I can't imagine seeing flames and then a crew member coming back to look at the damage, and then continuing across the Atlantic. I would have been terrified.
I was on a Pan-Am late evening flight from London to Warsaw in the 80s when we lost an engine and the effect was like a motor boat suddenly losing way in the water when the power is cut. I can’t remember what sort of plane it was except that the engines were rear mounted. A pilot bustled out of the cockpit and ran down the aisle although it wasn't possible to see the engines from the cabin. What was funny was that despite his speed he’d taken the time to don his cap and uniform trench coat although he wasn’t going anywhere. I was in business class with one other passenger and a stewardess. Pan Am was supposed to be “dry” but the stewardess, very nervous, produced a bottle of scotch from the galley which kept us comfortable while the captain diverted to Prague.
My son was actually on this flight sitting near a window. He described the flames and SEVERE vibrations when the engine was relit,so much so that he felt that the Aircraft had to have suffered damage. Very little information was forthcoming from the Flight crew and he was horrified when instead of returning to LAX the map started to show that they were climbing. To take advice from someone sitting on the ground 5000 miles away is crazy. Even at the end the flight had to do an emergency landing enroute because the crew thought that they were going to run out of fuel.
@@gunz300 Indeed they don’t,but on the day the crew were quite happy to take instructions from a total stranger sitting in a warm office 5000 miles away!
I have a lot of admiration for both commercial and service pilots when faced with a dangerous situation, making a quick decision for the safety of all those onboard, and try not to damage the plane itself. Pilots don't have an easy job, have to stay calm, and never panic when faced with unknown circumstances. Thankfully the pilots landed without incident, and no one was hurt.
Back in the nineties I was on a BA 747 which had an engine stall three hours out of Anchorage heading to Korea. The plane shock and the cabin crew looked pretty worried. Then we went back to Ancorage and a long wait before continuing the journey. Everyone was looking at the engine when we disembarked, but no sign of damage.
I knew nothing about planes and aviation when I discovered this channel. Now 5 years later I still know nothing, but just enough to think I do😊. Seriously it has been an education. And I do know what my favorite airplane and airline is! Ty for your dedication to your channel.
I'm so glad they landed safely. But that was a strange decision to make, especially considering the passengers had seen the flames. How terrifying! I wonder what they said or did to keep passengers calm for that very long flight. Thank you for another great presentation~
There is literally no reason for them to turn back, it's a compressor stall the engine was shutdown, there was no fire or any issue with the aircraft. The 747 could fly with 3 engines and it's safer to continue flying rather than dumping fuel and potentially landing overweight.
@@devon896 I understand what you are saying, but how would the passengers know this? I would have been terrified if I had seen the engine on fire, no matter how briefly.
I remember when this happened BA took a lot of criticism. Even though the 74 can fly with 3 engines, it should have landed in NY with 350+ passengers and crew. It took longer and put more pressure on the flight crew. Nice video as always.
I think part of the crew's thinking here is that they would have had to dump 70 tons of fuel over land. Still seems like a controversial decision. Luckily it worked out.
As a passenger, I would not be happy if I were crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a plane with a malfunctioning engine. Even if it has 3 other engines. It's not worth the risk if something else goes wrong.
Something else like what? Another engine failing? A 747 can fly on 2 engines, the pilots would then have diverted. It’s no different from flying a twin engine today and having one of those engines fail
@@tomstravels520 well they seemed to have a fuel problem in this video, for example. It's one thing if you're flying over land with lots of airports. But over the ocean? No thanks.
@@Bluefroggy84 over ocean you still have options. How do you think twin engined planes can fly over vast oceans? This crew flew close to Reykjavik incase they had to divert there, and it’s only in the very later stages when close to Ireland the fuel was not being pumped as much as expected
It's about 3,000 miles coast to coast, which is a similar distance to NY-LON and takes around the same time to cover (6-7 hours.) I'm British, and very glad I married a Boston lass rather than one from LA or SFA!
The captain's decision probably saved the company millions of pounds and prevented a load of environmental damage from all the dumped fuel. If I were a passenger, I think I would have preferred it if he landed asap! Great job though!
@@christopherweise438 There was a Delta flight out of LAX that dumped fuel over land and school children on recess felt the fuel. A kerfuffle quickly developed over why the fuel was not dumped over the Pacific. The Delta pilots had a lot of explaining to do.
Well done to the crew for a safe flight/landing with rules as they were then. Hopefully maintenance of engine practise was also included in the review. Great presentation as always 👍👍👍👍👍
The maintenance inspection frequency is determined by Rolls Royce. I can't remember whether or not they increased the inspection frequency after this event, but I suspect they did.
Wonderful video, as usual and my compliments again! My students love your videos for pauses on school. I think that, even if I would have preferred to stay in US, after such a compressor surge, and not venture beyond the Atlantic Ocean, the captain's decision was absolutely understandable: the plane made it until Manchester, so, it was effectively airworthy. Anyway, it is a little odd that there are such differences on regulations among FAA and CAA about issues like an airplane flying without an engine, even if it is a very common incident. For sure, BA english crews are very professional. Kudos!
On a twin engine flight from Heathrow to Menorca just past Paris in the 1980's an engine had to be shut down after emitting bursts of flames. Rather than landing in Paris the charter company decided to send the plane to it's base airport in Luton. The trip was my first holiday abroad with the girl who I later married. A night in Luton instead of Paris was an unforgivable safety risk !
In December 1981 I was flying from Singapore, from the newly opened Changi Airport, to Melbourne(AUS) via BA. Took off at night then a few minutes later the no3 engine decided that it didn't want to work anymore and just blew up. Plane dropped a few hundred (felt like a thousand feet) the whole side of the plane was bright orange for what seemed like an eternity but was probably 5-10 seconds then we levelled out. Pilot came on and said in a very calm english accent 'as you will have noticed we have had an issue with one of our engines. our course of action will be to fly over the sea dump fuel and make a return to Changi airport'. I think we were the first real emergency for them. Anyway, we landed and all de-planed and were put up in hotels over night. The next day we all went back to the airport again and flew to Melbourne. I had my newly purchased 10 speed bike in the hold of the plane that i was very proud of!!!!.
I was on a flight from Maui to LA that had to return to Honolulu about half way across the Pacific because of engine problems. I REALLY would like to know what was actually happening.
@askarmuk It would have been around April 2003. The airline was either Hawaiian Airlines or Northwest KLM. I was in the Navy and engaged to my Hawaiian wife, so I was flying from California to Hawaii pretty frequently.
Airline management never want to recommend anything other than continuing to the original destination. A great video as always, your portrayal is always interesting and I get immersed in the story.
I am just so glad that didn't turn into a terrible tragedy! I have been in some close calls as a passenger that scared me a bit but nothing like what those passengers experienced.
I can kind of understand it from the pilots POV for a beast like the 747 crossing the US, wrong or right; you're operational and you're going to have a place to land.
@@tomstravels520 MD-11 two-engined will continue flying, losing another engine on the B747 is a different story. Less redundancy imho, but I am no pilot.
Thanks, another excellent video, I do not know enough about the rules and procedures, but the Captain felt confident enough to proceed, a difficult decision. Dumping fuel is bad for the environment and landing an overweight plane is not acceptable either, but all ended well.
I know people are gonna say “what if a second engine failed”. Well Iceland would likely have been programmed as an alternate, it can handle a 747 and had suitable weather to land at if required.
@@Capecodham learn to use a dictionary. “Gonna” is actually a word according to Meriam Webster so I can say it when I want. If you think people in TH-cam comments should write like 4th graders then I’d leave now before you have a mental breakdown
@@tomstravels520 In general, avoid these words in writing. If the student council continues to raise ticket prices for prom, no one is gonna be able to attend. “Gonna” might sound natural when spoken, but in a text it looks sloppy. Replacing “gonna” with “going to” will make the writing more polished and the author look like he made it to 5th grade.
That's a lot of balls to keep in the air (pun intended) at once. A 747 will fly fine on 2 engines so they could afford to lose one more. Plus, an overweight landing that's too aggressive could damage the air frame. Lots of decisions to weigh, and even when they had that all sorted.....the compressor stall wasn't even the last of the drama.
Disagree. TransAtlantic flight with only three engines is foolhardy. Should have begun dumping fuel and landed as soon as possible. Too many souls onboard a 747 to take such chances.
I've had compressor stalls and engine failures in heavy Airplane 769K! We never continued! We declared an emergency ran the checklist and put the airplane on the ground! Flying that distance 3 engine is never ok! Dump the gas and land! Thanks for the video!
From the information provided it appears that the crew did not monitor per fuel tank consumption closely enough and allowed consumption from the no. 2 tank to run longer thank it should have. This caused the low fuel message on the MCM necessitating the emergency procedure to open all fuel tank cross feeds
@@jim2lane To me, the reasons for continuing made sense. I don't understand how the pilots apparently lost track of how much fuel was still on board. Also, if there was no explanation or reassurance offered to the passengers, there certainly should have been!
I agree with the policy and the Captain's decision. The plane was airworthy. Even though it looked like landing at Manchester was eating humble pie, I applaud that decision too. Obviously, they didn't have enough fuel to spare for a three engine Atlantic crossing with a stronger than usual head wind at the height they were, so that would need to be re-evaluated. And I imagine it cost the airline a little for the passengers to reach their agreed upon destination, but it couldn't have cost more than dumping tons of fuel and turning around. They followed policy and conducted a safe ocean crossing. All in all, I would say, these were well thought out, well done, and well executed moves by a trustworthy crew. 👍
Love your videos! And to that end, I humbly request you do a video about American Airlines Flight 1572. I would love to see one of your videos cover an incident that happened nearby to where I live, and I think you would put out the best video to date on that incident. Either way, looking forward to the next one!
Nice video. I like that you included the details of the pi$$ing contest afterwards between the FAA and CAA. I'm glad everything worked out okay, but had I been captain, I think I would've opted to play it safe and land in Chicago (ORD) or New York (LGA) where there would be a better chance to get the passengers on another plane to Heathrow.
Ikr, 1 engine down on a 4 engine plane and they called that "unairworthy" and then debunked themselves when they stated nothing was wrong with the fuel supply and it was just managed incorrectly while continuing to double down.
I was in a 747 many years ago. Sitting next me was a Polish talking about life in Poland. Suddenly we heard a BANG! The Cpt announced an engine failure but we had 3 more engines, therefore we will continue with an hour delay. Then another BANG! Cpt said “Another engine failure but we need to continue with 2 engines and the delay will now be 3 hou....BANG!.....5 hours with our last engine remaining”. At this point the Polish said to me “If we lose the 4th engine, we’ll stay up here all night long.”
I remember this incident, I think the crew did well, good CRM and the right decisions made, until the next problem and again the right decision made, I think they did well. Maybe in hignsight the rules should have been tighter but even continuing to say Toronto, or Chicago would have been a good choice too. They did what they were allowed and were reasonable.
Great video! Thanks! At the end of the day, the pilots demonstrated true professionalism! It is the bureaucrats that are bound and determined to undermine anything safe! For money.
Absolute video as usual. Never fail to provide the best information regarding air crashes. Please do a video on Japan Airlines 123, got to be the most horrific air accident in aviation history.
I was so nervous watching this and praying that nothing goes wrong. I am so glad it landed safe but I can’t believe the captain continued its journey across the Atlantic noting there was issues with an engine. I was praying it turned around or landed immediately at any nearby airport before something happened because there are 300 something lives onboard
The plain flew across the USA before crossing the Atlantic Ocean without any problems. A slightly longer distance and with many airports in their way. That most likely assured them that the ocean crossing would also be safe.
A few airlines probably updated their policy on continuing a flight after the loss of an engine on a 4 engine aircraft. Obviously not as critical as losing one engine on a twin, but still safety is reduced.
As a retired airline pilot my choice would be get on the ground asap. Fire or threat of fire is not to be fooled with. Any time an aircraft is not operating as designed, regardless of "rules" you get on the ground quickly, the machine cannot and ought not to be "trusted" as safe or airworthy.
Wow! If I were a passenger, they would have to reupholster my seat! Watching these videos gives me the impression that with so many necessary components for these planes to make it where they're going, I'd rather drive, although I suppose there are more car accidents.
You have to learn how to deal with issues you cannot control. After that, wisdom kicks in ; everybody dies, one way or another. Life is a gamble and we go when our number comes up. Cheer up !!!!! It is supposed to be great, on the other side....No pesky organic body, no pain, just wonderment. Sounds good to me. ....
When you lose one engine but the remaining engines are 3, you can cross the ocean. However, modern 2-engine aircraft will not begin to cross the ocean, if they lose an engine.
Cameras cameras everywhere, but not on a plane so the Captain and 1st Officer can view the engines without taking a stroll down the aisle, lean over a couple of passengers, and take a look as to whether they'll keep flying or not.
It never ceased to amaze me that in the 21st Century pilots in commercial aviation, with hundreds of lives in their hands, are still flying blind. And that two person operations makes it worse, because no one can exit the cockpit to look. It’s crazy to me that identifying an issue and how to address it still involves so much guesswork, especially when passengers have a clearer view of what is going on than the pilots flying them do.
@@Mk-qb2ny I’m afraid you are spot on and have a great point; just like my head. But every so often I think I come up with a good idea every decade or so. Just trying to think of ways to save lives.
this must have been one hell of a long, scary flight for the passengers. i’m still undecided wether it was the right decision made by the pilot, but his reasonings were justified, and hey, i’m not a pilot.
This situation was handled so well that it made the video boring. But, please understand, I prefer a boring air incidence video over the alternative. Great job as always TheFlightChannel.
Back in 2017 I was on a British Airways 747, Heathrow to Vancouver flight. The aircraft was apparently 25 years old, and was due to be decommissioned the following year. On take off there was an almighty banging and rumbling, i mean it was LOUD. The whole plane shook as the landing gear retracted. Everyone I looked at was visibly nervous. I couldn't believe that an aircraft that did that could be considered airworthy.
Nah, 'heavy' is '70's slang, meaning significant or important, usually in a negative way. As in, if the plane needs the back up pilot, "this situation is getting heavy, man."
This is a particularly good video for several reasons. First, it explains why flames may appear in the exhaust of a turbofan engine (and other jetengines as well) yet not require emergency panic and return to base. These engines are sturdy and durable almost beyond imagination, much more than old piston ones. In many cases, the pilot's action of reducing the engine to idle and throttling it up gently would work. Secondly, a 747 can fly on three engines without endangering anyone; and even two engines for a while, as the ground engineers anticipated. Thirdly, the prospect of dumping a hundred-plus tons of raw fuel so they could land safely is offensive for several reasons. Air pollution is one, since unburned hydrocarbons are a major cause of illness and even death to people suffering respiratory problems. Fourthly, the inconvenience to passengers in the plane is major. If it's ever happened to you, it will never be forgotten. The economic damage to the airline is huge, and they would be out money plus reputation. Which means more money. I think the FAA was really stupid to attack British Airways for their successful handling of a real emergency. They should save their criticism for the really serious lapses that need full attention, the stuff that gets people killed, as we see here so often.
@@ab8jeh And they didn't just declare an emergency, they declared a MAYDAY at 9:45, which, as I understand, is the ultimate emergency declaration, a declaration of possible impending disaster unless dramatic action is taken. This entire episode was a bit on the close side, but it ended successfully.
@@ab8jeh they declared an emergency because of them getting close to their final reserve fuel amount. They would have made it to Heathrow with the fuel but it would have been illegal. It is a requirement to declare a mayday when you reach (or in this case get close to) your final reserve fuel (usually 30/45 mins)
@@roberthagedorn290 declaring a mayday and an emergency are the same thing and it would just because they were due to go below the final reserve fuel if they continued to Heathrow
@@ab8jeh I lived in Britain and Manchester International airport is only 185 miles north of London, under an hour flight time. Plus, Manchester is an airline hub, like Chicago, and everything, including new tutbofan engines are stored there. Passengers would be quickly accommodated by car, rail, or bus to their original destinations. It's as close to London as you can get.
I was momentarily confused about the video title because here, in Los Angeles, we're by the Pacific ocean. Obviously, the plane is able to continue it's journey. Can't wait to watch and see how this plays out.
Interesting story. In one case, i can understand crews solution to cross Atlantic, but in other case, if they had double engine failure over atlantic, situation might be very dangerous
I'm not a big fan of the FAA these days, but I think they were correct about this. Frankly, I think they should have stayed at LAX, but flying across the USA in that condition wasn't too big a risk. Flying acorss the whole Atlantic Ocean was. Good thing BA has great, well-trained pilots.
Sounds like the crew acted responsibly, following established guidelines, and diverting to Manchester out of caution when it looked as though the remaining fuel at London would be close to min reserves. It wasn't until the descent to Manchester was underway that the problem with the #2 fuel tank was identified, so diverting was unknowingly the right call. Solid airmanship. If the FAA raised a fuss, that's something for the front office to deal with.
You do what you got to do ! does not mean, you don't have a breakdown, afterwards. It is a stressful gig, for sure but pilots love their lives so it is worth dealing with the snags. My son is one of them so I know, even though he does not tell me , anything that would freak me out. I got my "single engine land " license, when I was 25 and that is a long time ago. Now, I just tend my garden, for "excitement." I am awaken but not "woke". Big difference.
I used to fly 747s for AirFrance back in the early 90s. We had a similar situation on one of our transatlantic routes. All I can say with certainty is that when Indians take over software companies, the quality of tech goes to shit.
The decision to continue makes a lot of sense for the 747. Most jets now a days are two engine, lose one, have one left. 747, lose one have 3 left. Plenty of power and still one more engine than most airliners today.
I'm inclined to agree with the FAA, it was fine carrying on flying within easy reach of airports, but going out over the Atlantic with 3 engines and marginal fuel was a bit iffy. Would have been better to have put it down somewhere on the US East Coast.
4:27. When there are confirmed visible and the plane is not handling correctly, then WHY, at this second, didn’t they ask to return to the airport immediately?? FLAMES on any part of a jet are NEVER indicative of a “simple fix.” Then 5:30…. Seriously?!?
I absolutely love these videos, so interesting to watch, how one of the safest forms of transport can come undone and have horrific and deadly consequences. Thoughts and prayers to all the people who lose their lives, and their families 😢🙏🏻
Once airborne a 747 can fly just fine on 2 engines. So, they actually could have lost another one and been just fine. 2 engine aircraft have no choice but to set down, and they certainly wouldn't be crossing any oceans on one engine.
I can't imagine seeing flames and then a crew member coming back to look at the damage, and then continuing across the Atlantic. I would have been terrified.
Me too. They would have had to divert and land because I would have been an unruly passenger screaming to get me off the plane.
@@jouezmoi And then continuing across the Atlantic!
I was on a Pan-Am late evening flight from London to Warsaw in the 80s when we lost an engine and the effect was like a motor boat suddenly losing way in the water when the power is cut. I can’t remember what sort of plane it was except that the engines were rear mounted. A pilot bustled out of the cockpit and ran down the aisle although it wasn't possible to see the engines from the cabin. What was funny was that despite his speed he’d taken the time to don his cap and uniform trench coat although he wasn’t going anywhere. I was in business class with one other passenger and a stewardess. Pan Am was supposed to be “dry” but the stewardess, very nervous, produced a bottle of scotch from the galley which kept us comfortable while the captain diverted to Prague.
I'd be texting my mom and putting my drivers license somewhere on me so I could easily be identified.
Definitely a SYP moment for sure!
My son was actually on this flight sitting near a window. He described the flames and SEVERE vibrations when the engine was relit,so much so that he felt that the Aircraft had to have suffered damage. Very little information was forthcoming from the Flight crew and he was horrified when instead of returning to LAX the map started to show that they were climbing. To take advice from someone sitting on the ground 5000 miles away is crazy. Even at the end the flight had to do an emergency landing enroute because the crew thought that they were going to run out of fuel.
Luckily he is safe
I’m sorry for what your son had went through.
This is why passengers don't make decisions.
@@gunz300 Indeed they don’t,but on the day the crew were quite happy to take instructions from a total stranger sitting in a warm office 5000 miles away!
@@jimfomes4470 Did you proof read this? I honestly don't know what this means.
I swear your ANIMATION is becoming so realistic. It will be hard to tell them apart from real video! Wonderful job! And great episode
Plus, the animation is pretty good as well!
@@jamescallen36 thank you so much for catching that otherwise nobody would know what I’m talking about!
Not animation. Recording of flight sim
other than him sneaking a 777 in at the end ahah, i agree though
I have a lot of admiration for both commercial and service pilots when faced with a dangerous situation, making a quick decision for the safety of all those onboard, and try not to damage the plane itself. Pilots don't have an easy job, have to stay calm, and never panic when faced with unknown circumstances.
Thankfully the pilots landed without incident, and no one was hurt.
Nothing to do with the landing but the decision to fly on over the Atlantic.
Back in the nineties I was on a BA 747 which had an engine stall three hours out of Anchorage heading to Korea. The plane shock and the cabin crew looked pretty worried. Then we went back to Ancorage and a long wait before continuing the journey. Everyone was looking at the engine when we disembarked, but no sign of damage.
Once again, the Queen of the Skies has impressed me. Too bad this aircraft is not being built anymore.
I knew nothing about planes and aviation when I discovered this channel. Now 5 years later I still know nothing, but just enough to think I do😊. Seriously it has been an education. And I do know what my favorite airplane and airline is! Ty for your dedication to your channel.
Thanks a lot for your continuous support. I’m glad the videos contribuited a little bit to you education on this topic. All the best :)
Hahahahhahahhahah great comment
As someone who knows little ... ok, nothing .. about flying I still watch the channel.
I'm so glad they landed safely. But that was a strange decision to make, especially considering the passengers had seen the flames. How terrifying! I wonder what they said or did to keep passengers calm for that very long flight. Thank you for another great presentation~
There is literally no reason for them to turn back, it's a compressor stall the engine was shutdown, there was no fire or any issue with the aircraft. The 747 could fly with 3 engines and it's safer to continue flying rather than dumping fuel and potentially landing overweight.
@@devon896 I understand what you are saying, but how would the passengers know this? I would have been terrified if I had seen the engine on fire, no matter how briefly.
I remember when this happened BA took a lot of criticism. Even though the 74 can fly with 3 engines, it should have landed in NY with 350+ passengers and crew. It took longer and put more pressure on the flight crew. Nice video as always.
I think part of the crew's thinking here is that they would have had to dump 70 tons of fuel over land. Still seems like a controversial decision. Luckily it worked out.
@@carljaekle That's what they started with. They didn't have all that fuel after they had flown to NY.
@@mikei70 Yes, agree, they could have landed, somewhere in the US, before setting forth over ocean, once the fuel load was reduced to allow landing.
I rather prefer to fly on a plane with all engines working.
@@machintelligence Sissy.
Thanks GOD you changed from ALL CAPS to low font. MUCH easier to read, thank you.
Never stop. You are hands down, the best cgi replication of airplane disaster/accidents.💙
agweed
Great video! These investigation series are my favorite, you do a really good job! Keep up the good work my friend!
As a passenger, I would not be happy if I were crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a plane with a malfunctioning engine. Even if it has 3 other engines. It's not worth the risk if something else goes wrong.
Something else like what? Another engine failing? A 747 can fly on 2 engines, the pilots would then have diverted. It’s no different from flying a twin engine today and having one of those engines fail
@@tomstravels520 well they seemed to have a fuel problem in this video, for example. It's one thing if you're flying over land with lots of airports. But over the ocean? No thanks.
@@Bluefroggy84 over ocean you still have options. How do you think twin engined planes can fly over vast oceans? This crew flew close to Reykjavik incase they had to divert there, and it’s only in the very later stages when close to Ireland the fuel was not being pumped as much as expected
@Tom’s Travels let's agree to disagree? I would be uncomfortable if I knew. Maybe you wouldn't. That's okay.
@@Bluefroggy84 i think most of us would feel uneasy, and i’m sure these passengers did!
“not unairworthy” is an interesting term of art.
As a German, I'm always impressed how big the US are, I mean, flying hours until you reach the atlantique ocean...
It's about 3,000 miles coast to coast, which is a similar distance to NY-LON and takes around the same time to cover (6-7 hours.) I'm British, and very glad I married a Boston lass rather than one from LA or SFA!
You can fit 28 Germanys in the US.
Ach du liebest !
@@rich_edwards79 "Boston lass" is absolutely charming!
Even bigger is Russia with 11 time zones.
The captain's decision probably saved the company millions of pounds and prevented a load of environmental damage from all the dumped fuel. If I were a passenger, I think I would have preferred it if he landed asap! Great job though!
At that altitude, jet fuel vaporizes instantly.
@@uap24 - Yep.....totally evaporated before it ever gets to the ground.
An overweight landing is risky and only executed as a last resort. Lots could go wrong if you set it down too hard and buckle the air frame.
@@christopherweise438 There was a Delta flight out of LAX that dumped fuel over land and school children on recess felt the fuel. A kerfuffle quickly developed over why the fuel was not dumped over the Pacific. The Delta pilots had a lot of explaining to do.
@@deepthinker999 - I bet. Usually you need to be at 5,000 + ft and preferably over water or rural areas.
We are the early gang lads
💪🏽 yes indeed!
Luckily, no one injured on board, and they landed safe and sound.
Well done to the crew for a safe flight/landing with rules as they were then. Hopefully maintenance of engine practise was also included in the review. Great presentation as always 👍👍👍👍👍
The maintenance inspection frequency is determined by Rolls Royce. I can't remember whether or not they increased the inspection frequency after this event, but I suspect they did.
Wonderful video, as usual and my compliments again! My students love your videos for pauses on school. I think that, even if I would have preferred to stay in US, after such a compressor surge, and not venture beyond the Atlantic Ocean, the captain's decision was absolutely understandable: the plane made it until Manchester, so, it was effectively airworthy. Anyway, it is a little odd that there are such differences on regulations among FAA and CAA about issues like an airplane flying without an engine, even if it is a very common incident. For sure, BA english crews are very professional. Kudos!
I am pleased that everyone survived.
Love your videos ❤
They could have just landed in NYC. That would not have been overweight
Yes they could have but they didn’t have the time to think
@@TheHunkerBeans6841 From LA to NYC no time to think? That makes no sense. They didn't want to land heavy in LAX
That was an option that was considered although the FAA would have preferred a landing in the U.S.
@@deepthinker999 huh? NY is in the US. 🤦♂️
New York isn’t on the route from LA to London
I enjoy this channel but this video seems a bit like click bait since the plane never actually catches on fire.
On a twin engine flight from Heathrow to Menorca just past Paris in the 1980's an engine had to be shut down after emitting bursts of flames. Rather than landing in Paris the charter company decided to send the plane to it's base airport in Luton. The trip was my first holiday abroad with the girl who I later married. A night in Luton instead of Paris was an unforgivable safety risk !
John North as someone who grew up in Luton I stand by this comment😂
Heh heh heh...
Stunning visuals. A+ as usual.
BA: “Tis but a scratch.”
In December 1981 I was flying from Singapore, from the newly opened Changi Airport, to Melbourne(AUS) via BA. Took off at night then a few minutes later the no3 engine decided that it didn't want to work anymore and just blew up. Plane dropped a few hundred (felt like a thousand feet) the whole side of the plane was bright orange for what seemed like an eternity but was probably 5-10 seconds then we levelled out. Pilot came on and said in a very calm english accent 'as you will have noticed we have had an issue with one of our engines. our course of action will be to fly over the sea dump fuel and make a return to Changi airport'. I think we were the first real emergency for them. Anyway, we landed and all de-planed and were put up in hotels over night. The next day we all went back to the airport again and flew to Melbourne. I had my newly purchased 10 speed bike in the hold of the plane that i was very proud of!!!!.
I was on a flight from Maui to LA that had to return to Honolulu about half way across the Pacific because of engine problems. I REALLY would like to know what was actually happening.
Tell us the flight number and the day of accident
@askarmuk It would have been around April 2003. The airline was either Hawaiian Airlines or Northwest KLM. I was in the Navy and engaged to my Hawaiian wife, so I was flying from California to Hawaii pretty frequently.
Flight number or year and airline ?
Airline management never want to recommend anything other than continuing to the original destination. A great video as always, your portrayal is always interesting and I get immersed in the story.
I am just so glad that didn't turn into a terrible tragedy! I have been in some close calls as a passenger that scared me a bit but nothing like what those passengers experienced.
I can kind of understand it from the pilots POV for a beast like the 747 crossing the US, wrong or right; you're operational and you're going to have a place to land.
I love a happy ending,nobody hurt...
Interesting decision to continue 3-engined over the Atlantic. To me this sounds like asking for trouble.
Landing with 70 tons of fuel would be more dangerous. Dumping all that fuel not desirable.
What’s the difference between that and a DC-10 or L-1011 flying over the Atlantic?
@@tomstravels520 MD-11 two-engined will continue flying, losing another engine on the B747 is a different story. Less redundancy imho, but I am no pilot.
@@wolfgangwust5883 747 will still fly with 2 engines. Might need a lot of rudder input if on same side but will still fly.
Thanks, another excellent video, I do not know enough about the rules and procedures, but the Captain felt confident enough to proceed, a difficult decision.
Dumping fuel is bad for the environment and landing an overweight plane is not acceptable either, but all ended well.
It's only bad for the environment if it's dumped at low altitude. If it's done anywhere above 6,000 feet it will evaporate before hitting the ground.
@@christopherweise438 CO, NOx, etc from car engines "will evaporate" too, but...
@@dmitryvodolazsky - Yea.....but i meant it won't coat the population with Kerosene.....and you know that's what i meant.
I know people are gonna say “what if a second engine failed”. Well Iceland would likely have been programmed as an alternate, it can handle a 747 and had suitable weather to land at if required.
Is gonna a word?
@@Capecodham yes it is actually, if you bothered to look it up you wouldn’t have had to ask
@@tomstravels520 Learn to write like you made it out of 4th grade.
@@Capecodham learn to use a dictionary. “Gonna” is actually a word according to Meriam Webster so I can say it when I want. If you think people in TH-cam comments should write like 4th graders then I’d leave now before you have a mental breakdown
@@tomstravels520 In general, avoid these words in writing. If the student council continues to raise ticket prices for prom, no one is gonna be able to attend. “Gonna” might sound natural when spoken, but in a text it looks sloppy. Replacing “gonna” with “going to” will make the writing more polished and the author look like he made it to 5th grade.
Another great video. I was impressed by the crew's performance... very professional in my opinion.
That's a lot of balls to keep in the air (pun intended) at once. A 747 will fly fine on 2 engines so they could afford to lose one more. Plus, an overweight landing that's too aggressive could damage the air frame. Lots of decisions to weigh, and even when they had that all sorted.....the compressor stall wasn't even the last of the drama.
Disagree. TransAtlantic flight with only three engines is foolhardy. Should have begun dumping fuel and landed as soon as possible. Too many souls onboard a 747 to take such chances.
I've had compressor stalls and engine failures in heavy Airplane 769K! We never continued! We declared an emergency ran the checklist and put the airplane on the ground! Flying that distance 3 engine is never ok! Dump the gas and land! Thanks for the video!
So was there an actual shortage of accessible fuel at the end, or were the fuel system pumps not being correctly managed at one point?
From the information provided it appears that the crew did not monitor per fuel tank consumption closely enough and allowed consumption from the no. 2 tank to run longer thank it should have. This caused the low fuel message on the MCM necessitating the emergency procedure to open all fuel tank cross feeds
@@jim2lane To me, the reasons for continuing made sense. I don't understand how the pilots apparently lost track of how much fuel was still on board. Also, if there was no explanation or reassurance offered to the passengers, there certainly should have been!
I agree with the policy and the Captain's decision. The plane was airworthy. Even though it looked like landing at Manchester was eating humble pie, I applaud that decision too. Obviously, they didn't have enough fuel to spare for a three engine Atlantic crossing with a stronger than usual head wind at the height they were, so that would need to be re-evaluated. And I imagine it cost the airline a little for the passengers to reach their agreed upon destination, but it couldn't have cost more than dumping tons of fuel and turning around. They followed policy and conducted a safe ocean crossing. All in all, I would say, these were well thought out, well done, and well executed moves by a trustworthy crew. 👍
Remember this plane still had more engines than most that cross the Atlantic - if it was company procedure then there was no real risk to passengers.
Always waiting for your new videos.
get a life.
Love your videos! And to that end, I humbly request you do a video about American Airlines Flight 1572. I would love to see one of your videos cover an incident that happened nearby to where I live, and I think you would put out the best video to date on that incident. Either way, looking forward to the next one!
Nice video. I like that you included the details of the pi$$ing contest afterwards between the FAA and CAA. I'm glad everything worked out okay, but had I been captain, I think I would've opted to play it safe and land in Chicago (ORD) or New York (LGA) where there would be a better chance to get the passengers on another plane to Heathrow.
Ikr, 1 engine down on a 4 engine plane and they called that "unairworthy" and then debunked themselves when they stated nothing was wrong with the fuel supply and it was just managed incorrectly while continuing to double down.
I was in a 747 many years ago. Sitting next me was a Polish talking about life in Poland. Suddenly we heard a BANG! The Cpt announced an engine failure but we had 3 more engines, therefore we will continue with an hour delay. Then another BANG! Cpt said “Another engine failure but we need to continue with 2 engines and the delay will now be 3 hou....BANG!.....5 hours with our last engine remaining”. At this point the Polish said to me “If we lose the 4th engine, we’ll stay up here all night long.”
WOW !
🤣🤣🤣
I remember this incident, I think the crew did well, good CRM and the right decisions made, until the next problem and again the right decision made,
I think they did well. Maybe in hignsight the rules should have been tighter but even continuing to say Toronto, or Chicago would have been a good choice too.
They did what they were allowed and were reasonable.
Great video! Thanks! At the end of the day, the pilots demonstrated true professionalism! It is the bureaucrats that are bound and determined to undermine anything safe! For money.
Thank God it was a additional Engine ... God bless all the passengers ,Pilots and crew member ❤
Yeah no worries, the Queen will get you there even on two engines. And on only one... she's a damn fine glider.
I love your videos sooooooo much, one day I want to make something like them!
Thanks for the bonus episode!
Great Video! I thought BA acted very badly. While they were flying nobody had any idea what what was wrong.
Absolute video as usual. Never fail to provide the best information regarding air crashes. Please do a video on Japan Airlines 123, got to be the most horrific air accident in aviation history.
I dunno. I dont think I wouldve crossed the Atlantic. hit JFK and get it sorted
I was so nervous watching this and praying that nothing goes wrong. I am so glad it landed safe but I can’t believe the captain continued its journey across the Atlantic noting there was issues with an engine. I was praying it turned around or landed immediately at any nearby airport before something happened because there are 300 something lives onboard
The plain flew across the USA before crossing the Atlantic Ocean without any problems. A slightly longer distance and with many airports in their way. That most likely assured them that the ocean crossing would also be safe.
Thank god that all the people are safe including the flight...
hi bro i'm a new subscriber to your channel i love your videos and your simulations you are amazing
Outstanding crew, hats off to the pilots
I agree with the FAA, it's one thing if this happens in the middle of the ocean, another when it's on climbout close to the airport.
BA did absolutely the right thing here. Great CRM and a safe outcome. Miss the CAPITOL letters again but great video as always 👏
A few airlines probably updated their policy on continuing a flight after the loss of an engine on a 4 engine aircraft. Obviously not as critical as losing one engine on a twin, but still safety is reduced.
As a retired airline pilot my choice would be get on the ground asap. Fire or threat of fire is not to be fooled with. Any time an aircraft is not operating as designed, regardless of "rules" you get on the ground quickly, the machine cannot and ought not to be "trusted" as safe or airworthy.
May I ask, does the Captain have the final say in a situation like this or just they take instruction from air traffic control?
Must they I mean
Wow! If I were a passenger, they would have to reupholster my seat! Watching these videos gives me the impression that with so many necessary components for these planes to make it where they're going, I'd rather drive, although I suppose there are more car accidents.
Good luck with driving across the Atlantic.
@@RonSeymour1 Not a problem, I sure can't afford to travel to Europe.
@@qmnnvrdyz8965 Just pulling your leg. I hope that you make it one day.
You have to learn how to deal with issues you cannot control. After that, wisdom kicks in ; everybody dies, one way or another. Life is a gamble and we go when our number comes up. Cheer up !!!!! It is supposed to be great, on the other side....No pesky organic body, no pain, just wonderment. Sounds good to me. ....
@@linanicolia1363 - "No pesky organic body"
Never heard it put that way before. Interesting take.
When you lose one engine but the remaining engines are 3, you can cross the ocean. However, modern 2-engine aircraft will not begin to cross the ocean, if they lose an engine.
I thought it sounded like the crew did an outstanding job.
Cameras cameras everywhere, but not on a plane so the Captain and 1st Officer can view the engines without taking a stroll down the aisle, lean over a couple of passengers, and take a look as to whether they'll keep flying or not.
It never ceased to amaze me that in the 21st Century pilots in commercial aviation, with hundreds of lives in their hands, are still flying blind. And that two person operations makes it worse, because no one can exit the cockpit to look. It’s crazy to me that identifying an issue and how to address it still involves so much guesswork, especially when passengers have a clearer view of what is going on than the pilots flying them do.
If only you could be the aircraft head designer!
@@Mk-qb2ny I’m afraid you are spot on and have a great point; just like my head. But every so often I think I come up with a good idea every decade or so. Just trying to think of ways to save lives.
That new MS Flight Sim looks amazing.
That’s P3D, not MSFS2020. There is no 747-400 for MSFS2020
this must have been one hell of a long, scary flight for the passengers.
i’m still undecided wether it was the right decision made by the pilot, but his reasonings were justified, and hey, i’m not a pilot.
New video on a Saturday???
What did we do to deserve this?
Rerun.
So many things can go wrong in airliners. Makes me pretty happy to stay off them.
Great stuff
Great video!
This situation was handled so well that it made the video boring. But, please understand, I prefer a boring air incidence video over the alternative. Great job as always TheFlightChannel.
Back in 2017 I was on a British Airways 747, Heathrow to Vancouver flight. The aircraft was apparently 25 years old, and was due to be decommissioned the following year. On take off there was an almighty banging and rumbling, i mean it was LOUD. The whole plane shook as the landing gear retracted. Everyone I looked at was visibly nervous. I couldn't believe that an aircraft that did that could be considered airworthy.
You would mechanics would care more
BRAVE CAPTAIN - saved the company TONS OF MONEY!
Fun fact: From 1990 until 2010, british airways won on no.1 place of the best airline which is basically like qatar airways on today.
Maybe the "heavy" first officer was 300lbs or above?
Nah, 'heavy' is '70's slang, meaning significant or important, usually in a negative way. As in, if the plane needs the back up pilot, "this situation is getting heavy, man."
Great to see British standards upheld 💪 🇬🇧
Quad engines aircrafts are best in these emergency situations, although modern engines are more safer than before.
This is a particularly good video for several reasons. First, it explains why flames may appear in the exhaust of a turbofan engine (and other jetengines as well) yet not require emergency panic and return to base. These engines are sturdy and durable almost beyond imagination, much more than old piston ones.
In many cases, the pilot's action of reducing the engine to idle and throttling it up gently would work.
Secondly, a 747 can fly on three engines without endangering anyone; and even two engines for a while, as the ground engineers anticipated.
Thirdly, the prospect of dumping a hundred-plus tons of raw fuel so they could land safely is offensive for several reasons. Air pollution is one, since unburned hydrocarbons are a major cause of illness and even death to people suffering respiratory problems.
Fourthly, the inconvenience to passengers in the plane is major. If it's ever happened to you, it will never be forgotten. The economic damage to the airline is huge, and they would be out money plus reputation. Which means more money.
I think the FAA was really stupid to attack British Airways for their successful handling of a real emergency. They should save their criticism for the really serious lapses that need full attention, the stuff that gets people killed, as we see here so often.
The fact they had to declare an emergency and land at Manchester doesn't seem to back your stance up terribly well.
@@ab8jeh And they didn't just declare an emergency, they declared a MAYDAY at 9:45, which, as I understand, is the ultimate emergency declaration, a declaration of possible impending disaster unless dramatic action is taken. This entire episode was a bit on the close side, but it ended successfully.
@@ab8jeh they declared an emergency because of them getting close to their final reserve fuel amount. They would have made it to Heathrow with the fuel but it would have been illegal. It is a requirement to declare a mayday when you reach (or in this case get close to) your final reserve fuel (usually 30/45 mins)
@@roberthagedorn290 declaring a mayday and an emergency are the same thing and it would just because they were due to go below the final reserve fuel if they continued to Heathrow
@@ab8jeh I lived in Britain and Manchester International airport is only 185 miles north of London, under an hour flight time. Plus, Manchester is an airline hub, like Chicago, and everything, including new tutbofan engines are stored there. Passengers would be quickly accommodated by car, rail, or bus to their original destinations. It's as close to London as you can get.
Dude, even considering all those factors, the captain should've decided to make an emergency landing immediately, not proceed with the flight
Why? What was the risk? You fly on twin engine jets over the Atlantic right? So why complain about a 3 engined plane?
I was momentarily confused about the video title because here, in Los Angeles, we're by the Pacific ocean. Obviously, the plane is able to continue it's journey. Can't wait to watch and see how this plays out.
Well, nothing like thinking you are driving an old Ford that's fuel. pump went bad......LOL!
Love your video
Interesting story. In one case, i can understand crews solution to cross Atlantic, but in other case, if they had double engine failure over atlantic, situation might be very dangerous
I'm not a big fan of the FAA these days, but I think they were correct about this. Frankly, I think they should have stayed at LAX, but flying across the USA in that condition wasn't too big a risk. Flying acorss the whole Atlantic Ocean was. Good thing BA has great, well-trained pilots.
What were they thinking
Sounds like the crew acted responsibly, following established guidelines, and diverting to Manchester out of caution when it looked as though the remaining fuel at London would be close to min reserves. It wasn't until the descent to Manchester was underway that the problem with the #2 fuel tank was identified, so diverting was unknowingly the right call. Solid airmanship. If the FAA raised a fuss, that's something for the front office to deal with.
What a CREW!!! 💪 Incredible "moxy" to pull this off! Good for them, as I would have had a nervous breakdown 😬 🤯
You do what you got to do ! does not mean, you don't have a breakdown, afterwards. It is a stressful gig, for sure but pilots love their lives so it is worth dealing with the snags. My son is one of them so I know, even though he does not tell me , anything that would freak me out. I got my "single engine land " license, when I was 25 and that is a long time ago. Now, I just tend my garden, for "excitement." I am awaken but not "woke". Big difference.
I used to fly 747s for AirFrance back in the early 90s. We had a similar situation on one of our transatlantic routes. All I can say with certainty is that when Indians take over software companies, the quality of tech goes to shit.
Maybe you flew them in your mom’s basement. Your ridiculous comment has nothing to do with this situation 🤡
Clickbait title - the plane did not catch fire as stated. There was merely a compressor stall in one of the engines. totally irresponsible title
The decision to continue makes a lot of sense for the 747. Most jets now a days are two engine, lose one, have one left. 747, lose one have 3 left. Plenty of power and still one more engine than most airliners today.
Good thing that they took on that extra fuel before taking off.
I'm inclined to agree with the FAA, it was fine carrying on flying within easy reach of airports, but going out over the Atlantic with 3 engines and marginal fuel was a bit iffy. Would have been better to have put it down somewhere on the US East Coast.
But you're fine to cross the Atlantic on 2 engined planes? The fuel was not marginal over the Atlantic. Only when they reached the other side
4:27. When there are confirmed visible and the plane is not handling correctly, then WHY, at this second, didn’t they ask to return to the airport immediately?? FLAMES on any part of a jet are NEVER indicative of a “simple fix.” Then 5:30…. Seriously?!?
Who said the plane wasn’t handling correctly? Flames does not always mean an engine fire. If fuel is shut off to the engine then it can’t catch fire
Good think they loaded that extra seven tons of fuel prior to departure!
New ending music for this channel.
Great video as always. But no need to use clickbait. The plane did not catch on fire.
I absolutely love these videos, so interesting to watch, how one of the safest forms of transport can come undone and have horrific and deadly consequences. Thoughts and prayers to all the people who lose their lives, and their families 😢🙏🏻
another great video. thank TFC!! 🥰✈✈
With ETOPS regulations I wonder what will happen if this will be happens to current 2 engines aircraft…
No. Because you don’t have redundancy if second engine fails. That’s why ETOPS exists. To set rules how far you can be from an alternate
Once airborne a 747 can fly just fine on 2 engines. So, they actually could have lost another one and been just fine.
2 engine aircraft have no choice but to set down, and they certainly wouldn't be crossing any oceans on one engine.