[toddst]

10-4. The flight was not jeapordized in any way by flying on three engines - it could have continued with two, for that matter. The FAA picks its fights poorly, IMO.

[Squawk 8888]

The flight was not jeapordized in any way by flying on three engines - it could have continued with two, for that matter.

The issue is not whether the plane could have made it, it's about the wisdom of starting a long flight with such a major equipment failure. Unless you are certain that the failure is isolated to the engine and won't cause malfunctions elsewhere, the most responsible course of action is to land ASAP.

[BurbankKarl]

They broke the operating manual procedures....

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The flight was not jeapordized in any way by flying on three engines - it could have continued with two, for that matter.

I'm not certain the flight would be safe if the other engine on the same side of the aircraft failed.

[ab01]

The 747 is certified to fly on two engines, however, it is an emergency situation that requires immediate landing. In a four engine aircraft (747, etc.), the loss of one engine is not necessairly considered to be an emergency requiring immediate landing. However,as a former 747 Capt, I think that the decision to proceed as flight planned showed extremely poor judgment.

[FreedomCalls]

He was entirely within the FAA's own regulations. Here is the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121.563 dealing with inflight engine out procedures:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:

(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.

(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.

(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.

(4) The air traffic congestion.

(5) The kind of terrain.

(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.

(c) The pilot in command shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and shall keep that station fully informed of the progress of the flight.

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the certificate-holding district office.

[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19219, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-207, 54 FR 39293, Sept. 25, 1989; Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2614, Jan. 26, 1996]

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

10-4. The flight was not jeapordized in any way by flying on three engines - it could have continued with two, for that matter. The FAA picks its fights poorly, IMO.

We could take half the structural members out of a building and it will still stand. That is if you like to accept living in a building on the brink of collapse.

A plane with four engines has four engines for a reason. If one fails. The other three will still push it. If another fails, especially on the same wing, pray because you are on the brink.

This is a case where management chose increased risk for passengers. They lucked out. Those on the Challenger didn't when NASA's management made a stupid decision ignoring engineers' warnings and approving to fly below design temperatures.

By the way, British Air did not learn their lesson. The next day that same plane flew to India on three engines.

The flight from LA just barely made the British Isles as they were running out of fuel. They didn't make Heathrow. I wonder if the engine that failed on the way to India had failed a day earlier, if that plane would have made even Ireland. The FAA should bust BA's cookies.

[MRadtke]

A few weeks ago I listened as an airline captain explained why some large planes had two engines and some had four. He said if you lose an engine on a four engine plane, it's not even an emergency. You simple continue on to your destination.

[Churchillspirit]

Exactly.

I thought that was the point of making them have more engines than they needed.

[Nowhere Man]

10-4. The flight was not jeapordized in any way by flying on three engines - it could have continued with two, for that matter. The FAA picks its fights poorly, IMO.

I know for the longest time until the 757 and 767 came out, there were international regulations that all transoceanic planes must have 3 or 4 engines so you had your planes like the DC-4 thru 7, the Boeing Stratoliner, the Lockheed Electra and when the jets came around, the 707, DC-8, DC-10, Lockheed L-1011, 747 and others. The story is that if an engine conked out, you still had 2 or 3 left.

I don't know how true this is, but I had a friend in high school that told me that his father flew back from Vietnam on a C-141 with only one engine running, I can see two engines but one would be dubious at best.

[dc27]

If I'm not mistaken, in order to fly across an ocean, doesn't the plane have to be able to continue flight with an engine. I thought the Boeing 777 can fly with only one engine.

[Gunrunner2]

>>10-4. The flight was not jeapordized in any way by flying on three engines - it could have continued with two, for that matter. The FAA picks its fights poorly, IMO.<<

Not so. The loss of an engine on takeoff is a serious matter. And once airborne the prudent course of action is to abort and land.

The reason are simple, really;

1) You have no idea what caused the engine failure in the first place---and that reason may cause the other engines to fail

2) When the engine failed you have no idea if any structural damage was done to the engine, engine mounts or the airframe, and over the Atlantic is not the place to find out damage was done when the engine falls off. (And recall the tower reported seeing engine problems, so there was some spectacular failures going on.)

3) You don't know if the other engines are about to fail because the failed engine threw a blade or introduced FOD damage that will cause the other engines to fail.

Too many unknowns.

Basically, you have no idea if the aircraft/engines suffered additional damage and, by the way, if flying on 3-engines is no big deal then heck, why not taxi and takeoff with 3-engines if you have an engine failure in the chocks.

The pilots were wrong in this case and the London supervisors were also wrong.

The FAA has it right in this case (every once in a while the FAA get's it right).

[Psycho_Bunny]

The thing about a fail-safe system is that once the fail-safe is utilized the system is no longer fail-safe.