Originally Posted by
bubbers44
Remember the L1011 that took off from MIA over the Caribbean losing oil on all three engines, shutting two down and had to restart them because the last one was seizing? I think it was Delta a long time ago. Mechanic didn't replace O rings with his oil change.
Originally Posted by
Super VC-10
I remember reading about that one - though as Super VC-10 points out, it was an EAL jet, not Delta.
A similar mistake led to three of four engines failing on a BAe 146 of the Queen's Flight in 1997:
BBC News | UK | Three engines fail on Royal plane
(Though I'm aware that some wags consider the 146 to be equipped not so much with four engines as five APUs...
)
Originally Posted by
glofish
Why would either manufacturer or airline be envious?
My thoughts exactly.
Originally Posted by
suninmyeyes
The crew will be doing regular fuel checks and monitoring the situation and would be well aware of their drift down altitude should another engine fail and will be planning for it.
Well, one would hope so - but even the most skilled pilots can sometimes misjudge a situation. The Captain of the Air Transat A330 that dead-sticked into the Azores did a bang-up job in saving his aircraft and for that he deserves full credit, but on the other hand he also spent a significant amount of time insisting that the abnormal fuel indications must have been a computer error, and ordered the crossfeed valves to be opened. Don't get me wrong, as a techie myself I can completely understand a little healthy scepticism when it comes to technology - but refusing to give it the benefit of the doubt and plan accordingly meant that he exposed his passengers and crew to significantly more danger than would otherwise have been the case.