Controversy?

[The Ruptured Duck]

A 747 flew from LA to UK on 3 engines.

[beaky]

A 747 flew from LA to UK on 3 engines.  Whats the big deal.  Note:  They used Fs2004 for their reproduction of the takeoff on a video I found on www.msn.com

I'm pretty sure that's the main reason a 747 sports 4 engines in the first place...

[legoalex2000]

those darn 3 engine 747's, always trying to show off

[Scorpiоn]

Reminds me of the old joke with the sputtering Cessna and the BUFF on the dreaded "Seven engine approach."

[denishc]

 What surprises me is that they allow 777s fly over the Atlantic with just 2 engines!

[Saitek]

Can't a 777 survive on 1 engine?

[Craig.]

LOL sarcasm young Ben. Didnt we just discuss this though?

[chomp_rock]

Ok, why didn't you post a direct link to the page with the video on it if you wanted to share it?

Found it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7064429/

And no they did not use FS2004...

[Hagar]

Whether it's certified to fly on 3 engines or not, this is not the point. IMHO
If it was intended for a 747 to do long-haul flights on 3 engines, especially over water, I suggest it would be fitted with 3 engines. The fact they continued with the journey while still over the US mainland & saw nothing wrong in doing so without the full complement of engines surprises me. Supposing another engine had failed.

What surprises me is that they allow 777s fly over the Atlantic with just 2 engines!

I thought much the same when I discovered I was booked on a 767 from London to New York. Call me old-fahioned but the more engines the better as far as I'm concerned.

[Craig.]

Just so its made known. The pilots check with BA's main base and the maintanence guys, they were advised if they were happy to continue to the UK on 3 engines then they were fine to do so.  It would have cost them hotel rooms for the passengers leading into the 1000's of

[Hagar]

That still doesn't change my opinion. Safety should always take priority over cost. That shouldn't even come into the equation & if there was the slightest doubt they should have diverted. It seems quite obvious to me that if it has 4 engines it needs 4 engines.

[pete]

I was wondering if they knew what had caused the engine problem..... If they didn't,  any decision to carry on would have been wrong, IMHO, as further problems could easily have been possible .....


We've seen the greatest disasters as a result of captain impatience in the past - I'm assuming this was not a case of that .....  

[Hagar]

[quote]I was wondering if they knew what had caused the engine problem..... If they didn't,

[Craig.]

But again, they consulted with their Maintanence, thus suggesting they knew what had caused the problem, and were checking to make sure it was safe to continue. BA for all its problems sometimes, are still a top-class airline and i have no doubt they would have diverted if there was chance of problems.

[Hagar]

BA for all its problems sometimes, are still a top-class airline and i have no doubt they would have diverted if there was chance of problems.

You obviously have more faith in them than me. Dont forget, I've dealt with these people for a very long time.