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.
This really belongs on a "conservative news forum?"
If they don't need four, then why do they have four?
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.
I'm not a pilot. I know next to nothing about airplanes except that coach sucks and First Class is wonderful..BUT I do know I prefer to have all 4 ENGINES up and running while I am 30 thousand feet over the atlantic ocean......
Two statisticians were flying from L.A. to New York. About an hour into the flight, the pilot announced, "Unfortunately, we have lost an engine, but don't worry: There are three engines left. However, instead of five hours, it will take seven hours to get to New York."
A little later, he told the passengers that a second engine had failed. "But we still have two engines left. We're still fine, except now it will take ten hours to get to New York."
Somewhat later, the pilot again came on the intercom and announced that a third engine had died. "But never fear, because this plane can fly on a single engine. Of course, it will now take 18 hours to get to New York."
At this point, one statistician turned to another and said, "Gee, I hope we don't lose that last engine, or we'll be up here forever!"
,,, it's a plane with four engines and already in the air when the problem developed. An engine wasn't on fire, just shut down. They're each putting out about 52,000lb of thrust so maybe the others would have worked a little harder, which makes a full capacity of fuel all the more important. They landed at Manchester instead of Heathrow, presumably. That would probably still be cheaper with forwarding of passengers than putting down as an unscheduled diversion at O'Hare, Newark or JFK with possibly hotel costs as well as landing costs.
If you lose an engine, how do you know that what happened to it isn't about to happen to the others?
He made a decision between passenger safety and a dollar figure. He lucked out, but he still bet on those people's lives.
I'm sure the pilot had a better idea of what they were dealing with than any of us here and his judgment proved to be sound. Something else to consider: I'm not sure what the weight restrictions are, but landing a fully fueled 747 might not be such a good idea, especially if flying it wasn't a problem.
I've read that a 747 is seriously overpowered. and they would have had to dump fuel to make an emergency landing, right? and dumping fuel = $$$ down the drain . . .
What do you think of this?
Bob and Tom were sitting next to each other on an airline flight, chatting when the flight attendent come on the intercom to say, "The Captain wishes me to inform you that we have lost an engine. Please don't be alarmed...we have 3 more and will continue on. As a result, our arrival will be delayed one hour."
The passengers were fairly calm for the next two hours until the flight attendent came on the intercom again to say, "The Captain wishes me to inform you that we have lost another engine. Please don't be alarmed...we have 2 more and will continue on. As a result, our arrival will be delayed two hours."
Bob turns to Tom and says, "Holy crap! If we lose two more, we'll be up here all damned day!"
What say you, Pukin'?
I would think the danger here would be if he lost another engine (down to two). And if they were both on the same side of the aircraft it probably would be very difficult to control, if at all possible.
When I bought my ticket, the plane had four working engines. That's exactly the way I want it when I land.