im not a commercial bod so im not sure if this will make any sense at all…. but from my thinking firstly – were the pax informed on any of the flights thatr an engine was shut down?? if they wre i dont agree with the continiuation of the flight because everyone not related to aviation would be at the wits end and that just isnt righ!! poor people would be scared silly!! if they wernt told then whats the problem?? if the 747 is rated for 3 engines and the paz were not in any danger or scared by the prospect then no harm done surley?? until the media hype it up that is……
froma saftey point of view though (gona contradict my self here) if one engine fails on the climb out with a long journey ahead and the cause is unknown i.e feul starvation from a faultly feed then with risk of another going US then the plane should divert/return to the field….. if for instance if it failed over ireland then the ‘small’ air time to manchester wouldnt be so much of a probbut across the atlantic…. hmm….
as i say two very differnt thoughts on it….. what is the SOP for a 747 with one engine failure??? i know its rated for 3 but what do most airlines have in the ‘handbook’???
The engine suffered a Surge on take off , not a uncommon problem, the Captain elected to shut the engine down and continue the flight, the main reason for it being in the press is the fact that it declaired a Fuel emergency at Manchester, if it had landed at Heathrow, no one whould have been wiser,
Kevin
Sign In
