Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

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

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Perhaps continued to JFK, transfer pax to other LHR flights.

Less fuel dump required, (If any) more flights to LHR, BA maintenace in JFK ready for quick engine change or repair with 4 hrs notice, etc.

Dunno, but continue across the continent and the pond with an engine out.....?
Sounds a bit over the top.
 
F the cost of delaying passengers and causing them to get home a little later. Declare an emergency and go right back where you came from.
 
mzaharis said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html

BA 747-400 loses engine on takeoff from LAX, then continues onto Heathrow. Runs short of fuel, and diverts to Manchester, England.
Click to expand...


As Foghorn Leghorn might have said........."I say..I say Boy, I don't believe I would've done that. Whats the matta with ya, You got rocks in your head!!" <While knocking on the Captains head with his knuckles>

Whole lotta Salt water to go feet wet over with a failed blower. Kind of like crossing a Crocodile infested river on a frazzled and rotting rope bridge.....not much has to go wrong before you are swimming in a bad spot.
 
Is the 747-400 3 engine ferryable?

Is the 747-400 3 engine ferryable? Just curious, I don't think it's unreasonable to cross the ocean on three engines. They should have done a better job on knowing whether they could get to the intended destination.
 
The B747-400/300/200/100 are all approved for 3 engine ferry. Also the DC10/MD10/MD11/L1011 are all approved for 2 engine ferry as was the B727. Obviously there are numerous restrictions to this type of operation but they are done fairly routinely on an annual basis.
 
MTpilot said:
Is the 747-400 3 engine ferryable? Just curious, I don't think it's unreasonable to cross the ocean on three engines. They should have done a better job on knowing whether they could get to the intended destination.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here. 3 engine ferry is one thing.......Intentionally going feet wet with a failed engine and 351 pax on board.........that is a whole different critter.

FL290 was the best on 3 moters with that load (Ended up a minimum fuel condition at that point), lose a second one and you are out of options (Huge fuel burn increase and only a couple of dirt specks surrounded by water to put the thing on) Very bad judgment in my opinion from what was reported in the article.

Of course there may be something that the crack news agency left out.
 
Not trying to be a douchebag, but maybe they didn't have to land at EGCC because of fuel problems, but because operations told them too?

Manchester is a long ways from London, so they would have to put the people on other flights to get them home, which would still be a pain in the rear for passengers.

I like the fix it at JFK idea best.

EDIT: Manchester is also a maintenance station for BA.
 
Last edited:
Shirely, surely it is not legal to fly LAX to the UK on 3 motors???!!!

What would have happened if a second motor had failed? Is there a 3 motor route with divert airports close enough to keep feet dry in the event of losing the second motor on the same side?

If this report is true then it reads like the Challenger disaster, where the people involved were writing the accident report before it happened.
 
I certainly do not know the deatils of this incident but you can be sure that the dispatch at BA was made aware if the decision and participated in the final decision to continue. It is a legal procedure in this case, although I do wonder how the fuel plan was massaged to cover the 2 engine out scenario that would have ensueed had he lost the second engine? Lets give the Captain a break and assume that his decisions were based upon a collective effort between BA dispatch and customer service to arrive at a safe and sound decision.
 
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. Do not mind the rather loud BANG you heard shortly after takeoff and the sparks you may have seen shooting from the rear of any engines. We have decided to shut down the offending engine. We think we should continue on our flight since we only have thousands of miles and may hours to go. We will be cruising at a lower altitude due to the loss of one engine, so enroute you will get a much closer look at the waters of the icy Atlantic. Now sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. Thank you for your business as I'm sure we will never have it again after this flight."
 
Lets give the Captain a break and assume that his decisions were based upon a collective effort between BA dispatch and customer service to arrive at a safe and sound decision.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, wouldn't the dispather have been able to figure out the fuel burn and realize it wasn't going to make it all the way?
 
Would they have been able to get maintenance at JFK? If so, maybe continuing to JFK would have been a good idea. First, he could have burned a lot of fuel to get under max landing weight, and two, with a few calls, maybe they could have had maintenance standing by with an engine (unlikely but not impossible) that they could have swapped. Delay may have been longer than 5 hours, but at least you would not have to declare a fuel emergency.
 
Metro752 said:
400 miles out of the way to JFK, bout an hour, that aint bad.
Click to expand...

nope, especially if it avoids an emergency situation. ORD (someone else mentioned this) probably could have worked too.
 
I would have run to my nearest aviation-related internet forum and posted inquiries regarding the correctness of my decision. After all, thousands of armchair quarterbacks couldn't be wrong.

Edit: And I would continue to rely on the media for technically accurate information.

-Goose
 
Last edited:
Dunno about 747, but I blieve our avro (Mesabas that is) if you loose an engine after takeoff IT IS legal to continue to destination on 3 engines. Loosing 1 engine on a 4 engine aircraft I also believe does not require the declaration of an emergency.(so long as its not burning your wing off).

Can any RJ-85 or Bac-146 pilots fill us in?????
 
That's correct. Losing an engine on a 4-engined airplane is not automatically an emergency as it is on a twin. Continuing to the destination is a legal option.
 
Hmmm...one engine fails, and I'm thinking "why did that engine fail?"

If I don't know for sure, I'm heading home (or going somewhere close) in a hurry. Is it fuel? Did someone in MX screw up? Something totally weird and inconceivable?


Until I know for SURE, I'm not crossing a big body of water.
 
LJ-ABX said:
That's correct. Losing an engine on a 4-engined airplane is not automatically an emergency as it is on a twin. Continuing to the destination is a legal option.
Click to expand...
It's not even on the emergency checklist. It's considered an abnormal situation. Guys, give the crew a break. Some of you are looking at this through the eyes a Seminole pilot.

'Sled
 
"“The plane is as safe on three engines as on four and it can fly on two. " Captain Doug Brown, the senior manager of BA’s 747 fleet

Yeah, except for the unable to climb thing, and the extra fuel burn thing, and the what if another one fails thing.....
 
They have gone nuts over this on PPrune, there are dozens of posts on it.

There is one "spotter" who says the crew called a mayday and told the tower they didn't have enough gas for a go around.

It'll be interesting to see if the Brit CAA puts out a report on this one.
 
Sure, the 747 can continue on with three engines operative and a full cabin for a flight over the ocean. It becomes a question of judgement, "WHAT IF".... and you are already out of options. Clearly they should have returned.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom