BA flies on three, AGAIN!

[Dizel8]

CBS/AP) A British Airways jet that continued on an 11-hour flight from Los Angeles to London after one of its four engines lost power also flew on three engines on a later flight from Singapore to London, the airline said Friday.

The Boeing 747 left Singapore on Feb. 25 and landed at London's Heathrow Airport the next day, arriving only 15 minutes behind schedule, BA spokesman Jay Marritt said.

Three hours into the 14-hour flight, an oil pressure indicator showed there was a problem with one of the engines, which the captain shut down as a precaution, Marritt said. It was the captain's decision to continue with Flight 18, which was carrying 356 passengers, he added.

"It's still very safe to fly a 747 on three engines," Marritt said. "It is certified to do so."

 

[Flyforyou]

Ok, does anybody have any doubt that if this happened over here, not only would the pilot be grounded immediately but the FAA would have his cert's shredded before he landed?



Fly

 

[Mmmmmm Burritos]

Ok, does anybody have any doubt that if this happened over here, not only would the pilot be grounded immediately but the FAA would have his cert's shredded before he landed?



Fly

It is a four engine jet. They have different rules. Also, you don't get to be a BA 747 captain with a history of making bad decisions and breaking the rules.

If a CRJ lost an engine after takeoff while flying halfway across the country and continued on, that would be a bad thing. This is a 747, it's in a different league.

 

[airlinepilot]

Nice to know the Feds would give me a break for making the right decisions flying jets for the last...29 years......NOT

 

[Rattler71]

It is a four engine jet. They have different rules. Also, you don't get to be a BA 747 captain with a history of making bad decisions and breaking the rules.

If a CRJ lost an engine after takeoff while flying halfway across the country and continued on, that would be a bad thing. This is a 747, it's in a different league.

No, it is not in a different league. It has 4 engines for a reason. And to fly across the water on three of them is the not the reason.

And Dizel, love the avatar.

Rattler71

 

[Freddie Spencer]

...and BA, among many other airlines (with very good safety records), have a very detailed policy for continuing on 3 engines. Stringent obstacle clearance requirements, fuel for depress crit points, wx for destination/alt, wx for enroute airports (in case of an another engine failure), etc, all have to be met.

This is a policy that Boeing, FAA, and CAA has been aware of for many years, and I'm sure if they didn't approve of it, at least on FAA's side, FAA wouldn't allow BA to fly in and out of the US.

Not sure what the big deal to continue with 3 engines on 747. After all you still have 7 hydraulic pumps, 16 fuel pumps, 3 packs etc,. On a side note... crusing at 370 and losing an engine, you should be able to maintain around 320, or even better.

Now take look at the 777 for a second... ETOPS approved for 207 minutes, with Boeng trying to get approved for 4 hours, that is FOUR hours away from a suitable airport!!! At least with a 747 you can still fly after the second engine failure...

Comments?

 

[Daedalus]

According to the Wall Street Journal it was the same airplane that had the shutdown episode out of Los Angeles. In both situations it was the numbr 2 engine which was the offending unit, but apparently for different reasons.

 

[8vATE]

According to the Wall Street Journal it was the same airplane that had the shutdown episode out of Los Angeles. In both situations it was the numbr 2 engine which was the offending unit, but apparently for different reasons.

And I read they had to make a LOW FUEL early landing on the LAX-LHR leg..

So they didn't even make it......


Nice..