Three Engined 747
Thread Starter
Three Engined 747
A BA 747 flew across the Atlantic a few years back. At the time it was within BA's policy to do this. Is it still, or have BA changed it?
I'm using it in CRM next week, and would like to be able to say whether or not things have changed.
I'm using it in CRM next week, and would like to be able to say whether or not things have changed.
The original thread is interesting.
FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
And more interesting information.
Photos: Boeing 747-251F/SCD Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
FAA & CAA disagree over B747 continued 3 engine flight [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
And more interesting information.
Photos: Boeing 747-251F/SCD Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Last edited by Newforest2; 26th Apr 2013 at 06:29.
Last time I looked the policy remained unchanged.
In the context of your CRM discussion I'd suggest it's very important that you are aware that the policy is not one of automatically continuing the flight "on 3", it merely gives you an option to do so.
The document involved quite clearly states (and did way before the incident you refer to) that it is acceptable to consider continuing on 3 engines as long as, and I paraphrase, enroute conditions/terrain/alternates /aircraft servicability/etc etc are suitable for you to do so.
In the context of your CRM discussion I'd suggest it's very important that you are aware that the policy is not one of automatically continuing the flight "on 3", it merely gives you an option to do so.
The document involved quite clearly states (and did way before the incident you refer to) that it is acceptable to consider continuing on 3 engines as long as, and I paraphrase, enroute conditions/terrain/alternates /aircraft servicability/etc etc are suitable for you to do so.
Last edited by wiggy; 26th Apr 2013 at 08:00.
Thread Starter
Thanks wiggy. I'm aware that it wouldn't be an automatic option.
Not quite sure of the connection. That appears to be a Kallita Air 747. Not the BA one.
And more interesting information.
Photos: Boeing 747-251F/SCD Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net 25th Apr 2013 22:09
Photos: Boeing 747-251F/SCD Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net 25th Apr 2013 22:09
So the fan doesn't turn. the low compressor doesn't turn, But the high comressor-turbine spins like heck in the breeze. So what's this about oil starvation and seized bearings??
Could it be all about windage drag ?
Could it be all about windage drag ?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Siliconia
Age: 63
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appear to be two different scenarios here:-
1) Locking an engine prior to take-off – the limitations on this are somewhat easily managed, with time available for (revised) flight planning. The engine systems and parts can be locked, inhibited et cetera, in accordance with maintenance procedures.
2) Engine failure after (decision to proceed with) take-off – my reading is that this is the “British Airways Flight 268” case in point, that caused much discussion (FAA, CAA, BA and PPRuNe). This is obviously tricky (otherwise such discussion would not have been highlighted (big assumption)) the decision to proceed, or land soonish, needs to consider many things; IMO this includes dumping fuel, heavy landing, increased flight fuel usage, effects of free LP and IP shaft rotation and gearbox load limited rotation of the HP shaft. The windmilling engine effects naturally extend to both the main engine and gearbox accessory lubrication systems...
Time for PPRuNe views on E3OPS regulations
1) Locking an engine prior to take-off – the limitations on this are somewhat easily managed, with time available for (revised) flight planning. The engine systems and parts can be locked, inhibited et cetera, in accordance with maintenance procedures.
2) Engine failure after (decision to proceed with) take-off – my reading is that this is the “British Airways Flight 268” case in point, that caused much discussion (FAA, CAA, BA and PPRuNe). This is obviously tricky (otherwise such discussion would not have been highlighted (big assumption)) the decision to proceed, or land soonish, needs to consider many things; IMO this includes dumping fuel, heavy landing, increased flight fuel usage, effects of free LP and IP shaft rotation and gearbox load limited rotation of the HP shaft. The windmilling engine effects naturally extend to both the main engine and gearbox accessory lubrication systems...
Time for PPRuNe views on E3OPS regulations
Wiggy
I thought that the BA and the FAA had done a "deal", as it were, after the latter had issues with the 3 engine flight from LAX. From what I read at the time I thought the conflict arose because BA said that its SOP did not mean a land ASAP whereas the FAA disputed this. Perhaps a conflict between an individual state regulation and an international carrier? Interested to hear the BA view on this now.
After the incident I asked several colleagues what they would have done in such a situation. Most said dump fuel and land! One said he would consider getting to the east coast (JFK/BOS) if only to use up the fuel to allow a landing below max weight. An obvious issue in that scenario would be that of the 2 engine drift down level as the MSAs east of LAX are above 10000. In fact around Colorado I seem to recall they can be as high as 15,000.
noughtsnones
Regarding the subject of 3 engine ferry flights they have a whole manual covering them. Obviously, no passengers being one of the regulations. There are performance graphs for both rotor locked and windmilling cases. From memory the most fuel you can uplift is about 5-6 hours so from the west coast that would involve a tech stop on the east if returning to the UK.
I thought that the BA and the FAA had done a "deal", as it were, after the latter had issues with the 3 engine flight from LAX. From what I read at the time I thought the conflict arose because BA said that its SOP did not mean a land ASAP whereas the FAA disputed this. Perhaps a conflict between an individual state regulation and an international carrier? Interested to hear the BA view on this now.
After the incident I asked several colleagues what they would have done in such a situation. Most said dump fuel and land! One said he would consider getting to the east coast (JFK/BOS) if only to use up the fuel to allow a landing below max weight. An obvious issue in that scenario would be that of the 2 engine drift down level as the MSAs east of LAX are above 10000. In fact around Colorado I seem to recall they can be as high as 15,000.
noughtsnones
Regarding the subject of 3 engine ferry flights they have a whole manual covering them. Obviously, no passengers being one of the regulations. There are performance graphs for both rotor locked and windmilling cases. From memory the most fuel you can uplift is about 5-6 hours so from the west coast that would involve a tech stop on the east if returning to the UK.
Interested to hear the BA view on this now.
Wiggy
Thank you for that. Of course the fact that the flight in question had to divert into MAN with a degree of adverse publicity is irrelevant. Of course on a purely technical basis the venerable Jumbo has enormous redundancy. As for the article in Flight International alleging that the FAA had serious issues with the decision I'm probably being let down by my all too fallible memory.
One highly experienced TRE at the time said to me: what do you do on our LPC? Dump the gas and go back to the crew hotel!
BBK
Edited to add: I'm absolutely NOT being critical of the commander in question. I'm merely debating the decision.
Thank you for that. Of course the fact that the flight in question had to divert into MAN with a degree of adverse publicity is irrelevant. Of course on a purely technical basis the venerable Jumbo has enormous redundancy. As for the article in Flight International alleging that the FAA had serious issues with the decision I'm probably being let down by my all too fallible memory.
One highly experienced TRE at the time said to me: what do you do on our LPC? Dump the gas and go back to the crew hotel!
BBK
Edited to add: I'm absolutely NOT being critical of the commander in question. I'm merely debating the decision.
Last edited by BBK; 29th Apr 2013 at 20:47.
