After Engine Blew, Deciding to Fly On 'As Far as We Can'

Wall Street Journal ^ | September 23, 2006 | scott mccartney

[eartotheground]

Pilot-Tower Tapes Flesh Out 747 Incident That Triggered A Controversy Over Safety A few seconds after a fully loaded British Airways 747 took off from Los Angeles on its way to London last year, one of its four engines erupted in a spectacular nighttime burst of flame. The fire burned out quickly, but the controversy has continued to smolder. An air-traffic controller watching the runways radioed a warning to British Airways Flight 268 and assumed the plane would quickly turn around. To controllers' surprise, the pilots checked with their company and then flew on, hoping to "get as far as we can," as the captain told the control tower. The jumbo jet ultimately traveled more than 5,000 miles with a dead engine before making an emergency landing in Manchester, England, as the crew worried about running out of fuel. ...

[kenth]

The passengers were never in danger.


Easy to say now. But, at the time, how did the pilot know for sure that he wasn't going to experience a catastrophic loss of the engine later on in flight that may have affected the flight characteristics of the aircraft?

Even the controller stated that he thought the pilot wasn't happy with BA's decision for him to fly on to the destination. The captain is the final decision maker I would think, isn't he?

[_Jim]

The 747 is not "designed to fly on three engines." It's "designed to survive the loss of an engine, and in some cases two." There's a difference.

The pilot should have lost his certification. He was flying out of his fail-safe.

Oh brother; what hyperbole!

Now, let's get the perspective from someone a little closer to the industry, someone who can cite facts and relate experiences:

In-Flight Shutdown - Almost Routine

Mon, 14 Mar '05
Hognose Investigates The Engine-Out Passenger Experience
By Senior Correspondent Kevin "Hognose" O'Brien

I recently had an argument with another aviator about some recent news stories that hyperventilated over a couple of recent incidents wherein 747-400 operators, notably British Airways, secured a misbehaving engine and continued on to their destination rather than turning back or finding an alternate. He more or less agreed with the news stories, and was willing to hang the captains by their thumbs (which hasn't happened).

I countered with the facts as I understood them: a single engine out on the 747-400 not only didn't compromise any systems, it doesn't even compromise the redundancy of any systems. A 747 can even go around on ONE engine. And for a number of reasons it can be safer to continue on than land -- depending of course, on why you shut the engine down.

If it turned into a parts-spewing turbo-grenade, that's one thing. If you had a surge, high EGT, or low oil indication, that's another.

Most lines' ops manuals cover three-engine operations of the big jumbo as routine, not even considering them emergency operations. There are three-engine performance charts in there. Part 121 says it's the captain's call --he can land or continue at his option.

More: www.aero-news.net

[El Gato]

Does the full story say where he landed? Flying LAX to London route goes over/near Salt Lake City, the Prairie Provinces of Canada, out over Hudson's Bay, then the Southern tip of Greenland and thence to the British Isles. He could have wanted to burn off that fuel, staying reasonably close to a divert airport, but never intended to go even as far as Hudson's Bay.

[reg45]

You don't need a globe, just a link to this web site: Great Circle Mapper.

[mad_as_he$$]

747's were originally qualified to fly on two engines - especially for cross Atlantic. I don't believe the FAA thought anyone would do it deliberately!

[El Gato]

Does that route go over the poles?

Not quite, Hudson's Bay and the southern tip of Greenland.

[Paleo Conservative]

Easy to say now. But, at the time, how did the pilot know for sure that he wasn't going to experience a catastrophic loss of the engine later on in flight that may have affected the flight characteristics of the aircraft?

At no time were they more than an hour from a diversion airport.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Maybe not. Depending on which engine fired up, it might have been better to keep up the wind pressure that results in a plane passing through air to help put out the fire than to try and land with a flaming engine. He was proved right when the fire was extinguished in a short time.

The pilot probably made the right decision under the circumstances, especially so since the plane landed safely at destination after a long flight.

The Boeing 747 was designed to fly on as few as two engines. I glad I wasn't on that flight.

[free_at_jsl.com]

Interesting read. I remember that incident but what I recall differs from the explanation offered in the article. My recollection is that the fuel was dispensed in liters instead of gallons which would leave them with about 1/4 of the required fuel.

[liberty_lvr]

Hey! Quit muddling the issues with facts and reality!

These people are key board-warriors of the highest degree. It's not like aviation is so complicated that they can't figure it all out with a few Wiki look-ups and an application of some liberal "feelings" about what "should" be done...

[ErnBatavia]

I know one thing...a fully fueled 747 cannot land shortly after takeoff, due to it's weight. This fact had to factor somewhat into the captain's decision.

[GBA]

Now wait just a minute. EVERYONE knows that a 747 will FALL OUT OF THE SKY if it loses an engine. In fact, it's a miracle anyone survived! (Should be an obvious attempt at sarcasm, but you never know what people will read into a post).

[Psycho_Bunny]

Ya.  Hyperbole. 

It's not as though I live in Seattle and actually discussed this very issue with a Flight Systems Engineer and a couple fabricators from Boeing, who I'm friends with.

[Psycho_Bunny]

"Fuel dump."

[GBA]

"It's hard to imagine a pilot with the fate of hundreds of lives in his hands heading out over the Atlantic with a severely damaged plane."

Fortunately, it would take your imagination this plane was "severely damaged." If it had been "severely damaged" the pilot wouldn't have flown any longer than necessary to burn off and/or dump enough fuel to land. Give the pilots and the airline some credit.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Hot Shot pilots have their place, but it's not at the controls of a passenger Jet.

[Kirkwood]

"And how would such a "demand" be enforced?"

Easy. Make the monetary fine more than the cost of the lost fuel and crew time. This was (is) all about money.

[Paleo Conservative]

Does the full story say where he landed?

He landed at Manchester which is about 150 miles northwest of London Heathrow.

http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2420&comm=0

February 28th, 2005 - British Airways 747 Crosses Atlantic on Three Engines

From aero-news.net Engine Failed On Takeoff, Pilot Chose To Continue, Ran Short Of Fuel But Saved Company Nearly $200,000 February 27, 2005

On Saturday, February 19, a British Airways flight took off from Los Angeles' LAX airport, destined for Heathrow, with 351 pax and crew aboard. Shortly after takeoff, with the aircraft not more than 100 feet over the ground, controllers notified the pilot that a shower of sparks could be seen coming out of one of the engines. The pilot responded by throttling back, but the engine continued to overheat and crew decided it had to be shut down.

You would think that the aircraft would immediately make plans to return, including dumping fuel if necessary, and turn back to land at LAX, no? Not this time.

After circling the Pacific for a few minutes while the captain contacted BA's control center, the crew decided to continue the 11-hour, 5,000 mile flight to Heathrow on three engines, rather than turn back and face a minimum five hour delay, at an estimated cost of nearly $200,000. Just three days before, a new EU regulation had come into force that would have required British Airways to compensate the passengers for long delays or cancellations.

The British Air Line Pilots' Association wasted no time in reacting to the incident with a statement warning the industry that the new regulation could have the result of pressuring pilots to take more risks for the sake of avoiding expensive compensation rules. Had the BA flight been delayed more than five hours, the airline would have been forced to compensate the passengers the full cost of their tickets as well as flying them to their destination for free and providing them with hotel accommodations for overnight delays.

The airline had initially stated that the engine failure occurred an hour into the flight, but the facts soon changed when the news came out that it had happened only seconds into the flight. To make matters worse, the crew knew that the aircraft would burn more fuel because it would be unable to climb to FL360, its assigned altitude. Instead, it was forced stay down at FL290, and with extra rudder drag due to the differential thrust created by the engine shut down. As the aircraft made its way to Heathrow over the Atlantic, he realized he wouldn't have enough fuel and requested an emergency landing at Manchester airport, where the London Times reports the aircraft was met by four fire engines and more than two dozen fire fighters.

BA denies that financial considerations did not play a part in the decision to continue the flight. Captain Doug Brown, BA's 747 Senior Captain, said the only issue was “what was best for passengers.”

“The plane is as safe on three engines as on four and it can fly on two. It was really a customer service issue, not a safety issue. The options would have been limited for passengers [if the plane had returned to Los Angeles],” Brown told the London times. He also pointed out that the captain of the 747 would have had to dump tens of thousand gallons of Jet-A over waters just off the coast of California, which would have raised serious environmental concerns. “The authorities would have had words to say about that,” said Brown.

However, David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, questioned the decision to continue the flight all the way to Great Britain. “It was a very odd decision to continue to London," said Learmount. "Even if the pilot didn’t want to dump so much fuel, he could have diverted to Chicago. You are not as safe on three engines as you are on four and I suspect that, given the choice, most passengers would have opted to return to LA.”

[_Jim]

Hyperbole.

Re-read my last post (again if necessary and for the first time for comprehension if applicable) and visit the link at the bottom.

Although your 'flight systems engineer' friend may be good in his narrow field of specialization, he hasn't recentlly consulted a 747 ops manuals covering three-engine operations of that big jumbo ...

[ErnBatavia]

Takes hours, from what I understand.