A380 engine failure (SQ)

[YoDawg]

A Singapore Airlines A380 was forced to turn round mid-flight and head back to Paris on Sunday after one of its four engines failed, the head of the airline's French operations said.

The doubledecker A380 took off from Paris at 12.30 pm with 444 passengers aboard and headed for Singapore, but had to turn round after 2 hours 45 minutes because of the engine problem, airline director Jerry Seah said.

The plane landed safely back in France at 5.45 p.m. and the passengers were sent to hotels as the airline tried to lay on an alternative flight for them.

Seah said he believed it was the first time the plane had suffered such a problem since it had started operating the Singapore-Paris route earlier this year.

The giant jet, built by Airbus, is designed to continue flying with only three engines, but came back to Paris as a safety precaution.

The engines on the Singapore A380s are built by Britain's Rolls Royce Group.


First A380 in-flight failure?

Interesting that they went all the way back to Paris instead of Istanbul or Dubai. Maintenance I suppose.

[Dave Gittins]

If BA can make it (almost) across the pond and to LHR, on 3 donks, why can't an A380 continue across Asia on 3 .... even if it needed a fuel stop en route ? :confused:

[doc_exe]

I was the controller :) when the A380 J ... requested left turn 180 and .. re-routing to LFPG ...... the aircraft... was on 350 ..after failure ... down to 310....

the PIC ... took this decision in about 20 minutes...

[Dave Gittins]

If I understand you they asked for a 180 and a revised plan back to CDG decending from 350 to 310.

Hence my question still stands .. if they were prepared to fly for at least a couple of hours, albeit slower and at a lower altitude and only get back where they started why not push on ?

Dubai isn't a million miles out of the way and at about half distance would be a good place for a refueling stop, and if that wasn't going to work, with plenty of abilities to deal with an A380.

[wobble2plank]

Argh, not the dreaded 'three engined' approach!

I'm sure there must have been a slightly nearer acceptable diversion if the beastie was 2.45 hours out!

Or perhaps the airports in the region of North east Mediterranean haven't been sufficiently upgraded to take the weight?

[fast cruiser]

Don't think you'll find you can do a refuelling stop once your down to 3 eng!!

Once on the ground thats it unless the engineers can fix the problem!!

MEL:- 4 eng fitted.... 4 required for dispatch!!!!!!!:}

[adsyj]

"Please return faulty or defective goods including original receipt to original point of purchase for full refund"

[Dave Gittins]

I humbly acknowledge the MEL point .. all 4 must be servicable at the commencement of the T/O roll. :O

DGG

Still wonder why, operationally they didn't use the same flying time and fuel and get half way home rather than have another plane fly all the way back to Paris to collect the stranded Pax.

I can think of lots of possible reasons .. I just wonder if anybody knows the real one

[FCS Explorer]

maybe they went back all the way to paris at FL310 to burn of some fuel in regards to landing weight. if you still have 3 of 4, why dump and land at some place where you don't have (your own/proper) maint?

[Dave Gittins]

Maybe so ... Do Singapore have maintenance at CDG ?? EK have it at DXB and might even have restored the bird to 4

[MPH]

Maybe they should have just landed in TOU and have Airbus solve the problem!!!:rolleyes:

[Kelly Hopper]

Lets say go to Dubai, spend 1/2 day on the ground getting engine replaced. Then what? Crews out of duty time, a/c in the wrong place. So in effect the a/c would probably spend a day on the ground only to have to then have it ferried back to Paris as all the pax transfered to other flights.
So most certainly a commercial decision and probably the right one.

[Dave Gittins]

Indeed that may be so .. but I simply question whether it is better to have a broken aeroplane, an out of hours crew and 444 stranded pax 6 hours downroute from home in Singapore rather than 12 ?

[MyNameIsIs]

What about the problems associated with customs/immigration?

Everyone that is onboard the plane (probably) had no troubles being in the country of origin. Why add to the situation and take people to a country they may not be allowed to enter?
Granted it would be going there because of a mechanical problem and it wasn't planned, but it would still be a bit of a nightmare for some.

[Spitoon]

Maybe they should have just landed in TOU and have Airbus solve the problem!!!But do they have enough hotels in TOU for all the pax???

[LHR27C]

Maybe so ... Do Singapore have maintenance at CDG ?? EI have it at DXB and might even have restored the bird to 4

Do you mean EK? Yes, they do have maintenance for the A380 at DXB but they operate a GP7200 powered fleet and this was specifically an engine problem so hardly going to be much help for a Trent-powered aircraft. The decision to return to CDG was undoubtedly the sensible one, with SQ A380 technicians and support available, and probably the closest airport offering Trent 900 support at the time of the incident. Also, 2 hours 45 minutes out of CDG enroute to SIN the aircraft would still be over eastern Europe so I doubt DXB would have been any nearer.

Safety permitting, it is not an uncommon incident for aircraft that need to divert enroute to divert back to their point of origin or at the very least the nearest airport where the airline has a commercial and engineering presence, rather than just land at the nearest airport that could take the aircraft.

[Sober Lark]

Dave Gittins, what has happened the new runway in 'New Doha Intl. Qatar'? Hush hush

[Dave Gittins]

Serious threadcreep but we are in the process of constructing $13 Bn of new airport and 2 nice long runways (longest outside Denver) are key features.

Back on topic .. appreciate the corrections (yes I meant EK) and the logic as to why RR techs in Paris are a better bet than EK.

[leewan]

Maybe they should have just landed in TOU and have Airbus solve the problem!!!:rolleyes:

They could have, but they changed their minds when they realized their warranty cards weren't onboard.:)

SQ does have a maint manager in CDG and trained the engineering staff over there for their 380 ops, so better peace of mind to be diverted there. Saw AOG kit and a spare RRTrent 900 engine ready to be shipped over this afternoon at the freighter stands in SIN.

The doubledecker A380 took off from Paris at 12.30 pm with 444 passengers aboard

Wow, a load factor of 94%. A random sample nonetheless. What economic crisis ?

[King on a Wing]

Hasn't any one of you heard of 'contact company via datalink'....???!?
It was in all probability,an executive decision made by the company and not the pilot(s).
Eitherways 3/4 powerplants for the fat girl isn't a mayday or a 'land asap' situation. Like someone rightfully said,burn the extra fuel,get back to point of departure,no customs and/or immigration hiccups AND you dont lose a client along the way. What better decision could one ask for huh...

[Dave Gittins]

Thanks guys .. the wonder of PPRuNe .... all my questions answered.

:ok:

[ian16th]

no customs and/or immigration hiccupsQuite right.

Can you imagine the treatment of a Pax travelling on an Israeli passport would receive from any Arab immigration officer? :ugh:

[chrislamb]

Perhaps someone here could put me right - I am told that an engine change on the A380 would take around 12-15 hours but is then followed by 3 days or so for the nacelle fixing to 'cure' - can this be true?

[leewan]

followed by 3 days or so for the nacelle fixing to 'cure' - can this be true?

A complete change would take 12-15 hours as you said. The nacelle or the inlet cowl is secured by multiple bolts at the head of the compressor and need no cure time. Unless if the nacelle itself is damaged, then there could be cure time as some of it is composite.

[HamishMcBush]

Am I being a bit naive here - why didn't the plane just carry on with 3 engines until it got to SG ?

[parabellum]

Am I being a bit naive here - why didn't the plane just carry on with 3 engines until it got to SG ? Today 01:53

May well not have had enough fuel to complete the journey at the lower levels, (3 engines now working harder than 4), then it would have been required to land and once on the ground it will, in all probability, stay there until the engine has been changed.

The crew would certainly have contacted Singapore and that will be where the decision came from. Send it back to Paris where there are other crew, possibility of other company A380 in the region etc. etc. also get the passengers off to London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc. to continue to Singapore on other SIA services, the list is endless.

[Ocampo]

It was in all probability,an executive decision made by the company and not the pilot(s).

the PIC ... took this decision in about 20 minutes...

Sounds about right. A diversion decision is not made only upon, as someone else said "Land ASAP". And one of the PIC's responsibilities is to save money for the company; how does he do that? Not diverting to an airport which is not served by the company, and the statements above made by others are dead on-spot, much more "comfort" possibilities for the pax, the engine change...

[Challengerjetdriver]

My nameisis nailed it right on the thread. It was probably an immigration issue. Dealt with a similar problem in the past.

[broadreach]

Undoubtedly the right decision in my mind at least. Hadn't even considered the immigration issue but other logistics alone, getting beds for all those passengers at home base vs down the line, the maintenance/spares/replacement aircraft positioning, ugh.

[simfly]

OK, can I push the politics aside for a mo..... Maybe a bit more important to our community is what the actual problem was, ie did the engine fail, or was it shut down due to a small problem etc

[Old Fella]

As a now retired Flight Engineer I am still amazed at some of the thoughts expressed on this forum. Sure, the loss of a single engine on a four engined heavy jet is not, of itself, the sole reason for a return rather than continuing on three. The first and most compelling thought of the Captain is, or should be, the safety of his aircraft and its occupants. Full Stop. If satisfied that there is not a safety issue then, and only then, will the Captain determine his alternatives. A myriad of reasons for returning to CDG probably existed. One thing you should all be sure of is that the Captain would not have returned to CDG unless he was sure it was the most appropriate course of action. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of respect for the Captain and his company.

[Dave Gittins]

Old Fella I concur entirely. My curiosity was aroused as to why nearly 3 hours out from Paris, that was decided to be the best place to divert to. The likely reasons have been disclosed and I appreciate the answers to my questions.

My only reservation (call it irritation / frustration / whatever) as a pax would be that if I was on my way to Singapore from Paris and provided it was safe, I would rather end up nearer there (any thus having a shorter overall journey time) than back where I started 6 hours after I set off and with the prospect of being a minimum of a day late at my destination.

I note (from an earlier post) that a new Trent is being shipped from Singapore and presumably the aircraft is still tech in CDG so it was clearly nothing trivial. Any ideas what exactly ?

[Airbus Unplugged]

There are only certain specified airfields that can accept an A380, CDG is one, and I imagine SQ have their engineers there.

Big Airways decision to fly back from LAX on 3 was not universally endorsed.

Who will be the first to say that this would never have happened in a Boeing, and that the 747 never had a first engine failure?

[YoDawg]

Hasn't any one of you heard of 'contact company via datalink'....???!?

It was in all probability,an executive decision made by the company and not the pilot(s).

A dangerous mindset promulgated by today's bean-counting pilotless management. Where I work, the company end all ACARS transmissions with a disclaimer pointing out the message is for information only, and they take no responsibility for anything operational which happens after they make "suggestions."

Your company can advise all they like but the decision on diversion airport is up to the Captain of the aircraft and if you hand off that responsibility to someone on the ground, then perhaps you should re-assess your position.

Eitherways 3/4 powerplants for the fat girl isn't a mayday or a 'land asap' situation.

I don't think anyone believes it is. The question was why did they fly 2:45 or more in the reverse direction instead of going onward to an SQ airport. I asked because I did not know. Now I have a better idea.

Thanks for the feedback, guys - seems the issue of the manufacturer of the engines is likely one of the reasons for the choice of diversion airport. I have no doubt there was a lot of consultation going on and that a perfectly safe decision was made - by the captain.

Cheers...

[C-N]

Just to put the records straight, there's no TOU in France, only TLS/LFBO.
TOU is southeast of oz and is farther than SIN

[Solar]

Leewan
Iv'e been on the the LHR/SIN 380 every month since they started flying it and have yet to see any empty seats in the economy. Not only that it's very difficult to change flights due to the demand so not much evidence of a recession on that route.

[hautemude]

The a/c was reported as just south of Krakow when the engine was shut down. This suggests to me that the route was over the former Russian republics and then Afghanistan, not very near Dubai or anywhere else in the middle east. Some of you may have noticed there are some very high mountains on this route called the Himalayas. So here we are happily cruising along, half asleep when the co-pilot shouts out "Captain, captain, the oil pressure is falling on another engine now, what are we going to do, I can see some white snow covered lumps ahead and we can't cross them on 2 engines because because we can't maintain MSA". "Don't worry son, we can always land in Kabul". A suitable diversion for an A380 or any other civilian a/c? :ugh:

[ExSp33db1rd]

Old Fella,

To suggest otherwise shows a lack of respect for the Captain and his company.

Your whole post is spot on. Everybody else wind your neck in, it had nothing to do with you.

My immediate thoughts would be where do I go when the second engine fails, ( hautemaude :ok:) much rather be over 'friendly' territory, with more available airfield options, than certain territory en route to Dubai, even if Dubai could change the engine. Burning fuel down to landing weight whilst still continuing towards ones' eventual destination would be the best economical choice - but are you more interested in economics than your safety ?

Ones' immediate problem when an engine fails, is not what height and speed can I maintain on 3, but what can I do on 2 ? ( apply that philosophy to a Boeing 777 and see where it gets you. ) And don't tell me it can't happen just because the statistics say it is unlikely. Why did the first one fail ? Statistics would say that that is highly unlikely, too.

I know little of the BA 747 3-eng LAX-LHR affair, so will keep my mouth shut, but first impressions suggest that it was an ill conceived decision, if Boeing wanted a 3-eng 747 they'd have designed one.

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 ? "

ExSp33db1rd. ( ExCapta1n, too )

[YoDawg]

Some of you may have noticed there are some very high mountains on this route called the Himalayas. So here we are happily cruising along, half asleep when the co-pilot shouts out "Captain, captain, the oil pressure is falling on another engine now, what are we going to do, I can see some white snow covered lumps ahead and we can't cross them on 2 engines because because we can't maintain MSA"

I see now. I was under the impression only one engine had failed, not two. What do the twins do when they fly that route?

[ExSp33db1rd]

I see now. I was under the impression only one engine had failed, not two.

2 hadn't - yet. but can you guarantee that another one won't ? Highly unlikely, but what if ??

Technically there is nothing to guarantee that all four engines won't stop at exactly the same time - why not ? Only statistically is it unlikely. but just in case ......... let's maximise our options. I'm going back. Except when I had an engine failure out of Muscat, and continued to Bahrain, which is at sea level and not surrounded by mountainous terrain at night,and incidentally where the spare engine was.

It would have taken me nearly as long to dump down to landing weight as the continued flight towards my destination, with the added advantage that I was proceeding towards less hostile terrain in case of another failure, and with Dubai, Sharjah, Abu Dhabi and Doha en route, continuing was a better option in that case than returning, and I burned off fuel en route to my final destination as well instead of dumping it, better conditions first, passenger convenience second - have you ever been to Muscat ? and economical benefits came along for the ride.

QED.

[YoDawg]

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.

[ExSp33db1rd]

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.

[Joetom]

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 ???

[parabellum]

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.

[Super VC-10]

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

[panda-k-bear]

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!

[sleeper]

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.

[JenCluse]

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.

[747passion]

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?

[ChiefT]

I suppose it is definitely because of maintenance possibilities. SQ has a station there, Airbus is not far away, nor is the engine alliance...

[Pinky95]

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.

[panda-k-bear]

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. :ugh:

Why do they care where the Engine Alliance are? :ugh::ugh:

[747passion]

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?

[hawker750]

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.

[Capt Groper]

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.

[oceancrosser]

This thread is turning into ridiculous spotter speculations.

[hawker750]

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?

[merlinxx]

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:ugh: SQ A380 crews alone should comment:ok:

[Baywatcher]

I think you will find that SQ procedures are to land at nearest suitable, albeit different from the rest of us.

[King on a Wing]

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...:cool:. 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...:ouch:

[MANAGP]

Danny or whoever runs this board, can we have a flag or avtar or something that differentiates from Professional Pilots and those who are not! That way I don't have to wade through pages of...Why didn't he divert to Sywel there's a very good Chip Shop there!!!

Lord help us!

[MPH]

C-N Never heard of TOU/VOR? One of the app. for TLS/LFBO would have beenone of the initial clearances!

[C-N]

sorry for the drift, but I still DON'T understand. You mean the TOU/VOR in Washington?
there's also TOU/VOR just north of TLS, but "landing in TOU"? I won't call it landing, it's crashing into a VOR. There's only three TOU, an airport and 02 VORs. Is TOU really an approach? Can't find any TOU STAR either. Didn't intend to offend but as what i've posted, just to clarify things, as TOU is ambiguous if not misleading.

[heliski22]

And still no idea why the "big round thing" stopped turning..........?

[GarageYears]

Seems Istanbul was a possible alternate:

Gallois said this was a "non-event," noting that the plane is designed to fly on three engines. The plane returned to Paris because it's easier to change an engine at Paris than at Istanbul, an alternative halt, he said.But no comment (yet) on why.

- GY

[Fantome]

Danny or whoever runs this board, can we have a flag or avtar or something that differentiates from Professional Pilots and those who are not! That way I don't have to wade through pages of...Why didn't he divert to Sywel there's a very good Chip Shop there!!!

Lord help us!


Yea verily - and forsooth. (FOR SALE - One worn out crap detector.)

[White Knight]

What a pointless waste of cyberspace this whole thread is!!! You want to discuss my engine failures that I had some years ago - just as exciting and mind blowing non events:ugh::ugh::ugh::{:{:{

Blue side up................

[mkdar]

I for one will never question a pilots decision when he is on the hot seat but, two thoughts come to mind :
1: I thought that any 4 engine A/C can continue to destination “fuel wise “ by design .
2 : I remember “vaguely “ there was a recommendation by Air Bus not to fly a 340 for instance on 3 engines more than 7 hours due to lubrication issues if the engine did not seize .
can any one confirm this or deny it ?
Thanks

[helen-damnation]

mkdar,

1: I thought that any 4 engine A/C can continue to destination “fuel wise “ by design .

The 340-300 burns about 10% more (in total) than 4 eng when down to 3. No company will carry the extra fuel for a "just in case" engine fail scenario.

2 : I remember “vaguely “ there was a recommendation by Air Bus not to fly a 340 for instance on 3 engines more than 7 hours due to lubrication issues if the engine did not seize .

If my memory serves me correctly, it used to be about 3 hours, later extended to about 7.

Back to the thread.....

Why did it "fail"?

[leewan]

Who will be the first to say that this would never have happened in a Boeing, and that the 747 never had a first engine failure?
I believe 747's maiden commercial flight had an engine problem.

The decision to fly back to Paris is not a simple coin toss hastily taken decision. I believe the Capt, after judging that it's not a "Mayday" issue, must have called Maintrol to ask them on suggestions and after assessing the situation and roping in FOCC, must have made the decision to land in Paris, based on financial and logistical reasons. If the captain, at any point in time, felt that safety of the a/c was in danger(land ASAP), he would have landed at the nearest alternative, no questions asked. Remember, the company can only give him suggestions, not command him. Capt takes the final decision.
If an IFSD happened on a twin, the decision to land would have been taken in milli-seconds after relight fails.

For us knowledgable in aircrafts, we know that losing an engine in a 4 holer is not an issue and the aircraft can continue the journey with the remaining engines. But to the general public, losing an engine on any aircraft is a catastrophe. Can you imagine the public repercussion if they knew that SQ flew an aircraft with one engine down for 10 hours. SQ image would have been tarnished.

[BOAC]

The CEO of the airline would benefit from a bit more knowledge of things 'aviation' if the quote from him is correct.

[Rananim]

Obviously the right decision for reasons already given.Why do we get annoyed when discussing incidents like these?Its an open forum and an excellent chance to explain the thinking behind the decision with anyone interested.That is a good thing and theres no need to get elitist when explaining the logic to the curious.

[Dave Gittins]

Agreed. I try and pose questions to increase my understanding, rather than profer unwanted opinions outside my knowledge and experience (although I have a bit of that having many years experience building airports and the past 40 flying various small flying machines).

I am a regular flyer between Qatar and mid west USA and points in between but I have never posed as a Big Jet Driver and my profile is clear. (I don't care if I have a flag that says Aviation Industry Professional but not qualified on big jets).

Why then is it so easy to get flamed ? (dons hard hat again !)

[HotDog]

What a waste of time and bandwidth, 74 posts to discuss an engine shutdown!:ugh:

[Dave Gittins]

Yet interestingly not a single post that either reports or speculates on the crux .... what actually happened to the engine in question. :ugh:

[411A]

I think you will find that SQ procedures are to land at nearest suitable, albeit different from the rest of us.
It wasn't always that way...but it changed right after one of their first 747's had two fail enroute (about forty minutes apart) enroute to ATH and a third wound down on the taxiway...severe fuel contamination ex-BAH.:ooh:

[leewan]

Yet interestingly not a single post that answers the question of what actually happened to the engine in question.

Don't quote me, but my sources in the grapevine say it could be a bearing failure.

[massman]

Wasting whose time ? If it is such a problem why are you following it ?

[hautemude]

QUOTE Yet interestingly not a single post that answers the question of what actually happened to the engine in question.

The Aviation Herald www.avherald.com (http://www.pprune.org/www.avherald.com) usually a very reliable source say that "the crew detected an oil leak in engine #1 (Trent 970, outboard left hand) and decided to shut the engine down".

Nothing is said about how it was detected, i.e. oil observed on engine cowling or decrease in measured quantity.

[747passion]

What a waste of time and bandwidth, 74 posts to discuss an engine shutdown

So grab a beer for yourself. If you are not interested by this topic, nobody forces you to read it...

We are just discussing about an engine failure in a largest airliner flying today. I do find the subject very interesting and I am eager to read other professionals opinion about this failure and the crew performance.

[mrdeux]

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?

That's just gibberish.

The additional burn (to continue) from roughly 2:45 into the flight would have been in the order of 15 tonnes. As it most probably would have been planned to arrive in Singapore with approximately this figure, then any decision to continue would have been poor in the extreme.

Safety heights on the Afghan route that he was most likely using also exceed 18000 feet. The loss of another engine, which any pilot must consider, would put you into the unfortunate situation of not having enough performance to remain above the mountains.

Alternates for the 380 are pretty thin on the ground. Whilst places like Ashgabat are available as emergency fields, between Singapore and Europe, only Hyderbad and Dubai are full alternates (for us). Dubai was a long way further away than Paris, on a totally different route. Returning to Paris seems pretty much a 'no brainer'.

[mickjoebill]

To lighten the tone...

Is finding accommodation for 444 passengers more difficult than it sounds?


Mickjoebill

[gtf]

CDG was nearest suitable with company staff trained on Trent 900 (oil it is I hear). And all the other reasons.

Yes, finding beds for ~444 is not a joy, esp because suite flyers don't expect to be lodged at Ibis.

[Pinky95]

Depends how far into russia you go.. couple of years ago AF had a 777 stuck in Irkutsk for a couple of days with an engine failure, don't believe they've had the best of luck finding accomodations

[icarus sun]

In this case the crew/ company took the correct option.
By turning back the crew had the option of gliding, in case of total engine failure however remote. A suitable airport either civil or military, from 30000 feet over europe there is nearly always an airport of more than 6000ft long within gliding distance.
If the flight had kept on track to sin it would have flown over high ground in Turkey Iran Afganistan/Pakistan. Areas with very few airports/support.
On the Ba flight which lost an engine after t/o it flew over north america with many airports available. Crossing the atlantic at least 1900 nm overwater it had very few airports /options available.

[englishal]

Perhaps they would have had to dump fuel to "land ASAP" anyway, so why not just turn around,fly back to CDG and land normally rather than dumping fuel all over Europe, and landing at some remote airport where the plane isn't going to get fixed in a hurry....

I'm sure they weren't even considering the possibility of gliding in... :}

[parabellum]

The CEO of the airline would benefit from a bit more knowledge of things 'aviation' if the quote from him is correct.


'twas the CEO of Airbus Industry, not SIA.


Speaking in Paris, Louis Gallois, chief executive of Airbus manufacturer EADS, called the incident "a complete non-event".


From the Sydney Morning Herald.

[BOAC]

OK - I'll give you 'the CEO', but from Singapore Airlines A380's engine failure no drama: Airbus (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/singapore-a380s-engine-failure-no-drama-airbus-20090929-g9sf.html)

"We are in the process of examining the problem," said Singapore Airlines spokesman Jerry Seah, adding that the Paris-Singapore route was being maintained by another Airbus A380.
Singapore Airlines said the A380 could have continued the flight on its three remaining engines.

[lomapaseo]

Quote:
What a waste of time and bandwidth, 74 posts to discuss an engine shutdown





So grab a beer for yourself. If you are not interested by this topic, nobody forces you to read it...

We are just discussing about an engine failure in a largest airliner flying today. I do find the subject very interesting and I am eager to read other professionals opinion about this failure and the crew performance.

Pretty much sums the thread up. I agree with both above coments. I read the thread because there's little else to take up my time and I enjoy the off-the-wall speculation and hand wringing.

Events with ingredients like this number in the thousands in large transport aviation. Only now we get to read about them in blog style.

[Microburst2002]

Yes.
Paris the best choice, it seems.
And in Toulouse they don't fix engines!
A 310 diverted there after a one engine out over switzerland because they thought they would have available all the maintenance they could ask for.
But no! They make airplanes, not power plants...

[Ocampo]

I can't believe some people (too many) are actually considering continuing to SIN after merely 3 hours of flight; there's still a long way to go, and it's not like you're flying a C152! It's a friggin' A380 for god's sake! As some people have said earlier, there's not that many airports that can handle the biggest passenger jet in the skies today!:rolleyes: (Emphasis on that particular area of the world...)

Going back to CDG was not "what seems to be the best option" it WAS the best option.

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.

I can't agree with you more!

Now, on to the technical issues of the shutdown of the "big round thing"

[oceancrosser]

747passion wrote:

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?

I am not familiar with the performance of the A380. How well can it fly in N-2 situation with full pax and fuel?

So grab a beer for yourself. If you are not interested by this topic, nobody forces you to read it...

We are just discussing about an engine failure in a largest airliner flying today. I do find the subject very interesting and I am eager to read other professionals opinion about this failure and the crew performance.

Now you have managed to post 3 bull**** posts. N-2 situation?
"other professionals"???
I have no idea what if any kind of a professional you are, but you are obviously not a professional pilot. So now back to spotters corner...

[Joetom]

Still very little info on engine problem, anyone know ???

Oil has been mentioned, I will take a guess, oil loss due crack or joint fail due long term vibs/fitment tension, part is not easy to replace or windmill over time has caused another problem, or may be oil loss reason can't be found and RR will test to find out.

Will crawl back under my stone for now.

[parabellum]

Singapore Airlines said the A380 could have continued the flight on its three remaining engines.


I missed that. The flight certainly "could have continued", but not to destination. Had to shut one down mid Pacific on a B744 westbound, no way could we make destination HKG (Kai Tak) on three.

[747passion]

oceancrosser (http://www.pprune.org/members/76081-oceancrosser) thank you for the kind words. Keep crossing Oceans and log 10 minutes of actual flight time every month. Pay us a visit when you are bored :bored: If you keep visiting forums, you will even learn how to attack what the people say without attacking the people personally. It needs some practice, but believe me, you'll feel better in the long run.

Obviously, I am not a kind of pilots your appreciate. However, I always think in N-1 where N is not the number of installed engines, but the number of working engines.

Any pilot should be able to manage an engine failure in any situation INCLUDING the situation where there is already a first failure.

With a 4-engine aircraft flying and a first failure, pilots still must take in account a further engine failure. So safety-wise, may be it is not 100% a good idea to wander in the blue sky with 444 pax and 1 engine out for an unknown reason.

When you loose your first engine, it doesn't mean that the day is over. There are incidents of 3 engines out in a DC-10 or a 4 engines out in a 747. I hear that the hotels are good in Paris. I've spent years in Paris, so I agree with this statement. They definitely worth a visit but not in 3 engines.

[gengis]

747passion, there is a difference between an Emergency & a Non-normal situation. 3-engines is a "Non-normal" situation, not an "Emergency". What this means is, reduced redundancy exists and full operational capability is no longer available, so his options are now more restricted but it is not (yet) a Land As Soon As Possible situation. But, the airplane is not yet immediately under threat.
This is the difference between a Mayday and a Pan-Pan.

You may pontificate all you like, but the fact is that if in every airline that i have flown for, if you took her to an unsuitable airport/emergency airport & got the airplane stuck there for weeks on end for something that is not an emergency situation, you would be shown the door. If his engine was burning away with an uncontrolled fire etc, that would be another story. A straight flameout is a different matter.

In this case, are you actually suggesting that you would have him put the airplane down at an airport/runway that cannot take his airplane?

Please answer simply - a "yes" or "no" would suffice.

[JW411]

Why are you even bothering to respond to this p*llock?

[Mr Angry from Purley]

maybe CDG had a spare engine :\

[747passion]

gengis (http://www.pprune.org/members/4819-gengis), I wasn't advocating an emergency landing in a wheat field :)

In my opinion, there were other suitable airports before Paris CDG.

[gravity enemy]

No judgement on the A380 pilots from my side. No judgement on the management either, which undoubtedly was involved in 90% of the decision to turn around.

A lot of you however seem to say that it's okay to continue flying on 3 engines. That in theory might be true, but the real question that any sensible pilot should be thinking at that point is, how well will this aircraft fly on 2 engines?

[parabellum]

In my opinion, there were other suitable airports before Paris CDG.


As they were on 3 engines landing at the nearest suitable airport was not a requirement, hence the logistical decision to return to Paris.

Yes Hetfield, very well put!!!:zzz:

[Dairyground]

Perhaps they would have had to dump fuel to "land ASAP" anyway, so why not just turn around,fly back to CDG and land normally rather than dumping fuel all over Europe, and landing at some remote airport where the plane isn't going to get fixed in a hurry....

At the point where the decision not to continue was taken, was the aircraft likely to be still above maximum landing weight, and if so, how long would it take to dump enough fuel to get below MLW? How long to burn enough fuel through three engines?

If you need to spend the time up there, and there are no indications of imminent failure of any of the other engines, then making a straight line for home seems a much better option than circling over the middle of nowhere, or landing landing hundreds of miles from support. And of course in the last 90 minutes or so before Paris, places like Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Brussels would not be far off track if anything else did go wrong.

[englishal]

A lot of you however seem to say that it's okay to continue flying on 3 engines. That in theory might be true, but the real question that any sensible pilot should be thinking at that point is, how well will this aircraft fly on 2 engines?
I often ask myself how my aeroplane would fly with no engines.....doesn't stop me flying it though.

[gengis]

A lot of you however seem to say that it's okay to continue flying on 3 engines. That in theory might be true, but the real question that any sensible pilot should be thinking at that point is, how well will this aircraft fly on 2 engines?

Hence the difference between single engine failure & multiple engine failure. Only one engine fails, a multitude of options & time remain available and a choice of diversion airports - which at this stage does not have to be the nearest one - and re-routing to assure that the airplane is always within a comfortable distance of landing should the situation take a turn for the worse. If/when the 2nd (or 3rd) engine fails that's the time it becomes Land At the Nearest Suitable Airport - not before.

[MTOW]

Does anyone double guessing the SQ captain's (or more to the point, SQ Flt Ops') decision on this diversion actually fly commercially? Or fly anything bigger than a C152?

Reading some of the opinions on this thread is like walking into a crowded aero club bar very late on a Saturday afternoon.

Try for one moment to guess the logistical nightmare (to say nothing of the cost, both in cash and very pissed off passengers) for the company finding 500+ beds in a port where they have no ground staff.

Then give some thought to the technical side of things, like who's going to fix it, with what and how you get the replacement engine to 'your' better diversion port.

One engine out on a four holer is definitely not a land asap situation unless there's some suspicion that the cause of the failure might be affecting (or possibly about to affect) either other critical systems or one or more of the other engines.

[leewan]

Gosh, get it over with !:ugh:
The a/c is on ground and everyone's safe. Capt did his job. What else do you people want ?
This thread seems to be full of people who are offering illogical suggestions with no grasp of what an emergency in a multi-engine means or no respect to the captain in question or the professionals in SQ who were involved in this diversion by offering these suggestions and thinking they are better than them. They tried to look knowledgable but just failed miserably.

Anyway, based on the ECAM messages, I would say it seems to be bearing failure or shaft failure. And since bearing/shaft failures are isolated to the respective engine, the crew did the right thing by shutting it down and taking up FOCC's suggestion to fly CDG as there was no real danger of the problem spreading as no common factors affecting all engines was involved.(fuel) Thus saving a logistical and financial nightmare.

Hmmmm, Monita :E
Nice one there, Hetfield.:) Pretty much sums up this thread.


(Edited by moderator to remove textspeak).

[747passion]

leewan (http://www.pprune.org/members/290465-leewan), mind this:

- With good decisions: you always arrive safely

- With bad decisions: you arrive safely most of the time

You can't validate a choice because it had a good results in the past. This has nothing to do with SQ.

[leewan]

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

747 passion, get this,

- Amateurs under pressure( or armchair) would choose the most simplest and easiest option available but not necessarily the best.

- Professionals under pressure would evaluate all their options available and, having safety as their utmost priority at all times, would choose the option that is the most benefical to as much parties as possible.

Face it, most airlines faced with this scenario would have done the same thing. IFSDs on a quad have occurred from time to time and in most cases after assessing the situation, the crew have diverted to an airport that is the most convenient rather than the nearest airport available. With twins, it's vice versa. This has been a standard practice practiced by most airlines and endorsed by the aircraft manufacturers themselves. So, if you feel unsafe about it, simply fly twins or stick with boats and ships.

With a username like yours, it is ironic that you do not see the biggest advantage a quad has over a twin. Having said that, I can also see what your motives are for posting these posts.:=

[Rainboe]

I knew this thread would go this way. Idiotic armchair amateurs second guessing the professionals who have worked at this job for years, with thousands of hours of experience, and deciding they know better! Can't some fools understand this is a 4 engine jet, designed to fly happily on 3, and even on 2. On 2, it is in an equivalent situation to a twin on one- in some ways better because it even has the option to end up on one engine- not so happy, but better than being a glider.

I have flown 747s for 18 years, and 4 engine jets for 24. In that time, I lost many engines- mainly during 747 early days. Losing one across the Atlantic did not normally cause a turnback, though sometimes it would. Mainly for maintenance reasons, NOT for the bizarre safety some advocate!

Get over it and stop boring people to death. It was a perfectly safe and sensible decision, and far more practical than any of you geniuses have come up with. You're banging it to death, and this is an airline pilots forum. I don't think most airline pilots can read threads like this for their blood pressure! And the LAX-LHR on 3 was bang on to rights, has been justified and the pilots acknowledged as doing their jobs. Exactly what I would have done. Try and find another cause to champion!

[Desert Dawg]

@Rainboe

Well said Mate...!

Mods - Can you close this thread and let the real pilots talk about this elsewhere? The likes of 747passion are a crashing bore.....:ugh:

[Taildragger67]

If BA can make it (almost) across the pond and to LHR, on 3 donks, why can't an A380 continue across Asia on 3 .... even if it needed a fuel stop en route ?

The BA 744 did make it across the pond; just needed to land earlier in the UK.

And they've been copping a shellacking for it ever since.

Leewan,

IIRC , following earlier issues with the early JT9s, PAA lined up two airframes for their first 747 revenue service, one primary and one reserve.

Primary indeed had a donk problem at start-up so they shifted to the reserve, which fired up fine and they got away safely, albeit a tad late.

Sadly, that airframe which actually operated that first revenue service was the PAA 747 later destroyed at Tenerife.

Rainboe,

:ok:

[skychef999]

There was no spare engine in Paris it was flown up fom Singapore (fact)
Rumour was there was a tool found in engine. Reason for shutdown was metal detected in chip detector.

[parabellum]

Rumour was there was a tool found in engine. Reason for shutdown was metal detected in chip detector.


My limited engineering expertise would tell me that these two items are totally unrelated, unless, somehow, a tool had been left within the oil circulation?

The days when spare engines were left scattered around the route network are long gone, on the one hand engines are much more reliable these days and due to increased sector length stops are less frequent, then we have the bean counters who will tell you that it is cheaper to wait for the event and then acquire and position the spare than have it on a shelf somewhere waiting.

Looking at the SQ flight, it departed, turned back, passengers were re-distributed, that flight cancelled with the minimum of disruption. Subsequent flights to have been flown by that aircraft will be replaced by other aircraft, if available, including the use of other A380, the B744, as available and the B777, as available, SIA have considerable flexibility. In operational terms it would have been swallowed without a murmur, everything back to the original plan within ten days, maximum.

I would like to nominate this thread for the annual Gold Global Award for A Storm in a Teacup.

[Rainboe]

Taildragger, The BA 744 did make it across the pond; just needed to land earlier in the UK.

And they've been copping a shellacking for it ever since. Like most people in this thread, you don't know what you are talking about!

[anartificialhorizon]

Simple decision.

If you land just ANYWHERE else on that route (apart from the destination) where do you.......

Accomodate the pax?

How much to put up the pax (at your origin a good percentage can go back home if they don't want to try alternatives!)

How do you get a replacementTrent 900 to your diversion airfield?

How do you get the pax off this beast? Stairs /airbridges etc?

How do you get to the terminal (wingspan / weight etc)?

Is there anyone who know ANYTHING about the A380 at your diversion?

Is there any engine change equipment, access equipment, servicing equipment at your diversion?

Security? Staff? Engineers? Engine ground run facilities?

I could go on and on and on and on....

Give us a good reason why the crew didn't make a good decision...? ...silence.....

Now let's get back to why the donk failed, that's the more interesting part of all of this....

[HeathrowGirl]

Quick post here as pax who was on the KLM Washington-Amsterdam A330 that lost use of one engine a couple of hours out of Dulles and had to land in Bangor, Maine, last Monday. First time it's ever happened to me. As pax, once you know that's happened, you want to be on the ground. Now. Being told that you can carry on perfectly well on 1 engine, is no comfort at all when you don't know why number 1 has conked out. So whatever decision gets you down fastest (er, other than directly vertical downwards.....;) is the right one just then.

[BreezyDC]

How are spare engines carried these days for this type of situation? In cargo heavy lift, or do they still use a "5th Engine" mount inboard on the wing of another revenue flight?

[lomapaseo]

Most engines are shipped as freight

[BreezyDC]

Most engines are shipped as freightThanks, thought that might be the case in today's tight economy and full flights.

In digging around about this (yeah, should've done so before asking the question :O) it looks like freighter size depends on the manufacturer. Emirates ships just the GP hot core, to be attached to the hopefully more robust fan (birds notwithstanding), while Rolls touts it's smaller casing size, allowing the engine to fit in a 747F.

Decades of manufacturer expertise mean that a choice between the two A380 powerplant contenders will depend on the little things
By J.A. Donoghue
Air Transport World, November 2004
((Excerpt)) With the offerings being so close on the technical side, the larger issues of total cost of ownership and maintainability become even more important-if that is possible. One maintainability issue with a clear difference is out-station repair capability. Rolls says its engine can be shipped whole in a 747 freighter. EA acknowledges that a full GP7200 must be shipped in an An-124 but adds that the 747F's capability to ship Trent 900s is marginal, with door clearances of less than 1 in. per side.
Rolls achieved a fan case diameter smaller than that on its 110-in. fan through the use of a titanium-based case, a lighter version of the steel case adopted on the Trent 500, to improve post-blade-loss case structural integrity in an ETOPS-like environment. EA is staying with "an aluminum honeycomb web case for weight and a Kevlar wrap," Saia says, "very consistent with the 4084 architecture, and we've had no problems with the 4084 in service." Rolls has had containment problems in recent years, Thompson notes....

Engine Alliance Ships 1st GP7200 Propulsor

Published on ASDNews: May 27, 2009
(East Hartford, Conn., May 26, 2009) -- The Engine Alliance (EA) shipped the first GP7200 propulsor to Emirates on May 21. The delivery marks the first time the Engine Alliance and member company Pratt & Whitney have delivered a propulsor, rather than a full engine, to any airline.

"Shipping a propulsor is an innovative way to supply spare engines," EA chief engineer Paul Smith explained. "The fan module has a very long life, so it can be reused with a new propulsor to provide a full spare engine. It's a huge cost savings for the customer."

According to EA industrial director Marios Evripidou, delivering spare propulsors in lieu of spare engines also helps minimize an airline's inventory. "They don't have to keep as many unused fans in inventory because they can reuse the ones they already have," he said. Shipping propulsors is easier than shipping a full engine, too, Evripidou said. Because they're smaller, they can be transported on most wide-body freighter aircraft. "It gives the customer great transportation flexibility," he said....

[lomapaseo]

Where an inch clearance counts big time, I always wondered if you couldn't literally squeeze by on those big diameter cases by a little brute force. Those things really go egg-shape in a blade loss event by several inches. It seems like they would probably just deform under their own weight fitting through a door if nothing was bolted to their flanges.

[LiSrt]

Tried searching the forum to see if this had been asked before, don't think it has...

Can anyone tell if it is permitted for the A380 to fly with a mix of the Rolls Royce and Engine Alliance types? (and if not, why not?)

[lexxie747]

444 pax
1 744
1TO
1LNDG
0PRBS

[barit1]

LiSrt:
While I cannot speak directly to A380, the installation characteristics of the engines are VERY different between OEMs:

1) Configuration of the structural interface to the pylon (so Step One: replace the pylon)

2) Instrumentation and control differences (2 vs 3 rotors, temp/pressure limits,... ) (Replace wiring & connectors, new display software...)

3) Complete a flight test program (OEI, etc) and publish documentation...

In short, it's a BIG engineering job, usually tackled only by (e.g.) GE, P&W or R-R Flight Test Center, or Boeing/Airbus flight test operation.

[LiSrt]

barit1 - thanks, that explains things.