Read the forum code of contact
By: 26th February 2005 at 14:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If the fuel situation was bad enough to warrant a diversion in the first place, I can't understand why they didn't divert into Shannon or Prestwick. :confused:
By: 26th February 2005 at 14:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think the fuel situation arose late and wasn't a shortage but more of a problem in transferring it?
Have a look on pprune, watch what you ask though or you will easily get your erm ears cut off!
744 can fly on three engines albeit it lower, but yes it was designed of course to fly on 4!
By: 26th February 2005 at 15:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-There was a huge public outcry in France after a similar incident involving a European Air Charter aircraft had to do the same out of La Reunion I think it was.
By: 26th February 2005 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The aircraft flew fine however the problem with the fuel flow, did eat away at the safety margin - which must be looked into.
DME
By: 26th February 2005 at 16:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-An LHR bound BA 747 lost an engine on take off from Los Angeles and after a brief discussion with BA control centre, they took the decision to carry on with the flight on the remaining three engines, flying at 29,000 feet.They used up so much fuel they had to divert to MAN. Questions of whether or not this was done to try and avoid passenger delay compensation payout have been raised.
The compensation Payout ,might be abit of a red herring ,as Im lead to believe that BA have code share agreements with several airline who fly from LAX-LHR route, so if this aircrat had turned back , the delays might of been less than the 5 hours time limit.
The fuel compsumption was due to head wind at 29000ft, the aircraft was planned to fly at 31000ft, also with the 3 other engines working that bit more to make up the loss of the Number 2 engine
The loss of the engine was due to a surge on take off and the captain elected to shut it down
I have to admit on reading the article in the papers iwas a bit surprised that the pilot decided to continue with the flight, Thought if it had made it to Heathrow , i doubt that it would have made the papers as it did
Regards Kevin
By: 26th February 2005 at 17:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-US-UK flights are not allowed to be codeshared. BA has a partnership with AA, but even so shifting a 747-400 load of pax onto an already loaded 777 would not have worked, and compensation would have been pretty inevitable I would have thought.
The compensation Payout ,might be abit of a red herring ,as Im lead to believe that BA have code share agreements with several airline who fly from LAX-LHR route, so if this aircrat had turned back , the delays might of been less than the 5 hours time limit.
The fuel compsumption was due to head wind at 29000ft, the aircraft was planned to fly at 31000ft, also with the 3 other engines working that bit more to make up the loss of the Number 2 engine
The loss of the engine was due to a surge on take off and the captain elected to shut it down
I have to admit on reading the article in the papers iwas a bit surprised that the pilot decided to continue with the flight, Thought if it had made it to Heathrow , i doubt that it would have made the papers as it did
Regards Kevin
By: 27th February 2005 at 01:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-i go on Holiday tomorrow with an engineer from BA...and ill ask him what the standard operating procedure is in those situations...but im sure at the end of the day, it's left up to the discretion of the Captain....It says in the report he flew at 29,000ft all the way back, surely as the flight progresses and more fuel gets burnt, the plane gets lighter,so theorectically he "could" of climbed to a higher altitude to avoid the headwinds?
But at the end of the day, the plane landed safely if a little delayed by diverting to manchester......Must have a been a light news day!!!!
By: 27th February 2005 at 01:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-My 2p:
Was there any unacceptable risk to the operation? No.
Did the flightcrew give themselves bolt holes to dive into in case of difficulties? It would seem so.
Did they minimise the inconvenience to their paying customers? Yes by getting them as speedily as possible to a UK airport where they had the capability of getting them to destination with minimum delay.
Are the press desperate to find a first case of avoiding delay payouts? You bet...but I can guarantee you that I and my colleagues couldn't give a stuff about delay payments if safety is an issue.
By: 27th February 2005 at 13:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm more tempted to say that BA took the decision with the intention of getting the aircraft back to the UK for an engine change....otherwise there would be greater problems with getting a spare to LAX.
By: 27th February 2005 at 14:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-US-UK flights are not allowed to be codeshared. BA has a partnership with AA, but even so shifting a 747-400 load of pax onto an already loaded 777 would not have worked, and compensation would have been pretty inevitable I would have thought.
BA and AA are not permitted to codeshare out of LHR only. They are permitted to codeshare on regional services. For example BA5107 MAN-ORD (Chicago) is operated by AA.
Other airlines of course codeshare....
VS codeshares with CO (and through this CO has some presence at LHR)and
bmi codeshare with UA on transatlantic services.
By: 1st March 2005 at 16:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm more tempted to say that BA took the decision with the intention of getting the aircraft back to the UK for an engine change....otherwise there would be greater problems with getting a spare to LAX.
I wouldn't have thought that something as basic as an engine surging would require an engine change. Perhaps DarrenBe can give a better idea.
Posts: 11,159
By: Ren Frew - 26th February 2005 at 13:54
An LHR bound BA 747 lost an engine on take off from Los Angeles and after a brief discussion with BA control centre, they took the decision to carry on with the flight on the remaining three engines, flying at 29,000 feet.
They used up so much fuel they had to divert to MAN. Questions of whether or not this was done to try and avoid passenger delay compensation payout have been raised.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499342,00.html