It may be my interpretation of your comments, but you are surely not suggesting that the behaviour was unrelated and coincidental to the other engines' responses to their FWU slippages?

212man, the implication to me of the above, with the subsequent questioning of logic, is that the suggestion is that the last engine was commanded to idle as a result of the other two being shutdown.

My suggestion is that the FADECs responded to what they were seeing at their own engines, and would do so in isolation not as a joint "logic" with the other engines.

So....any idea why in a three engine aircraft....two independent FWU's and an independent FADEC all decide to go Tits Up at the same time?

Inquiring minds wish to know!

There are 3 engines, "3" FADECs and 3 freewheel units. They are of course linked mechanically. I can see why a FADEC would shut down an engine, or back it to IDLE, as a consequence of a freewheel failure. That is the point I was trying to make, the behaviour of the engines could be consistent with what they were seeing mechanically.

I agree on the two engines that had the Free Wheel failures....seems odd that two would fail at the same time.

The third FADEC should have gone to max power it would seem as its engine was the sole source of power as the other two had gone to idle due to the Free Wheel Units failing.

Why would the last good engine's FADEC go to idle is my question.....along with wondering about the odds of three such "failures" that put the aircraft on the ground with no useable engine power despite having three engines.

I've assumed that the third engine was at idle deliberately and therefore was also part of the failure events. Rather than it being at idle as a result of the other two engines being shutdown. To me personally that hints at there being a problem with it too.

Or....as it was a training sortie....had the Instructor pulled the one engine back to idle to simulate an engine failure....then the other two engine FWU decide to start slipping and thus begat a real emergency?

The full account is going to make for interesting reading when it is available for consideration.

Can a merlin driver please confirm the rumour that a EH101 cannot fly on 1 engine

I do so agree, SASless. Problem is, this incident was two years and eight months ago. I rather suspect that, if we were ever going to hear anything, we would have heard by now.

But I definitely hope that, whatever the problem was, someone knows about it who could do something to make sure it doesn't happen again - and has done just that!

airsound

If ever there was a reason for designing a four-engined helicopter...

... possibly resulting in three engines shutdown and one at idle.

AnFi is probably in a Rest Home having had a nervous breakdown upon reading the post that even mentioned a four engine helicopter.:eek:

Any count over one probably gives him seizures!:eek:

It can fly, just with a ROD.

The down-ness depends on PA, OAT, PPI, AUM, IAS and engine rating applied.

The same could be said for virtually anything :}

A Merlin can definitely fly in a 40ft hover with one ECU shut down (because of FOD), one at fly and one increasingly destroying itself due to ice ingestion.
Makes a sound a bit like a Gazelle though.....

CH-53E seems to make it work OK. Glad to see the good job recognized. :D

Amazing white elephant then, as it is now - A £40 million three engined aircraft that only has duplex redundancy.
Which bright spark signed this off?
An aircraft that can't go front line for fear of being shot at because of the cost of trying to repair carbon fibre holes in the field.

Where in the thread or report are you inferring that from?