British Airways engine explosion at JFK

lol, mine was a random guess aswell :D:D

the one from cardiff

I read earlier in a report on A.Net it was G-CIVE. Could be wrong I guess.

Paul

Surges can be caused by bird ingestion but in this case I think a wake turbulence encounter more likely particularly if they are P&W motors. It is common for a 747 to be ferried across the Atlantic on 3 engines. It really isn’t a drama for them.

In the case of an engine surge, it is unlikely that the fire bottles would be discharged. Only if there was a fire warning would the bottles be used. Having said that some companies treat all engine failures on take off as a fire and pull the fire handles but only discharge the bottles if the warning exists. Normally a surge is just managed by throttling back the engine until the surge stops. If the engine runs normally (vibration being a particularly telling parameter) then the engine is normally left running at reduced thrust. Again, different companies stipulate different things and BA does have some very different ideas.

the one from cardiff

G-CIVE? thoght it was one of the G-BN?? aircraft

Which one?! The 747 at Cardiff or the one from LAX?

G-CIVE? thoght it was one of the G-BN?? aircraft

wernt the the same 747 that made an emergancy ladning at cardiff the other day

The most common reason for a engine Surge is a bird being sucked into it , and with JFK having a large Bird hazard area around it, not that surprising,
It might been a very dramatic sight to have seen, but that’s about it , the pilot would have shut the engine down and set of the fire bottles ,

Kevin

yeah Lajes wasnt it in the Azores?

It certainly was:)

yeah Lajes wasnt it in the Azores?

lol

its good to know with BA performing the LAX-MAN thing then JFK-JFK would be p!ss easy and thered be no casualties

I wouldn’t have thought the route would really make that much of a difference to be honest, although I could be wrong. I’m not sure whether three engines at a higher thrust would use more fuel than 4 running a little slower. Anyway, the shorter the better I guess, though there isn’t anthing really unsafe about operating a 747 on three engines. In fact that goes for pretty much any 4 engined aircraft.

Plus, over the Atlantic there are places to divert to. Just ask Air Transat:)

Paul

lol

its good to know with BA performing the LAX-MAN thing then JFK-JFK would be p!ss easy and thered be no casualties

i was listening to the news on the radio this morning and it said:

” The British Airways Boeing 747 experienced an engine explosion after take-off, the pilot got the plane safetly back to the ground and passengers will catch a later flight”

kind of worrying 🙁

A little worrying I guess but an engine out isn’t that big a deal on a 747:)

The aircraft involved was G-CIVE, and it landed safely 20 minutes later.

Anyway, BA are no strangers to operating their 744’s on 3 engines, as we saw in February this year when a certain flight, now almost famous among those interested in commercial aviation, took off from LAX bound for LHR, but after suffering an engine failure a few minutes after take-off, continued on 3 engines and ended up landing at MAN instead of LHR. Just as a bit of trivia the aircraft involved in that incident was G-BNLG, the very same plane that flew me to Toronto a month earlier!

Paul

According to the American Press the aircraft suffered a Surge in one of it’s engines on take off, not an explosion
A common problem that happens on occasions and that Pilots are trained for, and in this event the pilots reacted correctly and landed the aircraft safely back at JFK,with no reported casualties

Kevin