tracks, allowing for safe landings if an additional
engine had failed.

(I wonder if they took off from Manchester on three engines?)

Why not? I've done 2 engine ferry flights in B-727 numerous times overwater.

As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:
"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."
This may require careful wording to edge past the letter of the
regulations.
Of course, landing to refuel and repair *before* attempting to cross the
Atlantic may require even more tedious paperwork to be submitted to BA
management for all I know.
Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
destination does not help appearances.

The symantics of language is why we have lawyers. The lawyers draw knowledge
from their resources which includes highly experienced professional 4 engine
transport pilots. This is how precedents are set. BA, CAA, FAA, and JAA set
regulations and policies from these precedents.

The B-747 will fly on 2 engines as evidenced by a requirement for a
type-rating candidate to successfully demonstrate a precision approach with
2 engines failed on the same wing. Having 3 engines and plenty of alternate
landing sites is considered by most to be a rational way to proceed.

D.