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

"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.


Well he had 3 working engines, probably no where near gross, pilot did
contact BA head office and got the go ahead to continue, landed to refuel
due to unfavorable and unanticipated winds aloft...yada, yada, yada!!!!

I'd say that pilot had less to worry about than the fools on Air Transat
Flt..?? that ran out of fuel on it's way to Spain. Now the fuel problem was
due to improper maintenance (or rather a improper maintenance department
head) but it would seem to me that when you have a higher than normal fuel
consumption from one tank you shouldn't cross-feed fuel from the full tank
to the empty one untill the aircraft is out of fuel and in the middle of the
Atlantic Ocean.

Anyway it all came out to a happy ending when Air Transat glided into the
Asores Islands. Except pilots were cited for not following proper
procedures, and the maintenance supervisor was dissaplined for authorizing
the installation of a fuel pump (I think) after it was brought to his
attention that this part was for a different jet engine!

I was on an airliner once coming out of Florida that had a gear problem
shortly after departure. At first they announced they'd land short as
a precautionary measure. To which I thought .. why? The maintenance
facility is at our destination .. STL. Then after a while they announced
they'd just continue on and have plenty of emergency vehicles
waiting when we landed. It ended up being uneventful. I thought it was a
good decision.


"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 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.

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.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:13:05 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
. net::

Who said anything about throwing a blade?

While this report doesn't specifically mention a turbine blade, what
it describes could be consistent with many things including throwing a
blade:


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

Right after rotation, there was an engine surge, like a backfire,"
Hayes said.

Air traffic controllers at the airport tower saw sparks flying
from the crippled engine and heard popping noises.



It might have been something as mundane as failure of the instrumentation.

Would such an instrumentation failure be consistent with sparks
flying?

Larry Dighera wrote:

While this report doesn't specifically mention a turbine blade, what
it describes could be consistent with many things including throwing a
blade:


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

Right after rotation, there was an engine surge, like a backfire,"
Hayes said.

Air traffic controllers at the airport tower saw sparks flying
from the crippled engine and heard popping noises.


Usually, in this group, everybody seems to agree that jurnalists are
idiots and never get something right, especially not when it comes to
aviation. But then, jurnalists are good enough to back up ones own
opinion. Oh well.

You cited two sentences of the article. I don't ask how a controller in
the tower would hear that popping noise (after rotation!). But let me
cite a couple of other sentences of the same article:


"The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to
do so."

"But I don't think most pilots would have undertaken such a
bizarre-sounding flight, partly just because it sounds kind of dangerous."

"The pilot flew two 20-mile circles in a holding pattern over Santa
Monica Bay, talking by radio with British Airways' flight technical team
and operations control team in London."

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

"There were several alternative landing fields," Hayes said. "The pilot
chose Manchester" — 163 miles from London.

"He said the pilot made a routine landing with enough fuel on board to
satisfy international safety regulations."



That said, I have no idea what happened and whether it was safe. I'll
read the final report, though.

Stefan

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
____________________

My thoughts exactly John, British Airways is one of the saftest airlines in
existence, and Boeing builds a great airplane (same with Airbus industrie)



"John T" wrote in message
...
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
____________________