British Airways in hot water over 3-engine flight...

[nudata 10]

What the "informed" technical people here fail to realize is that a common ignorant passenger is the one who matters, Flying on the "edge of regulations" touting that what they did was "legal" is of no interest to them. As a passanger I do not want to hear that tripe. Any rational passenger would be upset at this debacle. To contunually argue about the technical ability to fly on three engines is nonsense. This is not some acrobatic manuever or someone flying around the world as a stunt. There are many lives at stake and some nut tells me that it is within regulations. If I was a passanger on that flight the first thing I would have done is contacted the FAA and continued on until I had an admission that it was a foolhardy decision.What the technicians seem to forget that if you loose public confidence you are out of a job. So, unless before every flight on a 747 you explain to me that if an engine fails, all is ok, I am going to worry and will surely skip that airline next time! Dick Boley @KLBE

[Speedbird 11 2]

I believe that British Airways operates the world's largest 747-400 fleet by far (and has done for a long time now). At this stage of the aircraft's history, it seems unlikely that any airline will ever overtake BA in this respect.So I expect BA knows more hard facts about day-to-day, real world, commercial 747-400 operations than even Boeing, the FAA, the CAA or any other organisation for that matter. In this day and age, this will not prevent everyone and their dog claiming to know better. But it does not mean that they do know better.I have flown more nm with BA 747-400s than I care to remember - those speedbirds always get me there and back safe and sound.I have also flown Manchester-London, Heathrow more times than I care to remember - about 10 minutes or less in the cruise, often not above FL160.The WSSS-EGLL flight seems to have been the correct call in hindsight. The KLAX-EGLL flight seems to have been an incorrect call (but not by much) - again, in hindsight. No doubt the inconvenienced passengers of the latter flight would have felt all the better for knowing that there was no doubt plenty of fuel on board that could not be used for 'legal reasons'. Had I been a passenger, I would have wondered why it had to be there in the first place if it can't be used on the odd occasion it is actually needed. Seems harmful to both the environment and the price of tickets.Michael

[btacon 1,808]

Hi Michael...that is your point of view.My point of view is BA blew it. No reason to fly across the pond with an "exploding (sparks/flame) engine". Remember, when they ferried it out, ANOTHER engine blew.Yeah they made it...they could have just as easily been dead meat. Drinking and driving is bad business. Flying across the pond with a known engine out, which failed .30 seconds into the flight, is just as bad from where I see it.Cheers,bt

[Speedbird 11 2]

Hi bt,I did not express any points of view, just known or inferred facts (plus a bit of commentary).The cynic in me notes that it looks like Boeing will soon only be selling twin-engined passenger jets whilst Airbus will continue selling two types of quad. The redundany inherent in a quad (much vaunted for the 747 in its day) becomes of little economic value if it can't ever be capitalised on come the rare occasion it is needed.Whilst I am on, I may as well express a point of view (or at least a sentiment). I am disappointed with BA of late, and the worst thing is that these two incidents do not really surprise me.Best wishes,Michael

[JSACKS 0]

BA is STILL flying 747s with 3 engines working and 1 inoperative. I returned from a financial conference in NYC today where one of our guests of honor was a person from the Financial Services Authority of the U.K. and he told me they'd flown from EGLL on only 3 engines. He was shocked when I told him of recent incidents involving their 747s flying with an engine out including the flight from KLAX to EGLL.Fact is, a 747 CAN fly safely on 3 engines if it has to -- but NOT for 10 hours ! That's plain madness, and stupidity.It may take a crash or accident of some sort before BA does anything. Nobody wants to return a jumbo jet in Europe now with harsher and more costly EU compensation rules for airline pax.JS

[btacon 1,808]

Noted...Cheers to you too Michael.bt

[Byrna 0]

Yes I agree 100% that flying for 10 hours is a very risky decision which does not take into account the worst-case scenarios alreayd mentioned in this thread - like bad weather, a second engine failing - forcing course deviation and further shortage of fuel and resulting in a possible crash right into the Atlantic.One does NOT need to even work in the aviation industry to see right through this decision by BA on at least TWO occasions now, to fly on 3 engines (the other one being the flight to Singapore). It is simply a logical look at the PROBABILITY of having a catastrophic incident IF another serious failure occurred. It is clear that BA's decision was made with profits in mind FIRST and safety SECOND. In fact, it is even conceivable that someone OTHER THAN the captain GAVE ORDER to the crew to continue - someone high up who perhaps signs their paycheques?! In any case, that being just speculation - here is LOGIC - CAN you risk catastrophy IF another major failure occurred? The PROBABILITY of another failure would naturally increase as the flight time increases so the longer the flight, the higher the probability. It's that simple. Hence the insanity of continuing on 3 engines over a distance of approximately 5000 NM!!We're not talking about a minor failure here. To simply brush off an engine failure and say "no problem, it's "designed" to fly on 3-engines" and be blind to the potential consequences of unpredictable phenomenon like weather, heavy traffic, possible issues with fuel pumps or other inter-related components which may also be malfunctioning after the engine failure etc... tells me very clearly that profits came first, and passenger safety "later".The other issue seems to be why both the pilot and co-pilot felt they would have enought fuel to make it to Heathrow. Pilot mis-calculation? Fuel leakage? Not enough contingency fuel on-board? Pilot and co-pilot not having enough information to properly calculate the rate of fuel consumption with one engine out?Please anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but as I said, this has nothing to do with aircraft knowledge perse - it is a question of (1) over-confidence on the abilities of the 744 and (2) priorities...based on profit, not safety (3) assuming nothing else could POSSIBLY go wrong during what amounts to a very long flight.John

[JP_Visser 3]

correcting you:as is said before,a 747 is very capable of flying on three engines.as a captain on a 747,you are paid to consider all options,and if i'm aboard that plane,then i'll gladly fly along.remember,it's not only me who dies if it goes wrong,the captain goes with me.also,the captain,while ultimately being the decisionmaker,will have sought advise and comment from various sources,and if all agree that the engine surged,that there is no risk of another engine failure,then he will continue.and most opinions i see here are based on the assumption "exploded (sparks and flames) engine""smoke and flames"etc etc.there were sparks shooting out,and the engine overheated.that is,imho,a whole lot different as an explosion,or flames and smoke.the fact that they ran out of fuel may have come from a poor decision,but it may alsohave been because of stronger than predicted winds,etc etc.and still,all we have is subjective media reports,on which to base our assumptions.the crew was in the know,and we're not,and i'm still trusting the crew's decisions,rather then some media outlet,even though both have been known to be wrong on occasion.why?the crew was thoroughly trained,the media reporter was not.

[Guest amtran752]

Shoot!Did I type in airliners.net or something?

[Byrna 0]

Hello JP Visser,I should have been more precise when I said "over confidence in the abilities of the 744" - I should have said -over-confidence in the abilities of the 744 over such a long distance with other things potentially going wrong" (the statistical probability argument I made). The issue is not if the 744 can fly on 3 engines. It is the long distance and the potential for other things going wrong as indeed they did, though luckily, they were not mechanical.In fact, what you said supports my argument - that something DID go wrong with the fuel calculation - this is the precise thing I was trying to emphasize.In fact, let's not forget that the fact there IS an inquiry into this matter proves things were not done properly given the potential for risk arising from the situation, so No-the right decisions were NOT made.John

[JSACKS 0]

Hi John:I'll fly on your 747-400 any day over BA, hey, hey!JS

[Guest]

Unfortunately the airline cared only about the cost instead of passenger safety. This is the obvious reason for taking the extra risk in flying on 3 engines. It was an extremely stupid decision based only on financial aspects.

[JSACKS 0]

Alex:There's a theme here--and in my little thread where I sound off about my recent aviation service: clearly, the customer doesn't matter. The customer is expendible, The customer is an impediment to profit. Why can't the airlines (and airports) just come out and say it ?JS