I seem to remember someone doing some amateur but highly entertaining statistics somewhere earlier in this thread about the number of spotters per movement at various airports. Maybe in hindsight, the true mistake was that ops should have kept the aircraft away from the spotter-land that is MAN. :D

It's clear that the debate over this 3 engine ferry rages on.
As a pax I feel the 3 engine range was too far and if I'd landed on 2 engines I would have been ready to sue.

I suspect Woodpecker has just posted the likely conclusion of any official report to be published on the Incident ..... bless him :ok:

landing on two
 

qwerty2, I trust that you have found a safer way home from the aeroport than motoring on the public highways. That risk far exceeds crossing the pond on three.

Of course, your chances of finding "deep pockets" may not be so great... :ugh:

qwerty2:

I assume then when you next have an engine failure on a 777 mid Atlantic, you will sue for landing only on one.

L337

qwerty- you really know nothing of the subject, do you? Why do you think you have anyhting to add? Would you ever be happy flying on a twin across the Atlantic? Would you have been happy flying on a trijet across the Atlantic? Because a trijet is what this aeroplane effectively became!

Mervyn Granshaw quite rightly pointed out what are standard 4 jet operational procedures in the case of an engine failure. To cast aspertions that he has other considerations in making his statement is unfair- he is simply saying it like it is.

Speedpig:
Thanks for considering anybody whom does not fly the B744 'general puplic'. After having crossed the north,mid and south Atlantic more than 6oo times, I find that rather amusing!
Well, on the trijet question their are no ETOPS considerations and the real limits are related to Fl/Alt when you lose two engines and are pushing along on one! The point of the matter on this loong forum is, whether or not this flt. operated safely? Yes, it did according to that operators SOP's and policies and in fairness the B744 redundancie in systems. Whether, I would have done it, as said befor, no! Respects to this crew as, they are the only ones whom where up there, (apart from the CC and Pax!).
Why I would not have continued well, I think that you are exposing yourself to more probalities of something going wrong. And, from the start of this flight I would have imagined that fuel consumtion would have been the biggest concern if I had decided to continue.
note: Apart fromTrijets also the Dc8's and B742 are also under the belt!!! So, no more joke's on the good and noble D10 and the formidable MD11!!! :ok:

So- I if I understand correctly, in fact there are no limitations on routing for a trijet across the Atlantic in the form of ETOPs-type route limitations? Therefore this aeroplane turned effectively into a trijet flying the route from LAX-LHR. as thousands have happily done so over the years.

So where is the problem?

People are coming up with suggestions of routing 'standby' aeroplanes- quite some suggestion at $200 million a throw. And of course whole crews are just lying around waiting for a call!

I liked Beagle's comment....

It can but should it?

With over 10K on type I feel it's time to make a comment.

This is a very interesting thread and believe me some of the takeaways will be written into SOPs.

London to a brick the skipper was young...at least by BA standards...let me guess...early 40's. Now why do I say that?

Quite simply because that is what I would have done 10 years ago.

Would I do it today? In short NO. The a/c can do it but should it. Simple answer is NO.

This case is a classic text book example of limits.

Years ago I was taught to understand where you had toolboxes, spares and some engineering talent. If you had them in proximity then return. If not then push the envelope.

In this case general knowledge and a few questions would have been in order. LAX...what have we got...CX,QF and BA with the Rollers...spare engine...spare bits??...quick call. What else have we got? Seattle, Vancouver, Chicago, Toronto, JFK...no 400's with Rollers. Logical answer is go back.

The 400's are getting on in years just as were the 1011's when I started. So...you have the book which says one thing, you have the commercial pressure and above all you have your own rear end.

Ten years ago the tea and biscuit factor would have had an influence. Now it does not.

In short, the Old Girl can do it but common sense says don't push her to prove she can.

Beagle is right on the money. The operation was safe and theoretically justified but was it philosophically correct?

Would I have done it. NO esp[ecially heading for HKG. But then I can sit through a tea and bikkies and afford to get fired...unlike most of my brethren.

So, to cut through the gumpf- it can do it, it's safe and theoretically justified, and it is within operational procedures?

Mon Dieu! Il n'est pas un problem then? What are we talking about except trying to assure some hand wringers who don't know anything about it that
1-there is no problem with it
2-there are ten thousand different opinions, but from 747 pilots, there is broad agreement that there is no problem with it!

Excuse me, but despite agreeing, the 'feeling you get in your water' is totally irrelevant!

Except would I want my wife and kids on the flight...???? Short answer is NO.

blah blah blah.

Sanctimonious know alls

N-N

In fact ...just the opposite.

Sure you didn't type that after looking in the mirror?

I am sorry to still see that some of the pilots on this forum continue to feel that debate about their decision making should only be among themselves and to exclude :

The designers of the aircraft and its engines

The regulators who crafted the rules and their basis

Accident investigators who have access to historical comparisons

Recognized and published aviation safety proffessionals.

So far the owner of this site has seen fit not to exclude this broader base of discussion.

The problem with limiting the discussion is that the outcome will continued to be second guessed by the public and there will be nobody to defend your decisions or the right to make them.

WOODPECKER
Sorry to be pedantic but there is no BA engineering base at MAN!!:mad:
The a/c was parked on a remote (read;cargo) stand.

I apologise for the thread creep but it is a very sore subject for the 120 that were made redundant a couple of years ago.

Are we more likely to be considered to be professionals (as in "Professional Pilots Rumour Network") rather than proffessionals?

Well Said VR-HFX!

Yes, obviously the airplane can do it. It did. ...Almost to destination.

It would have been quite "normal" as a planned 3-engine ferry flight.

But it was neither clever nor smart to demonstrate that the airplane can safely be operated 10+ hours on 3 engines across an ocean with revenue passengers.

:ouch: :ouch: :ouch:

Rainboe:
For a trijet to cross anywhere with 3 engines running is, normal..that's why it's called a 'TRIJET'!!
To continue on two engines for 10 hours is, not really contemplated. You would probably and certainly be looking for a 'suitable' airport.
Now, to consider that a B744 is equal to a trijet, just because it lost 1 eng is not very realistic...me thinks? (systems,fuel consumption, etc).
If a 'trijet' lose a second engine, it becomes an emergency situation as, is in the case of the B744 on two engines.
As I said before, this crew made the decision to continue, and that was their prerogative. The opinions, although varied and controversial for some of you on this forum, have validity and are not without consideration.
I think it's time to wait for the final outcome of this investigation on this 'incident'. Over and out!!!
:ugh:

As a lowly SLF person who has flown from LAX to LHR many times I have been following this thread with great interest - and perhaps the time is right to register and make my first post.

Not being a pilot - I cannot make any comment on whether it was the correct descision to continue or not, but I have been thinking "if I was on the flight as a pax what would I have wanted..." I would have wanted the flight to continue onto the UK. If my wife and family had been on the flight - I would have wanted it to continue. Even though it might have to divert to Manchester or any other UK airport.

I recently spent several years living on the West Coast - with my family remaining in the UK (due to the childrens age/schooling), and when choosing their flights to visit me - I would always make sure that they were on a 4 engined aircraft - even though the ticket would cost a little more. I have always felt that it is like putting all my eggs in one basket - and I want to put my family in the safest basket I can (perhaps that is why I drive a Volvo?).

So as a PAX, on a 3 engined 747, I would be happy for the flight to continue if the guys at the pointy end felt it was safe to do so. If this continues to be BA SOP and other airlines would chose to dump fuel and land ASAP, then I guess that BA will be my airline of choice.

I seek not to ruffle any feathers or cause upset, but I feel that if the if most PAX understood how much redundancy etc. the 747 had (and its only due to this thread that I now know a 747 can still fly on just 1 engine) - then most PAX would be happy to continue.


Thanks to PPRUNE for being such a wonderful source of information and entertainment.

Two sensible posts gentlemen! Compare with this from a pilot:
I have to agree, it was not 'clever or smart', it was sensible, even you admit it was safe, it was following standard procedures, it was done with the agreement and assistance of main base who would have inspected the parameters of the engine.

Just a reminder. The engine was an inboard, therefore reduced trim requirement (and minimal trim drag). The aeroplane effectively became a Trijet. It then had 3 alternators instead of 4. It had the full complement of 4 hydraulic systems as the failed engine's hydraulic system can be air driven by air from the other engines. It still had its full complement of 3 airconditioning packs. All other systems operated normally. It could still do an automatic landing in fog to the same limits as on 4 engines. It could still fly as fast, though not quite as high. It really was a very untraumatic experience once it was established that there was no leakage or damage evident. I would be amazed if a visual inspection was not carried out by the pilots (as long as it wasn't dark). In short- once established there appeared to be no extraneous problem......there was no problem.

There has been criticism of the motivation of the pilots actions. I can tell you that the recent changes to delay compensation would have had zero influence on a pilot. They don't apply to delays of this sort. What those pilots were considering was where the pax wanted to go, where the spares were located, how best to get the aeroplane fixed earliest, but all these would be after considering the number 1 issue- what was safety! The safest option is not necessarily to go back, over weight for an extended fuel dumping into LAX where spares would not be available, nor to JFK- way off route home, tight for space and limited engineering, not anywhere else in N America where the crew would be out of hours and 300 people trying to get hotel rooms in Winnipeg. Those pilots have their own skins to worry about too,mortgages to pay and kids to bring up. Neither they nor the airline would ever wish to place them at any hazard. They almost got them to their desired destination- they got them to within coach distance. They followed procedure and didn't hazard anyone- admitted by many 747 pilots although they might have said their water would suggest they should go back.

Hence the frustration at some of the insulting comments and abuse thrown at my colleagues- it seems to be getting too common for laymen here not just to question, but to make their own critical comments coupled with abusive namecalling about things they don't understand.