redtruck, you were 'told' wrong. Another case of 'chinese whispers' with uneducated assumptions being made which result in some of the rubbish that is spouted here. As far as we are aware, the aircraft had
ONE engine shut down, by the crew, just after take off. It landed with just
ONE engine shut down. FYI, the B744 is certified to continue flight with only three engines operating. In this case, after weighing up all the many different factors, the crew elected to continue to their destination, LHR. However, due to being kept a lower levels than originally planned the crew decided that they would divert into MAN. Whilst approaching MAN they decided to declare a mayday due to the fact that they were unsure whether some of the fuel remaining was useable. By declaring a mayday they made sure that they had a priority approach. The alleged declaration of a mayday as opposed to a pan is debatable.
Others on this thread seem unable to differentiate between 'probabilities' and 'possibilities'. Piloting any aircraft is a balance between probabilities. Of course anything is possible. Of course another engine could possibly fail. Of course there could possibly be an explosive decompression. Of course there could possibly be rupture of a fuel tank and all remaining fuel could possibly drain away. Unfortunately, there is a minority of people posting on here who misinterpret 'possible' as 'probable' and immediately go into uncontrolled spasms of outrage and indignation before typing out some sort of invective against the crew of this flight based on ill-informed or worse, uneducated guesses.
In order to try and help those with the 'possible'/'probable' confusion problem, it may be worth noting that it is 'possible' that any and all engines on an a/c can fail. If you are of that mindset and unable to comprehend the probabilities of that happening then you ought not fly until they have produced a 10 or 20 engined aircraft. On the B744 in question, it was 'possible' that a second engine could either fail or require shutting down. What the crew did was weigh up the 'probability' of this happening and made a decision based on that probability and many other possibility/probability scenarios. Their conclusion was that it was probably OK to continue. At the end of the day they had to divert but their pax continued on to their destination with minimum disruption and after an engine change, the a/c was reusable. No one was hurt and no rules were broken. Someone from the FAA, probably seeking their 15 minutes of fame, entered the debate with misinformed comments and probably is now trying desperately to extricate a foot from their mouth. This is what happens when those without the necessary experience of what they are talking about engage mouth before fully understanding the subject.
I'm sure tha FAA as well as the CAA and any other aviation administration/authority have their fair share of people who are experts on all and every aspect of aviation... NOT! I think it would be fair to find out who the so called FAA spokesperson who made the comments that are currently at the heart of this debate, is. Is he/she experienced in long range B744 ops? Is he/she maybe just some back-office pen pusher? Is he/she an inspector of some kind? Maybe an inspector of airline, specifically B744 ops? Maybe just an inspector of light aircraft and training? It would help if the relevant experience of the person putting themselves in the limelight was known as it would help an awful lot when we sit here debating and pontificating.
