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

Mike Rapoport wrote:

I think that four engine airliners have to be able to fly with two engines
inoperative on one side but I am not certain.

This is the reason why they have rudders so large that they can be
ripped off when unproperly used.

Stefan

Here's the one I usually use...

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=lax-lhr

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Mike Rapoport wrote:
...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.

As a fool I will accept your assertion that the FAA & JAA approve, a
priori, the SOP and the resulting decisions the pilot made based on it
(BA *has* asserted that three out of four engines is fine with them).

Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
land immediately because it is too heavy.

Without dumping fuel ($$)

So it has to fly for a while regardless.
....

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.

Again, this fool accepts your assertion that the FAA, JAA and Boeing
approve trans-Atlantic operations with a failed engine; that presuming
the pilot *knew* there was no other damage to the aircraft and that the
aircraft had sufficient range to complete its mission given the normal
wind variability... Oops, it didn't! They had to divert, fortunately
over land.

I fully expect that the crew carefully calculated their ability to land
safely despite losing the other engine on that side, but it still seems
like an unnecessary risk of several hundred lives. As a *former* BA
passenger I would have been much happier had the pilot landed at DFW or
JFK, at least inspected the airplane then continued.

Perhaps BA was concerned that the engine could not have been quickly
repaired... Would they have taken off from JFK on three engines?


In general I have a great deal of respect for the FAA and Boeing (and
even BA, up to now), but I continue to be surprised by the fact that all
these learned agencies support launching over the Atlantic with a known
failed engine and no visual inspection.


By the way, I fly aerobatics and single engine IFR (not always at the
same time). This fool is not totally risk adverse, but perhaps not an
idiot.

Marco Leon wrote:

747-400's are actually more efficient in cruise on two engines.


Any two?

Bob Moore wrote:
....

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more
engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may
proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the
following, he decides that proceeding to that airport *is as safe as
landing at the nearest suitable airport:*


So the crew (and quite probably BA Operations) apparently concluded that
continuing to London was *as safe as landing at the nearest suitable
airport* Ouch

....

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest
suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate...

I'd hate to write that report...


Doug
PP ASEL, Fool

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
news
Bob Moore wrote:
...

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more
engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may
proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the
following, he decides that proceeding to that airport *is as safe as
landing at the nearest suitable airport:*


So the crew (and quite probably BA Operations) apparently concluded that
continuing to London was *as safe as landing at the nearest suitable
airport* Ouch

The crew and BA ops apparently were correct in their decision. Evidence
otherwise?

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest
suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate...

I'd hate to write that report...

Why? Sounds simple and straight forward.

Doug
PP ASEL, Fool

Dave Stadt wrote:
The crew and BA ops apparently were correct in their decision. Evidence
otherwise?

Ran out of gas before they got home; sounds like the wrong outcome to me.

However I will concede that the unscheduled stop in Manchester to refuel
and possibly repair the engine may have been cheaper than stopping to do
the same thing on this side of the Atlantic.

(I wonder if they took off from Manchester on three engines?)

... he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate...

I'd hate to write that report...

Why? Sounds simple and straight forward.


As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:

"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

This may require careful wording to edge past the letter of the regulations.

Of course, landing to refuel and repair *before* attempting to cross the
Atlantic may require even more tedious paperwork to be submitted to BA
management for all I know.


Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
destination does not help appearances.

Doug
PP, ASEL IA, Fool

Dave Stadt wrote:

As a single engine pilot, three running engines sounds
excessive to me.

And glider pilots would agree that one engine is too much.


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Doug Carter wrote:

Ran out of gas before they got home;

Um, more like they landed before they dipped into their reserves. Big
difference.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Doug Carter wrote:

As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:

"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

I think it's the job of the FAA to prove the opposite. BTW: Why should
the FAA care at all? They flew safely in the USA, they made a security
landing only when they were under the regulation of the British CAA.

Stefan