I won't fly British Airways

I assume they landed safely?

Yes they were safe.

I just heard about that also, they now said they'll follow FAA rules while in US airspace and return to the airport.

They had two opportunities to land for repairs before they hit the Atlantic and were told not to take them. I doubt that it would have led to a disaster but why gamble, for a few bucks...not worth it.

Just another example of profits before safety.

CrashGordon wrote:

Just another example of profits before safety.

Bullseye ❗ Thats the point ❗

Whilst I sort of agree...you have to remember that the whole point of buying an aircraft with four engines is becasue of situations like these.

I don't really understand how they would have run out of fuel....surely they could have just cross-fed some between tanks.

In terms of taking risks....I disagree that they did, thus they landed at Manchester instead of continuing to Heathrow 😉

Yeah I mean, does it really matter if they lost an engine? they have 3 others. What in this situation made it dangerous? Is it because since they already lost 1 engine a similar failure could have caused the others to fail too?

SeanGa wrote:

Yeah I mean, does it really matter if they lost an engine? they have 3 others. What in this situation made it dangerous? Is it because since they already lost 1 engine a similar failure could have caused the others to fail too?

Rolls-Royce advertise that a serious problem occurs with one of their engines, on average, once every 1000 flight hours. It would have been highly unlikely for them to loose another engine...and if it did, so what? They still have another two 😉

Crash Info

A British Airways plane hasn't crashed since 1985! I don't want you to change your mind BTW, because BA cause many problems in my family. My dad is one of their top 200 flyers, and they still neglect him! Shows their service.

Economic satisfaction and all that...

TBH I think it's dangerous, they surely can't know what caused the failure in flight? What if it led to more engine failures...over the atlantic...too dangerous.

Would still fly with them though (always wanted to), beats always having to go on a First Choice charter flight.

Well what if something caught caught in the fuel tanks supplyying that engine and it could travel to others? I mean cmon safety first. There's no need to risk it oooohhh yeah money, weel who cares about 400 people rather save a few bucks.

The 747 was designed so it was capable of flying on three engines, thus large amounts of R&D (money) was spent on ensuring that that option was viable. If the 747 can fly on 3 engines then why not? The landing at Manchester was only a precautionary measure as far as I know and probably could have made London but it would mean knowingly eating into the reserves (not permitted).

If I was told that the number 1, 2, 3 or 4 engine had failed on my flight back to the UK this week, I'd feel perfectly safe carrying on to the UK with the remaining three engines. Pilots aren't stupid - if they aren't 100% sure they won't make it to the UK, then they won't carry on - some people make it sound like the pilots were on a suicide mission 😳

Just my thoughts 😉

Yeah but you have no idea what caused the problem. the plane will be several hours late, wich in itself will cost thousands of dollars.The passeners will be worried maybe even panic, and the problem can further develop.

pilotwannabe wrote:

Whilst I sort of agree...you have to remember that the whole point of buying an aircraft with four engines is becasue of situations like these.

I don't really understand how they would have run out of fuel....surely they could have just cross-fed some between tanks.

In terms of taking risks....I disagree that they did, thus they landed at Manchester instead of continuing to Heathrow 😉

And if a second engine had failed over the Atlantic?

Flying to the scheduled destination with one engine out is criminal in my view.

Do you really think a 747 is fuel-efficient with one engine out?

What is the law regarding a loss of engine shortly after take-off? If they are within certain parameters (altitude, distance from airfield) does their company procedure insist they land immediately or is it the captain’s decision? If it were me despite the aircraft being able to fly on 3 engines I would much prefer to land without delay. I imagine because of the costs the airline would be faced with in this situation having to move the passengers on to another flight they will keep the aircraft in the sky until the letter of the law demands otherwise.

CrashGordon wrote:

And if a second engine had failed over the Atlantic?

So what?? They would have still had two engines 😉

2 engines isn't enough to keep such a heavy plane afloat. And even i they still could it would be incredibly slow and dangerous.

hms_endeavour wrote:

2 engines isn't enough to keep such a heavy plane afloat. And even i they still could it would be incredibly slow and dangerous.

"For a four engine aircraft such as the B-747, the aircraft should remain controllable even if any two engines fail".

Taken from here... ➡

😉

Just before take-off recently a pilot who was working his notice said over the speaker to the passengers after hearing strange engine noises:

"This aircarft is a death trap. I'm leaving" and he left the aircraft to leave stunned passengers in their seats.

A spokesperson for the airline said the aircraft which had been leased had a minor problem which could be corrected and the pilot had an ongoing dispute with his employer.

Can pilots be struck-off so they cant fly for any airline?

Airlines should be struck off for not listening to their pilots or mechanics. As CG said, profit before safety.

Apparently, UK regulations differ from US regulations. British Airways has said that it will now FAA regulations for flights in the US.

I find it surprising that for once, the US had more stringent regulations. Anyone who saw the movie, United 93 might have noticed that the FAA conference early in the day was about the previous day's delays and how much it was costing the airlines.

All too often, the agencies that are supposed to regulate industries, wind up doing nothing but the bidding of the industries they are supposed to regulate.

As far as I am aware, the UK and US have fantastic safety records in terms or air accidents. The authorites must be doing something right 😉

pilotwannabe wrote:

As far as I am aware, the UK and US have fantastic safety records in terms or air accidents. The authorites must be doing something right 😉

Flawed logic. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. After this, therefore because of this.

You are assuming that the (questionable) safety record is due to the regulations. Other factors are involved.

Example:

Alaska airlines had a disaster and a series of near-accidents. All were found due to maintenance shortcomings. Alaska Airlines is still doing business as usual. Why?

Crash,

Your really being an armchair pilot here. I'm guessing you've never flown a 747 before. The BA captain had thousands of hours on type. He, along with the F/O and the company made a decision to continue based on all the experience they had. Do you honestly think the captain of the flight would risk his own safety along with all the passengers just to save his company a few dollars?

The winds over the Atlantic weren't as forecasted for that day. If they were, the flight would have safely made it to London. The winds were stronger then expected though so they had to divert to Manchester for fuel.

99jolegg wrote:

Pilots aren't stupid

Of everything else in this thread, there is nothing I disagree with more than this statement. 😂 j/k

I thought this happened quite a few months ago.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if this was an American carrier rather than a British one...

I don't think this is about economy at all..

Do you think the pilot would risk his own life and the life of hundreds of other people because the company said "hey, to h*** with them passengers, we are in the want of the money!"

No. The pilot gives a s*** about what the company says - he pilots the aircraft as he wants, and if he feels that any danger (any danger at all) is present, he will make an emergency landing right away.

After reading some of the comments above - thank goodness real pilots fly real aircraft.
There is a world of difference in the skill and decision making of those capable of gliding an engineless 747, restarting 3 fouled engines and landing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9 - and those 'flying' with FSX; anxious to see if the 'scenary' will show their dog in the back garden.

(CrashGordon can now scrutinise the above for syntax, grammar and spelling errors)

To be a pilot of any standard takes incredible discipline and learning. To be a captain of an airliner would take years of hard slog and they will know every small detail. I do think though that there are some circumstances where the pilots hands are tied or they may have the final say on paper but they are fully aware of what that decision would be in the eyes of their bosses.

If I am correct the aircraft lost an engine straight after take-off. In this situation I would think the best course of action would be to return. Not that it could be seen as a bad omen as I'm sure pilots don't believe in that kind of thing[?] but it would make the rest of the flight more difficult and probably mess up their flight plan and progress estimates. No matter what they say airline bosses make decision based on profit as thats their job. Pilots make decisions based on safety and practicality. The two will never be able to compromise.

Anonymous wrote:

Crash,

Your really being an armchair pilot here. I'm guessing you've never flown a 747 before. The BA captain had thousands of hours on type. He, along with the F/O and the company made a decision to continue based on all the experience they had. Do you honestly think the captain of the flight would risk his own safety along with all the passengers just to save his company a few dollars?

Yes. He wanted to keep his job.

An engine being out is not a minor problem. When you have a major problem such as that, you land the plane as soon as you can do so, safely.

By the way, it is not just a few dollars. An aircraft that is not at its scheduled airport is a major headache for an airline.

cheekytrolly wrote:

I wonder if you would feel the same way if this was an American carrier rather than a British one...

Absolutely. I won't fly Alaska Airlines, either.

Apparently they lost the engine to a fire which was visible from the ground?!

Insight wrote:

Apparently they lost the engine to a fire which was visible from the ground?!

😳 Who cares about the ground, how about visible to the passengers.

RadarMan wrote:

Insight wrote:

Apparently they lost the engine to a fire which was visible from the ground?!

😳 Who cares about the ground, how about visible to the passengers.

😂

CrashGordon wrote:

Yes. He wanted to keep his job.

An engine being out is not a minor problem. When you have a major problem such as that, you land the plane as soon as you can do so, safely.

By the way, it is not just a few dollars. An aircraft that is not at its scheduled airport is a major headache for an airline.

I couldn't agree less. Of course he wants to keep his job, but the Captain with thousands of hours would not start ringing BA headquarters discussing a decision to be taken, if he / she did not wholly believe that the problem was of a relatively small significance. If the Captain advised ATC that he was not happy with the situation (with the opinion of the FO) then they would simply not proceed across the Atlantic. Sorry but I think the idea of a Captain of the world's largest commercial airliner (currently) with his thousands upon thousands of hours, just flying across the Atlantic, not being sure that they will make it there alive, at the risk of himself, his FO, cabin staff, and 350 passengers, is ridiculous.

😉

losing an engine to fire and thinking "nah, it'll be fine" is madness

You cannot assess from a cockpit the level of damage the fire caused!

Doing a full journey running with 75% of your engines left is completely bonkers - you can never tell what might happen to the remaining 75% en route. Contingency is clearly not a word in this Pilot's vocabulary and if I discovered a flight I was on lost an engine to fire that early in the flight and carried on I would have been round the press like a shot demanding the man was brought to account.

And before we start soap boxing about how responsible these Pilot's are and they wouldn't take risk I will remind you that crew error is a high cause for crashes - wasn't it the Captain of a certain russian aircraft who let his son have a play at the controls of a certain doomed aircraft?

If he had carried on, something unseen had happened in the wing after a small fire like an electrical issue with wiring that eventually caused a short circuit of some sort and maybe an explosion - he would have been to blame and we would have all been on here slating the guy.

Insight, that one engine fails does not increase the risk of the others failing, and since the 747 is perfectly capable of flying on three engines, why should he then abort the flight?

SeanGa wrote:

that one engine fails does not increase the risk of the others failing

It doesn't?

http://trijets.net/tristar/article/art10.html

NoWorries wrote:

SeanGa wrote:

that one engine fails does not increase the risk of the others failing

It doesn't?

http://trijets.net/tristar/article/art10.html

I'm sorry but I'm not really interested in reading all that now.. please tell me what it was about and why what I stated was wrong?

Earlier in the thread someone confirmed to me that if one engine failed it didn't increase the risk of the others failing, which I still believe is correct.

Some kind of failures might lead to more than 1 engine failing, but nevertheless all four engines run individually, and if 1 engine should fail, most likely the other engines will not be affected by it.

Since I assume the pilot knew it would not affect the other engines, my statement is still relevant and correct in this discussion.

Some kind of failures might lead to more than 1 engine failing, but nevertheless all four engines run individually, and if 1 engine should fail, most likely the other engines will not be affected by it.

True, but since it does not decrease the probability of another engine faiure, and should one occur, there would be a one in three chance it was on the same wing. Care to fly a 747 with two port or two starboard engines out? Care to land one in that condition?

I am not saying there is a great likely hood of a second engine failure. What I am saying is that if a pilot must err, let it be on the side of caution and safety.

Any airline that elects to do otherwise, doesn't get my business.

CrashGordon wrote:

I am not saying there is a great likely hood of a second engine failure. What I am saying is that if a pilot must err, let it be on the side of caution and safety.

That nails it. The cost of a disaster is a bit higher than that of a divert.

Alaska Flight 261 is indeed good example - the pilots had a somewhat flyable configuration and were trying to divert,
yet the worst still happened.

If the engine was lost to fire how does the Captain know what has happened inside that engine nacelle? Or indeed inside the wing itself.. therefore the engine failure becomes irrelevant as there are now too many unknown factors which mean the pilot cannot possibly make an informed decision about the safety of his flight.

I notice you don't make comment regarding accidents frequently being caused by crew error or indeed the speculation that you would have been slating the guy had something bad happened

At the end of the day, no - it doesn't necessarily increase the probability of any other engine shutting down - but as I said before. The situation leaves too many unknowns for the pilot to make a responsible choice does it not?

Do you know what affect on the wing structure, electronics or control surfaces that particular engine fire could have had? No? Then you cannot pass comment.

Rather than second guess the situation read the reports if you are truly interested.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Boeing%20747-436,%20G-BNLG%2006-06.pdf

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200623.pdf#search=%22caa%20follow%20up%20action%20G-BNLG%22

Please note a jet engine burns fuel! Sensationalist journalism always leads us to believe a flame is going to kill everyone....not alwas the case. The crew did a good job everyone survived. For those suggesting they would not fly with BA or any other company.....who would you fly with out of interest?

Jamie4590 wrote:

Just before take-off recently a pilot who was working his notice said over the speaker to the passengers after hearing strange engine noises:

"This aircarft is a death trap. I'm leaving" and he left the aircraft to leave stunned passengers in their seats.

A spokesperson for the airline said the aircraft which had been leased had a minor problem which could be corrected and the pilot had an ongoing dispute with his employer.

Can pilots be struck-off so they cant fly for any airline?

Im not to sure on this but i think that was a Alphajet (previously known as helios) pilot as i read that in cyprus and was ment to fly back with them 4 days later :p

It was Turkish airline Onur Air.

after reading the many posts if it were me I would have landed shortly after it happend it doesnt matter how much matter it costs the company to me!

I wont take Money of a human life EVER!! ❗ ❗ ❗

that and knowing it was a reliable aircraft I still would not have done what he did!

I think that any camptain that puts his passengers through that i would have grounded him for a short time.

IMAGINE!

there could have been a pregnant women on the aircraft and have an aircraft i mean i cant believe the FAA allowed this to happen.

PH wrote:

Rather than second guess the situation read the reports if you are truly interested.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Boeing%20747-436,%20G-BNLG%2006-06.pdf

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200623.pdf#search=%22caa%20follow%20up%20action%20G-BNLG%22

Please note a jet engine burns fuel! Sensationalist journalism always leads us to believe a flame is going to kill everyone....not alwas the case. The crew did a good job everyone survived. For those suggesting they would not fly with BA or any other company.....who would you fly with out of interest?

yes but at the end of P. 17 it states that the crew fased (Im not going to say major because its too big a word.....) anyway... it says that the crew encountered problems in ballancing the fuel and if the aircraft might not have made it then everyone is acctually pretty screwed... i personally think this pilot should be arrest for LIFE ENDANGERMENT! ❗

CrashGordon wrote:

Some kind of failures might lead to more than 1 engine failing, but nevertheless all four engines run individually, and if 1 engine should fail, most likely the other engines will not be affected by it.

True, but since it does not decrease the probability of another engine faiure, and should one occur, there would be a one in three chance it was on the same wing. Care to fly a 747 with two port or two starboard engines out? Care to land one in that condition?

I am not saying there is a great likely hood of a second engine failure. What I am saying is that if a pilot must err, let it be on the side of caution and safety.

Any airline that elects to do otherwise, doesn't get my business.

Crash i support that statement 110%......... and for the other person who said if it would have change our opinion if it were an American based Livery or UK. I find that insulting in some cases....first of all for having the Audasity for accusing someone of possibly been rascist.

and for me NO it would not have changed my opinion i think anyone that does this should be thourghly investigated, questioned, and his wings remomved for a great possibility of under estimating the damage.....what if the fire and done more damage inside the wing then he thought?...... I admire his bravery but dishonor his actions. he endangered 300+ people. what if the plane crash and he was one of the only survivors?.....his countious would be so heavy that it would be almost unbearable..... anyway that all i got to say for tonight...

It was probably the company's decison, rather than the pilot's. I don't think there is a commercial pilot that would have preferred to fly from KLAX to EGLL with one engine out.

JarJarBinks wrote:

...there could have been a pregnant women on the aircraft and have an aircraft ...

...you mean a pregnant woman giving birth to an aircraft...? 😳

Anyway, wouldn't that kind of information be included in the manifest?

😂

The fact that a woman chooses to fly 9 months after a certain...encounter is neither here nor there, then? 😉

CrashGordon wrote:

It was probably the company's decison, rather than the pilot's. I don't think there is a commercial pilot that would have preferred to fly from KLAX to EGLL with one engine out.

This is certainly not true. The Captain is the highest authority when it comes to controling the aircraft - no one can else can order him to do something. He is responsible for all the lives on board.

Maybe the pilot wanted to let the company decide, but it was his decision to do so, so he would still be responsible for everything if something happened