Posted on 03/01/2005 2:11:22 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.
Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated, and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land in Manchester, England, the airline said.
The incident occurred three days after the European Union required European-based carriers to compensate passengers whose flights were delayed.
But Diane Fung, a spokeswoman for British Airways, said the pilot's decision had nothing to do with that requirement.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
So what? It's a 4-engine plane. It was designed to be able to lose an engine during takeoff and still be able to takeoff.Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
-Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its destination.
Ping!
I agree that this jet was fully capable of making the flight, but it seems it would have made more sense to switch planes somewhere on the east coast, there would have been ample time to arrange this, rather than go across the Atlantic.
If you ask me that pilot needs to ride a desk. When you lose an engine you land. His judgement is negligent at best, at worst criminal.
About 20 years ago a DC-9 (or MD-80) actually had one enging FALL OFF in mid flight. The pilot landed safely and no one was injured.
Amen. Engine loss is cause for immediate landing, regardless of the number of total engines.
This really belongs on a "conservative news forum?"
If they don't need four, then why do they have four?
Agreed.
I read that a little bit differently ... more like, it was designed to be able to lose an engine during takeoff and still be able to land safely somewhere close for repairs.
Agreed. The cause for the failure of the engine was unknown. It was impossible to know while in the air.
The "cause" could have caused the other engines to fail, too. Besides, they lost their redundancy.
Especially on a day we should all be glued to the Michael Jackson trial?
insurance through multiple redundancy.
a four-engine plane can remain aloft safely with only two engines. not adviseable, since losing one more = crisis.
In 1979, an American Airlines DC-10 lost an engine as it was taking off from O'Hare airport. The engine had been reinstalled improperly after being removed for servicing. The plane crashed and killed everyone on board, including a close relative of mine. The problem was that the engine ripped out the hydraulics, and that the co-pilot didn't have a "shaker stick" installed, which would have indicated the plane was about to stall. The co-pilot and pilot apparently followed procedures exactly, unaware that the plane was about to stall. Had they done a full acceleration, the plane would not have stalled and could have probably returned to the airport.
Unfortunately, the great circle route beween Los Angeles and London goes nowhere near our east coast states. By a whole bunch.
Grab a globe and check it out.
It's required per FAA regs that they have more power than they need.
The twin engine jets can actually take off on one.
Of course.
The pilot was "conserving" engine thrust.
Old WWII joke: fighter pilot buzzes an allied bomber, doing loops, etc. Fighter pilot calls the bomber on the radio, "lets see you do that!"
Bomber pilot shuts off engine #1 and radios the fighter pilot, "Lets see you do that!"
LVM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.