To Bizzare But Feel Free To Comment

[javaboy]

Crossing the Atlantic
With a Dead Engine

Saga of British Airways Flight
Raises Concerns at FAA;
Forced to Land in Manchester
March 1, 2005; Page D1
Passengers heard the pops, and people on the ground saw sparks flying out from beneath the wing. A British Airways 747 had an engine fail during takeoff in Los Angeles 10 days ago.

But instead of returning to the airport to land, Flight 268 continued on across the U.S, up near the North Pole, across the Atlantic -- all the way to England.
3 eng crossing

 

[mweiss]

Sounds like a case of an engine eating some poultry. It'd be interesting to hear the details of this one.

 

[whlinder]

Gotta love the new EU 'passenger rights' rules.

 

[diogenes]

Prime facie evidence economics can trump safety.

There's more where that came from.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Most of the aircraft flying across the Atlantic these days do so with one less engine available than this captain had operating.

It makes perfect sense that the captain made this decision rather than turn around. The airplane was probably WAY too heavy to land within the aircraft operating envelope in LAX, and if the engine failure was isolated to only that problem, why dump a few hundred thousand pounds of Jet A in the Pacific (assuming the aricraft had fuel dump capability?) If he couldn't dump fuel, he probably would have to have flown for 10-12 hours just to get down to landing weight.

If all the Monday morning quarterbacks think crossing the pond with three jet engines operating is dangerous, your air travel choices to Europe are extremely restricted.

 

[diogenes]

Concur returning to LAX not a good idea.

However, suppose they lost another engine mid-Atlantic?

Unlikely, I know, but.......

And the fact they had to sit down in Manchester due to fuel issues shows they pushed this one a little further than they ought to have.

BA is big in JFK - perhaps divert to there?

 

[airbiiguy]

what does this have to do with US Airways? Can someone move this thread outta here please?

 

[nycbusdriver]

Concur returning to LAX not a good idea.

However, suppose they lost another engine mid-Atlantic?

Unlikely, I know, but.......

And the fact they had to sit down in Manchester due to fuel issues shows they pushed this one a little further than they ought to have.

BA is big in JFK - perhaps divert to there?

[post="251914"][/post]​

The fuel state is monitored closely throughout the flight even when everything is operating. Yes, they landed in Manchester, short of their destination, but it was probably planned even before they left North America. The Boeing engineers KNOW what the burn will be on 3 engines; dispatchers are on top of the fuel burn. They set down in Manchester because it was perfectly safe to do so, and probably knew it within 90 minutes of leaving the ground in LAX.

What if they lost another engine? (Astronomically slim chance of that happening, but I'l play along.) Two engines running? It's a sluggish 777. So?

 

[javaboy]

Of course the FARs state

Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (B) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.


NEAREST Suitable,

in fact he (or she)never made Heathrow, they had to declare a fuel emergency and land short of thier destination anyways.

more over how were they able to comply with DRSM or RSVM requirements since TCAS would have to be turned out of the RA mode for this condition.

The reason they came up short of fuel was because they were unable to achieve the planned altitude and if more than 4000 feet difference requires redispatch does it not?

seems like this one is gonna snowball. it was on NBC tonight.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Of course the FARs state

Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (B) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.
NEAREST Suitable,

[post="251928"][/post]​

You forgot subsection (B).....

(B) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:

(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.

(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.

(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.

(4) The air traffic congestion.

(5) The kind of terrain.

(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.

Of course, these are FAA regulations. I have no idea what the British equivalent says.

The 747 does have fuel dumping capability. Any transport catagory aircraft has to be able to dump fuel if the maximum certificated take-off weight is more than a certain percentage above the maximum certificated landing weight (and I don't remember what that % is).

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

I stand corrected - fuel dumping is not required by a % that T/O weight exceeds landing weight:

A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of §§25.119 and 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane configuration, speed, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance requirements of this part.

Jim

 

[SilentWarrior]

Thank you Jim for clearing that up.

Stick to the coffee javaboy...please

Regardless of the “EU Passenger Rightsâ€￾ the pilot has the final say on the operation of that aircraft. Yes, I imagine that the pilot and dispatch had some long talks, but the end decision to land or fly belonged to the pilot. I think that theme stays the same no matter what flag you are flying for.

 

[UseYourHead]

4 engine jets do not have an emergency like a 2 engine jet when 1 engine fails. While at US Airways I took off with 3 out of 4 engines operating in a BAe-146 from Santa Ana airport, a 5700 foot runway.

That is one of the many advantages to having 4 engine TransOceanic aircraft.

Now if they had an engine fire, or some other event that in-an-of-itself was an emergency, that is another story. Simply shuting an engine down (say for low oil pressure) is a managable event. New cruise altitude, speed, possibly even a different routing for winds would all be looked at.

Crossing the Atlantic
With a Dead Engine

Saga of British Airways Flight
Raises Concerns at FAA;
Forced to Land in Manchester
March 1, 2005; Page D1
Passengers heard the pops, and people on the ground saw sparks flying out from beneath the wing. A British Airways 747 had an engine fail during takeoff in Los Angeles 10 days ago.

But instead of returning to the airport to land, Flight 268 continued on across the U.S, up near the North Pole, across the Atlantic -- all the way to England.
3 eng crossing

[post="251834"][/post]​

 

[nycbusdriver]

Stick to the coffee javaboy...please

[post="251943"][/post]​

There's that old saying about a little knowledge.

 

[BoeingBoy]

4 engine jets do not have an emergency like a 2 engine jet when 1 engine fails.

[post="251948"][/post]​

Well, yes and no. Having more than 2 engines gives you more leeway after an engine failure (assuming there aren't even bigger problems than the engine failure, as you said).

However, 2 engine airplanes are overpowered by design vs 3 or more engine airplanes so performance after an engine failure is better when you only have two engines to start with. Has to do with certification requirements for performance after an engine failure.

So in many ways, you are worse off after an engine failure in a 3 or 4 engine airplane than you are in a 2 engine airplane. The obvious exception is if you lose a second engine - the 2 engine plane then becomes a glider while the others do not.

Jim