The Controversial Journey of British Airways Flight 268: A Close Call in the Skies
On February 20th, 2005, a routine flight from Los Angeles (LAX) to London Heathrow (LHR) took a dramatic turn just moments after takeoff. British Airways Flight 268, a Boeing 747 with 352 passengers and 18 crew members on board, experienced an engine surge in its left-hand engine shortly after lifting off. In a surprising decision, the flight crew chose to continue their journey to London instead of returning immediately to LAX, a choice that sparked debate and further complications.
The incident began with the boarding of passengers at Los Angeles International Airport on a rainy night. The aircraft, a 16-year-old Boeing 747-400, was outfitted with modern cockpit technology, replacing mechanical dials with CRT displays for easier operation. Three pilots manned the plane: a captain and two first officers—the latter both trained to ensure two pilots could rest during the flight.
After taking on an extra four tons of fuel as a precaution against anticipated delays upon arrival in London, the flight departed on time, seemingly without incident. However, just over a minute after liftoff, a series of loud thumping sounds filled the cockpit, signaling trouble in engine number two.
As the pilots quickly assessed the situation, they identified that the inboard engine had surged, a phenomenon where airflow through the engine is disrupted, causing backfiring and rising exhaust gas temperatures. Although the surge was alarming, it wasn't classified as an emergency since the Boeing 747's four-engine configuration allows a safe flight with three functioning engines.
The captain declared a "pan pan" situation to air traffic control—an urgent alert indicating assistance was required but signaling no immediate threat to life. The pilots maneuvered the aircraft to stabilize its flight at 5,000 feet and began troubleshooting the engine issue.
While troubleshooting, the first officer checked passenger windows and communicated with the cabin crew, gathering valuable information from passengers who had witnessed flames. This feedback confirmed their suspicions regarding the engine problem, but critically, the pilots faced an important decision: should they return to LAX or proceed to London under less-than-ideal conditions?
The crew considered various factors, including available fuel, potential subsequent engine failures, and the distance to diversion airports over the continental U.S. Ultimately, they found that fuel reserves would allow for a safe continuance to Heathrow, despite being a riskier option. After a consultation with British Airways’ operations team, they decided to continue the flight.
With the flight continuing, the aircraft eventually cruised at a lower altitude of 27,000 feet, consuming more fuel but otherwise maintaining stability. As two hours passed, everything seemed to be going well until they reached the eastern coastline of the United States, where new challenges arose.
Air traffic control denied a request for the preferred flying altitude due to the presence of other aircraft, forcing the crew to alternate to 29,000 feet. As the plane crossed the Atlantic, they encountered a forecasted headwind which negatively impacted fuel consumption predictions.
As British Airways Flight 268 neared its new diversion destination of Manchester, United Kingdom, a new fuel management issue emerged. The onboard fuel tank systems malfunctioned, and tank number two, associated with the failed engine, stopped supplying fuel to the remaining operational tanks. The fuel imbalance caused alarm bells to ring in the cockpit.
With their fuel reserves critically low and only 900 kg in one tank, the pilots declared a "mayday" emergency and communicated their need for priority landing to air traffic control. After several tense moments managing the descent and preparing for landing, they finally touched down safely in Manchester.
In a stroke of fortune, the crew landed with 5.8 tons of fuel remaining, just exceeding minimum operational requirements. However, the ramifications of the incident were far-reaching. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initiated legal proceedings against British Airways for operating an aircraft in an unworthy condition, ultimately highlighting significant gaps in training related to fuel management.
As an aftermath to the incident, British Airways not only revised its fuel handling procedures but also implemented more comprehensive training for pilots on managing fuel and engine failure scenarios.
Current aviation safety practices have evolved significantly since 2005. Industry leaders now prioritize the potential passenger and public perception of decisions made during flights, a shift from Pure operational focus. As such, flight crews are instructed to divert to a suitable airport in cases where engine challenges arise rather than risk continuing a journey, even if the aircraft may be technically airworthy.
Tim Steeds, BA's former head of safety and security, emphasized that under similar conditions today, a flight crew would opt to divert to an airport along their route, reflecting a more cautious approach to flight safety.
The incident involving British Airways Flight 268 serves as a critical reminder of the complexities of aviation decision-making under pressure. As technology and training evolve, particularly with new, more reliable two-engine airliners, fewer pilots will face the challenging dilemma of continuing to fly after an engine failure. Nevertheless, the lessons learned from such incidents continue to shape the future of aviation safety protocols.
Part 1/9:
The Controversial Journey of British Airways Flight 268: A Close Call in the Skies
On February 20th, 2005, a routine flight from Los Angeles (LAX) to London Heathrow (LHR) took a dramatic turn just moments after takeoff. British Airways Flight 268, a Boeing 747 with 352 passengers and 18 crew members on board, experienced an engine surge in its left-hand engine shortly after lifting off. In a surprising decision, the flight crew chose to continue their journey to London instead of returning immediately to LAX, a choice that sparked debate and further complications.
Setting the Stage for Flight 268
Part 2/9:
The incident began with the boarding of passengers at Los Angeles International Airport on a rainy night. The aircraft, a 16-year-old Boeing 747-400, was outfitted with modern cockpit technology, replacing mechanical dials with CRT displays for easier operation. Three pilots manned the plane: a captain and two first officers—the latter both trained to ensure two pilots could rest during the flight.
After taking on an extra four tons of fuel as a precaution against anticipated delays upon arrival in London, the flight departed on time, seemingly without incident. However, just over a minute after liftoff, a series of loud thumping sounds filled the cockpit, signaling trouble in engine number two.
The Engine Surge
Part 3/9:
As the pilots quickly assessed the situation, they identified that the inboard engine had surged, a phenomenon where airflow through the engine is disrupted, causing backfiring and rising exhaust gas temperatures. Although the surge was alarming, it wasn't classified as an emergency since the Boeing 747's four-engine configuration allows a safe flight with three functioning engines.
The captain declared a "pan pan" situation to air traffic control—an urgent alert indicating assistance was required but signaling no immediate threat to life. The pilots maneuvered the aircraft to stabilize its flight at 5,000 feet and began troubleshooting the engine issue.
Decision-Making Under Pressure
Part 4/9:
While troubleshooting, the first officer checked passenger windows and communicated with the cabin crew, gathering valuable information from passengers who had witnessed flames. This feedback confirmed their suspicions regarding the engine problem, but critically, the pilots faced an important decision: should they return to LAX or proceed to London under less-than-ideal conditions?
The crew considered various factors, including available fuel, potential subsequent engine failures, and the distance to diversion airports over the continental U.S. Ultimately, they found that fuel reserves would allow for a safe continuance to Heathrow, despite being a riskier option. After a consultation with British Airways’ operations team, they decided to continue the flight.
Part 5/9:
The Journey Across the Atlantic
With the flight continuing, the aircraft eventually cruised at a lower altitude of 27,000 feet, consuming more fuel but otherwise maintaining stability. As two hours passed, everything seemed to be going well until they reached the eastern coastline of the United States, where new challenges arose.
Air traffic control denied a request for the preferred flying altitude due to the presence of other aircraft, forcing the crew to alternate to 29,000 feet. As the plane crossed the Atlantic, they encountered a forecasted headwind which negatively impacted fuel consumption predictions.
Complications Near Manchester
Part 6/9:
As British Airways Flight 268 neared its new diversion destination of Manchester, United Kingdom, a new fuel management issue emerged. The onboard fuel tank systems malfunctioned, and tank number two, associated with the failed engine, stopped supplying fuel to the remaining operational tanks. The fuel imbalance caused alarm bells to ring in the cockpit.
With their fuel reserves critically low and only 900 kg in one tank, the pilots declared a "mayday" emergency and communicated their need for priority landing to air traffic control. After several tense moments managing the descent and preparing for landing, they finally touched down safely in Manchester.
Aftermath and Lessons Learned
Part 7/9:
In a stroke of fortune, the crew landed with 5.8 tons of fuel remaining, just exceeding minimum operational requirements. However, the ramifications of the incident were far-reaching. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initiated legal proceedings against British Airways for operating an aircraft in an unworthy condition, ultimately highlighting significant gaps in training related to fuel management.
As an aftermath to the incident, British Airways not only revised its fuel handling procedures but also implemented more comprehensive training for pilots on managing fuel and engine failure scenarios.
Leadership Insights and Current Protocols
Part 8/9:
Current aviation safety practices have evolved significantly since 2005. Industry leaders now prioritize the potential passenger and public perception of decisions made during flights, a shift from Pure operational focus. As such, flight crews are instructed to divert to a suitable airport in cases where engine challenges arise rather than risk continuing a journey, even if the aircraft may be technically airworthy.
Tim Steeds, BA's former head of safety and security, emphasized that under similar conditions today, a flight crew would opt to divert to an airport along their route, reflecting a more cautious approach to flight safety.
Conclusion: The Future of Engine Protocols
Part 9/9:
The incident involving British Airways Flight 268 serves as a critical reminder of the complexities of aviation decision-making under pressure. As technology and training evolve, particularly with new, more reliable two-engine airliners, fewer pilots will face the challenging dilemma of continuing to fly after an engine failure. Nevertheless, the lessons learned from such incidents continue to shape the future of aviation safety protocols.