PDA

View Full Version : Virgin engines fail...


redfred
22nd Nov 2006, 11:18
Is it true that on FRI of last week 17th NOV the VS flight MIALHR had a double engine failure and had to glide into JFK?

747-436
22nd Nov 2006, 11:21
It would still have 2 engines left though so wouldn't really be that much of a glide!

Brian Fantana
22nd Nov 2006, 11:23
As far as I am aware all virgin a/c have 4 engines so if 2 did fail it still would have 2 remaining and wouldnt become a glider!!

redfred
22nd Nov 2006, 11:23
maybe it was all 4 then...a girl told me this

Airbrake
22nd Nov 2006, 11:25
Oh dear here we go. This is going to be good.

hetfield
22nd Nov 2006, 11:26
maybe it was all 4 then...a girl told me this


Did the APU work?

redfred
22nd Nov 2006, 11:28
Ive no idea I just want to know if she is telling the truth or its a load of OTT fibs.

combine harvestor
22nd Nov 2006, 11:36
No this is compelety incorrect, i was the operating captain and NO engines had failed !!

AlphaWhiskyRomeo
22nd Nov 2006, 11:37
4 engines 4 longhaul

763 jock
22nd Nov 2006, 11:38
She's telling the truth. VS have hushed it up, part of Bransons fuel saving initiative.....

bi focals
22nd Nov 2006, 11:48
Dear red fred
A girl once told me there was nobody else for her !!
she ran off with somebody else
Might be the same one ???
:rolleyes:

ATC Watcher
22nd Nov 2006, 11:49
I always like the notion of Virgins loosing things....

redfred
22nd Nov 2006, 11:50
she got back SUN am from JFK and has been having nightmares ever since i promise you!

Will Hung
22nd Nov 2006, 12:03
Oh dear, me thinks you're going to get eaten alive !

Al Fakhem
22nd Nov 2006, 12:11
Did the VS crew perform a Victory Roll over JFK before "gliding" down onto the runway?

goshdarnit
22nd Nov 2006, 12:15
according to a certain news source, scientists have identfied a gullibility gene, you may want to check with your GP....

TURIN
22nd Nov 2006, 12:19
I always like the notion of Virgins loosing things....

Me too! Especially when it's the elastic that's loose.

It's when they LOSE things that it really gets interesting!:ok:

Back to the thread...

If it was two engines on one side that failed then half of the a/c would have had to glide in to JFK.

The other half probably did a go around and landed later.:O

ChocksAwayUK
22nd Nov 2006, 12:34
Not sure why you're all having such a laugh at redfred. Similar things have happened before and he's only tryng to confirm some information he was given. As it happens this sounds unlikely as *we'd* probably know about it - but I don't see any harm in him asking.

crew the screw
22nd Nov 2006, 12:55
Oh how this thread has made me laugh!!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

scroggs
22nd Nov 2006, 12:58
Is it true that on FRI of last week 17th NOV the VS flight MIALHR had a double engine failure and had to glide into JFK?

No, it is not true. Do you not think that a four-engined aeroplane full of passengers losing all four engines and having to make an unpowered landing would have been headline news in every single newspaper and on every television station - worldwide? To my knowledge, no four-engined public transport aircraft has ever had to make an unpowered landing. That's one of the reasons that Virgin Atlantic does not (currently) use aircraft with less than four engines, and that's why it would be major news - which you could not possibly have missed.

Tell your 'girl' she's talking rubbish - and tell yourself not to be so gullible.

Scroggs

redfred
22nd Nov 2006, 13:05
Yeah , it's true alright , I was actually flying the plane when all 4 engines failed at the same time , it was all quite simple really , We were a little high though over the field so we just inverted and performed a split S , got us in nicely , no dramas at all .

so this fella's having a laugh then?..something happened to make it divert to JFK resulting in HOTAC for her and I wanna know what :ugh:

747boy
22nd Nov 2006, 13:25
Iím aware of 3 commercial airliners in the recent past that have glided to a landing. All three due to fuel starvation. Two successful landings (Air Canda Gimli Glider and Air Transat Atlantic Glider). One unsuccessful water landing (Ethopian Airlines due to a hijacking).

I think two 747 have lost all four engines, temporarily that is, due to volcanic dust (BA and KLM).

So my question. Has there been a case of large passenger airline where 4 engines would have save the day?

angels
22nd Nov 2006, 13:28
I know you lot are always up for a laugh. I realise the OP was a little naive.

But did something happen?

Perhaps Danny could shed some light on this bearing in mind his employer?

bubbers44
22nd Nov 2006, 13:38
United DC8 in Portland and another DC8 from South America in New York area ran out of fuel.

hetfield
22nd Nov 2006, 13:43
United DC8 in Portland and another DC8 from South America in New York area ran out of fuel.

So even eight engines wouldn't help much.

747boy
22nd Nov 2006, 13:59
That's reminded me. I think the DC8 in New York you are referring to was actually a 707 belonging to Avianca. In the hold due to bad weather and then a missed approach.

the_hawk
22nd Nov 2006, 14:01
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19911227-0&lang=en

Just one example where both engines quit (for other reason than fuel starvation) and 4 might have saved the day.

Jamie-Southend
22nd Nov 2006, 14:04
It was not a VS flight, it was Murdoch Air. :E

James 1077
22nd Nov 2006, 14:09
To be fair a colleague of mine was on this flight and it did divert to JFK due to engine failure (I know this as I have just drafted her letter of complaint for the 10 hour wait she had at JFK without food / drink).

No idea of how many engines failed though!

Dave Gittins
22nd Nov 2006, 14:20
Now then hawk, that's hardly being fair. It was the position of the engines not the number of them that caused that crash.

Are you suggesting that a VC10 would have survived ?

:ugh:

22N114E
22nd Nov 2006, 14:37
They did lose an engine during the weekend.

VS201 returned to HKG in the wee hours of Monday morning. When queried by ATC as to why the engine was shutdown, the somewhat shaken voice replied that the number 4 had "sparks" from it. Fuel dump was expected to last 50 minutes.

Doors to Automatic
22nd Nov 2006, 14:39
To my knowledge, no four-engined public transport aircraft has ever had to make an unpowered landing.
Scroggs

A BA 747 came very close in 1982 after flying through a volcanic ash cloud near Jakarta.

fast cruiser
22nd Nov 2006, 14:42
MIA-LHR diverted to JFK due to Engine Fire warning problems, not sure if it was an eng fire, failure or just precationary shutdown as Loop a and b had both failed, but either way crew did the right thing and no-one was hurt..Hope that sorts out the [email protected]@P about multiple eng failure, glide into JFK and any other fantasy story..

cheers

FC

ALLDAYDELI
22nd Nov 2006, 14:49
Hmm, I noted a VS A340 position in as a "P" flight code HKG-LHR earlier this week.

grimmrad
22nd Nov 2006, 14:50
Iím aware of 3 commercial airliners in the recent past that have glided to a landing. All three due to fuel starvation. Two successful landings (Air Canda Gimli Glider and Air Transat Atlantic Glider). One unsuccessful water landing (Ethopian Airlines due to a hijacking).
I think two 747 have lost all four engines, temporarily that is, due to volcanic dust (BA and KLM).
So my question. Has there been a case of large passenger airline where 4 engines would have save the day?
Wasn't there also a Hapag Lloyd charter ac that was coming from Turkey or somewhere nice and warm that - if I remeber correctly, too lazy to look it up and don't have time for that too, have to write this ;-) - was bound to Duesseldorf or somewhere in Germany that had an engine failure, cruised in lower altitude, burned more fuel, opted not to divert earlier and had to glide into a field close to Vienna due to fuel starvation...? Captain was charged later, ac was a write off.

redfred
22nd Nov 2006, 14:52
MIA-LHR diverted to JFK due to Engine Fire warning problems, not sure if it was an eng fire, failure or just precationary shutdown as Loop a and b had both failed

what does this mean in non pilot talk please it still had power on landing?

Flightmech
22nd Nov 2006, 14:57
what does this mean in non pilot talk please it still had power on landing?

Just noted your location. You're not Trigger are you?

Just kidding, an engine fire warning/dual fire loop failure (which gives a fire warning & fail anyway) would be cause to shutdown the engine, but it still had power from 3 other engines. No biggy. Certainly not for your friend to have "nightmares" about!

grimmrad
22nd Nov 2006, 14:58
A BA 747 came very close in 1982 after flying through a volcanic ash cloud near Jakarta.

And if I remember correctly that captain was awarded a medal by the Queen herself for his actions later on. He put the ac into a dive to get the engines free of vulcanic ashes that have stalled all for of them.

G--SPOT
22nd Nov 2006, 15:04
In my airline losing both fire loops to an engine does not require the engine to be shut down (4 engined a/c).
What it means though, is that if there were a fire in that engine you would receive no warning. However in reality there would be some very obvious signs!
You are allowed one fire loop out before dispatch, and if the other fails in flight a diversion is an option. In the one instance it happened to me, we returned home 4 hours into a 11 hour flight without shutting the engine down.

ChocksAwayUK
22nd Nov 2006, 15:09
And if I remember correctly that captain was awarded a medal by the Queen herself for his actions later on. He put the ac into a dive to get the engines free of vulcanic ashes that have stalled all for of them.

And if the legend is to be believed made the following cabin announcement as the glided past about 10,000 ft:

Ladies and gentlemen this is your Captain. I have just had to shut down our final engine - I trust you are not too distressed.

:\

Callsign Kilo
22nd Nov 2006, 15:16
Those VS pilots are the bees knees!

It's no wonder Virgin plaster 'More experienced than our name suggests' on some of their aircraft!!

Hoo-ra and Best of British to those intrepid aviators!! :p

On a serious note, let's all hope the engineers at VS get that simultaneous 4 engine failure on final approach problem sorted out before someone gets hurt! I'd get on to Boeing or Airbus ASAP, there are just some things you can't be doing with! :rolleyes:

redfred
22nd Nov 2006, 15:21
right that clears that up then, women always exaggerate, didnt think it would take 3 pages though :ok:

Airbubba
22nd Nov 2006, 15:59
And if the legend is to be believed made the following cabin announcement as the glided past about 10,000 ft:


Quote:
Ladies and gentlemen this is your Captain. I have just had to shut down our final engine - I trust you are not too distressed.




Here is the more commonly cited version of Captain Moody's historic PA announcement:


"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

Farrell
22nd Nov 2006, 16:15
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."

Smoke me a kipper......I'll be back for breakfast!

hetfield
22nd Nov 2006, 16:20
Wasn't there also a Hapag Lloyd charter ac that was coming from Turkey or somewhere nice and warm that - if I remeber correctly, too lazy to look it up and don't have time for that too, have to write this ;-) - was bound to Duesseldorf or somewhere in Germany that had an engine failure, cruised in lower altitude, burned more fuel, opted not to divert earlier and had to glide into a field close to Vienna due to fuel starvation...? Captain was charged later, ac was a write off.

The Hapag A310 came from an greek island, couldn't retract the gear (no eng trouble!), continued the flight (full cabin service). Shortly before Vienna they run out of fuel and glided into the grass of LOWW.

crewrest
22nd Nov 2006, 17:28
Well said Scroggs, what a load of utter tosh.

Redfred, your 'girl' doesn't know what she's talking about.

GEnxsux
22nd Nov 2006, 18:19
I know all about this......................

barit1
22nd Nov 2006, 21:28
Yeah , it's true alright , I was actually flying the plane when all 4 engines failed at the same time , it was all quite simple really , We were a little high though over the field so we just inverted and performed a split S , got us in nicely , no dramas at all .

What was really amazing was the massive conveyor that hauled the plane from the runway to the gate at JFK. You don't often hear about that! :}

scroggs
22nd Nov 2006, 22:04
right that clears that up then, women always exaggerate, didnt think it would take 3 pages though :ok:

It didn't. You just didn't believe us right back on page 1. Perhaps you are one of those that believes that, as it takes a little longer to get somewhere when we lose one engine, and a lot longer when we lose two, we'd stay up there forever if we lost four. :hmm: :rolleyes:

For those determined to prove otherwise, I said that to my knowledge no four-engined public transport aircraft has made an unpowered landing. I haven't read anything to change that opinion. Crashes don't count (even if unpowered), glide landings by fuel-starved twins don't count, and Eric Moody's volcanic ash incident doesn't count. Any more suggestions?

Scroggs

Charlie Pop
22nd Nov 2006, 22:12
I'm not quite sure how that fact supports Virgins "4 Engines 4 Long haul" slogan, which we all knew was specious anyway. Can you name any twins that have suffered a dual engine flameout that wasn't caused by fuel exhaustion?

PPRuNe Towers
22nd Nov 2006, 22:21
CP - you might like to research the early days of the 75/76, the unfortunate placement of some rather important engine control switches and an eerie silence shortly after departure from, if memory serves, a Californian airport.

Rob

barit1
22nd Nov 2006, 22:37
Now that you mention it - see this (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X25693&key=1) and this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=229104). :ouch:

In both cases, excellent landings ensued (the aeroplane could be re-used). :)

jondc9
22nd Nov 2006, 23:03
Dear BARIT1


is that really: Barit ONE?

meaning: baritone

as in the voice or instrument?

Scimitar
22nd Nov 2006, 23:09
Flightmech is right! Well spotted! He IS Trigger.

Come on Redfred, ask us another. I haven't had such a good laugh in ages.

hobie
22nd Nov 2006, 23:19
Fred ..... I think you should print out all the posts on this thread ..... have them bound ...... then present them to your Girlfriend with a note saying ..... "darling, you have made me famous"

sorry ....... :hmm:

I meant ..... "Infamous" ..... :p

quitefrequentflyer
22nd Nov 2006, 23:26
Why did they not '''''''feed'''''''''' us on VS006 last Friday, especially as the ''el-capitan'' had already plotted his diversion for JFK some 20 minutes after takeoff, as I noted we made a left turn, so being intriged I switched on the moving map display in front of me, and it was showing our destination as JFK, which was over 900 miles away? :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

And we were then still some 2 hours away from the airport and sky high at 35,000 feet.

He knew about it then so why did he not tell the pax at the time?

Was he hoping the problem would resolve itself and he could thus alter course back to original before getting close to New York?

Not exactly customer orientated, are Virgin Atlantic, are they ? :=

A famished load of pax is not as happy as one properly fed and watered, as evidenced by the utter shambles that took place in the terminal after landing.:* :* :*

As for the 20something dumb blonde bimbo pax who appointed herself as the whinger-in-chief, well, no human being on this earth should have to endure such a torturous experience, not even shambolic VS staff:= That tirade was quite outside the rules of the Geneva Convention. A complete embarrassment to everything British :( The sort of person who should never be allowed to have a passport :mad:
.

mini
23rd Nov 2006, 00:00
This thread started about a rumoured shut down, in an exceptional break from the norm the PIC posted to rubbish the rumour. I would have thought that that would have been the end of it.

To see it continuing on desperate tangents makes me realise just what Danny is on about when he talks about a pro only forum.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
23rd Nov 2006, 00:52
It's true.

The trip over there wasn't half as eventful as the trip back though :ok:

D'vay
23rd Nov 2006, 01:29
Quitefrequentflier,
Are you taking the piss?

Why did they not '''''''feed'''''''''' us on VS006 last Friday, especially as the ''el-capitan'' had already plotted his diversion for JFK some 20 minutes after takeoff, as I noted we made a left turn, so being intriged I switched on the moving map display in front of me, and it was showing our destination as JFK, which was over 900 miles away?

I love the fact that turning left made you suspicious.

(pic opens window holding for runway to speak to local)

PIC: oi mate, if sumfink goes wrong and i need to find JFK, what are the directions?

Local: yeah, um, ok, come of the runway, 'ead towards england and after twenty minutes 'ang a left, right on the nose "some 900 miles and two hours away" bosh, that's yer JFK.

I mean really, are you being serious?

D'vay

con-pilot
23rd Nov 2006, 01:59
My god, how silly are all the people that have replied to this thread.


Everyone knows that if you lose all engines in flight that you are stuck up there until someone comes up in another airyplane with food, water and some folks to fix the engines.

(And I thought this was a serious thread.)

Loose rivets
23rd Nov 2006, 04:26
Losing one is unfortunate...losing two, is profoundly careless.







That should make Oscar wild.:hmm:

PlaneGeek
23rd Nov 2006, 07:54
Quite frankly - this sort of think wouldn't happen to the hoff

SLFguy
23rd Nov 2006, 13:37
This thread started about a rumoured shut down, in an exceptional break from the norm the PIC posted to rubbish the rumour. I would have thought that that would have been the end of it.
To see it continuing on desperate tangents makes me realise just what Danny is on about when he talks about a pro only forum.


Just love these sanctimonious gits without a PT..:ugh:

holyflyer
23rd Nov 2006, 14:56
I love the fact that turning left made you suspicious.

(pic opens window holding for runway to speak to local)

PIC: oi mate, if sumfink goes wrong and i need to find JFK, what are the directions?

Local: yeah, um, ok, come of the runway, 'ead towards england and after twenty minutes 'ang a left, right on the nose "some 900 miles and two hours away" bosh, that's yer JFK.

I mean really, are you being serious?

Sitting in the jump seat of a big airlines 747 departing 09R I was briefed by PIC

"Once up we shall jinx left at Hatton Cross, over the flats at Heston at 1000', straight on to Ealing Broadway slightly right to Hampstead Heath then we'll hang a sharp left for Potters Bar and straight on for Glasgow"

My reply : "So its a Brookmans Park departure then."