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

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

What fuel emergency?


The one where the crew, as Julian also reported, declared an emergency?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Do you have reliable evidence they declared a fuel emergency? Didn't think
so. Seems a number of people here are very good at making up evidence to
support their favorite theory. I think Dan Rather would be willing hire a
few of you if he wasn't retiring.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:09:22 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :


"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?


The example I cited is empirical evidence that what the crew believes
may be neither relevant nor prudent. The crew's vantage point can be
inadequate to accurately assess the damage that would be readily
apparent when inspected on the ground, and in the case of the Alaska
jet, a precautionary landing, instead of attempting an in-flight "fix"
while within landing distance of an acceptable airport, might have
saved ~200 lives.

I see, the only decision that should ever be made is to land as soon as
possible. Interesting.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

No, I was making a joke.

Oh, I see. Defunct irony detector. How embarrassing.

Stefan

Thomas Borchert wrote:

What fuel emergency?

The one where the crew, as Julian also reported, declared an emergency?

The crew did not declare a fuel emergency. Julian also stated that the UK does
not not recognize a "fuel emergency."

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

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 at 19:50:03 in message
t, Mike Rapoport
wrote:
I was, my error. The runways at Glasgow and Edinburgh are long enough and
I'm certain that they are in Scottland.

They definitely are!
--
David CL Francis

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 at 11:46:06 in message
, Montblack
wrote:
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."

I accept that you guys are right about flying on but would it be
permissible to take off on three engines after landing for fuel?
--
David CL Francis

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
____________________

David CL Francis wrote

I accept that you guys are right about flying on but would it be
permissible to take off on three engines after landing for fuel?

I don't know about the UK, but certainly not with passengers
on board here in the USofA.
It would a special three-engine ferry permit with only the
essential flight crew members on board.

Bob Moore

"David CL Francis" wrote
I accept that you guys are right about flying on but would it be
permissible to take off on three engines after landing for fuel?
--
David CL Francis

I would be very surprised if they took off with passengers.
--
Jim in NC

.... 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.

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

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. 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.

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.