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

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

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
"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


Yes, but it also seems unlikely that 12hrs after takeoff, it suddenly occurs
to the crew that some of the fuel might be unusable.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news
Yes, but it also seems unlikely that 12hrs after takeoff, it suddenly
occurs to the crew that some of the fuel might be unusable.

Yes, it does sound like something "unexpected" must have happened *after*
the decision to continue, whether it was unexpectedly high fuel burn or some
other technical surprise. We'll find out in due course I guess.

Let me add one more thing before I drop out of this thread. I'm not an
airline pilot, but the impression that I have of BA over the years is that
it's the airline that they all want to fly for over here, precisely
*because* the bean-counters don't have the upper hand on the crew. There's
no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
going to compromised by continuing -- whether with 20:20 hindsight everyone
else agrees is something we may have to wait for the report to find out.

Julian

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote in ::

There's
no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
going to compromised by continuing


I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
2000 holding same belief.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote in ::

There's
no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
going to compromised by continuing


I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
2000 holding same belief.

And that means what?

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:09:22 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote in ::

There's
no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
going to compromised by continuing


I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
2000 holding same belief.

And that means what?


The example I cited is empirical evidence that what the crew believes
may be neither relevant nor prudent. The crew's vantage point can be
inadequate to accurately assess the damage that would be readily
apparent when inspected on the ground, and in the case of the Alaska
jet, a precautionary landing, instead of attempting an in-flight "fix"
while within landing distance of an acceptable airport, might have
saved ~200 lives.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote in ::

There's
no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
going to compromised by continuing


I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
2000 holding same belief.

So this BA crew were right it seems

"Julian Scarfe" wrote

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? ;-)

I *love* all of the Monday morning quarterbacking going on around here.

I always make an effort, to not tell brain surgeons how to do their job.
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

I always make an effort, to not tell brain surgeons how to do their job.

With all due respect, flying--even flying a 747--is not
brain surgery. And if you hose up during brain surgery,
usually it only costs you one customer.

I've never had brain surgery. I've flown commercial
probably a few hundred times. It seems natural that
people are more interested with a situation they can
imagine themselves in.

I've enjoyed the thread so far, though I'd like to see
more "here's why you're wrong" than "I've flown 20000
hours and you're a poopy butt" kind of arguments. I
think there is small danger the FAA is going to check
what public sentiment on rec.aviation.piloting is before
making an enforcement decision.


Mike Beede