To Bizzare But Feel Free To Comment

[luvn737s]

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.

[post="251904"][/post]​

I hope the crossfeed valve was working. A failure of that valve over the north Atlantic could have made things pretty interesting. I also suspect that at 10000 feet he could burn the fuel down alot quicker than that (10-12hr) if he needed to.

Even a wimpy aircraft like the Airbus allows you to land above max landing weight as long as the descent rate is low enough. A 747 ought to have that ability in spades.

You don't suppose the skipper on this whale goes by the internet moniker BA747pilot?

 

[Busdrvr]

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 Nat tracks are usually well south of Greenland. Off the nats (or below them) you need not meet the RVSM requirements. I've unfortunately flown the entire atlantic at 290 Westbound from Spain to the Carolinas with an inop AP (due to another electric jet anomoly). Not fun, but legal. Depending on how far north he went, there are plenty of suitable Alternates, Goose (been there), Thule (been there), and Kef (been there) plus various sites in Ireland (been there to...)

 

[ITRADE]

British Airways Action Attracts FAA Questions

Flew on three engines all the way from LAX to LHR, err, MAN since the plane had to make an emergency landing at MAN.

 

[BoeingBoy]

ITRADE,

Already being discussed here.

Jim

 

[CaptianBoomer]

All:

I am no expert on British air regulations. However, on first glance I would put the blame for this squarely on the PIC.

A previous poster said he flew a 4 engine BAE-146 on three engines out of Burbank. I know USAir also flew 3 engine 727's across the country on two engines. The difference was there were NO paying customers.

As far as flying across the atlantic on three engines, I think no matter what the outcome of an investigation, it was a route I would have not chosen. The regs are pretty clear. You must land the aircraft at the nearest suitable aircraft (in case of a two engine craft) and the nearest suitable aircraft in point of time on a three or more engine aircraft. Any deviation from the above in absence of weather, terrain, or other factors put the PIC at risk. That is why they have these types of rules.

Years ago on a DAL 767 flight from the west coast to ATL, somehow both engines quit. The crew prepared for a ditching and somehow got them motors restarted. Then they flew to ATL. There was quite a furor over this and I have no idea what the outcome was for the crew.

Boomer

 

[diogenes]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342_2,00.html

 

[UnitedChicago]

Come on guys. While I know this was legal within brit regulations - this was a gross error in judgement.

I don't care how much it costs $$ wise or environment wise to dump fuel and go back to LAX.

There was absolutely no way to know the extent of the engine problem. Was it a bird strike? It was also dark out so there was no way to visually "eye ball it" from the cabin.

The potential for a related problem is too great in my mind to risk this. Fuel issues like they encountered or further engine problems leading to in-flight fire, fuel leak, etc. Not to mention the distraction that caused the crew.

I'm not a nervous nellie or alarmist - but this just went against all common sense in my mind.

 

[SilentWarrior]

Same aircraft....same results. This time Singapore to London.

CNN Article

 

[mweiss]

Hmmm...I'm beginning to see a pattern here, and I'm not talking about that 747's #2 engine.

 

[whlinder]

Airline industry body says EU laws impose 5.9 bln euro annual burden

According to IATA, the new EU regulation that increases compensation levels for flyers inconvenienced by cancellations and delays will cost the industry 600 million euros.