gatbusdriver:
If you are telling me that you can take-off at MTOW for a given day on a given runway in your A330, lose an engine and then go straight round the pattern and make a single-engined go-around then I am very happy to accept that and may I say that this a nice position to be in.
Now then, I will make a confession. Since 1962 I haven't flown a twin (except for fun). Until I retired last year I have been fortunate enough to have had four engines to play with apart from nearly 8 years on the three-engined DC-10.
I am therefore guilty of extrapolating a four-engined aircraft on two engines (50% power) as being the same as a twin on one engine (50% power). It is certainly the case that not all four-engined aeroplanes can immediately make a two-engined approach and go around after losing two engines.
I am now retired but I teach BAe146 part time in the simulator. After losing two engines the QRH refers the reader to Card 7A which is entitled "Maximum Weight for Go-Around With Two Engines Inoperative". This is in graph form. You enter with the airfield altitude, go across to the temperature condition and then emerge with a max possible weight at the bottom.
If that is not a WAT limit graph then I don't what else it could be. Certainly a go-around at MTOW even at S.L. and 0°C would apparently not meet with much success. Of course, nowhere does it say that you can't land at MTOW if your ar*e is on fire.
I apologise if I have misled you with my suppositions.
oblaaspop:
You are obviously looking for someone to have a fight with and it is not going to be me. I actually didn't have any particular issues with your contributions apart from your statement that "I think it would be sheer folly to hold".
You didn't help your case very much when you decided to throw your toys out of your pram with the "mine is bigger than yours" statement. On reflection, don't you think that maybe this was a bit childish and did nothing to reinforce your views?
I suppose you also think that the crew of the 757 that swallowed a heron took far too long to get back on the ground?
The trouble is that none of us can give a precise definition of "ASAP". I am grateful that I have never had to operate to ETOPS rules but I suppose being up there for 3 hours after a catastrophic engine failure also constitutes "landing at the nearest suitable airfield ASAP"?
However, none of us so far seems to know much about the MD-80.
Last edited by JW411; 12th Jun 2007 at 13:59.