What would you have done? (Engine out on 747-400)

[TurboS7]

The whole Eastern was nothing to the world, shoot it was one less airline for them to worry about, the same with Panam. Only those that wrapped their life around a fickle little airline were the ones that got hurt. All you guys let life get way out of wack, it was just a job-not something to worship. Sounds like your still a tad bitter.

 

[767pilot]

lighten up bubba. The man said that there hadn't been scabs since continental and United. All I did was remind him that there have been.

 

[Spooky 1]

lighten up bubba. The man said that there hadn't been scabs since continental and United. All I did was remind him that there have been.

Yes I sure did miss the Eastern strike. As I recall I paid some assessments during that period so shame on me for not remembering this period. Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

[Spooky 1]

The whole Eastern was nothing to the world, shoot it was one less airline for them to worry about, the same with Panam. Only those that wrapped their life around a fickle little airline were the ones that got hurt. All you guys let life get way out of wack, it was just a job-not something to worship. Sounds like your still a tad bitter.

I keep reading your response and I am still trying to figure out what you just said? Who is "them" in this statement?

 

[TurboS7]

Them meaning the world in general.

 

[irapilot]

Just a thought - it might be worth thinking about the worst case when making judgments about continuing the flight after a seemingly "minor problem. This NOVA special http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/ on Swissair 111 show how us pilots believe that "our aircraft is not flammable since it has been certified" or "it is just an engine failure, right?" That engine is far away and without a really good idea with what is going on out there on the wing I am not sure I would continue on unless I just had no choice. But of course, that is just me with 6 engine failures, 1 engine fire, 1 in-flight cabin structure fire and numerous other issues in my 20 years in the biz.

 

[CatYaaak]

Just a thought - it might be worth thinking about the worst case when making judgments about continuing the flight after a seemingly "minor problem. This NOVA special http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/ on Swissair 111 show how us pilots believe that "our aircraft is not flammable since it has been certified" or "it is just an engine failure, right?" That engine is far away and without a really good idea with what is going on out there on the wing I am not sure I would continue on unless I just had no choice. But of course, that is just me with 6 engine failures, 1 engine fire, 1 in-flight cabin structure fire and numerous other issues in my 20 years in the biz.

But you aren't a current and qualified BA Captain with at least as many hours on not only 744's, but that particular aircraft SN. Furthermore, without having taken off from LAX headed for LHR in that particular aircraft losing the same engine after T/O at precicely the same altitude and airspeed and weight operating under JAA rules on that day of the week in weather exactly similar to the route you were flying (which would also have to be exactly the same) and communicated to the same ground personel and gaining input from the same FO who as actually filling the seat the other day, you have no right to formulate or state any opinion on the matter except you can say all you want if it's along the lines of to"The Captain made a great decision" or "losing an egine doesn't matter" because you weren't in the cockpit at the time.

 

[fr0g]

Ok, this is getting silly. Frankly, I don't claim to know anything about the operations of a 747 by British Airways under JAA rules. HOWEVER, If I had been a passenger on that flight I don't think that BA would have my business in the future. It's as simple as that. I would much rather spend another night in LA than be out over "greenland" when another problem develops. Do we really have any volunteers that would have rather been on that flight??

 

[LarryinTN]

Has anyone looked at the great circle route from LAX to LHR and compared it to, say, JFK-LHR? (http://gc.kls2.com/ is a good site for such things) With only minor deviations from the ideal great circle route an LAX-LHR flight could stay within 60 minutes of an alternate for the entire route. The JFK-LHR route requires going out into the 180 minute ETOPS area.

Where would you rather be? On a B747 with two engines out 30 to 60 minutes from a suitable airport or on a B767 or B777 with one engine out 120 to 180 minutes from a suitable airport?

 

[Vector4fun]

Where would you rather be? On a B747 with two engines out 30 to 60 minutes from a suitable airport or on a B767 or B777 with one engine out 120 to 180 minutes from a suitable airport?

Are the two engines out on the B747 on the same wing or not?

Actually, I spoke to a very experieced international L-1011 Capt. (retired) last night and mentioned the story. His response?

"That's nutz".

 

[LarryinTN]

Then 180 minute ETOPS is also "nutz".

 

[white E]

I wonder of the crew thought about the idea that the engine could have damaged another engine or the possibilty of some sort of structual damage to the a/c? I don't know the 74, but it seems pretty obvious that they did what most people wouldn't. I personally couldn't have mentally handled the idea that this was fing stupid for 15 hours and I would have landed back in LA or at least Vegas!

-W-

 

[Spooky 1]

I wonder of the crew thought about the idea that the engine could have damaged another engine or the possibilty of some sort of structual damage to the a/c? I don't know the 74, but it seems pretty obvious that they did what most people wouldn't. I personally couldn't have mentally handled the idea that this was fing stupid for 15 hours and I would have landed back in LA or at least Vegas!



-W-

Guess what? They probably looked at the engine instruments on the remaining engines as well a visual inspection of the engine cowl from the inside of the cabin and determined that things looked pretty good. No problems were encountered with the remaining three engine. Unbeliveable! What good pupose could have come by landing in Las Vegas. I mean if you were going to abort the mission so to speak, Los Angeles with all the support that BA could have provided if called upon certainly would have been the appropriate choice IMHO.

If you haven't flown many four engine aircraft then perhaps the mind set is still at the two engine level and I don't mean that as a slam, but rather a reglulatory mind set that calls for a whole different set of values and options.

I am not saying that this was a good choice, and obviously it was not in light of how things turned out. It also was not gross negligence as some have suggested. Rather it was perhaps poorly mitigated risk that was chosen by a collective group of professionals based up past experience and what they thought was a worthy attempt to save their passengers from significant inconvienence as well as loss of revenue. So be it. Thankfully it turned out without an accident.

 

[mayday1]

a strange coincidence.. looks like it happened again on the same plane a few days later..

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/04/ba.jet.ap/index.html

 

[PC12Cowboy]

Wow same airplane....the grease monkeys need to get something right...lol.....
Maybe airbus can build a in-flight refueler for them.....beings the US aint gonna buy any.I'm sure they could put probes on a 747...lmao

 

[A Squared]

[font=Arial,helvetica]Not that it proves anything one way or another, but apparently the FAA isn't too terribly inpressed with BA's risk analysis process. From Avweb:



FAA Calls BA's Engine-Out Trans-Atlantic Flight "Reckless"

[/font]

FAA officials said on Monday they plan to charge British Airways with "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft," because the airline flew a 747 from Los Angeles to London with one of its four engines shut down, the International Herald Tribune reported on Monday. A British Airways spokesman said the flight crew did nothing wrong. "The 747 is fully certificated to operate on three engines. There is no requirement to land," said Steve Shelterline. The 747 ran low on fuel as it crossed the Atlantic at a lower-than-usual altitude, declared an emergency and landed in Manchester.






​