The more cynical among us are not surprised.

I see your cup is half empty. :rolleyes:

Don’t sell yourself short. I think we could get twice that. 😀
.

So kind. 😉 😀

Damn, bad news for all.

I’m not quite sure what the status of their 747 op’s is at the moment ? They ran into some financial difficulties last year and suspended 747 operations.

There still going, a contract out of France.

My mate flies the 747 for them.

Is there a ETOPS similar engine failure guideline for 3-4 engine aircraft? ie. An engine failure doesn’t require one to land at the nearest field but you must land within the next 5 hours? (I’m making up this statement but I didn’t know how to word my question any better).

No there isn’t. I think airmanship would play a role(well you would hope so).

We have had a few engines quit in flight but the guys always returned to the departure airfield, even when it failed three hours into the flight. 😉

Am I right in saying that the engine failed straight after take off?

What exactly do you mean by “certified to continue on three”? I don’t think there is a specific certification or regulation that permits an airliner to intentionally fly with 1 or more engines shutdown. My opinion, this is no different than if they shutdown the engine intentionally then continued on to their original destination.

WD,

In a 3 or 4 engine jet, if you suffer an engine failure there is no requirement to land at the nearest suitable airfield, so legally they can continue to their destination but airmanship should have come in to effect. It clearly didn’t in the BA case. 😉

That’s exactly right…but they didn’t when Boeing asked about the 777. The decision makers then were the guys who had built their careers on 707’s and 727’s but it’s not they who live with the results.

Speaking with our fleet captain yesterday, he told me that the 787 is going to be the same flight deck as the 777 therefore cross crew qualification on the two types. The decision makes won’t be from that era any more. 😉