Crossing the Atlantic With a Dead Engine
Passengers heard the pops, and people on the ground saw sparks flying out from beneath the wing. A British Airways 747 had an engine fail during takeoff in Los Angeles 10 days ago.
But instead of returning to the airport to land, Flight 268 continued on across the U.S, up near the North Pole, across the Atlantic -- all the way to England.
The flight, with 351 passengers on board, didn't quite make it to London, its scheduled destination. It eventually made an emergency landing in Manchester, England, setting off a controversy over the risk of flying 10 hours with a dead engine hanging under the wing.
The Feb. 19 British Airways incident came just two days after the European Union began making airlines compensate passengers for delays. In the aftermath, the British Air Line Pilots' Association, the union representing British Airways pilots, issued a statement warning the industry that the new regulation could pressure pilots to take more risks to save money.
British Airways flew a 747 to the U.K. after one of its four engines died on takeoff from Los Angeles.
In addition, airline regulators, pilots and safety experts are raising questions about the crew's decision to fly such a long distance after an engine failure, since it narrows the safety margin in the unlikely event that something else goes wrong with the plane.
Engine failures on jet aircraft occur only infrequently, and pilots are trained to handle them. Jet aircraft are designed to climb and cruise after losing one engine, and the four-engine Boeing 747 can fly on just two engines (though at lower altitude, and with some strain).
British Airways says the plane was safe flying on three of its four engines. The airline also says it has flown 747s with just three engines before -- once in April 2003, for instance, on the same Los Angeles-London route. "Had there been any kind of question on safety, they would have turned back to Los Angeles or gone to another U.S. airport," says British Airways spokesman John Lampl.
For U.S. airlines, Federal Aviation Administration regulations require commercial carriers to land at the nearest suitable airport after an engine failure. However, British Air and safety experts say that British regulations don't. In the complex world of aviation law, which is governed by bilateral treaties and international agreements, the bottom line is that the FAA doesn't have jurisdiction over a British crew in this instance.
Yesterday, an FAA spokeswoman said the agency has "concerns" about the flight and is going to contact regulators in the U.K. to discuss the incident.
MIDDLE SEAT MAILBOX
Have a question about air travel or the airline industry? Write to me at
middleseat@wsj.com. Answers to selected questions will appear in Middle Seat Mailbox on Fridays. If you don't want your comments considered for Middle Seat Mailbox, please make that clear.
Turning around a plane and landing it immediately can be an expensive proposition. First, there is the cost of dumping tons of expensive jet fuel (planes have difficulty landing with full tanks), and the likely additional cost of putting up the passengers in hotels. In addition, under last month's new EU rules on passenger compensation, British Airways would have also had to pay travelers �210,600, or about $280,000 -- �600 apiece -- if they got to London's Heathrow Airport more than five hours late.
Mr. Lampl of British Airways said any suggestion that the plane continued because of financial pressure from the new EU rules is "total rubbish." The issue "most likely was never discussed with the crew," he said. British Air hasn't released the names of crew members.
Many aviation experts say most pilots won't take undue risks to keep costs down -- after all, their own lives are at stake, as well as those of hundreds of passengers. While economics can factor into airline decisions, "I don't think the crew would take a risk they thought was unacceptable solely for money," said Bernard Loeb, a former top investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board.
However, he criticizes British Air's decision to fly on to the U.K. with the disabled engine. "I don't think it was an appropriate decision at all. There are a lot of events that could have occurred that would have created a major problem."
Flight 268 took off just after 9:24 p.m. from Los Angeles, according to a track of the flight recorded by the airport. The inboard engine on the left side of the airplane experienced an unusual power surge at takeoff, and Los Angeles officials said residents near the airport reported seeing sparks and hearing "popping of engines."
The Boeing 747-400 headed southwest over Santa Monica Bay, climbed to 5,000 feet and circled for more than 20 minutes while the crew diagnosed the problem and communicated with British Airways operations center in London. After deciding the flight could get to London on three engines, the jet headed to the U.K.
Passengers heard two loud pops as the plane took off, one passenger told the Times of London, which wrote about the incident on Friday. The captain announced that the plane had lost an engine and the crew was considering whether to continue to the U.K.
One former pilot questions the decision to proceed with an ailing airplane. "Continuing on after an engine failure on takeoff is nuts," says Barry Schiff, a retired 747 captain with Trans World Airlines who has written books on proper flying procedures and has received a congressional commendation for his work in aviation safety.
Unable to climb as high as planned, the plane flew at a lower altitude across the Atlantic, increasing drag. That increases fuel burn. In addition, with two engines on one side of the plane but only one on the other, the plane's rudder had to be used to keep the aircraft flying straight. That increases drag as well.
While crews are trained for all of these contingencies -- 747 pilots have special charts detailing three-engine performance -- they didn't get as much tail wind as they had expected at the lower altitude, British Air said. That made the emergency landing in Manchester necessary. Mr. Lampl said he didn't know if the airline would still end up paying penalties because of the diversion to Manchester.
Compared with the majority of planes flying across the Atlantic today, the 747 has more redundancy than most. That's because most trans-Atlantic aircraft these days have two engines, compared with the four engines on a 747. Stuart Matthews, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, a nonprofit aviation-safety group, says he's been on a 747 that had to shut down an engine while cruising, and it continued on to its destination rather than diverting to the nearest airport. "Lots of aircraft fly across the Atlantic with fewer than three engines," he said.
But he, too, said he was surprised at the decision to continue the flight when one engine was lost so early in the trip. Flying more than 5,000 miles is a long way to go without all your engines. 747 空中惊魂引争议
若干天前，当一架英国航空公司 (British Airways) 的 747 客机从洛杉矶机场徐徐起飞的时候，机上乘客突然听到一声爆炸声，与此同时，地面上的人看到一团火焰从飞机机翼下方喷出，飞机一个引擎熄火了！
然而，这架航班号为 268 的客机并没有立即返回地面，而是继续穿越美国全境、飞越大西洋，飞往其目的地－－英国。
机上搭载著 351 名乘客，它最终还是未能在其预定的目的地－－伦敦降落，而是在英格兰的曼彻斯特实施了紧急迫降。虽然这架带著一个失效引擎继续飞行了 10 个小时的飞机最终安全降落，但这样的举动引发了各界关于此举安全性的激烈讨论。
就在此次事件发生的仅两天前，欧盟 (European Union) 开始要求航空公司就航班延误对乘客做出赔偿。而在事件发生后，代表英国航空公司的工会组织 British Air Line Pilots' Association 发表声明警告航空业者称，新的监管规定将会迫使飞行员为了节约成本而甘冒更大的风险。
另外，航空监管机构、飞行员和安全专家也对这一事件提出质疑，认为机组人员在一个引擎失效的情况下依然决定让飞机飞行如此长的时间的做法有欠妥当，因为万一飞机出现其他的问题，这样做将会增大飞机失事的危险。
喷气式飞机出现引擎失效的情况很少发生，飞行员们就如何处理这种情况都接受过训练。喷气式飞机在一个引擎失效的情况下仍能起飞和飞行。波音 747 飞机配有 4 个引擎，只使用其中两个引擎也能够飞行（但此时的飞行高度较低，动力会显不足。）
英国航空公司称，那架飞机依靠三个引擎飞行也是很安全的，公司以前就曾经这样做过，比如在 2003 年 4 月，同样是在洛杉矶至伦敦的航线上就发生过相同的事件。英国航空公司发言人约翰?兰普尔 (John Lampl) 称，如果真的存在安全问题，飞行员肯定会返回洛杉矶或是在美国其他机场降落。
对于美国的航空公司，美国航空管理局 (Federal Aviation Administration, FAA) 规定，如果商用飞机在飞行过程中出现引擎失效的状况，飞机应立即就近在适合的机场降落。不过，英国航空公司和安全专家均表示英国没有这样的规定。现行的航空法律纷繁复杂，主要是通过双边协议和国际协定来约束航空从业者的行为，不过在此次事件中，关键的一点是 FAA 对英国航空公司机组人员没有管辖权。
FAA 发言人周一表示， FAA 对此次事件表示关注，并将联系英国的监管机构就此进行讨论。
掉转机头、立即回到原机场降落是一个昂贵的举动。首先，飞机要倒掉价格不菲的飞机燃油（飞机带著满满的油箱降落将较为困难），这是一笔支出，并且可能需要安置乘客到宾馆住宿，这又会是一笔支出；另外，根据上月欧盟颁布的乘客补偿新规定，如果英国航空公司的这次航班到达伦敦希思罗机场 (Heathrow Airport) 的时间晚点超过 5 个小时，那么英国航空公司要向每位乘客赔偿 600 欧元，总共就需赔偿 210,600 欧元（ 280,000 美元）。
但兰普尔表示，有关这架飞机决定继续飞行是出于经济压力方面的考虑的说法完全是无稽之谈。他说，这样的问题公司可能从未和机组人员讨论过。英国航空公司尚未公布机组成员的名单。
许多航空专家也表示，多数飞行员是不会为了节约成本而去无谓地冒险的，毕竟这事关他们自己和其他几百名乘客的生命安危。曾担任美国全国运输安全委员会 (National Transportation Safety Board) 高层调查官员的伯纳德?洛布 (Bernard Loeb) 表示，虽然飞行员在飞行决策中会考虑进经济因素，但他们不会仅仅为了省钱而冒自己都认为不可接受的风险。
不过，他对英国航空公司的这一做法也提出了批评，他称，这根本不是一个恰当的决定，途中有可能会出现其他各种各样的情况，会因此酿成大祸。
根据机场的记录， 268 次航班是在上午 9:24 刚过从洛杉矶机场起飞的，飞机左翼机侧的引擎在起飞过程中出现了异常的动力高峰，洛杉矶官员称，机场附近的居民反映看到了火花以及“引擎砰的爆炸声”。
这架波音 747-400 飞机在圣莫尼卡湾 (Santa Monica Bay) 上空向西南方向飞去，并爬升至 5,000 英尺的高度，盘旋了 20 多分钟，其间机组人员找到了问题所在，同时和英国航空公司位于伦敦的飞行中心进行了联系。在确定飞机能够靠三个引擎飞到伦敦之后，飞机向伦敦方向飞去。
《泰晤士报》 (The Times) 上周五报导了这一事件。一位乘客向《泰晤士报》透露，机上的乘客在飞机起飞时听到了两声巨大的爆炸声。当时机长通报称，飞机的一个引擎失效，机组人员正在考虑是否要继续飞往伦敦。
一位退休飞行员对这个继续飞行的决定提出了质疑。巴里?希夫 (Barry Schiff) 退休前曾在环球航空公司 (Trans World Airlines) 担任波音 747 的机长，他还写了一些有关飞行正确操作程序的书，并且还因安全飞行获得了国会的表彰，他认为，在一个引擎失效后还继续飞行的决定简直就是疯了。
由于不能爬升到预定的高度，这架飞机不得不在较低的高度飞越大西洋，因此遇到的阻力较大，这使得燃料消耗增加。另外，由于飞机一侧有两个引擎，而另一侧只有一个引擎，飞机不得不依靠方向舵来保持飞机的直线飞行，而这也会加大飞机的阻力。
英国航空公司称，虽然飞行员在应对所有这些突发事件方面都接受了训练－－ 747 飞行员还有一份特制的图表，详细描述了三个引擎的工作，但飞机在较低高度遇到的顺风强度还是低于了他们的预期，因此飞机不得不在曼彻斯特迫降。兰普尔称，他不知道公司是否会由于飞机最后转停到了曼彻斯特而要支付赔偿金。
目前飞越大西洋的多数机型都只配备了两个引擎，而 747 有四个引擎之多。非营利性飞行安全组织 Flight Safety Foundation 总裁斯图尔特?马修 (Stuart Matthews) 称，他以前乘坐的一架 747 飞机也出现了在起飞时一个引擎失效的状况，那家飞机后来也没有在最近的机场降落，而是继续飞向目的地。他表示，许多飞越大西洋的飞机配备的引擎数量都少于三个。
不过他也对英国航空公司飞行员的决定表示惊讶，因为引擎是在飞行刚开始不久就出现了故障。对于一架不是所有的引擎都能工作的飞机而言， 5,000 英里可是一段漫漫长路
