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

Mike Rapoport wrote:
...In the meantime, you look like a fool jumping up and
declaring that the guy (It was actually a bunch of people all of whom know
more about airlines and airliners than you or I) who wrote the SOP for BA is
an idiot.

As a fool I will accept your assertion that the FAA & JAA approve, a
priori, the SOP and the resulting decisions the pilot made based on it
(BA *has* asserted that three out of four engines is fine with them).

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

Without dumping fuel ($$)

So it has to fly for a while regardless.
....

I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA, FAA,
JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid stunt than
to accept your assertion that it was.

Again, this fool accepts your assertion that the FAA, JAA and Boeing
approve trans-Atlantic operations with a failed engine; that presuming
the pilot *knew* there was no other damage to the aircraft and that the
aircraft had sufficient range to complete its mission given the normal
wind variability... Oops, it didn't! They had to divert, fortunately
over land.

I fully expect that the crew carefully calculated their ability to land
safely despite losing the other engine on that side, but it still seems
like an unnecessary risk of several hundred lives. As a *former* BA
passenger I would have been much happier had the pilot landed at DFW or
JFK, at least inspected the airplane then continued.

Perhaps BA was concerned that the engine could not have been quickly
repaired... Would they have taken off from JFK on three engines?


In general I have a great deal of respect for the FAA and Boeing (and
even BA, up to now), but I continue to be surprised by the fact that all
these learned agencies support launching over the Atlantic with a known
failed engine and no visual inspection.


By the way, I fly aerobatics and single engine IFR (not always at the
same time). This fool is not totally risk adverse, but perhaps not an
idiot.