Re: Re: Way OT : Any maths bods around?

["Malcolm Lansell" <mlansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hmm - so a standard procedure is reported as an emergency :-(

I agree about the photo - at first it looked like the engine was hanging
off, but on closer inspection there was a grassy bank obsuring the view of
the lower part of the plane, making it look like it had crashed.

The media does none of us any favours by mis-reporting and sensationalising
stuff like this - the public demands changes, the HSE over-reacts and we
get
unnecessary regulation causing inconvenience and expense for everyone (such
as the new wiring regulations, as an almost-on-topic example)

When I read articles about things I know a lot about, I usually spot
glaring
errors - perhaps I need to assume the same with all the other subjects they
report on!

Mal




----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben McCormack" <ben@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Way OT : Any maths bods around?


>
>
> --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Malcolm Lansell"
<mlansell@f...>
> wrote:
>> > Once up there, he would probably want to land again fairly
soon -
>>
>> You'd think so, wouldn't you?  But I suspect all this talk of
> engine
>> failures was brought on by the report last weekend of a BA flight
> from LA to
>> London that suffered an engine failure on take off.  Instead of
> dumping fuel
>> and landing back at LA, or burning some off by diverting to
Chicago
> (for
>> example), the pilot attempted to fly all the way back to London.
>>
>> On 3 engines he couldn't reach the normal cruising altitude, and
so
> ran low
>> on fuel (jet engines are less efficient at lower altitudes) and
had
> to land
>> at Manchester.  Seems like a crazy risk to take to me.
>>
>> Mal
>
> Mal
>
> 100% correct. There is a BA pilot on another forum I visit. The news
> article prompted him to have rant and a number of people to wonder
> what is the chance of all 4 engines failing
>
> Here are his thoughts on the news report
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I'm getting really fed up with folk asking me about this:
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1499342,00.html
>
>
> Apart from the messages, I've got stopped 3 times by neighbours
> stopping whilst driving past and even in Waitrose I wasn't free from
> it.
>
> It's standard operating procedures, and has been for well over 10
> years to get the machine as close to home as the fuel / safety will
> allow. The procedures we follow in the event of losing a donk are:
>
> 1- How much fuel on 3 can we go with adequate reserves on landing and
> is it advantageous to go there.
> 2- Can we get to a suitable runway if another quits.
> 3- Can 1 and 2 be achieved with adequate terrain clearance.
>
> The majority of aircraft crossing the Atlantic only have 2 engines to
> begin with.
> As for the emergency landing, air traffic control have to call out
> the emergency services for any small problem including 1 engine out
> which is hardly an emergency for us......Jeeze, even the autopilot
> can do it on a -400.
> Fuel was never running dangerously low otherwise it would go to
> Shannon.
>
> Makes you realise what other stories are seriously crap reported in
> the press.....God I hate them
>
> Oh....and the photo in the paper aparently made it looked like it had
> crashed...or so I've been told.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>