351 passengers and an engine on fire...

[expat]

They had enough fuel to make the trip, according to the FMC, and they had the performance available to do so. Had they lost another engine they would've made an emergency landing, just like a twin. I really don't see the danger about this.

At last it has been said. I would have said sooner, but there is not just a flame risk from the engine in question
I see no danger and no story here.  It is sensationalism from an armchair media.

Matt

[Hagar]

They had enough fuel to make the trip, according to the FMC, and they had the performance available to do so. Had they lost another engine they would've made an emergency landing, just like a twin. I really don't see the danger about this.

Sorry. If that is the case why did they declare an emergency & land at Manchester instead of Heathrow? The facts are somewhat different now from what was stated at the time. The whole thing stinks as far as I'm concerned.

[Brett_Henderson]

Wait a minute !

If losing one engine makes a 747 fuel IN-efficient enough to barely make it.. What if they had lost another engine, out over the ocean ?

Proceeding out over the Atlantic, one engine failure away from having to ditch, is pretty darn near criminal negligence, in my book.

[expat]

Sorry. If that is the case why did they declare an emergency & land at Manchester instead of Heathrow? The facts are somewhat different now from what was stated at the time. The whole thing stinks as far as I'm concerned.

For the same reason that they would have declared an emergency if they landed at in the US, they were only flying with three engines. The danger is at landing, not whilst flying. As for Manchester, that was the airport that they could get safely to within the required fuel usage and remaining diversion fuel. Effectively, it was as if they had left the US with the required fuel for Manchester and not Heathrow. The fact that they were burning more fuel than normal is not in question. The question is whether they had the required fuel to get to the chosen destination. As I have already said, before they decided to carry on flying the first thing that would have been carried out is a fuel recalculation. It was calculated that they could get to Manchester within the required safety margins.

I think that this particular thread is a "Schumacher", love him or hate him.

Wait a minute !

If losing one engine makes a 747 fuel IN-efficient enough to barely make it.. What if they had lost another engine, out over the ocean ?

Proceeding out over the Atlantic, one engine failure away from having to ditch, is pretty darn near criminal negligence, in my book.

What is with the barely make it. The aircraft in question flew past half a dozen other UK airports that could take a 747 before he landed in Manchester. Manchester was the destination, Heathrow was the destination before fuel recalculation were made.

Matt

[Hagar]

For the same reason that they would have declared an emergency if they landed at in the US, they were only flying with three engines.

OK, I accept that but what if another engine had failed? If this had happened over the Atlantic it would have been a completely different situation.

If I remember correctly BA originally stated that the engine failed 1 hour after take-off when we now know that it caught fire during take-off. If I'd been aboard that aircraft I would have liked to return to KLAX as soon as possible rather than risk a transatlantic flight of some 11 hours on 3 engines.

I think that this particular thread is a "Schumacher", love him or hate him.

I never trusted the BA management. It's quite obvious that they took the decision because of the new EU legislation. The captain's hands were tied. If this had been a small airline they would have had the book thrown at them.

[Brett_Henderson]

What is with the barely make it.

Well.. let's see. A flight was already shortened for fuel reasons. If (and I think this is a reasonable assumption) an engine failure, mid Atlantic would have meant ditching...  I'd say that they barely made it over the pond... let alone ANY airport in the UK.

[expat]

As I said, Schumacher

Matt

[Hagar]

As I said, Schumacher

Matt

Not sure I understand that but whatever.
I'll go along with BALPA on this. [quote]Captain Mervyn Granshaw, Balpa

[Brett_Henderson]

I understand the  Schumacher reference..

But I don't see where it applies here. Knowingly embarking across an ocean, in a 25% disabled, commercial liner, with 351 people onboard is not defensible. It was reckless and greedy.

[Chris_F]

A 747 is safe to fly with four engines.  It can lose two and keep flying.  But one three engines?  It can't lose two and keep flying...

... but what are the chances of that?  The same as if it had four operational engines when it departed LAX.  Engine failure probability is independant so the probability that each of the three remaining engines would die is the same as if the engine failure hadn't happened.  In fact it may be greater since they operated the whole flight at a higher power setting.

If I were captain I wouldn't have done it, to hell with what the management told me.  If they wanted me to hand in my hat I'd have done so right at the gate at LAX.

Maybe, maybe I could be convinced that flying to NYC would be okay since there are so many divert airports along the way.  But across the Atlantic?  Sure hard to find a good place to put a 747 on the big wet.

[C]

The irony of this statement is that a regional pilot probably does have more experience than a heavy pilot.

Conversly I know several long haul pilots whose first full time commercial job has been as a direct entry captain on long haul heavies...



...the difference - they spent between 16-25 years flying (in most cases) military fast jet types first, hence having highly developed motor flying skills and captaincy.

[C]

Sorry. If that is the case why did they declare an emergency & land at Manchester instead of Heathrow? The facts are somewhat different now from what was stated at the time. The whole thing stinks as far as I'm concerned.

Just a thought on this one - I assume that civil flyers all have to operate in a similar fashion to military ops with a designated diversion airfield if the destination runway was to suddenly become unavailable for some reason.

If this changed from, for example, Stansted to Manchester for any numbner of reasons, the required diversion fuel would increase. If an approach could not be completed to   Heathrow without the required fuel to then divert if no landing was made (again, for any number of reasons), you would go to the diversion airfield.

[Nexus]

[quote]
Maybe, maybe I could be convinced that flying to NYC would be okay since there are so many divert airports along the way.

[Saitek]

It's all saying the plane could fly ok on two engines, but especially if one has caught fire - its there a possibility the engine next to it could be damaged? Apart from the fact there is an unbalance amount of force there would two engines hold the plane up FULL of fuel? 351 passengers +12 hours off fuel and luggage on two engines?

[Woodlouse2002]

The engine didn't catch fire. It's like if you see a shot of flame come out of an exhaust pipe. It means somethings not right and the engine shouldn't be pushed or indeed used but it doesn't mean the whole this is going to explode any minute.

Maybe management did have a say in where the plane landed but every pilot knows that once the plane is in the air he has the final say and if he didn't feel it was safe then he would have diverted. Remember it was his life on the line as well cause he wasn't flying the plane by remote control.