Ongoing debate - Engine Failure 747
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ongoing debate - Engine Failure 747
Question: 747 LHR to LAX 500ft after TO 1 engine rolls back. What would be the correct action?
My answer: Land, either LHR or alternate. Follow SOPs which I assume would be to land as possible to determine cause?
What would you do and why?
My answer: Land, either LHR or alternate. Follow SOPs which I assume would be to land as possible to determine cause?
What would you do and why?
Interesting airport pair....Is this an attempt to re-energise a very old 'on going debate"
Don't assume everybody's SOPs/OPs manuals are the same.
Follow SOPs which I assume would be to land as possible to determine cause?
Last edited by wiggy; 11th Sep 2017 at 20:42.
Ironic that I was discussing this very case with a multi-comm student last Friday. We were briefing emergency operations and what to do in case of an engine failure! Talked about it again today with another student prior to doing an actual shutdown/feather as required for training purposes. Once in awhile they don't restart, so the nearest suitable question leaves a choice between a private airport (nearest) or the big Air Force Base. (Most suitable) Hmmm... (not to worry, I had a primary plan and a couple of backup alternatives too)
Every once in awhile some goober blows an engine in his twin and proceeds to overfly a dozen suitable airfields on the way to the one he wants to land at for convenience sake. Without the biggest airframer and a national airline to back his play, he's just another dude looking at taking a re-examination (709) ride with the Feds!
Every once in awhile some goober blows an engine in his twin and proceeds to overfly a dozen suitable airfields on the way to the one he wants to land at for convenience sake. Without the biggest airframer and a national airline to back his play, he's just another dude looking at taking a re-examination (709) ride with the Feds!
Whether you're climbing out of a major engineering base for your company, or trying to reach a major engineering base destination for your company will probably factor into the decision to return or continue...
Every once in awhile some goober blows an engine in his twin and proceeds to overfly a dozen suitable airfields on the way to the one he wants to land at for convenience sake. Without the biggest airframer and a national airline to back his play, he's just another dude looking at taking a re-examination (709) ride with the Feds!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every once in awhile some goober blows an engine in his twin and proceeds to overfly a dozen suitable airfields on the way to the one he wants to land at for convenience sake. Without the biggest airframer and a national airline to back his play, he's just another dude looking at taking a re-examination (709) ride with the Feds!
Question: 747 LHR to LAX 500ft after TO 1 engine rolls back. What would be the correct action?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at 500'!
There is an engine failure checklist. It will not be completed until the airplane is clean and climbing (1500' minimum). Only then will you start doing other stuff, like trying to make decisions on where to land.
There is an engine failure checklist. It will not be completed until the airplane is clean and climbing (1500' minimum). Only then will you start doing other stuff, like trying to make decisions on where to land.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: With Wonko, outside the asylum
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you do and why?
Report: European Air Charter B742 at Reunion on Oct 25th 2004, engine surges on takeoff, flight continues to Paris
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about getting to a safe altitude first. Then we'll take our time and determine what has happened. Then we'll do any memory items, if any. Then run the checklists. I'm still not going to rush, we've got three others running. All the time I'll be following the SID. I'll tell the cabin not to start the service. Now we'll get some more information, weather, performance and see what we can and can't do. A chat with the company might be a good idea. Then we'll make a plan, and a contingency as we have the luxury of time and then, and only then will start the execution. But I'll not be too distressed if I'm not in LHR or the takeoff alternate and frankly who cares about the cause. The advantage of starting off with four engines is that a single engine failure is just an inconvenience.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was told, many moons ago, that unless you know exactly why an engine has failed you should not continue with it wind milling for any appreciable length of time, as you can do a whole lot more damage, including write-off, especially since you cannot guarantee lubrication etc. In days of old, when the B707 or the DC8 did three engine ferries the shut down engine would be inhibited from rotating. When an aircraft carries a ferry pod the aerodynamic nose section has a dual purpose, to reduce drag and prevent the core from rotating. Be interesting to know if the engine telemetry still works on a shut down engine and if there is any indication of oil pressure etc. on the flightdeck.
We are, of course, taking about the BA 747 many years ago that was flown over the Pole to LHR with one engine not operating after a failure/shutdown (?) shortly after take-off from LAX.
Predictably, on arrival in UK airspace a fuel emergency was declared and the aircraft diverted to Manchester, I think it was, landing dangerously short of fuel.
The subsequent discussion raged on between those whose life experience says that when you go through the first hole in the cheese you don't deliberately aim for the second hole, meaning that in this case you would land as soon as safely possible and practicable, and those whose faith in statistics has yet to be shattered by real life Gremlins.
I wonder why the OP has brought it up again?
Predictably, on arrival in UK airspace a fuel emergency was declared and the aircraft diverted to Manchester, I think it was, landing dangerously short of fuel.
The subsequent discussion raged on between those whose life experience says that when you go through the first hole in the cheese you don't deliberately aim for the second hole, meaning that in this case you would land as soon as safely possible and practicable, and those whose faith in statistics has yet to be shattered by real life Gremlins.
I wonder why the OP has brought it up again?