Classic British Flight Sim

I'll leave comments for others!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5377304.stm

Interesting that they were able to make it as far as Manchester from LAX and but did not continue to EGLL. I thought the whole reason for having 4 engines was that you can continue to your destination if you loose one.

Tonks may step in here but i'd say it had more to do with exempting one'self from being able to prove that you can either continue across the sea or return to the point of departure (whichever is closer) on one engine (in the case of a twinjet of comparable range under normal circumstances) and also confer the ability to maintain a higher altitude (and thus conserve fuel and prolong range) with one engine out, than is possible with a twin. :think:

These are the sort of situations that make aviation such an interesting industry to work in. Although aviation is 100 years old and virtually every foreseeable event you could think of has been written into the manual, almost every day something happens which falls into the "grey area". I believe under European rules (JAR Ops) the Captain was quite entitled to decide to continue the flight if he considered it safe. But the FAA rules are more stringent and it was they who objected to his having continued the flight. Hindsight shows that his decision was correct from the safety point of view and with a bit more luck with the winds or cruising altitude and he would have made LHR. He would have saved the Company a huge amount of money by not dumping fuel and accommodating passengers and crew overnight and delaying freight. Not to mention the inconvenience to passengers. Also the cost of changing an engine at an outstation. I think it was a good call. Remember Captains will have to justify unnecessary spends.

There are also personal factors involved in such a decision and it is not inconceivable that the Captain's wife had ordered him to get home for an important dinner party. Had he been having a fling with a hostie he would probably have decided to return to LAX I've been involved in a bad weather diversion decision when the Captain chose to overnight in Osaka because I knew a good pub!

In the 70s I was on a B707 which suffered a catastrophic failure of No 1 engine including fire and damage to No 2 engine during the initial climb from Moscow. We were fully laden with fuel and passengers for the trans-Siberian route to Tokyo. We circled south of Moscow for a long time dumping fuel. The Captain wanted to fly three and a half hours to London as there were no facilities to change a 707 engine at Sheremetyevo in midwinter. However the Flight Engineer forcefully persuaded him that the vibration was too bad to risk it and we didn't know what damage there was to the airframe. So we spent five days in Moscow while a freighter was used to bring out a spare engine and a team of engineers to work in the open in freezing conditions to do an engine change. Going to London sounded a lot more tempting given that we circled nearly that long dumping fuel anyway. It was worse for the passengers as they had to go to Tokyo with Aeroflot - they had no choice as they did not have Russian visas and were not allowed into the Country full stop!

Oh dear - rambling again

Ian

Hi Ian,

thanks for sharing your account mate. Not in any way rambling IMHO. I love to hear stories from others about such occurances. I bet some of the PAX needed a change of underwear after that flight!

ATB

Joe and Tonks are correct - there is no reason to return with a 4 engined aircraft - so long as the other three are stable - however under ETOPS rules (777/A330/767 etc etc ) a return would have been mandatory. As with Ian I could ramble about the ways things are done - Once worked for a certain US cargo airline that frequently flew 3 engined Electra's to get them back to a maintenance base - they would taxi out with the sick engine and its twin on the other side shut down and then start at the end of the runway and depart with the sick engine windmilling (This was also the procedure if an engine lost a starter - Lockheed kindly left the ability to windmill(or bump) start an engine.

Sorry didnt mean to join the rambling just curious as to what the fuss was about


Leif

VEGAS wrote:I bet some of the PAX needed a change of underwear after that flight!

And not just the pax, Eddie

(more rambling....)

It's funny, I have a very vivid recollection of sitting right at the back on a double crew seat with the interior lit with an orange glow from the engine and a beautiful stewardess wrapped round me screaming "Are we going to crash?" I can't remember what I said, but there was no way I was going to show what I really felt. She thought I was a hero, but to no avail - she went back to London with the rest of the cabin crew on the next Trident and muggins had to stay with the flight crew to come back on the empty aircraft and clear the bars through Customs :sad: Another one slipped through my sweaty little grasp :huf:

Interesting what you say their Leif,

In 1994 I was going from Manchester - Orlando on a 767 which lost an engine 45 minutes after take off (I noted the time..sad huh). Captain decided to continue and we landed at Bangor, Maine where they fixed the engine and we flew on.

The whole of that flight was silence, not even a baby crying, everyone thinking the same thing "If that other one goes we're F**ed!"

On the way back a week later, same aircraft and the engine quit 1 hour out of Florida.... once again we ended up in Bangor..only this time for 2 days while they flew a replacement out!

Alex

Thats something thats always bothered me.

Transatlantic flying and the possibilty of a technical issue over the sea and thus resulting in the Aircraft having to land at the nearest available airfield.

Last year on a flight to the Dominican Republic we suffered some of the most violent turbulence I have ever known. I watched as the Cabin crew went white! :shock:

That scared me and I thought we were going to crash right in the middle of the Atlantic at one point.

Mind you I don;t ever recall an Aircraft ditching in the Atlantic as a result of being too far from land or because of turbulence. :think:

Alex

I can guarntee you the aircraft flew Blue Spuce MAN-BGR no one would enter ETOPS airspace in that condition

And going North SFB-MAN at least he had about 1000 places to land so he wasnt ETOPS

And just so you know - Engines turning or Pax Swimming

Just had two very uneventful ETOPS Flts both at about 2400NM each
and there ISNT anywhere to land if suddenly goes quiet - On VERY OLD
ex America West now US Airways 757s (I LOVE ROLLS power)

Plus the Gents in the Grey overcoats get really hungry in the North Pacific

Leif