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

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

So, is this good or bad?

I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
making the judgment.

British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.

The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
landing at his London destination.

Someone more qualified than me had this to say:

"It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
doesn't make any sense."

However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
operations in the United States, said:

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
our normal operating protocols."

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

Larry Dighera wrote:

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

Whichever has the cheapest fare. It's also about money to me.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

But he landed only 167 miles short of his destination and presumably had the
required reserves at that time. A great circle route between LA and London
crosses Greenland, passes near Iceland and then overflies Scottland and the
UK. I don't think that you can make the case that there was a big risk of
running out of fuel far from an airport. In fact, he could have landed in
Scottland with about 40 minutes more fuel than he landed with. It will be
interesting to see what the whole story is. It probably comes down to
deciding to continue after passing each suitable airport with plenty of fuel
to reach the next suitable airport. The airports are only 500-700nm apart
so he was always less than an hour from a suitable airport. I would also
doubt that he made this decision without consulting his company dispatch. I
guess that I might feel differently if the flight was going from LAX to
Sidney and decided not to return or to land at Hawaii.

It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will weigh
in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and this guy
had three jet engines!!!

I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine
airplane?

Mike
MU-2



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

So, is this good or bad?

I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
making the judgment.

British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.

The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
landing at his London destination.

Someone more qualified than me had this to say:

"It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
doesn't make any sense."

However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
operations in the United States, said:

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
our normal operating protocols."

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:08:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

But he landed only 167 miles short of his destination and presumably had the
required reserves at that time.

Presumably.

A great circle route between LA and London
crosses Greenland, passes near Iceland and then overflies Scottland and the
UK. I don't think that you can make the case that there was a big risk of
running out of fuel far from an airport. In fact, he could have landed in
Scottland with about 40 minutes more fuel than he landed with.

Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
Scotland and all those intermediate airports.

It will be interesting to see what the whole story is.

I doubt the "whole story" will ever be completely revealed.

It probably comes down to deciding to continue after passing each suitable
airport with plenty of fuel to reach the next suitable airport. The airports
are only 500-700nm apart so he was always less than an hour from a suitable
airport.

Thanks for that information.

I would also doubt that he made this decision without consulting his company
dispatch.

Right. But given the BA policy, I'm not sure their input was safety
oriented.

I guess that I might feel differently if the flight was going from LAX to
Sidney and decided not to return or to land at Hawaii.

Definitely.

It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will weigh
in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and this guy
had three jet engines!!!

That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight
characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with
the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually
uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a
forced descent.

And another issue is, if the engine failure had been a result of fuel
contamination, how did the PIC determine that the remaining fuel was
safe for continued transcontinental flight?

Additionally, when the engine failed, ATC mentioned sparks being seen.
How did the PIC determine there was no structural damage to the
airframe as a result of the engine failure?

I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine
airplane?

I don't have the requisite experience in airliner operation to begin
to answer that question.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
Scotland and all those intermediate airports.

Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Sondre
Stromfjord in Greenland is long enough (I've seen 747s there) and so is
Keflavik in Iceland (I've seen 747s there too).

I doubt the "whole story" will ever be completely revealed.

I would suspect that the press will drum up enough concern that there will
be an investigation and the story will come out.

Right. But given the BA policy, I'm not sure their input was safety
oriented.

I was not aware that BA had a bad safety record or that the passengers were
exposed to much risk.

That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight
characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with
the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually
uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a
forced descent.


I think that four engine airliners have to be able to fly with two engines
inoperative on one side but I am not certain. They can probably fly on one
outboard engine at certain weights.


And another issue is, if the engine failure had been a result of fuel
contamination, how did the PIC determine that the remaining fuel was
safe for continued transcontinental flight?


That seems remote. Has it ever happened? Could it even happen? Jet
engines can burn almost anything that is flamable. Seems unlikely that you
could even find enough of anything, except Jet fuel, at LAX to fill a 747!
Maybe they know why the engine failed.

Additionally, when the engine failed, ATC mentioned sparks being seen.
How did the PIC determine there was no structural damage to the
airframe as a result of the engine failure?

I think airliners are required to have burst protection built into the
nacelles to contain failed engine debris. I know that the 777 has this (saw
it on TV!)


I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two
engine
airplane?

I don't have the requisite experience in airliner operation to begin
to answer that question.


I don't either, I just think cheaper is better.

I have found over the years that when a group of smart people come to a
decision that seems crazy to me, it only seems crazy because I didn't have
all the facts that they had. Based on this, I give people the benefit of
the doubt.

Mike
MU-2

In a previous article, "Mike Rapoport" said:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
Scotland and all those intermediate airports.

Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Sondre

Are you thinking of Tenerife? That's in the Canary Islands, not Scotland.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It must be in the basement; I'll go upstairs and get it." - M.C.Escher

I was, my error. The runways at Glasgow and Edinburgh are long enough and
I'm certain that they are in Scottland.

Mike
MU-2


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Mike Rapoport" said:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
Scotland and all those intermediate airports.

Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there. Sondre

Are you thinking of Tenerife? That's in the Canary Islands, not Scotland.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It must be in the basement; I'll go upstairs and get it." - M.C.Escher

Are you thinking of Tenerife? That's in the Canary Islands, not
Scotland.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...
I was, my error.

It's unfortunately too easy to mix in the memory the pictures of a
devastated Pan Am B747 lying around after the Tenerife accident and pictures
of a devastated Pan Am B747 lying around after the Lockerbie bombing, which
was definitely in Scotland.

Julian

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 at 19:50:03 in message
t, Mike Rapoport
wrote:
I was, my error. The runways at Glasgow and Edinburgh are long enough and
I'm certain that they are in Scottland.

They definitely are!
--
David CL Francis

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
Scotland and all those intermediate airports.

Certainly in Scottland since two collided on a runway there.

Er, when?

(But you're certainly correct in that Edinburgh, Glasgow and Prestwick are
probably all suitable for landing a B747.)

Julian