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

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
... and just because they discussed it with a range of departments still
doesn't mean that they came to the 'right' decision. At the end of the day
the decision to continue can never be called "right or wrong", because
it's
a subjective call - and I appreciate that it was a considered call from an
experienced crew - HOWEVER - what isn't debateable is that to continue the
flight under those circumstances resulted in a lower margin of safety than
had they stayed within the area, dumped fuel, and returned.

Despite your statement it is very debatable. Just because a situation is
subjective does not mean there cannot be right or wrong answers. In this
case the situation was very, but not totally objective. They had a large
number of facts at hand upon which to make the decision.

If another pilot in the same circumstance decided "bugger this" and
returned
for landing would this now be considered the WRONG thing to do?

Identical situations can have multiple correct options.

I wonder how the decision would have been viewed if they (by chance or due
to some unthought of connection) lost the 2nd engine on the same side -
still over weight.

Where did overweight come from? The same place as "they ran out of gas?"

Yes it's controllable, but it's starting to make for a
rather steep mountain to climb to get it back on the ground safely.

Says who? Others in the know say the 747 is very controllable with both
engines on one side out. If a second engine goes you deal with the
situation.

In my opinion they should have landed asap whilst they still had the
luxury
of a large safety margin rather than to continue on in a circumstance
where
it was safe, but only so long as nothing else whet wrong - in short it was
a
gamble, albeit an educated one, but still a gamble.

Getting up every morning is a gamble. Getting on an airplane is a gamble.
Walking down stairs is a gamble. First hand experience.....United flight
between Chicago and Detroit on a 737. More than half way there an engine
totally conks which is a loss of 50 percent of the engines. The decision
was to return to O'Hare even though Detroit was closer. Wanna guess what
the pilot told us was the reason for returning to O'Hare?

"Dave Stadt" wrote

Getting up every morning is a gamble. Getting on an airplane is a gamble.
Walking down stairs is a gamble. First hand experience.....United flight
between Chicago and Detroit on a 737. More than half way there an engine
totally conks which is a loss of 50 percent of the engines. The decision
was to return to O'Hare even though Detroit was closer. Wanna guess what
the pilot told us was the reason for returning to O'Hare?

Because that is where the mechanics and spare engines were?

What do I win? g
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote

Getting up every morning is a gamble. Getting on an airplane is a
gamble.
Walking down stairs is a gamble. First hand experience.....United flight
between Chicago and Detroit on a 737. More than half way there an engine
totally conks which is a loss of 50 percent of the engines. The decision
was to return to O'Hare even though Detroit was closer. Wanna guess what
the pilot told us was the reason for returning to O'Hare?

Because that is where the mechanics and spare engines were?

What do I win? g
--
Jim in NC

Nah, my guess is that's the pilot's home town.

Casey in the Mojave Desert

"Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote in message
news:BhOVd.20088$QQ3.4132@trnddc02...

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote

Getting up every morning is a gamble. Getting on an airplane is a
gamble.
Walking down stairs is a gamble. First hand experience.....United
flight
between Chicago and Detroit on a 737. More than half way there an
engine
totally conks which is a loss of 50 percent of the engines. The
decision
was to return to O'Hare even though Detroit was closer. Wanna guess
what
the pilot told us was the reason for returning to O'Hare?

Because that is where the mechanics and spare engines were?

What do I win? g
--
Jim in NC

Nah, my guess is that's the pilot's home town.

Casey in the Mojave Desert


You are both correct.

"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.