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...