747 scenario - Safety poll

[Alias]

You are the Captain on the BA 747, in the same situation as FLT 268, on Feb. 19/05.

Lost an inboard engine 1 min after take-off, L.A. to Heathrow.
20 minutes studying the situation, all other systems (seem) 100%
Fuel calculations show sufficient fuel to proceed to destination on 3 engines.
OPS and Regs say it's your decision.

Do you proceed or land ?

[idleopdes]

Interesting poll...

[Panama Jack]

I'm not sure what UK CAA regulations say about this, but US FAR's are pretty clear on this matter-- that is, to land as soon as practicable.

[capt.]

very good question, I don't know a 747 from a hole in the ground.
but I am sure that if it was not safe to do so that they would not have, wait I stand corrected it wasn't safe they declared the emergency didn't they(short of there destination).
If it was me I think that I would have returned, but thats just me and I am not flying the big iron

[yak driver]

is an engine failure in a 747 considered an emergency?

[Lost in Saigon]

land as soon as practicable

How do they define "practicable"?

[someguy2]

3 engines in not a emergency in a B747. Its in the abnormal checklist.
Personally, I would have continued to JFK and landed. There are hourly flights on BA from JFK they could ahve put thepax on and a huge maintenace base to fix the issue.

HOWEVER, hindsight is 20/20. There was nothing "wrong" with flying it on 3.

[Premium]

There was nothing "wrong" with flying it on 3.

I have to disagree. Are you telling me there is nothing wrong with an engine failure? If the B747 can fly on 3 engines why did they design it to have 4? What happens when another engine fails? In my mind it is such an easy decision to return and land, ESPECIALLY with pax. on board.

[someguy2]

Well Premium, as someone who flies B747 I can tell you it can fly on 2. They put 4 on for redundancy, speed, and less engine wear. Not to mention the ide aof crossing an ocean in the 50's when it was designed without 4 was insanity. Now they design long haul aircraft with 2 engines that can fly with one.

[blue_side_up]

IMHO, I would personally, given the circumstances as I understand them, have landed somewhere on the East Coast. I agree that JFK, Boston, Toronto, or several other airports that are well served by BA would be a good decision. That would allow them to have gotten almost 1/2 way to the UK, and without dumping fuel (very expensive to piss it out those vents!). There are lots of enroute alternates in case of further emergency, while flying over the US/Canada. Of couse the 74' can fly on 3, and it's not an emergency once the eng is shut down (I fly the 'Classic'), but I think it would be worth considering the cause of the failure, and the possibility of a second engine shutdown. The drift-down altitude and lower speed for the 74 on 2-engines will cause a much higher fuel burn. Given the limited alternates (St.John's, Goose Bay, Reykyavik, Shannon) once you get out over the Atlantic, and the long ETP's, it really could become more serious. But if your 2-eng alt/speeds vs fuel always leave you an alternate option, then I guess the Cpt wasn't 'endangering' the pax in the strictest sense. It's too bad this new rule on compensation may give crews pressure to continue in such situations.

[Mitch Cronin]

Some of you are still giving no consideration to the unknown possibilities of damage.

The #2 engine's failure was such that it is impossible to know whether or not it caused any other damage. A decision to land, before getting too far from suitable runways, is a must.

The best discussion I've seen on this is on the AEF ( http://www.aeforum.net )

[wasYKnowFJ]

If the airplane is flying, and in fact climbing to altitude, there is definitely no reason to dump gas and land immediately.

The engine was shut down after a 'surge', so there wasn't any chance of damage to the aircraft or its systems, and there was no reason to believe that another engine would fail due to the same anomaly.

As the flight continues over the continental U.S., the crew can be considering suitable landing sites should something else fail, which is no more likely than on any other day. As the aircraft approaches the Atlantic after 3 hours of normal operation, if fuel is sufficient and options are left open, I see no reason to not proceed.

I believe the crew analyzed the risks and made the decision to continue as there was still sufficient redundancy, and no degradation of safety. I commend the decisions of the crew.

[Mitch Cronin]

The engine was shut down after a 'surge', so there wasn't any chance of damage to the aircraft or its systems,

...sigh.... maybe Rebels reading advice would apply here?...

That engine was broke. The light show from bits flying out the back of it was seen by folks in the tower... No way to know whether bits had also flown out sideways, without getting out for a look.

[Forestdump]

Very interesting thread. Once in a while, sometimes never for some, flying is more than finding the pavement in a snowstorm(not a JetsGo slam). Sometimes pilots are forced to make difficult decisions. The results of this poll show there is no black and white here. Every now and then flying is hard. Maybe that is why a BA captain can command such a decent salary.

[wasYKnowFJ]

I change my "wasn't any" to "wasn't much" - chance of damage.

[cyyz]

49% of you didn't say "land"

You sure you guys are pilots??

After you're airborne.. 100% of the time you land the bloody plane..

[Dockjock]

Have to say that after reading the above responses I put my vote in for continuing to an NA east coast stop.
-don't have to cross the pond on 3
-gives ops 4 hrs to plan for pax/maintenance issues at stop
-don't have to dump fuel
-its on the way
-returning to LAX isn't necessary (as already proven)
-don't have to deal with us monday-morning quarterbacks discussing the fact that you crossed the pond on 3 after overflying a dozen suitable airports without getting the problem fixed.

[sherlock]

The british government recently brought in a new law that makes the airline liable to a fine of $500,000.00 per occurrance when a flight either does not leave (sort of on time) [except for wx delays] or is delayed etc.
Plus the 'lines are also responsible for pax expences during any delay.
This law came into force a few weeks ago and is why the ba capt. felt he had to continue the flight. It kind of makes you wonder where these companies are going to draw the line between safety and eating a fine which they could fight in court anyway.
Speaking for myself as a pilot responsible for the lives of the pax in back I would have landed at one of the east coast ports as previous posts have mentioned most if not all the pax could have been put on another flight(s) thus avoiding the fine to the company and if not pax safety is more important anyway. And if the company tried to take action against me then I would have fought them in tyhe courts.

[Snagmaster E]

I think the east coast is the way to go. Yeah, I agree that the plane could make it across the pond, but without really knowing what happened to the #2 doesn't mean that the other 3 are going to keep on trucking. Lots of runways in the centre of the continent to go to if another one bites it, so to continue enroute to JFK seems fine, but no further than that. I'd hate to be out over all that water and see another one decide to take a rest.

Now if he was in a B-52 or a Dornier Do-X......