BA 747-400 KLAX-EGGL has engine failure - what do YOU think

[macpac22 0]

>Just wondering..>>They didn

[Guest Dean Cross 4C]

Hey, There are many factors to this equation which some are negating to consider. I agree wholeheartedly that safety comes first, and that is top priority. However, I am sure the 'crew' and the 'captain' satisfied themselves that continuing to London was an option because the aircraft is certified to fly on three engines, there are numbers which allowed continued flight. Had the crew not been happy to continue at that point, I am positive they would have landed back at KLAX. Maintainence Control where happy for the aircraft to continue onto London for repairs where parts are stocked and suitably qualified engineers are on hand. If you had the option; let the aircraft continue to LHR, which the B7474 has demonstrated in can do safely and solve the technical issues at it's homebase OR divert to LAX, offload passengers, rebook whilst sending parts and engineers over to fix the aircraft? I believe the crew did the right thing!Matt

[fozzy 1]

personally i don't see a problem in continuing on 3 engines.. what i think should be criticised is the decision to first dump a a part of the fuel (it should be considered if this has really been done..) but mostly: "the BA 747 flightcrew was unable to determine how to properly crossfeed fuel with the shutdown engine scenario and declared a fuel emergency" How can it be that they don't know how to crossfeed properly? I very well hope there's something written the wrong way by the media... should this one be the real situation i would really be scared. And maintanace did something wrong too if they had the same problem again... Luca

[anthonyrees 0]

Well, I hope this comes out okay.$22,000 was probaly cheap for the carrier to pay as a fine, in contrast to the cost of fuel which would have had to be dumped to land, as well as refueling to proceed onwards after more expensive remote maintainence. Probably economics ruled in this decision.However, if I was a passenger and realized we had a problem so near to the departure or alternative airport, I would be very p#ss#d off!After reading this, I sure will think twice about booking BA on my regular flights from Cape Town (FACT) of Heathrow for 12 hours over darkest Africa at night.AnthonyCape TownSouth AFrica

[Guest SAS449]

No, I'm not that new to avsim forum, but my user profile had dissappeared - probably due to the fact that I didn't use it very much. Now that I've bought the 747's I have a natural interest in becoming more active. Here, that is, since I'm a quite scarred and experienced forum user in other forums. And have been since the mid 80's.Furthermore, the fact that someone is new to the PMDG support forum, shouldn't automatically give anyone else the right to point finger. Remember, you've got three (at least) pointing back at yourself.Johan PlaneUppsala, Sweden-http://www.scandinavian-va.net/pilots/images/SE.gif

[Guest SAS449]

Dear Rico,Thanks.Your initial posting sounded like an attempt to start a flamethrowing debate between Brit's and Americans over the legal debate and the dollars FAA wants to penalize the Brit's with, mostly due to the fact that your finishing lines expected something in that direction.I can appreciate a debate on procedures, technical restraints, whether it's feasible or even recommendable.Of course it could also be a discussion over airline SOP's and the moral and customer concern behind a decision to continue flying.However, I would feel more at ease if PMDG had another main thread for this type of debates, other than the /technical/ support forum.Johan PlaneUppsala, Sweden-http://www.scandinavian-va.net/pilots/images/SE.gif

[Guest millimeter]

Hi againIt is not because I want to close this discussion, but try to follow this link:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12130852/As you can see, the C5 also should have been able to fly on only 3 engines... But it crashed anyways

[lostmoon 0]

johan, if this thread is bothering you so much, and you think it inappropriate, you should not read it. Apparently, PMDG doesn't think this thread to be impertinent in nature. let people who wish to discuss this topic do so without having a gadfly like you posting and crying out from the balcony complaining. i personally find it interesting to discuss/read. don't bemoan the fact that you find it inappropriate while others find it to be worth discussing. walk it off, man. and don't read this thread anymore if it bothers you. so simple. Respectfully submitted,tomas

[Guest Ricardo Sevarant]

Luca,The fuel situation and divert to Manchester has something to do with the way override pumps and crossfeed vavles work with a main wing tank when the engine normally feeding directly (tank to engine) from that main tank is shut down. My understanding of the situation is that the crew was unaware of how to configure fuel properly for this situation, but that had they followed correct procedure, they would've been able to make Heathrow. I believe BA has sinced changed their non-normal SOP to reflect this.

[Guest airspace]

If i remember rightly it happened just after new rules regarding compensation for delayed / cancelled flights came into effect in euroland, and although the 747 is certified to fly safely on 3 engines, the cost to BA in passenger compensation would have been considerably in excess of the token $25,000 fine they are currently in dispute with the FAA ! Of course no where will you be able to confirm that was infact a consideration by the airline and that passenger safety was the ultimate priority. The aircraft met unfavourable wind conditions heading eastward and consumed more fuel than was anticipated as a result of a less than optimum cruising altitude so the crew must have had reason to land 200 miles ahead of the scheduled touchdown.Darren

[skyymann 6]

I agree with Ryan,I'm not going oceanic without all engines running. Bad call by BA (And for the record, I'll fly BA or QFA any day before getting on AAL!!).Scott

[Guest Dean Cross 4C]

@Scott; Would you fly across the atlantic on a twinjet?Matt

[skyymann 6]

Sure,Done it many times in both the 767 and G-III. Both engines were turning at all times :-)Scott

[Guest AJ]

>Hi again>>It is not because I want to close this discussion, but try to>follow this link:>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12130852/>>As you can see, the C5 also should have been able to fly on>only 3 engines... But it crashed anywaysI don't think anyone would argue that a four-engine aircraft flying on three engines is just as safe as when all four engeins are functioning. However, it is not really valid to compare the C-5 crash as it is a very different situation. If anything the C-5 crash illustrates how returning to the airport could have been riskier than continuing to the destination. The C-5 was heavily loaded with fuel and cargo. On three engines the C-5 was likely strugling to climb, and judging form the time it was in the air, only 20 minutes, it probably did not dump enough fuel. On approach it was likely struggling to stay airborne once the flaps were down, and most likely stalled. (though at this point it is pure guesswork). Andrew

[xkoote 57]

If I remember correctly an N minus 1 situation in a 747 is not considered an emergency. This is also why if you do an inflight shutdown over an ocean you don not have to divert to an enroute alternate.But where the FAA has a point is that BA crew decided (as is their right) to STILL declare an emergency. Once one is declared, the whole ballgame changes. Preferential treatment, fuel dumping, rerouting other traffic to accomodate the aircraft in distress. It is here that I agree with the FAA (if that is what they're saying).If you as a crew declare an emergency it is serious (for you), so you get preferential treatment. You just can't simply cancel the emergency, raise your skirt and run off like nothing ever happened. And that is what the FAA may be fining them for. You declare an emergency, you abide by a new set of rules. Both the crew and ATC.If the crew decided immediately to proceed the LHR with 3 engines as they probably have the right to do since they were already airborne, I doubt FAA could state a reason to fine BA. As BA can always say that an emergency was never filed nor does flying on 3 engines constitute an emergency in 747 operations.As for the crew not being able to configure fuel.........well, let's leave that where it is :-)Xander