Low Fuel Over The Atlantic | British Airways Flight 268
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Please support this channel by following me on Patreon
/ allecibay
British Airways Flight 268 was a regularly scheduled flight from Los Angeles to London Heathrow. On February 20, 2005, the innermost left engine burst into flames triggered by an engine compressor stall almost immediately after take off from LAX. The 747-400 continued to fly across the United States, Canada, and the Atlantic Ocean with its three remaining engines despite air traffic controllers expecting the pilots to perform the emergency landing at the airport. The flight then made an emergency landing at Manchester Airport, citing insufficient usable fuel to reach London Heathrow.
Music: Mono
Artist: Dalo Vian
Listen to the entire music here:
• MONO (Piano Music)
Follow me on:
/ allec.ibay
The Queen of the Skies can fly just fine on three engines. And, with these competent pilots, it did.
Bobrogers actually...FAA law requires ANY 4-engine airliner to be able to not only sustain flight on TWO engines, but even continue with TAKE OFF on two (50%) engines.
Just saying... 😊
Nice to see a video where the flight crew is competent, uses good judgement, and have brought their “A” game to work. Qualities that are sorely lacking at so many other airlines demonstrated in videos by Allec.
Agreed. very nice to see.
The crew landed safely, no casualties, and everything was fixed up. Improvements were made that today provide for safer air travel. A feel-good tale. Nice video, Allec... :)
If this is what u want, why are you watching? Go to the airport you can watch jets land safely all day.
@@thedocnak no one asked for you opinion son
The last 747 that will ever be made came out of the factory this week. 💔
Yes, it will definitely be the end of an era. They had a worker there who had similarly watched the first one roll out of the factory; he was a bit emotional about it.
I had no clue they were still being made
@@audioamateur Production run of 55 years. 1500+ airframes
@@itjustlookslikethis wow. I thought they'd been superseded by A380 and the like
Always will be the Queen of the Skies, as the Lockheed Constellation was of the prop era.
My dad’s cellmate’s son’s ex-girlfriend’s brother’s proctologists mother’s neighbor’s mechanic’s second wife’s supervisor’s at work was thinking about taking that flight.
I am shaking my head and laughing hysterically.
Ha! Classic.
Woah thats wild because my cousins friends sisters aunts nephew was too!
A lot of connections
It happened to my second cousins former roommate 's ex wife's daughter's lover.
Allec,
I have been watching you for years now (probably 3), and you NEVER fail to disappoint in your videos!
This was a fascinating video, Allec. Your explanations are always so clear. Thank you
the A-10, the DC-3, and the B-747. among the greatest aircraft to ever/still fly. a happy-ending story. thanks, mr. Ibay.
BA is a great airline. Great job Alec. Enjoyed.
Thank you Allec, good to see all the decision making and risk assessment processes on this flight. The crew must have been busy most of the way, particularly when stronger headwinds occurred later on. Excellent video
Bang, Bang. Proceeds with a Trans-Atlantic flight to Europe from L.A.
Wow a crew that didn't make compounding mistakes and stayed focused on safely flying the plane.
Now that is impressive airmanship if I say so myself
Another wonderful video by Pilot Kuya Allec Ibey
Thank you for this thorough analysis!
It is always a giant plus to have four engines under you.
Not always, according to fuel bill
Never heard that term "heavy" before. Always thought it was just the term my best friend gave his dad and cuz he was very considerate he called my dad "mr. Heavy"....it was a great trip with our dads on the mississippi River. Miss those days.
Nice ending with the photos and timing of the music! Very cinematic!
Allec deserves praise. BA took unnecessary risks IMO. The airline could rationalize in many ways to continue the flight but money was the main factor. The plane did not land in London, hence, all of the fuel calcs & rationalizations were wrong. No more to say.
They could have landed in London but then the crew would have been in trouble for exceeding their final reserve fuel when they still had control of the situation. So chose to land earlier to prevent this. Fuel calculations were actually accurate given the data they had. Not their fault BA's wind data was not quite as accurate as real world but they could have landed in Dublin, Belfast or Shannon if it got even worse. They even flew close to Reykjavik incase that was required
Can't wait for the Movie!
What was there to make a movie about.? Everything was in control the whole time and their were more than the required safety margins. The movie audience would have fallen asleep out of boredom.
Somebody lost cabin pressure and didn't put on their O2 mask, woosh .
Great video as usual.
9 days after my birthday. I didn't even know that this happened. Great video Allec
1990 Built Boeing 747-400RR
As a longhaul captain,I’m very sorry to disagree with my colleage’s decision.Though it was perfectly legal,and good Crm and Fordec practices observed,there is something lacking in common sense.In an engine surge with flames observed,there can be structural damage involved that can not be assesed from the cabin windows.Though it’s not an emergency on a 747,you will be flying 4000ft below your planned altitude,plus Fmc fuel calculations for n-1 engines are notoriously inaccurate.Turning back to your departure airport is a healthy decision.It involves dumping fuel in 40 minutes time before reaching MLW,plus having your passengers mostly at home.In my company,it’s the captain who takes these decisions.I very much doubt BEA operations suggested the Capt. to cross the Atlantic with three engines.As a rule of thumb,you never carry enough fuel for that kind of operations.Plus,dropping everybody at Manchester and rebooking doesn’t seem a great idea.Happy New Year to all pilots,and be safe¡
No mention of the FAA having a complete fit over this about the continuation of the flight and initially suggested a fine of $25.000 ? For clarity, I think the pilots took the correct decision.
This channel is like the 240p budget version of The flight channel
The Flight Channel is the gamer version of Allec's Joshua Ibay: Reuploading the same videos, clickbait everywhere and just mere information for the viewer
You know what? I think that crew was phenomenal - they got that bird down safely! End of story for me.
cool.
Allec Joshua Ibay Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 January 9, 2021
*The Senior Pilot made the decision 'best suited to what we know vs. what we may not know' in shutting-down the problematic engine and proceeding to the nearest appropriate landing-field*
___________
*The problem was NOT the crew's fault nor was there 'fault' in fuel distribution under what could easily become a major threat if 'swanning about' diverts attention from the problem at hand which is an engine failure that could not possibly be diagnosed without sacrificing time and attention from the crew's most significant event which was a 'forced engine shut-down'*
___________
*GET THE PLANE DOWN SAFELY is priority #1 and 'proper protocols' regarding fuel-tank cross-overs can WAIT until the primary
goal is achieved which is a stable flight and landing made as uneventful as possible*
Request: British airways flight 9
This is reminiscent of the Air Transat incident where they had to glide to the Azores after they ran out of fuel. I wouldn’t want to try gliding in a 747.
DO British flight 9
I guess the plane is still in Victorville.
It was more likely scrapped after the picture at the end.
I see flames. Hear and feel explosions during takeoff and my final decision is to fly to London on 3 engines???
2/20/2005
UK268
Route from LA to Heathrow
Names were never revealed
Only the captain's Age (48) was revealed
Only the captain's Flying time (12680) was revealed
On Board: 370
Plane Age: 15
Plane Type: 747-400
Plane landed at Manchester without any data on who survived or who got injured
The plane was repaired and died on 12/7/2014. 8 days later, it was stored at Victorville.
RR configured powerplant aircraft by this video? Kuya Allec salamat po 😊 🤗
It’s the 21 century. Why not cameras looking each wing and tail
'The Heavy First Officer' gives me 'The Fat Controller' vibes.
He may well have been forbidden by his doctor to push and forbidden by his doctor to pull also... ;-)
I remember this, and it always struck me as a typically stupid decision- led by anything apart from Airworthiness. No need to go flying across the bloody Atlantic when one of your engines has already chucked it. Why not just land somewhere......answer...Money!
I dont understand why there are no filling stations out in the ocean. Just pull in and get a few gallons and move on.
It was a pointless decision to continue on three engines. The route to the UK passes over large areas where there are no diversion airfields for a 747. If there was bad weather enroute, how would the aircraft climb above it on three engines?
The fact the aircraft had to divert into Manchester proved it was wrong to continue, although technically possible. BA would never allow this again.
And yet there are multiple aircraft flying on just 2 engines over these same areas with no diversion airfields. The pilots would have got a weather check of their route before deciding to proceed and they flew close to Reykjavik which can handle a 747. The reason for landing in Manchester was so they did not exceed their final reserve amount which may have been a possibility going to Heathrow. They would have landed at Heathrow but would have broken rules by doing so. Landing sooner meant they didn't.
Low Fuel Over the Atlantic | British Airways Flight 268
Low Fuel Over the Atlantic | British Airways Flight 268
British Over the Airways Flight | Low Atlantic Fuel 862
British Airways | Low Fuel Over The Atlantic Flight 268
@@kermitderfrosch1704 over the British low Atlantic flight fuel | 826
Oh, thank you. Without your kind help, we would never have known how this episode is titled, Captain Obvious.
See, this is where recommendations to training manuals, procedures, & simulator time, make complete sense. Even though these pilots seemed to run like clockwork, some small deficiencies were found, and corrected. Great. Awesome. Good job.
Where this is not the case? When hundreds of lives are lost, and basically, after all is said and done? Their main recommendation is for the SAME thing as the above, when, even to people like myself, sitting here watching a video, whether a pilot or not, it is blatantly obvious to US, far more is needed.
I'm stating this, because I've actually tried to explain this in the past. That situations such as this? Is where those kinds of responses from the NTSB et al belong, and fully make sense.
NOT on several other accidents we've seen, where, in the end, it seems all they could come up with was-"Better training on/for/in/with". Maybe in one.. at most two of those cases I'm thinking of? That may just be all they really could do- but not all. not even close.
I guess what I'm saying is this- In those cases where it's nowhere near enough? It feels like a COP OUT, to save someone of import, money/time/face.
This was a GREAT example to show what I was meaning in those other cases I posted on. Thanks Alex- excellent work again, as per usual.
Do British airways flight 9
Manchester really isn’t that much closer than LHR. Maybe they should have refuled in Toronto.
Captain should have asked for a replacement 747/777 to meet them at New York or another east coast airport. Mid-Atlantic engine problems are not fun.
It’s always the pilots fault until proven otherwise. The pilots working on what’s safe for them and passengers vs what the bosses want. I would of landed on the east coast and not continued over the Atlantic. Burn that extra fuel for landing. I think the pilots were great and safe. Many small nuances with fuel where most pilots would not know about and further training useful but probably not pertaining here. It was a safe flight. Pilots were great
I still bet half the passengers poopied their pants, but really, 'tis just a flesh wound.
Do you know what the registration of this particular BA 747 - 400 was/is ?
G-BNLG
If they were low on fuel getting there with 3 engines, how would they have made it with all 4 going.
With only 3 engines they would have used more fuel than 4 and they would have flown at a lower altitude where there is more air resistance and flown at slower speed
The non working engine causes two things: a decrease in total power, and drag. From generating usable thrust to wind milling. Also, cruise altitude they had to fly was lower, where the fuel eficiency decreases. Also over Atlantic there are high speed streams at high altitude which increases the over ground speed of the aircraft flying in that stream. There are multiple additional factors, including the delay of reaching the cruise altitude and speed, for the time they circled Los Angeles, while evaluating the situation and establishing the course of action.
pretty much a flight from hell ..
one engine damaged during takeoff/climb , and you not returning to the safest/nearest airport in max landing weight range is always a gamble
ok it worked out this time but it must have been stressed out to the max for this crew .
i dont wanna be in that shoe where the company tells you to "risk it - with 350+ people on board ( no matter how many people actually )
They should have landed in Boston or New York and not crossed the Atlantic. Why temp fate over the ocean?
@@vinquinn It seems you didn't watch this video very attentive. There were 8 issues took into consideration for making that decision, and were right. The only issue was the not so vast experience and training regarding fuel management for 3 engine flight. The assesment of the fuel consumption was more than correct, the single flaw was not knowing fuel pumps "tricks" in order to continue burn fuel from tank 2. So thoughtfully and with total concern for safety, they decided to divert to Manchester. They landed safely, with more than minimum reserve of fuel onboard, got the passengers over Atlantic safely, and didn't waste 70 tonnes of fuel and dozens of hours of delays for their passengers.
The only "gambling" was in your imagination.
So an initial and very definite problem with having to shut down an engine, failure to even consider the possibility of a cascade of further problems such as some of the fuel being unusable and unknowns like the headwinds, meant that crossing the Atlantic was something of a gamble from the start. Quite logical and plausible events, but not in the manual, so it was safe to continue. Maybe something to do with trying to save the money needed to feed and water and probably accommodate all of the passengers.
I wonder if they could have gotten someone on the phone to help them with fuel redistribution. Sounds pretty complicated, but someone hade to know how to do it.
I’m curious how much you believe it would have cost BA to return to LAX rather than continue on to London?
@@georgeconway4360 Well, starting with dumping 70 tonnes of fuel. 140,000#, at 5#/gallon is 28,000 gallons, at $2/gallon in 2005 prices. $56,000 just in fuel.
@@grafhilgenhurst9717 That is metric tons=154,324 pounds but that is small change. Where is a replacement engine? London. How about the passengers? Do they have to fly a spare 747 from London to LAX. They possibly could attach a 5th engine under the left wing to carry the replacement engine. I would guess that a return to LAX would have cost BA $1 million or more. There was a very good reason BA wanted the crew to continue to London. It was also better for the passengers, plus it was safe. Just very good performance by all involved.
@@georgeconway4360 Ha! Not sure if metric, US gallons or Imperial gallons. Probably would have to put up all the passengers in hotels for starters. I'm actually shocked that they got the go ahead to proceed on 3 engines, but it turned out to be the correct decision. The closest thing to an emergency I ever experienced was a flight attendant having a seizure. We were bound for New York, but wound up in Cleveland for a few hours. Fortunately the same crew got us back to NY, with a new flight attendant. And the other one was OK.
The London flights typically depart the West Coast in the early evening. Why did this flight depart at 0530 the following morning?
flights leave at all times of day.. who cares
UTC time probably?
@@thedocnak BECAUSE THE FLIGHT DOESN'T LEAVE AT FIVE A.M., you eejit. I asked a question. I didn't know it was give your shit attitude away day.
@@johannesbols57 no one cares
if that aircraft had only 3 engines before takeoff it would never been allowed to depart. irresponsible to continue the flight unless they were past the point of no return.
That is incorrect. Yes, if the engine was not running prior to V1 would/could not takeoff. Since that was not the case, the crew considered the situation and the crew communicated with dispatch, deciding to continue to London. I give them A+ for a job well done.
Jesus loves you and died for our sins amen beautiful day to serve the Lord Jesus if you want to talk to me about Jesus DM me
Join our channel for Air Disaster Investigation VIDEOS : ua-cam.com/channels/V5niMBkwuutS1Max1xF92A.html
This is a snoozer... I watch this channel for "air accidents" not safe uneventful flights...
It was quite not a "non-eventful" flight. But you can't expect eventful flights to always end up badly, especially witin a company like BA. Sometimes the passengers are not even aware of whar is going on in the cockpit.
Who cares?
@@julosx engine goes down, crew turns off engine, finishes flight. This is normal operation.
It's air 'incidents' which this certainly was. If it was too tame, just imagine yourself a passenger - look out the window and see the flames coming out of the engine, while hearing Boom-Boom-Boom.
@@peggyl2849 yeah well having to take a shit while you're flying is an "air incident" but no one is making videos of that.
Fist!
There is a reason a lot of people choose where possible to fly with legacy and long term carriers and this video shows why. The Pilots seemed to be in complete control were obviously super experienced made all the right calls and handled everything by the book. Not to downgrade or take a shot at other airlines by any means but for sure I always felt as safe as I could be when flying British Airways.
Great job as always Allec I hope your career dreams are progressing my friend.
IIRC, wasn't it Easy Jet who had a 26 year old in the left seat and an 18 year old in the right seat, not so long ago? Call me age prejudiced, but it doesn't make me comfortable.
@@nighttrain1236 Easyjet has been operating since 1995. No crashes. They must be doing something right.
I agree and advocate your sentiments! I tell people all the time, if a major doesn’t go there, you don’t need to either.
@@Spyke-lz2hl I agree with all of the comments. But I'd rather spend a night in Gander than in the North Atlantic.
Ha! Engine trouble on takeoff, declares a PAN, cancels the PAN, continues to destination, fuel management goes to crap, redeclares a PAN, escalates it to an emergency. The pilots “made all the right calls”?
I know what I would have done differently. Crossing the Atlantic with conflicting fuel planning numbers was a gutsy move. I know a lot of low cost carrier pilots that would have errored on the side of safety.
they could have landed somewhere at the east coast without the need of having to dump fuel. yes, they made it to Manchester but the plane was not 100% ok, they should have landed before crossing the ocean.
The B747 is usable with 3 engines, so that's why they decided to keep flying. At least thery didn't have to dump fuel, that'll causing another problem like Delta 89.
No problem if you dump fuel over water which the Delta flight could but did not do even with an ATC suggestion.
@@deepthinker999 Right now, everyone isn't know why Delta 89 crew did that. Maybe we have to wait for crew's statement.
if I'm being honest, my personal preference, I trust British Airways than any other carrier, as I know BA pilots are some of the best trained. I've used them a lot flying in and out of London. I have always been happy with their service. Nice video Allec, thank you
Doesn't matter. With a power problem and plenty of places to get down, then put it on the ground. They gambled if they lost another engine they could still fly. If over the Atlantic that happens, okay. But with options, why chance it. I hate it when managers call the shots, their not 30k in the air.
Great job as always Allec!👌
Thanks Allec for another valuable lesson learned. Even when there´s nothing to question as there were no casualities or such, the NTSB still finds something to claim about. The theorists ALWAYS find something to be done better as aftermath. But in the life situation and with all their knowledge and experience and the provided data, the pilots made the best out of the situation and in the end landed safely. Who could have done better? Only a mindless plunger.
I would have zero problem flying a 747 on 3 engines. Long live the Queen.
Read the company's manual. Legally put you The Pilot responsible. Next time you feel that way take your own life savings, your families welfare, Your career & go to Vegas & bet it all at 1 shot. Because that what you will be doing. Gambling with everyones life's. For the company's botton line profits. Show myself 1 spot in air above mother earth to pull plane over & properly check it out? I don't think The Queen. Or now king big ears would save you.
@Chisco Williams except of course it CAN fly on two engines just fine.
@@dirks3600 But if all 4 engines cut out you'll be stuck up there forever!
@@buckfaststradler4629 I just love armchair aviators.
@@buckfaststradler4629 I was talking about the one who thought one engine out is a big deal. Not you.
Am I alone in feeling a bit of dismay that the #2 engine had never had major servicing in 15 years?
Heavy first officer lol, was it Homer Simpson in the episode he dressed as a pilot
In around 1980 I was on a KLM 747 flying from Amsterdam to Houston. In the mid-Atlantic, the pilot announced he had shut an engine down and would divert to JFK. I figured this was better than turning back. The rest of the flight was uneventful and routine, but i remember being a little surprised to see the firetrucks on the field when we landed.
The most surprising aspect of this flight was that until BA268, none of us had heard of an airplane (including the B747-400 or any other large jet) "losing an engine" during or shortly after takeoff -- colloquially referred to as a "V2 cut" by crews -- and then continuing an 11 hour flight including committing to crossing the Atlantic on its last leg. Seriously, we were incredulous when we heard "and after losing an engine at takeoff from LAX, they elected top continue to Heathrow." --- Said every 747 pilot ever: "Wait ... what?" -- Sure, they followed their rule book and sharpshot it a bit, but there was no rule that required them to land before London so with Dispatch's concurrence, they decided to go for it. London was not their required, immediate destination because their primary option would be to continue as far east as Washington DC/Dulles or Boston to stop, assess, repair, and refuel to continue if possible ... which was 4-5 hours after takeoff. That gives you time to think and carefully plot your actual fuel burn with a windmilling engine and the rudder displaced ever-so-slightly to the right (higher drag) to make sure the predicted London landing fuel will be enough. Also, the fuel burn from LAX to IAD/BOS takes you below max landing weight so fuel dump is no longer necessary (or advisable). Also, overweight landing is not an absolute prohibition: depending on the actual weight at touchdown, a maintenance inspection and logbook entry is required -- and basically, no big deal. (I've done it, obviously after a similar long conversation with Dispatch, Maintenance Control [our pros were in London!], and a bunch of 747-400 experts from company and Boeing all concurring. The inspection took , I believe, 4 guys working 2 hours and no actual intervention/repairs had to have been made. Overweight landings are always an option, and sometimes the preferred option.)
But approaching the US east coast my biggest concern would have been the risk of "trapped fuel" in main tank #2, the trap occurring at the worst point in terms of logic. I don't blame the Captain at all: his judgments look very competent. But the experts OTG might have mentioned that the pumps are called "Override/jettison pumps" for a reason. (I think they operated at 50 psi whereas the standard boost pumps operated at 37.5 psi, so the logic of their operation is "override" means they over-power the lighter weight pumps and fuel is used from the tanks with the Override/Jettison pumps turned ON) I'm wondering why the whole BA system working together didn't calculate and discuss an "Equal Time Point" ETP aka "Point of No Return" for the Trans-'Lant portion so if they experienced any fuel system anomalies like "trapped fuel", they could turn around and go back and the numbers had been pre-calculated to make sure of enough fuel in that contingency. On the other hand, maybe they did and that was left out of the video. (These are very common calculations for oceanic legs. Even domestic carriers like Alaska Airlines do thire ETP calculations every time they fly SFO to Hawaii.) As the BA company communications and advisory system observed, the 747-400's fuel system was operating normally. But that wouldn't change the fact that at the point of "going Oceanic" with Gander, the risk of trapped fuel was a consideration.
In the end it was the continuing use of good judgment that sort of overlooked the "links in the chain" argument until they were committed to the "feet wet", no more fuel options crossing to London. There were a lot of things going right and none of them triggered a "we have to land" decision. But as you see, all it took to get everyone excited was just one more little failure or the possibility of a "link in the chain" safety argument failure, when they thought tank #2's fuel was not going to be available to them. But following the checklist with all pumps on and all crossfeeds open would have given them that fuel even if they weren't sure how or why it was working. But as the author observed, in the descent, fuel flow is minimal -- you're basically gliding, engines at idle -- so I wouldn't expect anyone to notice the fuel was slowly draining from #2. Furthermore, the crew is absorbed setting up for a perfect landing on the first attempt which is where their focus should be.
The saddest goddamned thing? That final picture of the jet in Victorville with the engines stripped off, just waiting. It's no one's fault, I just hate to see the 747s chopped up for recycling. I actually got to "pull a 747-400" out of the desert, Victorville, to put it back into service for a few more years. That was nice. Two Captains, me and Larry Buckler. Also loved the authentic EICAS chirpping triple beep--really takes me back. Good times.
Glad someone actually knows what they're talking about and doesn't just go "captain is an idiot should have landed immediately". However when you say "no more fuel options crossing to London" I read somewhere that the crew flew over (well close to) Reykjavik incase fuel was going to be an issue before they reached Ireland.
I applaud the professionalism and skill demonstrated by this flight crew.
As a retired florist, I think the crew’s decision making was appropriate and the principles of crew resource management were well utilized.
I hate reading. Consider getting a voice actor or something if you can't do it yourself.
In essence: Captain kept job with BA
Always excellent!!!!!
Why does he always say the heavy first officer? It's not relevant in this situation? Why have to say he's heavy?
Just to differentiate between the First Officers. It is also his designation in the official report.
BAD call in my opinion.
The main problem they are trying to avoid is once they land they have to have the engine fixed. They should have landed at JFK where there is lots of maintenance available and hotel rooms for the passengers because that is gonna be an engine change. The reason they couldn't get the fuel out of tank #2 is the override/jettison pumps are intentionally mounted with a standpipe higher in the tank than the normal boost pumps so they will not pump the fuel tank dry when dumping fuel. He is correct that all they had to do to get fuel out of #2 tank is open the cross feed valves for engines #1 and #2 turn on the normal boost pumps in tank #2 and turn off the boost pumps in tank #1 to use the cross feed manifold to supply fuel to engines number 1. In that configuration it would pump all the fuel out of the tank. Of course you would want to watch it so it wouldn't run the tank dry because then engine #1 might, depending on your altitude, flameout due to fuel starvation. I was a Flight Engineer for 17 years on b747-200's. We had to know the fuel systems pretty well among other things. Anyway that is how I would have run the fuel panel under those circumstances.
Dumping 70 tons of fuel is never a good idea, so I agree with the decision to continue to the UK They had a plan B the whole time and if the fuel situation was causing concerns in the final hour, they could have landed at Shannon in the Irish Republic.
The decision not to continue to Heathrow may well have been a fear of a holding pattern of a missed approach.
Regular shuttle service from Manchester to Heathrow also minimised passenger inconvenience. Shannon would have been more difficult, along with not having a British Airways workshop to repair the engine.
Thank you for the details on the fuel system of the 747. It has always seemed to me that in an aircraft as complex as the 747 (and other similar large 4 engine transport category aircraft) it was foolish to eliminate the position of flight engineer and rely on automation to handle all the engineering work. Automation can be very good when everything is operating correctly, but when things go wrong the inflexibility of the automation pales by comparison with the creative thinking ability of a well trained human expert. I think it unreasonable to expect the captain and first officer to be experts in flying the plane and ALSO experts in all of the engineering details of the plane.
Allec♥️
I'm really surprised they continued with the flight. I'm trying to think of another incident where an engine has been shut down so close to take off and a long flight has been continued
I miss seeing BA 747 Queens flying over in London.
My night just got way better. Love these videos.
To quote Hezekiah 4:10, "The proof of the pudding lieth in the eating thereof" and since this turned out well, criticism may be out of place. But my first thought on finding a few minutes after takeoff that one engine was out, would be to get the wheels back on terra firma rather than undertake a 6,000 mile flight partly over an ocean. The crew was not certain WHY the failure had happened, right? - so for all they knew, the other three would later suffer the same fate.
They followed "procedure" closely, and it worked. But "procedure" is inflexible, however carefully it is put together, and is no substitute for on-the-spot judgment of an experienced crew. The 370 aboard were lucky that this time, the two coincided.
@Matt Finish Indeed so. Did you check my reference?
“ heavy “ first officer !
Another splendid simulation …reminding pilots of the Rolls Royce policy to mind the gap .
No commentary, not audio lead. I can’t sit back, relax and enjoy this. Please consider making this addition to future videos.
Looks like the typical renown Monty Python British Buffoonery was going down in that cockpit.
Kind of a click bait title to this video.
I wonder how many people here have heard that the jets no longer use fuel to fly their planes. #AirCompressors #NoFuelButChargingForIt
That sentence alone makes no sense
Idiotic nonsense.
@@tomstravels520 Perhaps you should do some research into my comment instead of offering your biased opinion. The turbines is what flies the planes and no fuel required once operational. Fuel to start engine and that's about it. Shut off your TV and do some due diligence. Cheers!
@@517-i9p how about you go back to school and redo your English exams. Jets don’t fly planes, pilots do. Also I’d love to put you in a commercial jet, shut off the fuel once airborne and then convince me you can keep the plane straight and level without loosing speed for hours
@@tomstravels520 Why would I go back to a governMENTAL indoctrination camp to learn BS? Apparently you know nothing about the turbines used in the jets these days eh Tom boy? A plane fly's at 3 degrees when flying and is not straight and level as you say. If you beLIEve that they use jet fuel to fly the planes then where do they store it and how can they pump the gas fast enough to fill the "supposed" fuel tanks? Puuulllllease do some research before replying with your nonsensical drabble. Are you old enough to have a drivers license? If so, tell me why is your surname in all capital letters? Bonus prize if you can answer correctly. #StartResearchingToday
Fantastic vid, Allec...as always! Now, I have to say that the topic of fuel consumption required for air travel, "70 tonnes" , was thought provoking! How can we sustain such travel (or the harvesting of hundreds of thousands of acres) with Biden's zero emissions policy?! Just a thought.
70 tonnes was the amount of fuel required to be dumped to land back in LAX after takeoff. The total fuel burn from LAX to London is significantly more than 70 tonnes.
What does that dumbass have to do with BA.
Well done 👍 All's well that ends well. ❤️🩹👀👏