Originally Posted by
old,not bold
Locked Door, thank you for that summary of most of the factors that need to be thought about, plus the usual PPRuNe lecture on second guessing the crew, which no-one was actually doing.
Of course, all of those also applied in the BA 268 case; especially "if you’re lucky and are carrying a lot of contingency fuel there might be enough". Hmmm, I seem to remember that BA 268 diverted to MAN due to fuel.
I'll show my colours and say that I was among those who thought that BA got that one wrong, simply because the engine surge was the first hole in the cheese. Luckily the second and third did not line up. But they nearly did; just consider if a go-round had been necessary at Manchester from 1,000 feet. The second hole was a higher fuel burn than they claculated; a go-round for a reason outside their control could have been the third. We dinosaurs think that when your safety buffer is eroded by the loss of an engine you don't tempt fate. So I'm with this guy who declared a Mayday to make sure he got the full attention of ATC while he sorted out the situation, and then landed as soon as safe to do so. The passengers on BA 268 did not volunteer to take part in a 3-engine ferry over the arctic.
Just for info, the Lax Lhr 3 eng BA 268 diverted to Man not because of lack of fuel, but it was in the wrong tanks.
Fuel cross feed finger trouble en route. Red faces and revision of the Manuals!!