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

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.

Whoa there! This is beginning to sound like yellow journalism. He
landed short of his destination, under control, with plenty of
resesrves, just not enough fuel to make it to the destination with
reserves. This is most assuredly =not= a "low fuel emergency", although
saying so will sell papers and generate usenet traffic.

Now if he =had= generated a true low-fuel emergency due to mishandling
of the incident, that would be something else. But there's no evidence
in any of the reports I've seen that he did this.

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.

Why was it a low fuel emergency? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that
there was an emergency of any kind.

Mike
MU-2


"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
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)

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
Why was it a low fuel emergency? There doesn't seem to be any evidence
that there was an emergency of any kind.

My understanding from witness accounts posted elsewhere and from press
coverage is that a Mayday was declared before the landing at Manchester,
though the fuel on landing was in fact greater than final reserve fuel.

Note that the UK does not not recoginize a "fuel emergency" as a separate
issue -- it's either Mayday (distress) or Pan (urgency).

Julian

I hadn't seen any mention of this but I'll take your word for it. I
certainly don't consider it an emergency when I land with required reserves.

Mike
MU-2


"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
Why was it a low fuel emergency? There doesn't seem to be any evidence
that there was an emergency of any kind.

My understanding from witness accounts posted elsewhere and from press
coverage is that a Mayday was declared before the landing at Manchester,
though the fuel on landing was in fact greater than final reserve fuel.

Note that the UK does not not recoginize a "fuel emergency" as a separate
issue -- it's either Mayday (distress) or Pan (urgency).

Julian

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I hadn't seen any mention of this but I'll take your word for it. I
certainly don't consider it an emergency when I land with required
reserves.

Again, speculating based on unverified reports, it seems that there may have
been some doubt in the pilot's mind as to whether some of the fuel was
usable or not.

Julian

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I hadn't seen any mention of this but I'll take your word for it. I
certainly don't consider it an emergency when I land with required
reserves.

Mike
MU-2

It could be something as simple as BA SOP for an engine out landing.

Julian Scarfe wrote:

My understanding from witness accounts posted elsewhere and from press
coverage is that a Mayday was declared before the landing at Manchester,
though the fuel on landing was in fact greater than final reserve fuel.

Wouldn't it be SOP to declare an emergency prior to an approach with an engine
out? That would pretty much eliminate any possibility of having to go around. If
so, they would have declared an emergency wherever they decided to land.

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

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...

Wouldn't it be SOP to declare an emergency prior to an approach with an
engine
out? That would pretty much eliminate any possibility of having to go
around. If
so, they would have declared an emergency wherever they decided to land.

On a twin with an engine out, or even a trijet, perhaps. On a 4-engined
aircraft which has just crossed the Atlantic on 3 engines on the basis of
having sufficient redundancy to do so safely, that would smack a little of
having your cake and eating it too, doesn't it? ;-)

Julian

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
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.

What fuel emergency? Do you know something we don't?

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)

Dave,

What fuel emergency?


The one where the crew, as Julian also reported, declared an emergency?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)