Why A British Airways 747 Once Flew From LA To The UK On 3 Engines

Simple Flying - Aviation News & Insight logo

British Airways 747 taking off from JFK6′  A British Airways 747-400 was involved in a headline-grabbing journey in 2005. Photo: Vincenzo Pace | JFKJets.com

Why A British Airways 747 Once Flew From LA To The UK On 3 Engines

On 20 February 2005, a scheduled passenger plane took off from Los Angeles International Airport en route to London, UK. During takeoff, one of the plane’s four engines blew out and was immediately shut down. Despite this, the flight continued as normal and made it across the Atlantic Ocean on just three engines. We explore exactly why this flight was allowed to carry on.https://95a660b6df83b917f812482a60ea7366.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html?n=0

 A British Airways 747-400 was involved in a headline-grabbing journey in 2005. Photo: Vincenzo Pace | JFKJets.com

British Airways Flight 268 – LAX to LHR

The journey in question was a scheduled flight from Los Angeles to London on 20 February 2005 with British Airways. A Boeing 747-400 with over 350 passengers onboard took off from LAX at 21:34, with an 11-hour journey over continental United States and the North Atlantic ahead.

 The flight was expected to return to LAX but continued on its journey. Photo: Getty Images


The aircraft had only ascended to 300 feet before its engine number two was set on fire due to a compression surge. The pilot team shut off the engine instantly and contacted air traffic control. Given the severity of the engine trouble, air traffic control canceled the scheduled flight plan and expected the plane to turn around and make an emergency landing.

 The plane (registration G-BNLG) flew over 10 hours with only three engines. Photo: Tony Hisgett via Wikimedia Commons


However, the pilots decided to continue with their journey and “get as far as we can” after consulting with their dispatcher. Once the plane had reached the East Coast, it was given the all-clear to cross the Atlantic on its way to London. Believing the plane to be low on fuel, the pilots instead decided to land at Manchester Airport, which they did without incident.

Stay informed: Sign up for our daily aviation news digest.https://95a660b6df83b917f812482a60ea7366.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html?n=0

The plane avoided costly penalties

According to the Wall Street Journal, the aircraft would have been forced to dump over $30,000 worth of fuel to make an immediate landing at Los Angeles. Aircraft often have to dump fuel before emergency landings to reduce their weight for a safer landing.

 British Airways dodged expensive fines but drew a lot of criticism from experts. Photo: Getty Images


Additionally, new European Union regulations had come into force just a matter of days before the flight. Under these rules, British Airways would have been liable for up to $275,000 in compensation if the flight was more than five hours late.

The journey provoked much debate

Technically speaking, British Airways and its pilots fully complied with aviation regulations when choosing to keep the flight going. The 747 is certified to fly on just three engines, and there was no indication of any damage to the aircraft’s other engines. Safety experts and aviation regulators still questioned the decision to operate such a long flight with one engine out.https://95a660b6df83b917f812482a60ea7366.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html?n=0

The FAA was against the decision and wanted to impose a fine of $25,000 on British Airways for operating an unairworthy aircraft. However, British Airways countered by claiming they were following the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations. The FAA eventually backed down but requested changes to British Airways’ procedures in return.

 Regulators and experts felt the journey was too risky and should have been avoided. Photo: Eric Salard via Wikimedia Commons


The British Air Line Pilots’ Association challenged the new European Union regulations, questioning whether they forced airlines and pilots into making risky decisions to avoid costly fines. In the aftermath, British Airways did not make any changes to its procedures, and the FAA retracted its claim that the aircraft was unairworthy.

Do you think this was a fair decision by British Airways, or an unnecessary risk to save money? Let us know in the comments.

User Avatar

Luke Bodell

Journalist – With 10 years of experience as a travel writer and aviation analyst, Luke has worked with industry-leaders including Skyscanner, KLM and HotelsCombined throughout his career. As a passionate traveler based across the Middle East and East Asia, Luke offers strong insights into the travel and aviation industry.

Latest Stories


© Copyright Simple Flying – 2019-2020

Published by technofiend1

Kazan- Kazan National Research Technical University Казанский национальный исследовательский технический университет имени А. Н. Туполева he graduated in Economics in 1982

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: