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

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...

"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

Doug Carter wrote:

Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
destination does not help appearances.

Nobody ran out of gas. Even if they had continued to London, they would not have
run out of fuel. The report said they would have had an insufficient reserve
when they arrived. That implies that the plane still had about an hour of fuel
left when they landed. If traffic was stacked up at London, they could well have
had much more.

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

"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.

Capt.Doug wrote:
... Proceding as they did is no more inherently
dangerous provided they had alternates available if an additional problem
developed.

(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.

So what? The question was "is it SOP to take off with passengers and a
dead engine?"

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.

No doubt. But do you argue that going missed on two engines is as safe
as with four?


Early on I suggested IMHO that BA was "as dumb as a bag of rocks" if
their SOP approved this operation; there were (and are) two reasons for
this:

First, From a technical perspective I remain unconvinced that crossing
the Atlantic with a known dead and un-inspected engine is, per Part 121
"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

Second, From a business perspective keep in mind that there is a lot of
competition for business class ticket revenue.

If BA routinely crosses oceans with a dead un-inspected engine and other
carriers do not then BA will start losing customers as the word gets
around the frequent flyer crowd. I'll probably make six or eight more
trips to Europe this year; BA is no longer on my list of options until
the rest of the story comes out on this.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message So what? The question was "is it SOP to
take off with passengers and a dead engine?"

The engine was not dead when they took off. Your question as it stands is
irrelevent.

No doubt. But do you argue that going missed on two engines is as safe
as with four?

It depends on the weight. After burning most of their fuel during the
crossing, it is likely that a 2-engine go-around would have the same results
as a 4-engine go-around. It is practiced in the simulator.

First, From a technical perspective I remain unconvinced that crossing
the Atlantic with a known dead and un-inspected engine is, per Part 121
"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

The engine did not leave the wing. I suspect that the rotor did not suffer
an uncontained burst. Therefore the shutoff handle in the cockpit (usually
used for engine fires) will shut off fuel, bleed air, hydraulic fluid, and
electricity from the generator at a point outside the engine compartment.
What is there to inspect? The fluids will be monitored (as is done routinely
with all engines running) and the airplane will be diverted to an alternate
if need be.

Second, From a business perspective keep in mind that there is a lot of
competition for business class ticket revenue.

Most passengers are concerned about airline safety yet are truly ignorant
about what is safe. If BA tells them that a BA B-747 can have an engine quit
and still fly around the world, that will sound pretty darn good to them.
It's all in the marketing and BA is darn good at marketing.

D.

Doug,

Ran out of gas before they got home


Nah, they decided in the beginning to go to Manchester, of course,
after consideration of b(2). Yeah, right...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bob Moore wrote:


From the FAA:

stuff deleted
The director of operations
shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base,
send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to
the certificate-holding district office.

Ok. Here we have a British operator and aircraft with JAA certfied pilots (or
have I got that wrong?). Is this section of the regulation applicable?

Second question -- what's the "certificate-holding district office"? To what
certificate are they referring?

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