LAX to LHR On Three Engines Was Dumb, But Aircraft Can/Has Repeatedly Flown On Three Engines

By ANN Associate Editor Juan Jimenez

Yesterday we ran a story reporting the same British Airways 747 that suffered an engine failure on takeoff from LAX and continued on to the UK had engine trouble just a few days later. The replacement engine on the number two pylon showed oil pressure problems three hours out of Singapore, and the captain chose to shut it down and continue the flight to Heathrow, arriving some 15 minutes behind schedule.

We knew there are highly experienced 747 drivers who read our words every day of the week, so we asked for their comments on the subject. We didn't have to wait very long for that, as we received several comments via electronic mail.

The reaction to the first incident where the captain continued an 11 hour flight to Great Britain and had to make an emergency landing at Manchester Airport due to fuel issues was unanimous, and in agreement with the tone of the way in which it was reported. Everyone agreed it wasn't a very smart thing to do, and the safest way to deal with that issue should have been to dump fuel and return to LAX, or else pick a close alternate that could handle the aircraft, such as Chicago's O'Hare International. There the aircraft, crew and pax could have waited for the engine to be replaced.

M.O., one of our readers and a long-time 747-400 captain, had this to say: "In the first incident the engine failed soon after takeoff and the airplane was in easy proximity to return to land safely, while in the latest incident the aircraft was some 3 hours into the flight and at least over a thousand miles from the departure airport.  Under FAA and airline company rules 'in the case of an engine failure ... land at the nearest suitable airport' was the mantra that would have greatly influenced my decision to continue or to press on."

"It would have taken some very unusual circumstances for me to continue to New York if I had experienced an engine failure during initial climb after takeoff," M.O. continued. "The only thing that comes to mind would have been the weather at the departure airport... say, a raging typhoon approaching Tokyo. So, in the first instance I would have dumped fuel and returned to the airport as soon as possible."

The comments about the second story, in which we reported the engine failure three hours out of Singapore, was different. Those who commented were quick to praise the design of the 747-400 and its redundant systems. C.F., another reader who is also a 747 PFE, commented that "What they did is called a 'Precautionary Shutdown'. They could probably tell it was just an indication problem, so on the slim chance that something was wrong with it, shut it down. That way you won't toast it but if you need it, fire it back up. No big deal, just a 'strange coincidence.'" The consensus was that continuing the flight at that stage made more sense than turning back.

The question that continues to lurk in my mind is this: Is it acceptable to press your luck just because an airplane can continue to fly after an engine failure? I would think that had the LAX flight not made it to England and had instead been forced to ditch, or worse, very few people would take kindly to British Airways, or any other airline, rattling off three-engine performance numbers and redundant systems capabilities as a rationalization for continuing the flight. That crew got away with doing what they did, this time...

FMI: www.britishairways.com, www.boeing.com