Jet Flies On With One Engine Out on Nonstop Trip to London

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
. com...
Dave Stadt wrote:
The crew and BA ops apparently were correct in their decision. Evidence
otherwise?

Ran out of gas before they got home; sounds like the wrong outcome to me.

They stopped to refuel. Don't believe that qualifes as running out of fuel
(OBTW they don't run on gas). When you run out of fuel the engines stop
'eh. Could well be they knew they would have to stop for fuel and that was
a desirable alternative.

However I will concede that the unscheduled stop in Manchester to refuel
and possibly repair the engine may have been cheaper than stopping to do
the same thing on this side of the Atlantic.

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

... he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate...

I'd hate to write that report...

Why? Sounds simple and straight forward.


As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:

I do believe the 747 was designed to fly just fine on three engines and in
fact it will do just fine on two engines.

"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

This may require careful wording to edge past the letter of the
regulations.

The outcome was a safe landing. Based on that, what regulation is of
concern? The regulations provide for them to do exactly what they did.

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.

I don't believe they ran out of "gas."

Doug
PP, ASEL IA, Fool

Peter R. wrote:
Doug Carter wrote:

Ran out of gas before they got home;

Um, more like they landed before they dipped into their reserves. Big
difference.

Sigh... well, you have me by the short hair there! Gee, I really
thought I could fool (tm) everyone into believing that they flamed out
before reaching Manchester...

While I don't think it has been reported as such, I do presume they
landed with legal reserves. No doubt they could have selected another
alternate (possibly requiring their reserves) if Manchester had been
closed for any reason.

Regardless, they couldn't make it to London. Landing in Manchester was
no doubt embarrassing but clearly the right decision (finally).


--
Doug
PP, ASEL IA, Fool

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:20:59 -0500, "Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com
wrote in ::


747-400's are actually more efficient in cruise on two engines.

So if the PIC had shutdown a second engine, he wouldn't have had to
land before his London destination?

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 00:28:52 +0100, Stefan
wrote in ::

BTW: Why should the FAA care at all? They flew safely in the USA, ...

According to the regulation posted by Bob More, the PIC must write a
report:

... stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an
airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of
action as landing at the nearest suitable airport.

In light of the fact, that the nearest suitable airport (LAX) does not
require flying over the heads of those inhabitants of the continent of
North America, I would say the PIC better be of creative bent. :-)

Stefan wrote:
/snip/
I think it's the job of the FAA to prove the opposite. BTW: Why should
the FAA care at all?/snip/

Stefan,

You've obviously never dealt with the FAA, have you?

Stefan wrote:
Doug Carter wrote:

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..."

... BTW: Why should the FAA care at all? ...

Something about a transcontinental flight past the nearest suitable
airport while in U.S. airspace. When "in Rome" and all that...

Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
land immediately because it is too heavy.

My understanding is that you CAN land an aircraft overweight, but it then
has to be inspected according to a specified protocol - obviously if it's a
high 'g' landing then damage is far more likely to result - if however
(perhaps due to good conditions and a touch of luck) you land with a real
greaser then it's unlikely to physically damage anything.

Anyone have more of an insight into this? - I'm also thinking of the
Swissair 111 fire where the pilot delayed landing because it would have
meant landing overweight - and could possibly have made a difference.

My 10c worth on continuing on 3 engines is that it's not 'unsafe' per sec,
but it means pushing ones luck a bit more. If it came down to only a
financial decision, I'd have circuited to land after dumping fuel.

"Marco Leon" wrote
747-400's are actually more efficient in cruise on two engines.

I know that to be not true. The maximum cruise altitude on two
engines is too low.

While I do not have a B-747 Flight Manual in front of me, I do
have the numbers for its predecessor, the B-707, which are
representative for four engine jet transport altitude vs fuel
flow comparisons.

At a mid-weight for an ocean crossing, 260,000#, the numbers are
for maximum altitude and nautical miles per 1000# of fuel burn.

Four Engines.....FL370 37.9 nm/1000#
Three Engines....FL300 33.5 nm/1000#
Two Engines......FL140 25.0 nm/1000#

It's the two engine maximum altitude that kills you.

Lets see your numbers

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

Larry Dighera wrote
According to the regulation posted by Bob More, the PIC must write a
report:

And I speak with first hand knowledge...I have written one of
those reports. :-(

Departed St Petersburg/Clearwater In'tl in an Air Florida L-188
Lockheed Electra destined for Miami. As we broke ground, the
number three engine fire warning sounded. The copilot and flight
engineer went through the engine shutdown procedure. There was
no evidence of a fire and the warnings ceased.

Now...in a previous life, I had spent most of my last tour in the
US Navy patrolling in the same basic airframe (Lockheed P-3B) at
200' or less with at least one and sometimes even two of its
engines feathered...no big deal!

So....we pressed-on to Miami, I submitted a report to the Director
of Operations (myself :-))and I hand carried it to the airline's
FAA PIO (Principal Operations Inspector) who after reading the
report, chuckled and asked if I missed the P-3 that much.

No Big Deal

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
Air Florida PIC, Chief Pilot, Director of Operations (1972-1973)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
transatlantic destination.


Well he had 3 working engines, probably no where near gross, pilot did
contact BA head office and got the go ahead to continue, landed to refuel
due to unfavorable and unanticipated winds aloft...yada, yada, yada!!!!

I'd say that pilot had less to worry about than the fools on Air Transat
Flt..?? that ran out of fuel on it's way to Spain. Now the fuel problem was
due to improper maintenance (or rather a improper maintenance department
head) but it would seem to me that when you have a higher than normal fuel
consumption from one tank you shouldn't cross-feed fuel from the full tank
to the empty one untill the aircraft is out of fuel and in the middle of the
Atlantic Ocean.

Anyway it all came out to a happy ending when Air Transat glided into the
Asores Islands. Except pilots were cited for not following proper
procedures, and the maintenance supervisor was dissaplined for authorizing
the installation of a fuel pump (I think) after it was brought to his
attention that this part was for a different jet engine!