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

Who said anything about throwing a blade? It might have been something as
mundane as failure of the instrumentation.

Mike
MU-2

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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
New certification requirements want them to be able to take-off with
two out on the same side at max gross. The A380 for example will have
to be able to do that.

That will never happen. Now..you might mean "continue the takeoff
after V1", but the aircraft cannot accelerate to V1 at maximum
weight and remain on the runway with only two engines on the same
side operating. In fact, the 747 cannot do it on three engines at
maximum weight. It can however continue the takeoff after V1 if one
engine fails at maximum weight.

Bob Moore

"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

Larry Dighera wrote:
Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
transatlantic destination.

Unless you have transcripts of all discussions made between the crew, ATC,
BA maintenance, Boeing and any other relevant parties that were undoubtedly
involved, it seems you're making something out of nothing.

For those claiming the jet "took off with passengers and a dead engine", I
read "lost an engine on takeoff" as "the engine died while airborne before
reaching cruise altitude". What does Boeing recommend in that situation?

As I understand it, the B747 does not require four engines for safe
operation of the aircraft. Until I have the transcripts or an official
report, I think I'll wait before calling BA's personnel "idiots" or even
getting concerned about flying on BA aircraft.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

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

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.

Mike, I'd like to second your analysis with a few more observations. I
admit that I haven't worked for but two airlines in my life, neither of them
BA. However, the general rules apply pretty much universally.

Less than an hour after that pilot reported an engine failure to LAX BA-OPS,
everybody from the president of the airline through the chief pilot,
director of maintenance, and director of ops was on the phone to one another
analyzing the situation, discussing options, and coming to a consensus
recommendation to the pilot of the airplane in question. The decision from
the left front seat was not in a vacuum; he had the consensus recommendation
from the top echelon of the airline.

Was it his ultimate decision? Sure. Was his decision based on the best
information from the most informed sources in the airline? You betcha.

Based on the pilot's analysis of the situation, the recommendation of his
top brass, and the guidance of the ops manual it is my observation that the
pilot did just exactly the right thing.

Jim




Apparently, a single failed engine on a four engine jet airliner is not an
emergency nor an automatic reason to terminate a flight.

Like you said: "Perhaps these engines are instrumented well enough that
the pilot knew that the failure did not result in severed fuel, oil or
electrical
lines; that there were no overloaded buses, etc; time will tell." Indeed
time will tell. In the meantime, you look like a fool jumping up and
declaring that the guy (It was actually a bunch of people all of whom know
more about airlines and airliners than you or I) who wrote the SOP for BA
is an idiot.

Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
land immediately because it is too heavy. So it has to fly for a while
regardless. The crew decide to head in the direction that they were
originally going. This was all thought out years before by the airline,
the regulators and probably Boeing and incorportated into the crew's
training. There are numerous large commerical airports along the way that
are just as suitable as LAX (PMD, RNO, SLC ect). We haven't even gotten
into what the weather might have been like at LAX. By the time the flight
starts over water, it has been flying for many hours over thousands of
miles and, even then, is always well under an hour from a suitable
airport. The flight lands safely and then some PP ASEL declares that they
did it all wrong.

I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA, FAA,
JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid stunt
than to accept your assertion that it was.

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:

You seem to assume that the reason for contiued flight was cost even though
there is no evidence of this.


I do wonder how the Captain phrased the cabin announcement?

Perhaps:

'Good evening everyone, this is your Captain speaking. You may have
noticed that right after rotation "there was an engine surge, like a
backfire" and I should inform you that the control tower reported
"sparks flying from the crippled engine and heard popping noises."

Not to worry! We have shut down the affected engine and finished a
lengthy conference call with management that absolutely did not include
any discussion of the recently effective EU passenger compensation law
nor other costs of landing to inspect the damage.

You will be happy to know that based *only* on consideration for your
safety and convenience that rather than landing somewhere in the US to
inspect the damage and repair the aircraft that we have decided to press
on to London! Stiff Upper Lip and all that!

Of course we will be a little lower and slower but we estimate we have
probably have enough fuel to reach London, or at least Manchester.


Now I know that you paid close attention to the safety briefing and if
we should developer a bit of fire from the engine damage in the next
eight or ten hours, well, heck, we will be at most an hour from land and
I know that each of you knows where your personal flotation device is
located!

Remember, your safety is always our first concern! Thank you for
choosing British Airways'


(Foolish caveat: quoted remarks abstracted from the LA Times)

--
Doug
PP ASEL IA Fool

"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

Doug Carter wrote:

Remember, your safety is always our first concern!

This sort of statement have always amused me. My safety had better not be their
primary concern -- if it were, we'd never leave the ground. Their primary
concern had better be to deliver me to my destination. Safety runs a close
second, of course, since I'd like to get there intact.

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