These days I suspect that most a/c crossing the pond only have 2 operating.

As for the fuel emergency, it's possible that the pilots found that the fuel in the tank associated with the shutdown engine was not feeding to the other engines; i.e. the other tanks were running down to uncomfortable levels while the dead engine tank still had lots.

This seems to be the second recent example of an automated fuel system that suddenly seemed unable to get all the fuel to the engines: Anybody got a towbar?

<<These days I suspect that most a/c crossing the pond only have 2 operating.>>

Oh really? Presumably you mean 767 and 777 types?

On the subject of PC games - a friend of mine, a 747 skipper, had great diffiulty landing the FlightSim 747 but I could do it most times out of ten. On the other hand, he was a dab hand at TRACON (ATC sim) and when I tried I had about 25 mid-air collisons and the wreckage was strewn everywhere! PC games are fun, but that's all they are and can in no way approach the real world.

Fire engine at the scene as a precaution ??
Might have been more practical to have had a (loaded) fuel truck at the scene................................:rolleyes:

I find it a bit odd that people on here are doubting BA's safety.
I don't work for them, and am certainly not a 'fan' of BA, but their safety record is second to none.
As we know, their flight deck recruitment is as difficult to penetrate as a nuns pants, along with their engineering.

As I said, I am not a fan of BA but feel more than comfortable on one of their a/c - no matter what decisions they make!

The thing is that it's not because it's standard SOP that it makes it right. All the experienced B744 pilots in the world can tell me how safe it all is, but I still can't get my head around continuing a nine (plus) hour flight with one engine out and no knowledge of any damage that may have occured to the adjacent engine and possibly the aircraft. Lurking somewhere behind some of these SOPs are the beancounters me thinks, just as in ATC these days. I too thought I was safer flying BA. Doubts are now creeping in, not just from this incident I might add. By this I don't by any means mean to imply that BA is not safe, but only that perhaps the extra safety buffer feeling I had is now gone.

1) It is not just BA who operates such a procedure; the 744 is capable of performing on 3, or even 2 engines, within safely defined performance criterea.

2) You doubt and refuse to accept what professionals say without being a pilot, based upon what - a gut reaction? These SOPs are proven and risk-based.

3) Whos to say that if the engine was working a valve still became stuck and prevented fuel flow, if that situation were to arise, or for that matter the same problem were to affect a 2-engined aircraft or an 8-engined aircraft.

4) You question the reputation of the professional crew without any basis for doing so, nor concrete evidence of the event.

5) An engine failure does not necessarily mean bits flying everywhere; equally a seriously destructive uncontained blade failure may not result in power loss initially. Many different causes and consequences all come among a power loss bracket.

Avman,

A 747-400 has four engines and four hydraulic systems. If one engine quits, it is left with three engines and three hydraulic systems. It is (more than) reasonable to assume that the crew of this particular flight would not have continued if there had been any risk. Yes, they have to fly at a lower level. Yes, it uses more fuel. So what? They did the sensible thing and landed somewhere closer. Wrt their alleged fuel problem. How do you know that had anything to do with the engine failure? It may have happened anyway.

A 777 has two engines and three hydraulic systems. Does this mean it is less safe than a three engined 747-400?

Please explain why you feel that a three-engined 747-400 is unsafe in cruise. After you've done that, please explain why you are happy to fly ETOPS.

If you're that concerned, take the train in future.

Hi guys and gals,
I have read with interest the items within this post, and because of what has been said I felt that I had to register and add some FACTS as to what happened to the aircraft in question.
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.
As for why he came to MAN and not PIK or SNN, the only thing I can think of it is easier to get items to MAN than it is to these other stations.
As I left work on Sunday evening, LHR was sending a 3 engine ferry kit to MAN to be fitted to return the a/c to LHR for an engine change, and the fuel problem was being looked into.
It was a very brave decision by the crew to shut down the engine in flight as these figures also count towards our etops ifsd's, but they all did very well to bring her home with no problems.
Hope this sheds some light for everone.

Ok, Did the crew inform the passengers they were shutting down an engine in flight and continuing?? My guess is that they did not, to prevent anarchy and panic.
BUT, if they didn't they were in the wrong - passengers should be kept informed.

I think the guys on here that are saying the 747 is capable of flying on three engines are wording it all wrong. Yes the 747 can fly safely on three engines BUT IT WAS DESIGNED TO FLY ON FOUR
What they should be saying is that unfortunately the aircraft lost an engine, but the experienced crew deemed it safe to continue.

To say that a 747 lost an engine is not a big deal is wrong, because lets face it most pilots fly their whole career without experiencing it!

I'm happy to fly a twin 3 hours from a suitable airfield. Never flown the 747, but 1 engine out strikes me as no big deal...:ok:

So everytime I suffer an inflight defect I should tell all my passengers.

Is this so that they can all give me advice similar to the ill-informed and ignorant speculation on this thread? Or is it so that they can decide to get off having considered the implications which, of course, they would have little understanding of anyway?

Thanks for telling me, I shall bear it in mind.

Gentlemen, I am not looking at this from a pilot's perspective, but that of a passenger - you know, the ones that pay to fly with your companies. Many are of a nervous disposition as it is. Try and look at this issue from outside your technical boxes.

Can't find any train services between LAX and LHR by the way :rolleyes:

Ha ha, its quite funny to watch how out of hand these forums can get. :D

My point is (surely others will agree), is that an engine failure isn't exactly a minor defect. I agree passengers would have no interest in a brake overheat problem, or a pack fault, but they surely have the entitlement to be inormed that an engine has been shut down - I would be FUMING having not been informed.

I understand that it is perfectly safe to go on with 3. I also believe in BAs safety reputation. However, I find it unlikely that either an uneventful flight with all 4 engines (which the 744 alows to do in principle), or diverting in this case, would be less safe than continuing on 3. In other words, "maximum safety" is better than "perfect safety". I understand that the difference is deemed small enough so that other factors come into consideration. This is just my opinion...

Having been informed, what can you do about it from First/Club/Cattle? We need to be careful what we tell the customers, sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing!

So you think it's wise to inform passengers of a nervous disposition that you've just shut down an engine, really helpful. I'm all for keeping passengers informed of things but what were they going to do here, fix the engine, demand that the Captain turns the aircraft around or land at the nearest airport, don't think so.

Sometimes it's not helpful to know 'everything'.

Sorry Jock you beat me, I was thinking what to write.

Dear God! Don't tell me please!

edited to say "Feel free to ship the booze trolley down the back tho"

It only looses the engine driven pump, it still has demand pumps, in BA's case the no2 is an electric demand pump.

If I'd been a passenger on the flight I would be extremely unhappy if I happened to read some of the FACTS as proposed by baengman.

A very brave decision to shut the motor down because it impacts EtOPS?

5 tons remaining, apparently not all of it useable?

These aeroplanes are so good that it seems to me they are creating a feeling of infallibility, probably encouraged by the beancounters and 'pilots' that no longer fly. Big mistake IMHO.

And yes I'm a real current Boeing Captain , just one who has been and expects will be scared on occasion.

Windshear:

But having been told, then what? Imagine the scenario where one/some/many nervous flyers get hysterical about the situation and want to land immediately. Other passengers, less nervous - want to go on as they'd rather be in MAN than LAX. Before you know it there's a riot going on outside the cockpit door and the plane has to land somewhere even less convenient. Now that's a threat to flight safety!


This may seem a little cheeky but it's meant in all seriousness: where on your ticket, terms & conditions, at the airport or anywhere else does your contract with the airline specify that the plane will be flown in the state in which it was designed to be flown? Laws, regs, SOPs and everything else require the operation to be SAFE - and they don't require 100% of all kit to be servicable at all times.

Putting that technicallity aside, the aircraft WAS designed to be flown with suitable redundancy and fail safe systems - it WAS NOT designed to be flown with four engines - otherwise it would plummet from the sky when one was lost.

The reason that industries such as aviation & rail are so regulated and the safety sytems so involved (in comparison to you getting in your car and driving with a very finite chance that the single hydraulic braking system will fail) is that your average joe passenger does not have the knowledge to make a judgement call on the safety of the operation or otherwise. Thus the governments of the world assume the responsiblity for legislating requirements needed on the public's behalf.

Therefore when you step onto that plane or that train (or that ship or......) then you are handing your safety to the operator in the knowledge that the government has made arrangments to ensure that it is safe. Until you step off the plane at the other end (and trip over the first stairs you see), you play no role whatsoever in determining the operational decisions made.

Avman, you may have bought the ticket but part of that cost is you paying the Captain in the front to look after your life as well as theirs.

UTR.