but we're continuing our flight across the Atlantic.  An 11 hour flight!

I wouldn't believe that.

The plane landed at Manchester because of possible fuel shortages instead of Heathrow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5377304.stm

I don't remember this on the news before.

Old news Ben. This happened early last year. I remember a lengthy discussion on it at the time.

Ah OK. I see what you're getting at. The AAIB report has obviously just been published.

I thought at the time that it proved air safety is now being compromised for profit. The decision is made at company HQ & not by the captain of the aircraft as it always has been. My opinion on that hasn't changed.

Quote:

That's the whole point. It was not the captain's decision & possibly against his better judgement. He was under pressure from people on the ground in London to continue.

Quoted from the Times article: Quote:


Personally, I don't believe this statement. Quote:

Quote:


Me neither! What a joke - does he think people are stupid or something? So  obvious when they stood to lose 100,000.

But of course BA are so careful about the environment they couldn't possibly have dumped all that fuel anyway.

Quote:


The irony of this statement is that a regional pilot probably does have more experience than a heavy pilot. The regional pilot is taking off and landing 10 times a day. The international heavy pilot is doing it once a day. At the end of the day it is all about the first and last three minutes of a flight, Who you think accumulates more three minute segments? Once in the air, the heavy pilot becomes an instrument watch dog. If flying pay was paid for actual flying done, the international pilot would be a very poor man and the low paid regional pilot would be driving the Porsche.

Having read this thread again, here is my pounds worth.
Just a small point, but when an engine surges and flames come out of the engine, it is not on fire, but just a classic indication of surge, which is why the pilot only received a high EGT indication and not a fire warning. If he was burning or had been on fire, that captain would have landed without a second thought. Fact is, he was not on fire and never had been. Effectively the engine had coughed on takeoff. If he had made a landing back at his departure airport on three engines, he would have been met by the fire services, why should it be any different once he reached his destination. Also if you think that he sat at X thousand feet and said to the co-pilot you recon the gas will get us to Heathrow, think again. The crew have to make manual fuel calculations at set times on a trip to make sure burn rates are what they should be. The first thing that the crew would have done was recalculate fuel burn and made adjustments as required. Landing early was a requirement. They also landed with the required reserves for the recalculated destination airport. Also if the engine has failed in flight, they would have also continued the flight. If the crew had got a fire warning then they would have diverted. There is nothing better to sell newspapers than an aircraft in an emergency story even if there is no story to sell. I guess 20 years in the aircraft industry make you look a little differently at things.

Matt

Quote:

From my reading the engine did fail.  The pilot flew the remainder of the flight with three functional and one non-functional engine.  THAT is the problem, not that they had a temporary caugh and everything went back to normal.

The logic BA is using is that the 747 had yet one more redundant engine and could fly on two if one had a problem.  I would object that the FAA (don't know the Euro body) had certified that aircraft to fly in a configuration of four functional engines, not three.  Part of this certification is that the plane be able to fly with less (determined I'm sure by the expected MTBF for the engines used).  If the plane were actually "safe" to fly from LAX to the UK on three engines why not just pull an engine out of every 747 in the fleet to save weight, fly on two engines (for balanced thrust) and simply cary the third "just in case"?  Because, among other things, it would be illegal.

So if BA can't operate planes this way intentionally then why should they be allowed to do so accidently?

If an engine fails before takeoff you stay on the ground.  If an engine fails mid flight you land the plane.  It don't matter if the plane has 205 engines and only needs one to work, the pilot is not an aeronautical engineer and shouldn't make decisions like this.

The reason why it happened at all is because BA didn't want to run afoul of a UK law which would have cost them money had they done the right thing and landed back at LAX for repair.

Ex-pat. I understand your reasoning, completely. But you have to consider that every crew knows their aircraft inside out, regardless if it is a CRJ, 737 or a 747.
And the last time I checked, the ERJ's, CRJ's, AVro's out there have rather advanced autopilots aswell. it's not like they are handflying the route? 

But RJ crews are "flying" alot more than their widebody colleagues, I' wont argue about that 

To Chris F: Losing an engine on a quad is not critical. It's not part of an emergency checklist, after all you still got 75% of thrust left. But flying in this config, where 1 engine is just windmilling is VERY fuel ineffecient.
Not only is the aircraft unable to fly at optimal altitude, but you have your rudder sticking out creating additional drag

They had enough fuel to make the trip, according to the FMC, and they had the performance available to do so. Had they lost another engine they would've made an emergency landing, just like a twin. I really don't see the danger about this.