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

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.

Capt.Doug wrote:
"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.

The context of the question was the takeoff from Manchester. Apparently
moot though, it has since been reported that the plane was ferried to
London for its engine change without passengers.

Regarding two versus four engine missed approach, I never disputed that
the airplanes ability to do this; just seems an uphill argument to prove
to the FAA that a damaged airplane is as safe as an undamaged one. This
may also be moot as well; one report (Associated Press) said the FAA,
though concerned, did not have jurisdiction over the British crew.

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.

For "most passengers" I tend to agree with you but BA lost economy fare
and freight volume in 2004; their only gain (about 6%) was in premium
fare traffic. Business class passengers pay a bit more attention the
the once in a lifetime vacationer. The readers comments in the Wall
Street Journal have been very negative.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
Business class passengers pay a bit more attention the
the once in a lifetime vacationer. The readers comments in the Wall
Street Journal have been very negative.

The only person guaranteed to have freedom of the press is the person who
owns the press (apologies to Mr. Franklin). Most WSJ readers are fairly
ignorant as to airplane safety (recent Montrose Challenger accident). Given
that their opinion of BA's actions was based on accounts written to
sensationalize the story, I'm not surprised that their reaction is negative.
They don't have years of airline safety experience to counter the
sensationalism. They have press accounts to base their opinions on. They
aren't so different from the general public in that respect.

As for BA's loss of revenue, blame the internet. As the internet gains
momemtum in the EU, discount airlines are chipping away at the legacy
carriers much the same as happened in the US. Premium class gained revenue
because more business travelers are returning to premium class from coach as
the economy rebounds. If the discounters had a premium class, BA's share in
that would have decreased as well. It has nought to do with 3-engine
flights.

D.

Capt.Doug wrote:
"Doug Carter" wrote in message
Business class passengers pay a bit more attention the
the once in a lifetime vacationer. The readers comments in the Wall
Street Journal have been very negative.

... Most WSJ readers are fairly ignorant as to airplane safety ...

No argument there. Even most pilots on this Usenet believe that most
other pilots are similarly ignorant

Of course its far too early to tell but I still believe that, rightly or
wrongly, BA's decisions in these two flights may cost them significant
premium revenue going forward. Penny wise and Pound foolish and all that.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
m...
Capt.Doug wrote:
"Doug Carter" wrote in message
Business class passengers pay a bit more attention the
the once in a lifetime vacationer. The readers comments in the Wall
Street Journal have been very negative.

... Most WSJ readers are fairly ignorant as to airplane safety ...

No argument there. Even most pilots on this Usenet believe that most
other pilots are similarly ignorant

Of course its far too early to tell but I still believe that, rightly or
wrongly, BA's decisions in these two flights may cost them significant
premium revenue going forward. Penny wise and Pound foolish and all that.

I suspect that a week from now hardly anybody will remember the incident.