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

Doug,

I couldn't agree with you more. "Known failure" is the key issue!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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)

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

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:47:17 GMT, "OtisWinslow"
wrote in
::

I was on an airliner once coming out of Florida that had a gear problem

I see a "gear problem" as being in a completely different class from
an engine that may have thrown turbine blades through vital systems
and structure.

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.

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)

Jack Davis wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:32:18 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:


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


How do you know they took off with passengers and a "dead" engine?

I don't and never stated or implied that they did.

My original question was: "I wonder if they took off from Manchester on
three engines?"

For all I know they changed airplanes or put everyone on a bus some
other option. Perhaps someone knows.

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.

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

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)