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

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:30:14 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
wrote in
::

Others, like Larry D. and Doug C., have
proven themselves unworthy adversaries in the debate on the issue.

Sweeping generalities leading to subjective dismissal is not debate.
If you are able to find specific flaws in my statements, call them to
my attention and we can discuss the specifics.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:lEkVd.83178$tl3.71593@attbi_s02...
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!!!

Ah, yes. The dreaded three-engine approach...

And only enough fuel to fly 5,000 miles or so. How daring!


:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
George Patterson wrote
This sort of statement have always amused me. My safety had better not
be their primary concern -- if it were, we'd never leave the ground.
Their primary concern had better be to deliver me to my destination.
Safety runs a close second, of course, since I'd like to get there
intact.

None of the above.....MY safety was always my primary concern.
The aircraft came second. If I and the aircraft both survived,
chances were, the passengers made out OK.

Bob Moore

You betcha, I want two people up front that think they are the most
important people in the world.

I was implying that the criticisms from others stemmed from what they
perceived to be holes in the decisions, not that I found any.

Shawn
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
.uk...
It always amazes me at how little people feel they need to know in order
to maximize their right to free speech. And how quickly they bypass the
"seeking information" stage to jump straight to "making accusations".

Most of the people making conjecture here are not completely informed,
though there is no reason they necessarily would be. Not that I believe
there is some kind of government cover up going on or commercial
conspiracy, but there is no reason to publish further details as the
outcome was not unsafe. Where there are apparently gaping holes in the
decisions made by the flight crew and BA Operations, .......

Shawn

are you not making the same mistake as those you accuse when you say,
....Where there are apparently gaping holes in the decisions made
by....... so authoritively for a PP-ASEL?

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jose,

there's no evidence that what they did was careless =or= reckless.


Giving up redundancy built into a system for a good reasons and having
to land short of your intended destination with some 400 people in the
back because of a low-fuel emergency certainly counts in my book.

What fuel emergency? Do you know something we don't?

Let's
see if it does in the book of the authorities, too, but I'd be very
surprised if not. After all, we're not talking about an engine failure
somewhere over Greenland - we're talking about RIGHT after take-off!

It reminds me very much of the Hapag-Lloyd accident with the Airbus
running out of fuel after flying through half of Europe with the gear
locked in the down position.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"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?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
I hadn't seen any mention of this but I'll take your word for it. I
certainly don't consider it an emergency when I land with required
reserves.

Mike
MU-2

It could be something as simple as BA SOP for an engine out landing.

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

I will do more research but
I got that information from a 747-400 captain while I was jumpseating
enroute of the Pacific.

Just wondering if it's the same 747 Captain we're all talking about!

people immediately assume all the professionals involved
are idiots with less knowledge and poorer judgement than themselves. Most
of the accusatory statements made here are incorrect and based on a lack
of
knowledge of the situation, a lack of knowledge of 747 design,
certification, and operations, and a lack of knowledge of airline
operations
and commercial considerations, as well as a lack of knowledge of the
activities of national airworthiness bodies like the FAA and JAA.

Clearly the crew are not "idiots" - it's interesting however that their are
also comments being made in the media from people who are eminately
qualified to comment that it was the wrong decision. My experience in
dealing with individual departments (like maintenance) is that none of them
ever take a step back to look at the bigger picture.

Just because they "could" to it doesn't mean to say they "should" do it.