BA 747 Engine Fire
 

An engine fire forced a British Airways jet to return to John F. Kennedy International Airport shortly after taking off Thursday night.

One of the four engines on the London-bound Boeing 747
ignited shortly after its 11:20 p.m. departure, said John
McCarthy, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey.

The plane landed safely and no one was injured, he said,
and the pilot extinguished the fire.

Approximately 300 passengers were on Flight 116, which was
headed to Heathrow Airport, McCarthy said.

The passengers and crew were scheduled to take another
flight Friday morning.

Hmmm, considering past big airways modus operandi, I'm surprised they didn't just keep going on with three...:}

How about a little credit guys.

ANY fire on board is a much more serious matter than any precationary shut down etc.

The flight was airbourne at 0423z and on the ground again at 0441z!
Fairly good going I'd say, lets not turn this into another have a go at BA thread.

All the best.

411- that was a very sad and cheap swipe at fellow professional aviators. You, probably more than the vast majority, know that a fire warning is of a completely different degree and they (again) did absolutely the right thing under the circumstances. If you want to reopen that enormous thread, why not tack your facetious comments onto the end of it? They too did the right thing, and I stand by that.

Sounds like a job well done, but this forum is too often full of cheap shots. 411A ..... how predictable you are.

Oh come on guys, I know y'all love to bash 411A, but I thought that was funny! A first class professional job was done and all got down safely. A little humour after the event is all part and parcel of the aviation business. Bet the BA crew made a few cracks of their own in the bar afterwards.

Nothing like cheap BA bashing - absolutely bl**dy shameful.

Good job by the aviators in question for getting the plane on the ground so quickly after the problem.

Jordan

Sounds like a good job done on a black winter night by a highly professional crew to me.

Considering the journalistic license rampant in the mainstream press, do we know in fact if the crew in fact had a fire warning? Ten months ago the BA744 out of LAX did not, even though fireballs (typical of a stall/surge) were evident to the pax.

It's a distinction worth knowing.

There I go, just being redundant again... :ugh:

C'mon guys, stop bashing 411A.

There must be some humor in this forum, otherwise I could never bear it!

It didn't catch fire.......but the turbine is wrecked.

Must have been high EGT then ! :)

Congratulations guys and girls on a job done very well:ok:

So what was it, a genuine fire, turbine overheat warning, false warning?

FAA (well JFK TWR anyway) seem to think it was a fire:

As mere SLF, a good job well done by the Captain.
Does Maximum Landing Weight not influence how long it is before the aircraft can land?
I would have thought 20-30 mins wouldn't give them enough time to jettison the required amount of fuel?

Good job guys and girls.

Let's give some credit where it's due. Whatever the cause was, the crew had to return with a presumably heavy a/c on a dark winter night, with the loss of an engine.

They did ok in my book.

Navy man- if your ass is on fire, max landing weight assumes a sort of irrelevance, if you see what I mean. Anyway, a JFK-LHR is really a short flight for the 747- like less than half long range. It's quite possible the aircraft was already under max landing weight anyway.

Unless they were tanking. You know the price of gas in the UK?

747-400 (in common with most a/c) is certified to land up to MTOW in an emergency.

Engine fire or smoke in cabin are good examples of when to forget the weight and land ASAP (runway length permitting).

Overweight landing inspection is mandatory, but often reveals no problems (casting mind back to a 767-300 which landed at Manchester about 30,000kg over MLW a few years back with smoke in cabin after t/o, and was on its way to sunny Florida again just a few hours later).