EAAC's 747 operation with 3 engines
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(A DC8 heading east, diverted to SNN last week with one engine out ? - a conservative skipper perhaps ?)
Well he obviously didn't take-off out of SNN nor use it as a take-off alternate, it seems he couldn't make his destination having burnt excessive fuel crossing the pond.
A similar scenario, me thinks, to EAAC considering a drop into NCE!
Well he obviously didn't take-off out of SNN nor use it as a take-off alternate, it seems he couldn't make his destination having burnt excessive fuel crossing the pond.
A similar scenario, me thinks, to EAAC considering a drop into NCE!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Blairgowrie,Scotland
Age: 75
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not aircrew,and just giving my view based on what I have read on this thread.
Nobody has actually said the engine was inoperative,it could well have continued to operate normally after the surge. Surely that would put a whole different perspective on the flight and decision making?
Are we all ASSUMING it was on three engines?
Nobody has actually said the engine was inoperative,it could well have continued to operate normally after the surge. Surely that would put a whole different perspective on the flight and decision making?
Are we all ASSUMING it was on three engines?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spoke to two members of the crew of this flight. The problem was a surge and the engine was secured IAW the checklist. You can get a lot of flames etc from a surging engine.
Both the guys I spoke to are very experienced professionals each of them formerly employed by two of the safest airlines in the world. The other operating pilot was also formerly of one of these companies. The decision to continue was IAW their SOPs as well as the SOPs of their former employers. I know one of the guys (the handling pilot) very well and the way the incident was explained to me it appears that the crew's actions were appropriate. They couldn't be faulted for returning either.
It may come as a surprise to some of you that there are a lot of flights in 4 engine airplanes like the 747 and A340 that continue on 3 after a failed engine has been secured and the required conditions can be met. I can't comment on DC-8s or 707s, a bit too young!
These guys did a good job and I would fly with any of them anywhere, anytime.
Both the guys I spoke to are very experienced professionals each of them formerly employed by two of the safest airlines in the world. The other operating pilot was also formerly of one of these companies. The decision to continue was IAW their SOPs as well as the SOPs of their former employers. I know one of the guys (the handling pilot) very well and the way the incident was explained to me it appears that the crew's actions were appropriate. They couldn't be faulted for returning either.
It may come as a surprise to some of you that there are a lot of flights in 4 engine airplanes like the 747 and A340 that continue on 3 after a failed engine has been secured and the required conditions can be met. I can't comment on DC-8s or 707s, a bit too young!
These guys did a good job and I would fly with any of them anywhere, anytime.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOD, I'm sure your right .....
I'm hoping someone might be able to tell us a little more about the reasons for the DC8 diversion - I was going to post the incident on the day but chickened out in the end (you know how one gets flamed for posting about shutdowns or even diversions)
......
the flight in question was enroute to the U.K. and Cargo
I'm hoping someone might be able to tell us a little more about the reasons for the DC8 diversion - I was going to post the incident on the day but chickened out in the end (you know how one gets flamed for posting about shutdowns or even diversions)
...... the flight in question was enroute to the U.K. and Cargo
The Aquatone Article
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spannerless,
I'm surprised that you and the good Mrs Spannerless are able to get anywhere at all by air. Not thinking so much of the length of your ever-growing list of airlines whose aircrew are apparently prepared to risk their own lives and those of their passengers for the sake of saving a few bob, more the length of the list of travel agents, tour operators, bucket shops and other travel intermediaries that - being a person of undoubted integrity - you will also naturally choose to boycott whenever they offer any kind of discounted fare.
This airline needs to seriously review it's proceedures,one more airline off my travel list.
A GROWING NUMBER OF LATE!
ALL DUE TO AIRLINES CUTTING CORNERS FOR THE SAKE OF PROFIT!
A GROWING NUMBER OF LATE!
ALL DUE TO AIRLINES CUTTING CORNERS FOR THE SAKE OF PROFIT!
Yes - and he obviously survived such a long career in aviation by more than just luck.......
"I can well remember the FAA inspector when I received my first jet type rating (B707) looking me straight in the eye and saying...'remember, the 707 will fly quite nicely on three, but it does not mean that you should do so for an extended period.'
I quite frankly do not believe any differently thirty years later."
I agree entirely. The idea of deliberately setting out on a pond crossing having earlier lost an engine is something with which I cannot agree. Bugger the company's shareholders, it is most assuredly NOT a sensible thing to do.
"I can well remember the FAA inspector when I received my first jet type rating (B707) looking me straight in the eye and saying...'remember, the 707 will fly quite nicely on three, but it does not mean that you should do so for an extended period.'
I quite frankly do not believe any differently thirty years later."
I agree entirely. The idea of deliberately setting out on a pond crossing having earlier lost an engine is something with which I cannot agree. Bugger the company's shareholders, it is most assuredly NOT a sensible thing to do.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps 411 and Beagle are examples of slightly older pilots being safer pilots.
As a passenger I would be very concerned if on a flight from London to LA a 747 flght continued with 3 engines even though it was feasible.
As Beagle states so graphically the LHR LAX route spends significant time over hostile environment and as so often happens when one thing goes wrong it often has for company a couple of other problems.
Better safe than sorry.
As a passenger I would be very concerned if on a flight from London to LA a 747 flght continued with 3 engines even though it was feasible.
As Beagle states so graphically the LHR LAX route spends significant time over hostile environment and as so often happens when one thing goes wrong it often has for company a couple of other problems.
Better safe than sorry.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question from an F/A..
Were a second engine to be lost say 3 hours later, what would be the implications then? I just want to try and understand the context better - many thanks.
Were a second engine to be lost say 3 hours later, what would be the implications then? I just want to try and understand the context better - many thanks.
Only a passenger but would a boeing 747 with 2 engines gone be in a similar situation to a B777/A330 with half its engines gone? (i.e. 1 failed) except better able to cope with another engine fail than a B777/A330
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tight slot and others,
I wasn't there so I do not know what analysis was done prior to the decision but, that said, the decision to continue in a 4 engined a/c after suffering the loss of a powerplant is predicated on:
1. Is it safe
2. Do we have the fuel to do such considering > fuel burn and alternate requirements
3. Does the wx at the destination meet certain requirements as set down by the company
4. Terrain clearance limitations enroute with 1 eng inop
5. At any point enroute there is a suitable alternate in the event of a second powerplant failure or a depressurisation and can we meet the 2 eng burn or depressurisation burn requirements.
Once this analysis is complete and all criteria met then a continuation is not only safe but good airmanship........we get paid to make decisions ..... remember? Given a properly handled situation neither the passengers or any of the cabin crew would be the slightest bit aware that only 3 are turning and burning (that is unless you have 20 odd feet of flame exiting the pipe....tends to get everyone's attention). In many cases it is a matter of cruising at a slightly lower level and a revised ETA by 5-10 minutes.
That said, on a long haul flight it is most unusual that requirement #2 as stated above can be met (assuming continuation to originally planned destination) until a number of hours into the flight.
I wasn't there so I do not know what analysis was done prior to the decision but, that said, the decision to continue in a 4 engined a/c after suffering the loss of a powerplant is predicated on:
1. Is it safe
2. Do we have the fuel to do such considering > fuel burn and alternate requirements
3. Does the wx at the destination meet certain requirements as set down by the company
4. Terrain clearance limitations enroute with 1 eng inop
5. At any point enroute there is a suitable alternate in the event of a second powerplant failure or a depressurisation and can we meet the 2 eng burn or depressurisation burn requirements.
Once this analysis is complete and all criteria met then a continuation is not only safe but good airmanship........we get paid to make decisions ..... remember? Given a properly handled situation neither the passengers or any of the cabin crew would be the slightest bit aware that only 3 are turning and burning (that is unless you have 20 odd feet of flame exiting the pipe....tends to get everyone's attention). In many cases it is a matter of cruising at a slightly lower level and a revised ETA by 5-10 minutes.
That said, on a long haul flight it is most unusual that requirement #2 as stated above can be met (assuming continuation to originally planned destination) until a number of hours into the flight.
Last edited by fire wall; 9th Nov 2004 at 11:00.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TightSlot
I agree with fire wall on this. The decision to continue is not taken lightly. The enroute safety altitudes are checked relative to the two-engine driftdown altitudes and the fuel is calculated to alternate airfields along the route. Many airlines flying the 744 also have ACMS which allows the company engineers back at base to constantly monitor the engines via a datalink. Before the decision was made to continue, the engineers at base would do a thorough check of the other three engines.
The 747 with two engines failed still has four fully servicable hydraulic systems as well as pneumatics and electrics. A single engine failure on a 747 does not cause any great problems, unless of course the failure had affected any of the other systems, in which case the decision to continue would probably not be made.
I believe that BEagle might have been refering to the VC10 when he decided to return. I completely agree with him. I flew the VC10 for many years and I would not have continued after an engine failure as the system redundancy was not the same as the 747. Correct me if I'm wrong BEagle (it's 30 years ago since I last flew it) but didn't the fuel efficiency actually improve on three.
Airclues
I agree with fire wall on this. The decision to continue is not taken lightly. The enroute safety altitudes are checked relative to the two-engine driftdown altitudes and the fuel is calculated to alternate airfields along the route. Many airlines flying the 744 also have ACMS which allows the company engineers back at base to constantly monitor the engines via a datalink. Before the decision was made to continue, the engineers at base would do a thorough check of the other three engines.
The 747 with two engines failed still has four fully servicable hydraulic systems as well as pneumatics and electrics. A single engine failure on a 747 does not cause any great problems, unless of course the failure had affected any of the other systems, in which case the decision to continue would probably not be made.
I believe that BEagle might have been refering to the VC10 when he decided to return. I completely agree with him. I flew the VC10 for many years and I would not have continued after an engine failure as the system redundancy was not the same as the 747. Correct me if I'm wrong BEagle (it's 30 years ago since I last flew it) but didn't the fuel efficiency actually improve on three.
Airclues
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since I do not have all the facts I cannot comment on the judgement call.
I am however somewhat paranoid about bird strikes, and the potential damage to engines.
Several years ago, in an MD-83 (full) I encountered a flock of ducks in the middle of rotation (dark and rainy night). I had no idea ducks can takeoff vertically, like a helicopter!
To cut a long story short both engines surged badly, one came back up and ran, the other kept surging.
After a very tight circuit and landing, the port engine (which continued to run ) had evidence of several ducks in the inlet system, the stbd engine had all but 2 of the first stage blades either missing or less than 1/2 bade remaining.
The interesting thing is that once safely on the ground, and after only recently screaming at the banging and large orange fireballs, the passengers wanted to know why we had not continued to our destination, since it was only 15 minutes away.
Needless to say whenever I go out to eat, duck is my first choice, and I think I am getting there slowly.
I am however somewhat paranoid about bird strikes, and the potential damage to engines.
Several years ago, in an MD-83 (full) I encountered a flock of ducks in the middle of rotation (dark and rainy night). I had no idea ducks can takeoff vertically, like a helicopter!
To cut a long story short both engines surged badly, one came back up and ran, the other kept surging.
After a very tight circuit and landing, the port engine (which continued to run ) had evidence of several ducks in the inlet system, the stbd engine had all but 2 of the first stage blades either missing or less than 1/2 bade remaining.
The interesting thing is that once safely on the ground, and after only recently screaming at the banging and large orange fireballs, the passengers wanted to know why we had not continued to our destination, since it was only 15 minutes away.
Needless to say whenever I go out to eat, duck is my first choice, and I think I am getting there slowly.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it interesting that the people who actually fly or operate B747's say that you should carry out a risk assessment for the particular route and then decide.
Those who fly older aircraft say LAND.
So how do you feel about ETOPS?
Mutt.
Those who fly older aircraft say LAND.
So how do you feel about ETOPS?
Mutt.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TightSlot
After 3 hours from Antananarivo 747 will be just over Nairobi, so dump some fuel and land there on 2 engines
However if another engine lost after 5 hours then pax will explore the wild adventures of Khartoum...
After 3 hours from Antananarivo 747 will be just over Nairobi, so dump some fuel and land there on 2 engines
However if another engine lost after 5 hours then pax will explore the wild adventures of Khartoum...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afaraid I am missing something with the comments about how dangerous this all is. ( Maybe there are no old bold pilots
)
If it is in SOP all published and known to everyone including Regulatory Authorites how come no one except our resident expert decides it is unsafe.
There is certainly involved decision making to be made with many inputs, which as has been pointed out is what the driver is paid for.
I can see that of course the easy way out according to the experts is to dump fuel ( if of course the aircraft has fuel dump
) and land back immediately. Not to much decision making there !
Why are we confusing facts ?
Comparing the B707 with a B747 ( System and redundacy wise) is like comparing a family saloon and a racing car.
But if course if you only know B707 it must be difficult to grasp.
If you want to compare marginal operations take a good look at some twin engine ETOPS and throw in a few "what ifs"
)If it is in SOP all published and known to everyone including Regulatory Authorites how come no one except our resident expert
decides it is unsafe.There is certainly involved decision making to be made with many inputs, which as has been pointed out is what the driver is paid for.
I can see that of course the easy way out according to the experts is to dump fuel ( if of course the aircraft has fuel dump
) and land back immediately. Not to much decision making there !Why are we confusing facts ?
Comparing the B707 with a B747 ( System and redundacy wise) is like comparing a family saloon and a racing car.
But if course if you only know B707 it must be difficult to grasp.
If you want to compare marginal operations take a good look at some twin engine ETOPS and throw in a few "what ifs"
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote
"Comparing the B707 with a B747 ( System and redundacy wise) is like comparing a family saloon and a racing car.
But if course if you only know B707 it must be difficult to grasp."
is that really true?
"Comparing the B707 with a B747 ( System and redundacy wise) is like comparing a family saloon and a racing car.
But if course if you only know B707 it must be difficult to grasp."
is that really true?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GotTheTShirt,
I think you will find that dumping down to MLW from full tanks or close to it, is quite a time consuming exercise.
Given the decision to dump, it is often worthwhile to use the time constructively if there is a better airport within the dump time radius.
To labour the point somewhat. These days an engine failure on a 4 engined aircraft is not considered to be an emergency so long as it is clearly an isolated failure, ie not contaminated fuel, or similar risks that imply another similar or related failure might be possible (oil filler caps incident on L-1011, debris ingestion from first failure, for instance).
Systems redundancy is unlikely to have been an issue here unless there were pre-existing MEL items.
It is mainly a question of power redundancy.
The man on the scene had the inputs on which he made a decision. The rest of us are merely speculating.
I think you will find that dumping down to MLW from full tanks or close to it, is quite a time consuming exercise.
Given the decision to dump, it is often worthwhile to use the time constructively if there is a better airport within the dump time radius.
To labour the point somewhat. These days an engine failure on a 4 engined aircraft is not considered to be an emergency so long as it is clearly an isolated failure, ie not contaminated fuel, or similar risks that imply another similar or related failure might be possible (oil filler caps incident on L-1011, debris ingestion from first failure, for instance).
Systems redundancy is unlikely to have been an issue here unless there were pre-existing MEL items.
It is mainly a question of power redundancy.
The man on the scene had the inputs on which he made a decision. The rest of us are merely speculating.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL
It indeed may seem so, hobie, but then again I find that those who have not actually flown the type(s) in question, base their opinions (?) on...well, guessing.
Take the 707 for example.
ALL primary controls are connected to the control column by the tried and true...control cables, bell cranks/rods, assisted aerodynamically by balance panels (servo tabs), and only the rudder has hydraulic power assist.
That leaves the requirement for only two hydraulic systems (utility and aux) more than enough for any failure mode.
In addition, electric back-up is provided for the trailing edge flaps...the leading edge devices being pneumatically powered.
Interconnect between the two hydraulic systems+electric hydraulic pumps+four engine driven generators, seven pneumatic air sources...well the list goes on and on.
The only item missing is an APU..and a few operators fitted even those.
Multiple (4) hydraulic systems+ADP's+electric pumps are required for the 747 because...it has NO direct physical connection between the primary control surfaces and the pilots control column
SO........like comparing apples and oranges.
Some younger folks really don't have a clue.
Why am I not then surprised at their uninformed comments?...from know-it-all backbenchers.
Take the 707 for example.
ALL primary controls are connected to the control column by the tried and true...control cables, bell cranks/rods, assisted aerodynamically by balance panels (servo tabs), and only the rudder has hydraulic power assist.
That leaves the requirement for only two hydraulic systems (utility and aux) more than enough for any failure mode.
In addition, electric back-up is provided for the trailing edge flaps...the leading edge devices being pneumatically powered.
Interconnect between the two hydraulic systems+electric hydraulic pumps+four engine driven generators, seven pneumatic air sources...well the list goes on and on.
The only item missing is an APU..and a few operators fitted even those.
Multiple (4) hydraulic systems+ADP's+electric pumps are required for the 747 because...it has NO direct physical connection between the primary control surfaces and the pilots control column
SO........like comparing apples and oranges.
Some younger folks really don't have a clue.
Why am I not then surprised at their uninformed comments?...from know-it-all backbenchers.
Last edited by 411A; 10th Nov 2004 at 00:00.