Posted on 03/04/2005 9:46:29 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
LONDON (Reuters) - A British Airways passenger jet was forced to shut down one of its engines in mid-flight twice in one week after a replacement engine failed, the airline said Friday.
In what BA described as a bizarre coincidence, the number two engine on a Boeing 747-400 plane flying from Singapore to London was shut down last month after the pilot received an oil pressure warning.
The aircraft, carrying 356 passengers, arrived safely in London after flying for more than 10 hours on three of its four engines. The 747-400 is designed to fly safely on three engines.
The same jet was forced to fly on three engines from Los Angeles to London less than a week earlier after the previous number-two engine stopped mid-way into the flight after a fuel surge.
The plane made an emergency landing at Manchester Airport after fuel ran low. The faulty engine was replaced with a new engine fresh off the production line.
"It looks like one of those freaky coincidences. It is perfectly safe to fly on three engines, and the 747 can fly on two engines," a BA spokesman said.
Britain's Civil Aviation Authority said it was monitoring the BA investigation into the incident but said it saw no reason to issue any operational guidance on engine failure to carriers.
"It is not a common event but it happens from time to time," an aviation source said.
BA has rejected any suggestion the decision to fly on only three engines was linked to new rules which force airlines to compensate passengers for major delays.
If you want on or off my ping list, please contact me by Freep mail not by posting to this thread.
umm what about those flying contraptions with like only 2 engines? I doubt they are designed to run on just one. If we were meant to fly we wouldn't have been given legs.
I read the initial story about the plane from LA to London. They claimed it’s ok, but the pilot had to give more rudder to keep it straight and caused more drag and used more fuel.
So I wondered, if it can fly on two, why they didn’t just shut down one on the other side so you don’t have two pushing on one side and only one on the other.
Because they don’t want to lose another and not be able to restart the one they shut down, I guess.
British Airways Action Attracts FAA Questions Washington Post ^ | March 1, 2005 | Sara Kehaulani Goo
Maybe not so bizarre if the engine has a problem. I'd think it more unusual if a different engine on the same plane shut down. Lemon law?
I wonder that every time when I fly a 777 to Asia. I looked iinto it. They can fly on one and have many bingo fields en route in the event one engine goes toes up.
So9
On the contrary, the Boeing 777 (twin-engine, wide-body) had to prove it could fly on just one engine in order to be FAA-approved for trans-Pacific flight.
Such free advertising is always good for business.
Actually, they are.
newgeezer
On the contrary, the Boeing 777 (twin-engine, wide-body) had to prove it could fly on just one engine in order to be FAA-approved for trans-Pacific flight.
Not just fly on one engine. It has to be able to take off if an engine fails during takeoff. The routes of 777s are restricted to being within 180 minutes flying time on one engine from an alternative airport.
Also maybe not so bizarre when you consider that new behemoth put out by Airbus that's going to be competing with the 747.
Yes, about a year ago??
BA222 or 223 I can't remember...Heathrow to DC.
Actually, they are. You can't fly as high, or maintain as much airspeed, but they will stay in the air. That's the only reason they are allowed to operate over water.
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.