PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
View Single Post
Old 20th Apr 2006, 09:47
  #212 (permalink)  
Rainboe
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a couple of years back, a detail we practised on this self same 747 model simulator was max weight take-off with engine failure after V1, followed by second engine failure (on same side) during flap retraction. No problem! The 747 handles it quite happily! What we had this day was a single benign engine failure during the climb- the 747 in fact happily steamed on its way, with plenty of capacity for a second failure in cruise, and even a third failure would have left capacity to get to a runway, though I imagine go-around capability might be a bit compromised!
JONDC9- I would believe your 'outrage' if I saw you making sensible criticism of flying a 777 across the Pacific wastes, and the infliction of entrusting 250 peoples lives to one engine, high power, for over three hours! Come on- don't be shy.....which aeroplane would you rather have been on?
As formerly one of the crew of this very aeroplane and airline, for 8 years on the 747-400, and 10 years on the 747-100/200 before that, with 8 years twin engine 737, for this crew on this aeroplane, I can say commercial considerations and company pressure (which were non-existent in this case) were zero factor. They carried out what they considered, and I fully agree with, was the safest and most expeditious course of action, exactly what I would have done, because the world's most experienced long haul airline has a flight continuation policy that all BA crew accept, for a 4 engined airliner with plenty of power, is safe. Fuel jettison and return is more hazardous than what took place, diverting a thousand miles off course to JFK would not have solved the problem. The philosophy with a twin is very different, and a lot of twin pilots cannot apparently get their heads around the difference. BA does not fly a twin over 3 hours of single engine time away from an airfield over the Pacific as the FAA is happy for United to do. If we want to talk about risk assessment, again, I know which aeroplane I would far rather be on

Last edited by Rainboe; 20th Apr 2006 at 10:20.
Rainboe is offline