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

Jose,

There's no evidence of this as of yet,


Uh, 91.13 certainly comes to mind.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

There's no evidence of this as of yet,

Uh, 91.13 certainly comes to mind.

Uh... there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote
Uh... there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.

My dear, departed mother always maintained that simply flying
in an aircraft was "careless and reckless". :-)

Bob Moore

Jose,

there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.


Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book. Let's
see if it does in the book of the authorities, too, but I'd be very
surprised if not. After all, we're not talking about an engine failure
somewhere over Greenland - we're talking about RIGHT after take-off!

It reminds me very much of the Hapag-Lloyd accident with the Airbus
running out of fuel after flying through half of Europe with the gear
locked in the down position.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book.

I didn't know that there was an emergency.

It reminds me very much of the Hapag-Lloyd accident with the Airbus
running out of fuel after flying through half of Europe with the gear

Now *they* ran out of fuel, which is an entirely different story.

Stefan

Stefan,

I didn't know that there was an emergency.


Now *they* ran out of fuel, which is an entirely different story.


There is something very simple at work he We're judging after the fact.
In one case, it worked out, in the other, it didn't. Thus, in on case,
some here are saying "Those pilots were ok to do what they did" whereas in
the other case everyone agrees the pilots were total idiots. But the
prerequisites for something bad happening were quite similar in both
cases. I don't think safety should be judged on whether one got away with
doing something not quite smart or not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

There is something very simple at work he We're judging after the fact.

You should add: Without knowing anything about it, at least in the
second case.

My guess, which is not better nor worse than anybody else's, is that
they knew exactly what the problem with the engine was, they discussed
it with their chief ingenieer, who calculated the situation with the
appropriate software, and then decided it was safe to continue and to
land with the required reserves. I don't know, but I wouldn't be
surprized if this was even an approved procedure. I'll be willing to
admit that I am wrong *if* the CAA report says so.

But I know: An emergency sells, while a security landing after a non
event does not. (Sorry, this was unfair, but I couldn't resist.)

Stefan

Stefan,

they discussed
it with their chief ingenieer

They should have spoken to PR and marketing, too.

But I know: An emergency sells, while a security landing after a non
event does not. (Sorry, this was unfair, but I couldn't resist.)


Not sure what you mean, but this event - if anything - will have a
negative marketing effect on BA.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Stefan,

I didn't know that there was an emergency.


Now *they* ran out of fuel, which is an entirely different story.


There is something very simple at work he We're judging after the
fact. In one case, it worked out, in the other, it didn't. Thus, in
on case, some here are saying "Those pilots were ok to do what they
did" whereas in the other case everyone agrees the pilots were total
idiots. But the prerequisites for something bad happening were quite
similar in both cases. I don't think safety should be judged on
whether one got away with doing something not quite smart or not.

I don't agree here. The BA pilots made a concious decision to land
short of their final destination to avoid the risk of fuel exhaustion.
They landed with required reserves for all we know. The Hapag Lloyd
Pilots could have done the same, but didn't. The decision to carry on
with one engine short might be disputable from a risk management point
of view. Fuel management wasn't flawed at any point during the trip,
quite different from the Hapag Lloyd case. Your point would only hold,
if they had arrived in London (or in Manchester, for that matter) with
dry fuel tanks.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book.

What low-fuel emergency? They landed with adequate reserve.

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