PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29th Sep 2009, 08:41   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Quote:
2 hadn't - yet. but can you guarantee that another one won't ? Highly unlikely, but what if ??
That's why I asked the question.

So unless he thinks they had two failures, then Hautemunde seems to be saying if a second engine were to fail in a high terrain, they'd face a driftdown scenario. Fair enough. And just like the twin does on every flight, for the case of a single engine failure.
YoDawg is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 08:51   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Smaller Antipode
Age: 79
Posts: 1,121
Twins are a totally different animal.

When they started flying across the Atlantic they had to choose a route that took them near to alternates in Iceland and Greenland and Labrador, but with more experience of engine failures, or more properly, lack of failures, then the distance from a suitable alternate was gradually increased,statistics again not logistics.

The same philosophy must apply over the hostile territory of Afghanistan and the like, and I regret that I have no knowledge of the rules on that route - over to someone else.
ExSp33db1rd is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 09:36   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 463
Not the first 380 engine failure/shutdown in flt.

Surprised if MEL states number of eninges fitted/required, may be ECAM msg.

380 can ferry on 3, one 380 did this a few months ago between LHR/DXB.

Appears flight was nice and safe, well done all round.

Does anyone know problem with this so called engine problem ???
Joetom is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 09:41   #44 (permalink)
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria, Australia.
Posts: 3,190
Quote:
a perfectly safe decision was made - by the captain.
Indeed it was and it would have been after consultation with Ops/Engineering in Singapore, the Duty Ops Manager and the Duty Engineering Manager would have been contacted, (at 22.00 approx. local) and asked for their opinion which would have been passed to the captain. On today's modern aircraft just bring up a page on ACARS, identify the phone number you want, select the key and within seconds you will be talking, via satellite link, to base operations, clear as a bell.

A four engined long haul transport on three engines is still very flexible provided there has been no fire. The final decision will always rest with the captain but the advice of people who have the 'big picture' is the way to go, if it is possible and above all safe.
parabellum is online now   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 11:42   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 51
Posts: 322
No Captain is ever going to be satisfied until he can reply to the Flt. Eng, telling him that No. 8 has failed, with the response ' which side ? "

Not quite there, but there's always the dreaded 7-engine approach on the B52!

Technically there is nothing to guarantee that all four engines won't stop at exactly the same time - why not ?

They have done in the past, such as BA flight 009.

British Airways Flight 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Super VC-10 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 12:26   #46 (permalink)
Bear Behind
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Yerp
Posts: 346
I'm a bit dumbfounded on the "why not go to DXB" thing.

1) Great circle between CDG and SIN goes nowhere near DXB

2) Emirates A380s are Engine Alliance powered; SQs are Rolls powered. Ergo there isn't a spare engine in DXB.

Why go back? Well I guess because there are not many diversion airfields in Siberia that can house 444 pax should the aircraft have to divert for a second engine problem or, indeed, any other issue.

3-engined ferrying as you know, joetom, is a different ballgame from carrying revenue pax.

Also there may be limitations on which diversion airfields the A380 could get into but I'd be very surprised if, as suggested by a previous poster, this was a runway strength problem. After all, the A380 has a lower ACN than a 77ER, does it not? More weight, yes, but more wheels, too!
panda-k-bear is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 12:34   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 202
Route will not be over Siberia. But more likely over eastern Europe, Southern former Soviet countries, afghanistan, pakistan, india and then the bay of bengal to singapore.
sleeper is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 12:55   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane, Oz
Age: 73
Posts: 40
Command, and the training for . . .

This whole discussion reminds me of when I was training young Capts on the F27.

Late in training I'd hold the compressor overheat warning light press to test for a min (let go then - it got hot) to get them to think big picture.

The correct answer was "What was the phone number for the big pub we'd just flown past, so we could get the pax sorted after a successful shut down & divert?"

And guess what? On NewCapt #4's check-out the compressor overheat light came on.

His reaction? "How did the #*% did he (on the jump seat) do that without hitting the press-to test?"

Switched on FO shot back to start the drill, and me pupil sailed through.

Point is, kids, there are a quidzillion things that you consider, and what management(s) suggest is just *one of them. All laws that I am aware of still state the buck stops with the Captain.

*That is the point.

Be one.
JenCluse is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 13:03   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 11
Quote:
a perfectly safe decision was made - by the captain.
I don't agree with that. Neither the Captain, nor his Management have the ability to say if any engine is likely to fail or not. If they had this ability they would have replaced number 1 engine before the first flight.

Flying almost 3 hours over Europe with 500 souls and an engine out is not a responsible decision. There were many airports suitable for a landing along the way. Why return to Paris?
747passion is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 13:12   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Here and there
Posts: 243
I suppose it is definitely because of maintenance possibilities. SQ has a station there, Airbus is not far away, nor is the engine alliance...
ChiefT is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 13:19   #51 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 23
With a twin engined aircraft it says in our own procedures "Land at the nearast suitable airport" however as you know it's perfectly safe to fly on one engine in a twin. When flying on 3 out of 4 engines in an A380 or 747, you know you have more then enough performance left: knowing it can fly on 2 as well...

If it's not in the checklist to land ASAP, and you feel happy to continue to the point your company would like you to go then why not help the company and thus probably your pax as well!
If your not happy go somewhere else! But you can usally come to a good agreement, and in the end your the captain of the flight so it's your decision.
Pinky95 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 13:35   #52 (permalink)
Bear Behind
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Yerp
Posts: 346
Quote:
I suppose it is definitely because of maintenance possibilities. SQ has a station there, Airbus is not far away, nor is the engine alliance...
I've said it before and I'll say it again. SQ have RR engines.

Why do they care where the Engine Alliance are?
panda-k-bear is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 13:47   #53 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 11
Quote:
With a twin engined aircraft it says in our own procedures "Land at the nearast suitable airport" however as you know it's perfectly safe to fly on one engine in a twin. When flying on 3 out of 4 engines in an A380 or 747, you know you have more then enough performance left: knowing it can fly on 2 as well...

If it's not in the checklist to land ASAP, and you feel happy to continue to the point your company would like you to go then why not help the company and thus probably your pax as well!
If your not happy go somewhere else! But you can usally come to a good agreement, and in the end your the captain of the flight so it's your decision.
I am not familiar with the performance of the A380. How well can it fly in N-2 situation with full pax and fuel?
747passion is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 14:19   #54 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 66
Posts: 583
Any 380 crew out there that can answer the question: "assuming the 2 engine drift down was safe would it have made it to Singapore on 3?" One has to assume he left Paris with no excess fuel.
hawker750 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 14:46   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: OS
Age: 55
Posts: 174
3 Eng crz

Generally a 4 ENG A/C operating on 3 ENGs will require 10% extra trip fuel. Therefore with even 5 % contingency fuel the is no chance of continuing to destination. However if an engine failed at approx 1/2 way to WSSS then if all contingency remains then there is a good chance if the require Alternate is close to Destination.
Capt Groper is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 14:46   #56 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Age: 53
Posts: 501
This thread is turning into ridiculous spotter speculations.
oceancrosser is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 15:21   #57 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 66
Posts: 583
Thanks for that Captain Groper.
As he lost the engine say 25% into his flight he would have landed at WSSS having eaten a small way into his diversion fuel. It is acceptable practice under Eu ops to throw away alt fuel if desination has more than 1 runway. (do not know about Singapore regs). I know the 747 from LAX divided the camp as to whether it was wise, I wonder how the camp would divide on this one?
hawker750 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 15:24   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 69
Posts: 1,767
Just think about it ?

You were not in command, you know nothing of the dialogue between the acft & maintrol/ops control, so you have no authority to pass comments on SQ's operational
decision Most of you should be in the spotters box SQ A380 crews alone should comment
merlinxx is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 15:27   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Out there
Posts: 294
I think you will find that SQ procedures are to land at nearest suitable, albeit different from the rest of us.
Baywatcher is offline   Reply
Old 29th Sep 2009, 15:38   #60 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On a Wing!
Posts: 166
A 380 on 3 will NOT make it to planned destination at optimum engine out altitude.Even with 10 % extra on the contingency fuel.He had 10 hours+ of flight time when it happened.High ground starting within 15-30 minutes(depending on route taken that day),he probably would spend the good part of this year explaning to managment why he chose to continue,rather than return/divert.CP/PNR comes to mind too doesn't it(yes it works on 4 engines too!).Take 20 minutes to decide,why....take some more.Its not a land asap situation.But take the right decision.With regard to safety,commercial angles and pax comfort.In that very order.And well,if endorsed by the company,then you dont have to spend the better part of your next few days off at the chief pilot's office explaining/justifying your call.HE was part of your call.And he endorsed it! Out here its called CRM.... Involve the company.
Another thing one must keep in mind when dealing with a super sensitive airline such as SQ. The culture here is slightly different here from what we have been used to in the western world. An Acars 'suggestion' is taken,and assumed to be a strong 'recommendation'. Unless you can show very very strongly otherwise.At that point in time OR later in the sterility of your CP's office! Once accepted,it has to be executed as smoothly and safely as possible.In most cases the company is about 99% correct.Compared to the 2 heads in the cockpit,they have 200 to refer to at the FOCC control room.And then there is the concern of the 380 support system availaible after the diversion.Its not as if this is a 747.
I could go on and on here.Having said that,all in all a great job done.Flying wise and administratively(spello...??).
Now to find out why that big round thing stopped turning...
King on a Wing is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:14.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network