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

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.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

So, is this good or bad?

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

This situation is going to be "interesting" as it plays out. I hate to
second guess a guy who isn't here so I won't, but as I said, this one could
get VERY interesting before the fuzz is finished with it.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
So, is this good or bad?

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

So, is this good or bad?

I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
making the judgment.

British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.

The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
landing at his London destination.

Someone more qualified than me had this to say:

"It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
doesn't make any sense."

However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
operations in the United States, said:

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
our normal operating protocols."

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

("Larry Dighera")
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.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story


'They've got half the PhD's on the planet working on it.'

That was my thought when I read the first news blips on this flight. 747
flew for many hours (over land) before they decided to cross the Atlantic.
In that time I'm sure they were gathering and analyzing much data relating
to fuel burn.

Iceland, post-Iceland, pre-Ireland, Ireland, Manchester, London, etc. They
had safety options. Safety was never the main issue here. Could they make
London? THAT was the main issue and that answer is no, they could not make
London ...safely.

In the end the winds hurt them - no big deal.

Wonder if any Manchester passengers said, "Hey, I'll get off here."


Montblack

("Montblack" wrote)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

Iceland, post-Iceland, pre-Ireland, Ireland, Manchester, London,


Go no-go decision points.

I guess "pre-Ireland" means ...hope we make Ireland.

Probably should have eliminated this one and just gone with Ireland, since
once you're out of that big circle around Iceland the next go no-go decision
point is the Irish coast. Not too many places to land pre-Ireland g.


Montblack

Mike Rapoport wrote:
So, is this good or bad?

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.

Whoever wrote this SOP for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks.

Larry Dighera wrote:

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

Whichever has the cheapest fare. It's also about money to me.

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

But he landed only 167 miles short of his destination and presumably had the
required reserves at that time. A great circle route between LA and London
crosses Greenland, passes near Iceland and then overflies Scottland and the
UK. I don't think that you can make the case that there was a big risk of
running out of fuel far from an airport. In fact, he could have landed in
Scottland with about 40 minutes more fuel than he landed with. It will be
interesting to see what the whole story is. It probably comes down to
deciding to continue after passing each suitable airport with plenty of fuel
to reach the next suitable airport. The airports are only 500-700nm apart
so he was always less than an hour from a suitable airport. I would also
doubt that he made this decision without consulting his company dispatch. I
guess that I might feel differently if the flight was going from LAX to
Sidney and decided not to return or to land at Hawaii.

It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will weigh
in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and this guy
had three jet engines!!!

I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine
airplane?

Mike
MU-2



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

So, is this good or bad?

I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
making the judgment.

British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.

The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
landing at his London destination.

Someone more qualified than me had this to say:

"It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
doesn't make any sense."

However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
operations in the United States, said:

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
our normal operating protocols."

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
. com...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
So, is this good or bad?

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.

Whoever wrote this SOP for BA is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks.

Along with the JAA and FAA...Or are you just another PP ASEL with strong
opinions on flying 747s and how to run a global airline...?

Mike
MU-2