Interesting, would it be a story if he just landed back at LAX
Here is the details of the 2005 deal:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2005-03-01-britair-la_x.htm
It seems economic reasons and pressures are driving decisions? You decide. In this case the pilot needed to made an emergency landing due do almost running out of fuel! Now they say, well not really? Right OK.
You can burn more fuel on three engines than four. For one you must fly lower, which burns more fuel, especially if head winds are increased. Also asymmetric thrust requires some rudder, which is more drag, not including drag of a windmilling engine. Almost running out of fuel and landing short of destination does not sound like a game plan. Here is quote:
.....aircraft lost power in one of its engines shortly after taking off from Los Angles International Airport. The pilot made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, about 160 miles short of London, because the B747 ran low on fuel, facing headwinds that were stronger than expected, the FAA said.
Does this sound like sound decision making. The flight ends in fuel critical state? Please
Reality check!!! Over
11 hour flight, half of which is over the Atlantic, 60 to 210 minutes from any place to land! You can fly a non-oceanic path over greenland and iceland, but that adds a lot of time. Lets be honest, it's not all for safety. We can justify from aeronautical logic, the plane flys fine on three engines, but it does not mean its a great idea. Apparently BA has not figured out how to fly 11 hour revenue flights on 3 engines.
There is no controversy if a precautionary landing was made. I know for sure you can't push back on a revenue flight with 3 out of 4 engines. "Geee we can't get #3 started, lets takeoff and go anyway." Is there much difference loosing an engine at the gate or 100 feet over the runway? If they would have lost it just before V1 they would have stopped. We are talking about +350 people and 11 hours.
Just my opinion, the safest thing would have been to dump fuel and land. This would of course been at huge cost to the airline: fuel, loss of plane from schedule, crew, catering, passenger accommodations, contracted maintenance and leasing or shipping of a replacement engine.
On the other hand, so what. It's not wrong to land. I don't think any one is saying landing is BAD. Obviously landing would not have brought such bad press. Sometime going is good for other reasons, like on a B757. With out fuel dump you may be better flying and burning fuel off. However the B747-400 has fuel dump, I know for sure, I designed part of it, and taught in the 747-400 simulator. Don't worry it won't let you dump all your fuel.
It takes things like this to expose it to the public, who pay to fly on the planes. Pressure from them on the FAA will decide this, or worse an accident.
Heavy flyer's, James from Oz and dd-David-aviator, commented. Hi Gents. I have flown the Atlantic also, ETOPS (engines turning or people swimming) on a regular basis, but all in twins, B757 and B767. It's not an option to continue if you puke an engine on a twin, as you know; you WILL land at the nearest of departure, t/o alternate, enroute alternate destination. Even then pilots get into the suitable nearest airport catch 22 rational. Passing a theoretically suitable runway for an airport, even just 50 nm further away, but is MORE suitable, e.g., better facilities and maintenance, is a good way to get in trouble. The closer airport as NOTHING but asphault, but the one down the road has all the amenities? It seems reasonable to go to the larger airport, especially if drifting down from altitude. Catch 22.
I personally would not consider starting an Atlantic or Pacific crossing with one of four engines shut down, but I have no actual 4-engine time. I know a B747-400 flys fine on 3. For training, I sat on the jump seat once to observe three engine B747-400 touch and goes. It was a non-event, but than again we where light.
Ailine pilots flying for hire have to justify their decision the next day. I think landing is a very defensible decisions, based on safety alone or perceived safety to the public. Now landing for something trivial will get you into hot water, but loosing 25% of your power, some electical, pneumatics and hydraulic capability, is not trivial, at least in my opinion.
ETOPS (extended TWIN ops) are for twins not 3 and 4 engine planes, but there's lessons to be learned. A 747 with three engines running, is a twin if you loose the second engine. The North Atlantic is special airspace with special rules to enter it. For TWINS to fly the Atlantic it takes lots of extra maintenace, monitoring, training and dispatch requirements.
If the pilots are trained to enter OCEANIC airspace w/ one engine out, than fine. Is dispatch trained to deal with the performance and regs and being more than two hours away from land on two engine speed (if you loose another)? Also if you can't keep your speed and altitude up, you can't fly in NA oceanic airspace. You either have to fly low (below FL250) or around to the north, the long way, both bad for fuel.
If it ain't in the book (Ops) than I would have a hard time going for it, even if the chief pilot said sure, you can do that if YOU want. Pilots want to do what is best for the passengers and crew and company, but sometimes they have to do what is best for them, ie cover their back side.
If all Regs where meet, airline and aviation authorities said fine, its something they train pilots for and airline dispatch approved it, working out new flt plan numbers, adjusting fuel, altitude (fuel burn goes up, max alt goes down) and the weather was good, than go for it. Apparently BA does it all the time. We shall see if they had all their paper work, training and oversight in place.
I think everyone has good points, but Ill be critical of the aero-news guy.
"(B747-400) go around with one engine" Ridiculous comment. Is that some justification for doing the 3 out of 4 crossing? No and probably is not correct with a heavy plane; just crazy talk.
"Its one thing if it spewing parts or just a surge." That would be my point, do you really know?
"most ops manuals over three engine operations of big jumbo jets allow this" Really, has he seen most ops manuals?
A C-130 on practice over LAND with three engines is not +300 people over the Atlantic, hour and 1/2 from any land. Lets not mix senerios.
If you think there are no
economic reasons for continuing to England from LAX! and a maintenance base, than I have some swamp property I'd like to sell you. What about the new european law requiring carriers to reimburse passengers for substantial delays.[/U] On the other hand if the Captain would have landed, the airline probably would made his life miserable. Was that on his mind? Is he a company man. One of the worst accidents in aviation history, KLM / PanAm runway collision, tenerife in '77, in small part was from schedule pressure, curfew and crew duty time. There was enough blame to go around, as well as more significant reasons, but "got to get there" was part of it.
That is why clear regs and op procedures are great for pilots. It gives way to clear indisputable decisions. I guarantee you first accident it will be a law. They already have come close. Do we really need or want to wait for that? B747's have 4 engines and FUEL dump for a reason, they need and should use them.
This may be an area that needs some better guidance. May be its old news to 4-engine pilots like James or dd. I think like a twin driver. I don't work to economic, management or schedule pressures when safety is involved. That is the way to have a bad day, even for GA pilots. I would rather justify being a little too conservative and be wrong, than be a company man and make a big mistake. "I was trying to save money or schedule" is never a defense.
