EAAC's 747 operation with 3 engines
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GotThe Shirt
I am sure you are correct in your assessment of the danger of flying minus one engine.
My point was as a passenger I would not feel happy if the plane had one enginne shut down and the decision had been made to continue to destination.
Might be safe with three but I would prefer the four engines to work and not to rely on the redundancy of systems in the 747
I am sure you are correct in your assessment of the danger of flying minus one engine.
My point was as a passenger I would not feel happy if the plane had one enginne shut down and the decision had been made to continue to destination.
Might be safe with three but I would prefer the four engines to work and not to rely on the redundancy of systems in the 747
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an interesting thread.
Having been flying for over 30 years AND having taught Performance AND Flight Safety there are some interesting conundrums.
A captain is in charge of the aircraft, in charge of the diplomacy, commercial aspects and safety of THAT aircraft at THAT time.
Each TIME will be different.
411 - for once I must disagree with you. When we started, engines were not as reliable as they are now.
We KNOW how 'accurate' the Press are reporting incidents such as this.
A 'routine' Engine Shut down (with or without flames - classic signs of a surge - albeit frightening for the pax whose imaginations are fed by Discovery Channel and armchair 'experts'), does NOT sell newspapers - DRAMA does.
Personally, if the 'facts' are as reported I consider the decisions made by this crew as 'highly professional' and they are to be commended.
Having flown 'ultra' long range with in-flight recalculations of fuel, reserves and endurance, the 'Nice' diversion is completely understandable and NOT fuel for more DRAMA.
It is a real shame that crews that act within the interests of the Company, passengers and other aircraft in the vicinity so well are pilloried by people who don't know the facts (I confess I don't in this particular case), don't know the rationale behind large FOUR engined aircraft.
Why did Boeing fit it with 4 when it can fly safely and adequately with 3?
For just a circumstance such as this.
When teaching the 146 and RJ Performance for BAe, we used to detail THIS VERY ABILITY as one of the advantages for a FOUR engined aircraft over a two engined one (or three come to that although the facility exists) .
So, on balance, WELL DONE the crew, I would feel that I'd earned my money had I been on that flight deck and (given the above reports of the 'facts' to be true) I would be proud that the years of training resulted in being able to competently and safely handle an ABNORMAL situation, not an EMERGENCY.
Having been flying for over 30 years AND having taught Performance AND Flight Safety there are some interesting conundrums.
A captain is in charge of the aircraft, in charge of the diplomacy, commercial aspects and safety of THAT aircraft at THAT time.
Each TIME will be different.
411 - for once I must disagree with you. When we started, engines were not as reliable as they are now.
We KNOW how 'accurate' the Press are reporting incidents such as this.
A 'routine' Engine Shut down (with or without flames - classic signs of a surge - albeit frightening for the pax whose imaginations are fed by Discovery Channel and armchair 'experts'), does NOT sell newspapers - DRAMA does.
Personally, if the 'facts' are as reported I consider the decisions made by this crew as 'highly professional' and they are to be commended.
Having flown 'ultra' long range with in-flight recalculations of fuel, reserves and endurance, the 'Nice' diversion is completely understandable and NOT fuel for more DRAMA.
It is a real shame that crews that act within the interests of the Company, passengers and other aircraft in the vicinity so well are pilloried by people who don't know the facts (I confess I don't in this particular case), don't know the rationale behind large FOUR engined aircraft.
Why did Boeing fit it with 4 when it can fly safely and adequately with 3?
For just a circumstance such as this.
When teaching the 146 and RJ Performance for BAe, we used to detail THIS VERY ABILITY as one of the advantages for a FOUR engined aircraft over a two engined one (or three come to that although the facility exists) .
So, on balance, WELL DONE the crew, I would feel that I'd earned my money had I been on that flight deck and (given the above reports of the 'facts' to be true) I would be proud that the years of training resulted in being able to competently and safely handle an ABNORMAL situation, not an EMERGENCY.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Almaty
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slj
So (as a passenger) you would rather fly around in circles for an hour or two and then spend a happy day or so waiting in a hotel room for a spare aircraft to be available? Or possibly skip that and go straight to the desk and demand a replacement aircraft immediately.
So (as a passenger) you would rather fly around in circles for an hour or two and then spend a happy day or so waiting in a hotel room for a spare aircraft to be available? Or possibly skip that and go straight to the desk and demand a replacement aircraft immediately.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK so we had an engine failure on takeoff.
Simplistically speaking, now we are just an L-1011, MD-11, or DC-10 , and still better off than a pristine B777, A330, B767 etc if we have another failure.
The odds against a second failure are what allows big twins to fly over the oceans. If you are willing to go transAtlantic or transPacific or other ETOPs in a twin, whats the problem with a triple?
Simplistically speaking, now we are just an L-1011, MD-11, or DC-10 , and still better off than a pristine B777, A330, B767 etc if we have another failure.
The odds against a second failure are what allows big twins to fly over the oceans. If you are willing to go transAtlantic or transPacific or other ETOPs in a twin, whats the problem with a triple?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlborough
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EAAC from Reunion
As one of the crew members "compromising safety" I strongly object to the tone of this posting from some people and thank you to those who thought about it and made a more considered posting. There was no engine fire, the engine surged and was shut down. The French authorities, CAA and AAIB are all satisfied at the way the flight was conducted. The Aircraft was carrying 140 tonnes of fuel which enabled the flight to reach Europe quite easily and when passing Rome the decision to continue to De Gaulle was made as the weather was CAVOK three runways were in use and the French ATC had been advised. They were very helpful and the Aircraft landed with above min reserve. Oh and by the way on the Flight Deck we had over 80 years of experience on 747s and in excess of 50,000 flying hours. At no time was there any commercial pressure in fact the company were not aware of any problem until we had made the decision to continue. Please check your facts before posting, some of these messages are verging on the libelous.
Last edited by Mike Fleckney; 10th Nov 2004 at 09:56.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Fleckney, thank you for your posting. Hopefully it will stop the uninformed remarks made here, mostly (apparently) by people who've never flown a B747, let alone appreciate it's abilities. It is deeply irrelevant what operators do with other current long range types, or what use to happen on a B707, DC8 or VC10.
No, I disagree. Informed opinion of earlier types, their characteristics and limitations, as compared with more modern a/c is indeed relevant and serves to broaden the debate.
I did not comment on the San Reunion flight apart from agreeing that the in-flight re-assessment of contingency fuel enabling you to reach destination is entirely normal.
However, even though the 747 may have far greater system redundancy than earlier types, deliberately to cross the Atlantic with 1 shut down is something about which I remain to be convinced. But I am keenly interested in hearing the various arguments for and against - without petty name calling please!
I did not comment on the San Reunion flight apart from agreeing that the in-flight re-assessment of contingency fuel enabling you to reach destination is entirely normal.
However, even though the 747 may have far greater system redundancy than earlier types, deliberately to cross the Atlantic with 1 shut down is something about which I remain to be convinced. But I am keenly interested in hearing the various arguments for and against - without petty name calling please!
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Nov 2004 at 20:40.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no experience of operating a 747 but I used to fly an a/c where we regularly shut down one or two of our four, depending on the mass, whilst cruising for hours at low level over the sea. If the a/c has the ability to fly on two as I presume the 747 has from previous comments, then what is the problem with continuing on three. Other types may not have that ability particularly at higher masses.
Many of us these days only have two to start with as we head out on sectors of more than 11 hours. They are nice big ones though!
Many of us these days only have two to start with as we head out on sectors of more than 11 hours. They are nice big ones though!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can i just point out that I am an X memeber of EAC cabin crew and i was on a flight during the summer on a Volare contract and we had a few problems with the aircraft in question. On a few occasions the engine we are talkin about would not start forcing us to return to stand a few times. Also had what I was told was an engine surge which resulted in flames about 10 ft long behind the engine.
i wouldnt be suprised if there is something more to this.
i wouldnt be suprised if there is something more to this.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harrier 46
No I would not go to the desk and demand a replacement aircraft immediately.
I would accept a delay on safetly grounds. I might not be happy but would neeed little convincing it was the right course of action.
I believe most of your customers would do the same whether or noit it is felt safe to proceed on 3 engines.
No I would not go to the desk and demand a replacement aircraft immediately.
I would accept a delay on safetly grounds. I might not be happy but would neeed little convincing it was the right course of action.
I believe most of your customers would do the same whether or noit it is felt safe to proceed on 3 engines.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to nitpick the decision to death, you should take into consideration a 3-engine landing at MLW with a second engine failure inside the marker and with a subsequent need to go-around.
I have no idea what the emergency facilities at the island in question are like, but many islands only have the bare ICAO minimums.
You could probably go on all night.
As I said before, the man on the spot had the info, and made the decision. Live with it.
Good on yer Mike.
I have no idea what the emergency facilities at the island in question are like, but many islands only have the bare ICAO minimums.
You could probably go on all night.
As I said before, the man on the spot had the info, and made the decision. Live with it.
Good on yer Mike.
I had a similar experience with EAAC in January last year, from LGW-CMB-SYD. We landed at Bandaranaike Sirport, Sri Lanka for refueling. We was not allowed off the a/c, due to recent attacks on the airport, and increased security. The captain said there was a problem with one of the refueling valves, which would not close, but he said we could fly to Sydney with this problem, which would then be sorted on the ground at Kingsford Smith!!
Very frightening flight!
The aircraft was falling to pieces, and had not had a refurb singe 1980 when BA was operating it (G-BDXF)
Very frightening flight!
The aircraft was falling to pieces, and had not had a refurb singe 1980 when BA was operating it (G-BDXF)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330ETOPS where did you get the knowledge that the a/c hasn't had a refurb since 1980.
And even if it hasn't this goes only for the cabin and doesn't say anything about the technical side. It has to have mandatory maintenance checks performed on a regular basis. So don't go judging an aircraft on it's interior and the remark of an honest captain who maybe shouldn't have said anything.
And even if it hasn't this goes only for the cabin and doesn't say anything about the technical side. It has to have mandatory maintenance checks performed on a regular basis. So don't go judging an aircraft on it's interior and the remark of an honest captain who maybe shouldn't have said anything.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone seems to be comparing the 707 and the 744/777 it is not the case that the aircraft in question here was an EAAC B742 - Which as an engineer I can say certainly has a lot more in common with the 707 than anything else mentioned here except perhaps the DC8 and Comet!!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK & points middle east
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW Vulture
Even though you've never met 411A...... very astute!
......."It might have been different in your 707 days 411A, but seems SOP now for modern 4 jets (744, 340)......"
....Ouch!
Well said! The boyz at Air Atlanta totally agree with your assessment of 411A.
Cheers Mate!
Even though you've never met 411A...... very astute!
......."It might have been different in your 707 days 411A, but seems SOP now for modern 4 jets (744, 340)......"
....Ouch!
Well said! The boyz at Air Atlanta totally agree with your assessment of 411A.
Cheers Mate!
A330ETOPS you are wildly wrong with the reason you were not allowed to disembark. It had nothing at all to do with terrorist activities; it had everything to do with ensuring the a/c left CMB quicjly and got into SYD in time to be ready for its departure from SYD before the night closure at SYD forced a night stop. It was a tight schedule to achieve this.
Unable to comment on the rights and wrongs of the incident in this thread, but all the EAAC flight deck that I know are high time and very experienced guys and gals who I don't believe would succumb to commercial pressures and put their lives in danger.
Unable to comment on the rights and wrongs of the incident in this thread, but all the EAAC flight deck that I know are high time and very experienced guys and gals who I don't believe would succumb to commercial pressures and put their lives in danger.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely Not
That's a damn good point.
With all the horse manure spoken about 'incidents' (I don't even think it's one of those) like this, you make a really good point.
Yes, there are 2/3 guys at the front of these aircraft. Quite often they are high time people who are intent on living to their retirement.
I want my pension fund to cry in their beer with what they've had to pay me. I (and I'm far from alone) have self-interest very high on my personal agenda.
I work on the premise that if I'm OK, so is everybody else. It's called Responsible Hedonism.
So why don't we give these guys a break and imagine (just imagine) that they were professionals, making professional judgements and getting the aircraft safely to where it needed to be.
Aircraft rarely back into the ground . . .
With all the horse manure spoken about 'incidents' (I don't even think it's one of those) like this, you make a really good point.
Yes, there are 2/3 guys at the front of these aircraft. Quite often they are high time people who are intent on living to their retirement.
I want my pension fund to cry in their beer with what they've had to pay me. I (and I'm far from alone) have self-interest very high on my personal agenda.
I work on the premise that if I'm OK, so is everybody else. It's called Responsible Hedonism.
So why don't we give these guys a break and imagine (just imagine) that they were professionals, making professional judgements and getting the aircraft safely to where it needed to be.
Aircraft rarely back into the ground . . .
Seldom have I seen such ill informed comment – even on PPrune. The fact of the matter is that continuing on 3 engines on a 747 is SOP in many companies, having due regard to the individual circumstances on the particular occasion. Typically these may include sufficient fuel to get to or near the destination, suitable diversion airfields along the intended route in case of further failure, MORAs which do not prohibit overflight in case of a further failure and of course the commercial desirability of continuing.
I have been operating the 747 for over 20 years now in all it’s guises and have yet to hear of a company which insists that an immediate return be made in the case of a simple engine failure. We have charts to show the 2 hour radius of flying on 2 engines should they be necessary (versus 180+ mins. for a twin!) and will stay within this range. Also available are 2 engine net ceiling/drift down charts if there is high terrain en-route.
As has already been stated the level of redundancy on 3 engines far exceeds that of a twin for all systems, normal hydraulics are provided as is air supply, the only degradation is one generator less. If the statistically improbable happens and the aircraft ends up on 2 engines then there are still ample auxiliary services available and load shedding leaves plenty of spare capacity (automatic on the -400 and manual on the classic.) Lastly the intended route is of importance, flight over unpopulated and isolated areas of the world is obviously not encouraged but RUN-ORY cannot fall into this category, there are plenty of suitable diversion airfields en-route. Similarly continuing a flight away from base would be undesirable as it would then compound the problems of the return of aircraft and passengers.
Let me give an example of where this policy paid dividends to company and passengers alike. On a flight from Buenos Aires to Gatwick (EZE-LGW) at more-or-less MTOW, the aircraft suffered a fully contained failure at about 5,000’ on the climb out of EZE. The crew elected to continue whilst the options were explored as there were no other failures apparent. After some time it was decided that it was perfectly possible to continue to Lisbon with the fuel on board and stay within the required regulations. This was done and in the 10 or so hours between the failure and eventual landing it was possible to send a replacement aircraft plus 3 engine ferry crew to Lisbon thus ensuring that the passengers arrived only a few hours late and after the necessary checks had been completed the aircraft could be ferried to base for rectification. This was a win-win solution as against the alternative of dumping 100 tons or so of fuel, dispersing the passengers over different routes and waiting at least 24 hours for a ferry crew to arrive and then probably making a 3 sector ferry flight to the UK.
In this case the engine was a Rolls Royce as in the case of the EAAC aircraft and there are only a handful of stations with spares to hand, from memory HKG, SYD and JFK were the only ones outside the UK where a loan could be arranged, there would be precious few in the southern Indian Ocean area particularly for a RB211-D4.
Mike Fleckney, a former colleague of mine, has had the guts to post the facts of the case under his real name and acted in the same way as any of us with the extensive training we received would have done. I admire him for his reasoned and informative post and am dismayed to see that there are many arm chair critics, most if not all of whom have no experience of this particular aircraft type who try to second guess the situation and give the world at large the benefit of their non-experience.
I expect nonsense posts from the likes of 411A but am particularly upset by that of the likes of Beagle, who up till now I had thought of a reasoned and extensively experienced operator criticising somebody’s (correct) actions. The commercial considerations in the airline world cannot be ignored as in Aunty Betty’s airline where it matters not a hoot that you dump a load of fuel and inconvenience the fare payers (sic) and indeed have a spare jet to roar off into the great blue yonder when all is resolved. I hasten to add that I am not calling you names but questioning the wisdom of encouraging those who have little of knowledge to question the actions taken.
I have been operating the 747 for over 20 years now in all it’s guises and have yet to hear of a company which insists that an immediate return be made in the case of a simple engine failure. We have charts to show the 2 hour radius of flying on 2 engines should they be necessary (versus 180+ mins. for a twin!) and will stay within this range. Also available are 2 engine net ceiling/drift down charts if there is high terrain en-route.
As has already been stated the level of redundancy on 3 engines far exceeds that of a twin for all systems, normal hydraulics are provided as is air supply, the only degradation is one generator less. If the statistically improbable happens and the aircraft ends up on 2 engines then there are still ample auxiliary services available and load shedding leaves plenty of spare capacity (automatic on the -400 and manual on the classic.) Lastly the intended route is of importance, flight over unpopulated and isolated areas of the world is obviously not encouraged but RUN-ORY cannot fall into this category, there are plenty of suitable diversion airfields en-route. Similarly continuing a flight away from base would be undesirable as it would then compound the problems of the return of aircraft and passengers.
Let me give an example of where this policy paid dividends to company and passengers alike. On a flight from Buenos Aires to Gatwick (EZE-LGW) at more-or-less MTOW, the aircraft suffered a fully contained failure at about 5,000’ on the climb out of EZE. The crew elected to continue whilst the options were explored as there were no other failures apparent. After some time it was decided that it was perfectly possible to continue to Lisbon with the fuel on board and stay within the required regulations. This was done and in the 10 or so hours between the failure and eventual landing it was possible to send a replacement aircraft plus 3 engine ferry crew to Lisbon thus ensuring that the passengers arrived only a few hours late and after the necessary checks had been completed the aircraft could be ferried to base for rectification. This was a win-win solution as against the alternative of dumping 100 tons or so of fuel, dispersing the passengers over different routes and waiting at least 24 hours for a ferry crew to arrive and then probably making a 3 sector ferry flight to the UK.
In this case the engine was a Rolls Royce as in the case of the EAAC aircraft and there are only a handful of stations with spares to hand, from memory HKG, SYD and JFK were the only ones outside the UK where a loan could be arranged, there would be precious few in the southern Indian Ocean area particularly for a RB211-D4.
Mike Fleckney, a former colleague of mine, has had the guts to post the facts of the case under his real name and acted in the same way as any of us with the extensive training we received would have done. I admire him for his reasoned and informative post and am dismayed to see that there are many arm chair critics, most if not all of whom have no experience of this particular aircraft type who try to second guess the situation and give the world at large the benefit of their non-experience.
I expect nonsense posts from the likes of 411A but am particularly upset by that of the likes of Beagle, who up till now I had thought of a reasoned and extensively experienced operator criticising somebody’s (correct) actions. The commercial considerations in the airline world cannot be ignored as in Aunty Betty’s airline where it matters not a hoot that you dump a load of fuel and inconvenience the fare payers (sic) and indeed have a spare jet to roar off into the great blue yonder when all is resolved. I hasten to add that I am not calling you names but questioning the wisdom of encouraging those who have little of knowledge to question the actions taken.