The pilot should have lost his certification. He was flying out of his fail-safe.
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.Oh brother; what hyperbole!The pilot should have lost his certification. He was flying out of his fail-safe.
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 RoutineMore: www.aero-news.netMon, 14 Mar '05
Hognose Investigates The Engine-Out Passenger Experience
By Senior Correspondent Kevin "Hognose" O'BrienI 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.
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.