Bermondseya,
No problem, I'll take a look at baeng's post for you, in fact here is everything quoted about the fuel remaining...
Before you all start screaming and shouting that I am a spotter, I am not, I am a BA engineer working at Manchester who was on shift when the aircraft arrived at Man. Firstly, just after take off from LAX the number 2 engine surged, it was contained by the 3 man flight crew, shortly after that there was another surge with EGT hitting 1200 degrees. Lax control reported 20 ft flame from no 2 engine also. The decision was made to shut down the engine and contact LHR Maintrol and after acars message, the decision was made to carry on to LHR as they had enough fuel.
Upon crossing the pond the a/c was told by atc to descend and in doing so the fuel burn increased. The decision was made to come to MAN as they did not have enough fuel left to reach LHR, this was because of a problem getting fuel from trhe number 2 main tank.
The aircraft did declare a PAN and informed the tower at MAN that they would not be doing a go around. It arrived safely at MAN with no injuries to pax or crew. The aircraft was certainly not overweight as it landed with 5 tonnes of fuel onboard.
I got involved with this thread because I take pride in the company I work for, and I was not happy with the tone from some of the passengers on here with regards to whether their safety is ever put at risk in such circumstances.
I hope I am clear when I say that I have NO knowledge of this incident except for what I have read here. My initial post was written to try to explain that all of the 'facts' posted here do not in ANY way suggest that safety was ever in question, or that the pilots, air traffic, or maintrol etc, screwed up in any way.
With regards to whether the pilots should have know what was going to happen - why do you suspect they did not? Do you have any evidence of this? I mentioned the FUEL QTY LOW checklist. They did not necessarily wait for the EICAS prompt. They may well have anticipated it and discussed the relevant checklist well in advance? What evidence is there that they did not anticipate it? Policy is to declare a PAN if the aircraft might land without reserve fuel. A MAYDAY is declared when it will.
one day they will need to call MAYDAY to get in
As I have said, they more than likely did NOT declare a MAYDAY due to the possibility of landing with less than reserve fuel, because 5 tonnes is ABOVE reserve! In fact baeng's post doesn't even suggest a MAYDAY was called, although some other poster's who were listening to radio did.
If a MAYDAY was called, where is your evidence that it was due to landing with below reserve fuel? It was more than likely regarding the requirement to avoid high pitch levels as mentioned in the checklist. This incidentally does not mean they could not go around, just that they could not do a full energy go-around. They could quite easily break off the approach and fly a gradual climb. But they wanted to avoid a full energy go-around, such as would be required for a discontinued approach at the very late stages. Hence the information that they would not be going around. In this way, the runway would have been kept sterile for the latter part of the approach.
I really cannot see what all of this fuss is about? My guess would be that the crew did a fantastic job throughout. I certainly have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise