A340 Ecam "land Asap"

[Sky Wave]

Can any A340 pilots tell me if you get a LAND ASAP message in the event of a single engine failure.

Cheers

[Virginia Plane]

No you won't. No need to for a simple straight fail.

[moleslayer]

That's VERY interesting Virgin**.............

On the A320 you will get a "LAND ASAP" in AMBER i.e. the crew
should consider the seriousness of the situation, and select a suitable airport to land at.


Moley.

[catchup]

Two more engines can do a lot....

Regards

[Virginia Plane]

As catch up says, that's the difference between having 4 engines rather than 2 and the associated back ups.

[petitfromage]

Skywave:

A330 (319/320/321): A single engine failure will give you an Amber LAND ASAP ECAM Memo

A340 (A346): For a single engine failure there will be no ECAM Memo in this regard.

The Red LAND ASAP is associated with warnings such as an Engine Fire that has not extinguished or a Cargo Fire

[Sky Wave]

Thanks for the info. I thought that would be the case. I did ask the question on the BA747 divert to MAN thread. It obviously goes to show that airbus also consider a single engine failure not to be that serious on a 4 engine aircraft. Makes you wonder what the FAA are making such a fuss about with regard to the 744 engine failure.

[Iceman49]

I don't think that you should compare what a software generated message is telling you do vs judgement. Losing an engine on a four engine aircraft allows you more time to make a descision vs loss of an engine on a 2 engine aircraft ... I think the question that you should ask, is do you want to go approximately 4-5000 miles one engine down...including a rather long distance across the ocean. Is it a good descision.

[Rainboe]

It's really strange, isn't it? Some operators have been known to despatch, and fly over the ocean with just two engines to start with!!!! (the exclamation marks are added for extra drama). Is this an adequate safety margin? Can you imagine being west of Greenland on one?!! How do they get away with it?- perhaps the FAA should be informed! I mean- they only have two engines, up in the Arctic wastes- with hundreds of children and sweet innocent old ladies doing their knitting on board!

Funny me, I thought the whole point of having FOUR to start with was that if you lost one, you still had THREE. You could do the near statistically impossible and lose another and still be better off than a twin, because there ain't no way you gonna lose ANOTHER (well if you do, the odds are so unfair to you you should never enter another lottery in your life!).

So what would you rather fly in? A 4 engine 747 or a twin 777? And they're going to send that thing half way around the world?

Let's face it, the 747 has passed. Boeing is only interested in selling as many big twins as it can, so taking away the advantage of 4 engines and making it play on the same playing field to the same rules as the twin Boeings is to their advantage. They want to licence that thing with ETOPS endurance that seems to be going up exponentially- is the latest figure 3 hours on one engine? Can you imagine 350 people on a 777 on one engine for 3 hours or so? (whatever the figure is). Don't you think that merits closer examination by the FAA than a 747 on THREE engines? What an extraordinary issue this has become!

[skycoolie]

Actually, the 340-500 (and I presume the 600, and in fact the 300 as well) instruct you to LAND ASAP in the "After Eng Shutdown" checklist. FCOM ref 3.02.70 page 4.

There is a further proviso warning operators not to windmill the engine beyond 10 hours if the "ENG OIL LO PR" comes on.

After losing one engine on a four engine aeroplane the skipper has a fairly liberal interpretation of what constitutes a "Suitable Airport" for the Land ASAP instruction. Destination, once en route is perfectly acceptable if that is operationally feasible.

After losing two engines, of course, Land ASAP takes on an entirely different connotation. "Suitable Airport" is really the closest suitable airport. And no, the performance isn't that brilliant on two engines at anything approaching all up weight, particularly if you've lost them on the same side.

For what it's worth, Boeing's definition of "Suitable Airport" for their LROPS can also be Destination on a twin engined aeroplane, if for example, the other options involve landing at Siberian en-route alternates.

I think you have to make your own decision at the time. Was it just a precautionary shutdown due to oil pressure and such, or has it been the result of suspected severe damage? I don't know that I would have continued after I suspected the engine had suffered damage. The only hard and fast rule that springs to mind is to find somewhere to land ASAP after an engine shutdown due to fire.

But I wouldn't get too worked up about the whole thing. When its your turn, you will inevitably upset a lot of armchair experts and seat polishers anyway. Whatever you decide to do, just make sure you get to walk away from it.