Having flown on BA in their 747s I now consider my self quite lucky that I made it across the pond and back after hearing this story.I still believe the upper management is putting pressure on operational managers and crews to cut costs any way possible. Ten years ago on a trip to Europe, the BA 757 we were to have taken ground aborted at LHR. Then the spare broke and we waited nearly 5 hours for a third aircraft. BA did give us a vouchers for something to eat and free drinks once we pushed back from the gate. We sat in the penalty box or what ever they call it over there for another 45 minutes until we could get permission from the French to over fly their airspace in route to Geneva. Today, I am afraid we might have been forced to take either the primary or spare jet in order to keep on schedule and make a greater proffit. As safe as air travel is, you still cannot pull over to the side of the road when something breaks. Terry

And also, now that you've decided you want to take such a high and mighty road, let me ask you this braun. In your 15 years as a controller, how many times did you ask an airliner holding for wx, the rvr that they needed to start the approach? And when the visibility finally came up to that rvr value, how many times did the airliner on the other end of the radio decide that they wanted to hold a bit while longer to get just a bit more rvr so that they can have a bigger safety margin. Did you ever offer to hold them further to give it rvr+some so that they could be safer? Of course not. Once it was legal, the approach was started. So were all those prefectly legal approaches done to minimums unsafe? How much of a cushion do you add to the published minimums before you would consider it safe? So if that BA crew met all their equipment and legal requirements to continue across the ocean, how is that different than all those low wx approaches you worked?

KevinAu, Let me ask you a question since you seem to know everyone

TerryI have slightly mixed feelings on this. The thought of loosing an engine from a passenger angle is probably a flying passengers nightmare.Many passengers are nervous at best of times and most passengers know little about aviation.Those passengers knowing they were flying all the way from America to the UK over unhospitable territory minus an engine must have been scared stiff even with reassurance from the Captain.To have spent the whole trip in a state of hightened anxiety is hardly what airlines want for their passengers.How many would have been put off flying for good who knows?From that Angle alone it would have been better to have flown to another airport where some fuel could have been burned off and some dumped and then to have landed.They could have then at least given the passengers the option of getting off before taking off again on three engines to complete the trip ;-)I am sure the "new situation" regarding fuel burn, lower levels etc would have been carefully worked out and I tend to go with Kevin on the fact that there probably was little risk involved.From a public relations point of view it can only have been a bad descisionPeter

not to change the subject, but can you feather a jet engine? I would think that it would generate a lot of drag if you couldn't.

"We would never compromise the safety of our passengers," said British Airways spokeswoman Diane Fung on Monday. "The plane is certified to fly on three engines. It is perfectly safe to do so. The pilots are trained for such situations."furthermore,there were no flames and no smoke,there were sparks.evidence of an engine surge.what is it with you people?you never ever flew that plane,yet youbluntly slaughter the captain and crew,because,-without you knowing all the facts-,you thinka crew trained to do just what they did,did it wrong.is it that hard to admit they knew better?is it that hard to say "they are pro's,they know what they do?"yuk.and all that on a flightsim forum.if any,we should understand they make decisions based on performance charts,extensive abnormal checklists and them being there,thinking logically and objectively,not based on one finger in the air or "ini mini miney mo"that's why they are paid what they get.and what every Tom Dick or Harry thinks when they land doesn't matter much.they were there,they did the most logical,safe thing they could do.you were not,so quit whining.it's not like these guys are clowns or something.tata!JP.

>>>KevinAu,>> Let me ask you a question since you seem to know everyone

>event like this, esp with ATC talking about smoke and flames>shooting out the engine. I think folks make too much drama about this smoke and flames. This was the bad engine that was doing it. Once they shut down the engine, cut the fuel off, etc there was no more "smoke & flames". At this point it was a perfectly well functioning 747 minus one dead engine. No sane pilot would continue the flight with some smoke & fire raging on.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

This is so funny. Gotta love the deskflyers/deskmechs LOL How many heard that the SAME BA B744, did a 3 engine flight from Singapore to London 3 or 4 flights after the LAX-MAN flight?Sure did. The engine that was replacd after the LAX-MAN flight crapped out on a flight from Singapore to London. This flight docked a whopping 15 mins behind schedule.http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/04...t.ap/index.htmlReminds me of our "CHIPS Light Tour 2000" Were we bounced around the Western Pacific on 3 engines, to finally change out said engine then have the "new" one crap out on the next flight. :):-outtahttp://publish.hometown.aol.com/p3superb/i...s/sign_name.jpgThere is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness".- unknown"My daddy gives me up, to fight for you"- a US Military Members Child

Let's see:BA may have LIED according to the article, where it states:"BA initially claimed that the engine had failed an hour into the flight. But the airline admitted yesterday that the problem had occurred a few seconds after take-off when the Boeing 747 was only 100ft above the ground."hmmm.... Now why did they lie about that I wonder. (covering for themselves)Then the Pilot or flight crew acting as Pilot In Command screw up their calculations and HAVE TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. READ That again, they had to declare an emergency.This wasn't some typical divert, they declared an emergency, because they screwed up, IMHO, and didn't have the required reserves to make it to their original destination.From The article:"The pilot realized as he flew over the Atlantic that he was running out of fuel and would not make it to Heathrow. He requested an emergency landing at Manchester and was met by four fire engines and thirty firefighters on the runway."That means he screwed up, IMHO, and the fact that BA first may have lied about it based upon the article. He didn't ask for a divert, and had many fire engines meeting him on the field as well.Sorry, but I reserve my opinion on this. The Pilot In Command made bad decisions which put his passengers at UNDUE Risk by not calculating proper fuel and didn't realize it until somewhere over the Atlantic. Further errors in this chain of events was not diverting after his first engine sparks and cutoff, IMHO. (And I am entitled like anyone else to have these opinions based on what we know thus far)Please.... He screwed up, at least agree on that. This was not a typical divert, or a typical flight.I would be interested to know how much fuel was on board when he landed, if anyone is privy to that.And for those quoting such and such procedures, unless you can produce the actual BA procedures, it is all conjecture, IMHO.I'd like to know if BA does something to this pilot, and if so, what?Sonar5****************Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

"And also, now that you've decided you want to take such a high and mighty road"Kevin...with all due respect, it is you who is exhibiting this behavior.Best,bt

Uh...cool, but I'm not a "deskflyer/deskmech". I have 600+ hours PPL/SEL, and 15 years as an air traffic controller. I dealt with aviation emergencies often, and this spelled an accident waiting to happen.My humble opinion of course, but based upon years of experience.Cheers,bt

I agree with BTat the end of the day, the 747 was designed to fly with 4 engines, not 3 engines for 12 or so hours, i dont give a #### what certification these AC have, 4 engines is 4 engines, the most logical course of action would have been landing to the nearest field ASAP,to many what ifs since they continuedwhat if another engine went?what if the engine caused problems to other areas of the plane?what if they had to ditch in the middle of the icy ocean?what if what if what if.all these what if's would be eliminated if they went back to where they took off from.

"Your comparison with the oxygen masks is disingenuous..." Not so. My description of the incident is completely accurate. Completely documented. Go look it up.PIC/CO was reprimanded. THEY MADE POOR CHOICES.As did the BA crew in my point of view. Why? You tell me, but don't excuse taking a 747 across the ATLANTIC OCEAN with an engine out from the beginning. And please don't tell me about flying with two. If they had flow with two, if asymetrical, they may have hit land. May. If NON-SYMETRICAL, say only the two let engines were available 3 hours into flight, I suggest that a lot of folks could have died.That is my point of view. It is not singular. And I resent someone telling me what "I" don't realize. Reduce the emotion from the discussion of this aviation incident, and we can talk about it in a rationale manner.Cheers,bt

I work in security. I used to work in aviation. I am a professional. The BA flight was an example of risk taking. Why? You tell me. Were the risks worth it? (thanks Peter) I don't know, but the facts are that unusual risks were taken. I say that is core to the argument. These are my thoughts,bt