The US airline safety authority is proposing to impose its maximum fine of $25,000 (£14,000) on British Airways for flying a jumbo jet from Los Angeles to Britain despite the fact that one of its engines had broken down shortly after take-off.
In an embarrassing chastisement, the US Federal Aviation Administration has accused BA of operating an aircraft in an "unairworthy condition" by failing to cut short the 5,500-mile flight when the fault arose.
Air traffic controllers at Los Angeles airport spotted sparks coming from one of the Boeing 747's four engines a few seconds after it took off in February last year. After contacting BA's operations base in London for advice, the captain opted to continue with the 11-hour flight on only three serviceable engines.
However, the fault meant the plane had to fly at a lower altitude and it burnt far more fuel than usual. By the time it reached British airspace, its tanks were so low that the pilot declared an emergency and landed at Manchester.
By pressing ahead with the flight, the aircraft avoided an estimated £100,000 bill for delay compensation to the 351 people on board.
The FAA has filed a complaint against BA which points out that the plane bypassed "numerous suitable alternative airfields" for a diversion in the US and Canada.
BA is to appeal, vowing to vigorously assert its innocence. The incident has prompted a transatlantic rift. The airline is unapologetic, insisting that nobody was put at risk and that its actions were perfectly within the rules and that it has the support of Britain's Civil Aviation Authority.

Let's see, BA avoided a 100,000 pound  fine (delay compensation?  What the heck is that?) in favor of a $25,000 fine.  Sounds like a smart choice to me!

I'd imagine the 100,000 expense would have been in refunds.. rebookings.. lost revenue..  etc.

Anyway .. If a pilot took ME over the Atlantic ocean in a 747 on three engines (if it barey made it on three.. imagine if a second failure happend 1/2-way across the pond) when he could have easily landed somewhere on the continent.. I'd beat the poop out of him after we landed.

Quote:

My point exactly. How can a plane be unairworthy if it flew 8000 miles?

And BA instead of losing £100,000 might lose $25,000 which is what? £15?

Well, the bare fact is that a 747 is perfectly and safely flyable on three engines (and operable on two, assuming it's not too heavy).

But, for an 11-hour 8000 mile trip that you planned to make with four engines?  I would say it wasn't a wise choice-declaring an emergency shouldnt've been necessary.  They could've continued across the pond on three engines (it's been done before), but they should've stopped for fuel on THIS side of the Atlantic.

Quote:



I'm not sure a plane that couldn't  reach its cruise altitude or make it across an OCEAN without declaring a fuel emergency had demonstrated airworthiness, even if it were only full of cargo.. Let alone hundreds of humans.

A 172 that's not in full compliance with ALL the Airworthiness Directives will most likely fly all day long, every day, just fine..  BUT IT'S NOT Airworthy..

Bah! It made it on 3, it could've made it on two as well if another failed.  Not to mention that that kind of thing has happened quite a few times in the 747's long history, I can't recall it ever leading to a crash, or fatality for that matter.