Posted on 03/03/2005 11:06:24 PM PST by BurbankKarl
The same British Airways 747 that flew from Los Angeles to England on only three of its four engines had a repeat occurrence on its next round trip: It lost an engine en route from Singapore to London, but the crew continued, flying 11 hours with a dead engine.
British Airways said Flight 18 left Singapore with 356 passengers shortly after 11:35 p.m. local time on Friday and suffered an engine failure three-and-half hours into the flight. As in the Los Angeles incident, the crew communicated with the airline's operations center in London and decided to continue. About 11 hours later, the flight landed uneventfully at London's Heathrow Airport, only about 15 minutes late, a British Airways spokeswoman said.
"It's perfectly safe to fly with three engines," the spokeswoman, Diana Fung, said.
Many pilots and aviation experts have questioned whether it is prudent to fly a Boeing 747 over long distances after one engine fails, because it narrows the safety margin should something else go wrong. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said it had "concerns" about the Los Angeles flight. Yesterday, an FAA spokesman, Les Dorr, said the agency is still investigating, as is the British Civil Aviation Authority.
On Feb. 19, British Airways Flight 268, with 351 passengers, lost its No. 2 engine as the jumbo jet lifted off from Los Angeles International Airport. Witnesses saw sparks flying out of the engine and heard loud pops.
The crew circled over Santa Monica Bay for about 20 minutes, then decided to continue the 5,450-mile trip across the Atlantic to London. By the time it got to England, the plane was running short on fuel and made an emergency landing in Manchester.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
(Instrument Meteorological Conditions...for those of you in Rio Linda, thats
when ya can't see nothin outside)
But the probability that both will fail simultaneously is the square of the probability of a single failure.
Two engine failures on the same plane, huh? I'm thinkin' Scotland Yard should be doin' a wee bit of investigatin' with regards to the maintenance crew, nae?
More bad publicity. I stick by my first thought that this decision will cost BA far more money than what they saved. The big story is not about the technical and regulatory issues, it is about public opinion.
I wonder if it was the same engine?
Third time may well be the charm!
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!
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.