EAAC's 747 operation with 3 engines
Do at least read what I wrote if you're going to be critical:
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!
So convince me why crossing the pond from West Coast US to UK having shut an engine down was preferable to diverting to JFK? And I'm interetsed to know whether that's what everyone does these days.
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!
So convince me why crossing the pond from West Coast US to UK having shut an engine down was preferable to diverting to JFK? And I'm interetsed to know whether that's what everyone does these days.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Almaty
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightwatch has summed it up perfectly, some posters here seem to think they are flying their own private aircraft! They are actually employed to transport 400+ passengers from A to B in a safe and expeditious manner. How many engines do some of you need to feel "safe"? Statistically of course the more you have the more failures you will get. Why not put 100 engines on each aircraft and spend most of your time in the crew lounge?
Professional pilots are paid to make decisions and aircraft manufacturers produce performance figures for a reason. And airlines are in business to fly people, not swell the profits of the hotel chains.
Professional pilots are paid to make decisions and aircraft manufacturers produce performance figures for a reason. And airlines are in business to fly people, not swell the profits of the hotel chains.
Well done, Mike! - Tables & charts everywhere I bet!
(We did the Opus Dei job)
Good points, Flightwatch.
under_exposed,
<<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>>
Performance schedule A aircraft such as these must be able to suffer an engine failure at any time without requiring a forced landing. 4 eng aircraft must therefore be able to lose 25% of power on take-off and twins must be able to lose 50% of their power which is why twins with both running go like the proverbial off a navvy's lustrous leaning device
The loss of an engine on a twin at any time constitutes an emergency and (usually) requires a landing to be made at the nearest suitable airfield. (in simple terms for the pedants
)
Nevertheless, both aircraft would have full flight and go-around capability. Remember that on take-off you are starting with zero energy but on a go-around you are at, say, 50ft and 150 knots so you're pretty well placed.
Now, to answer your question: Following a second engine failure on, e.g. a B747, the aircraft will continue to fly but at a reduced level so safety altitudes have to be reviewed and could limit radius of operation. Unlike the loss of one, this is considered to be an emergency situation. Approach and go-around require careful handling and pre-briefing. The minimum control speed with two failed on one side will be in the region of 152 knots. After selecting gear down drag increases considerably and a successful go-around is not assured and, in any case, the first part of the go-around continues downhill acquiring speed and raising draggy flap before climbing away.
So no, a B747 with two out is not in the same condition as a B767 with one out.
I've never tried a simulated approach on one engine on the B747 however one I have tried: a simulated two engine approach with severe structural damage and reduced control authority is probably around the ballpark for an undamaged aircraft on one. Once the aircraft is configured for landing it is only going down and a go-around is not possible but it is controllable. Probably a good idea to radio ahead for a change of underwear though
p.s. If I've made any errors or omissions I'm sure they will be pointed out
(We did the Opus Dei job)
Good points, Flightwatch.
under_exposed,
<<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>>
Performance schedule A aircraft such as these must be able to suffer an engine failure at any time without requiring a forced landing. 4 eng aircraft must therefore be able to lose 25% of power on take-off and twins must be able to lose 50% of their power which is why twins with both running go like the proverbial off a navvy's lustrous leaning device
The loss of an engine on a twin at any time constitutes an emergency and (usually) requires a landing to be made at the nearest suitable airfield. (in simple terms for the pedants
)Nevertheless, both aircraft would have full flight and go-around capability. Remember that on take-off you are starting with zero energy but on a go-around you are at, say, 50ft and 150 knots so you're pretty well placed.
Now, to answer your question: Following a second engine failure on, e.g. a B747, the aircraft will continue to fly but at a reduced level so safety altitudes have to be reviewed and could limit radius of operation. Unlike the loss of one, this is considered to be an emergency situation. Approach and go-around require careful handling and pre-briefing. The minimum control speed with two failed on one side will be in the region of 152 knots. After selecting gear down drag increases considerably and a successful go-around is not assured and, in any case, the first part of the go-around continues downhill acquiring speed and raising draggy flap before climbing away.
So no, a B747 with two out is not in the same condition as a B767 with one out.
I've never tried a simulated approach on one engine on the B747 however one I have tried: a simulated two engine approach with severe structural damage and reduced control authority is probably around the ballpark for an undamaged aircraft on one. Once the aircraft is configured for landing it is only going down and a go-around is not possible but it is controllable. Probably a good idea to radio ahead for a change of underwear though
p.s. If I've made any errors or omissions I'm sure they will be pointed out
Last edited by Basil; 15th Nov 2004 at 13:01.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the unthinkable does sometimes happen.
I arrived in BGI one evening to see a PanAm Tri-Star surrounded by red flashing, etc, found out it was a 2-engined ferry BGI-JFK that had an engine failure shortly into the climb. Apparently declared mayday and asked for immediate return only to be given some rather obtuse vectors.
He then positively informed controller he was coming back by the shortest possible route.
He was still dumping fuel when they touched down.
(Single engine go-around is just possible in L-10 at moderate weights, but involves loss of approx. 500'/800' whilst sucking flaps and gear.)
And yes, they had done all the special inspections etc required before 2-eng ferry.
Sometimes s**t just happens, I guess.
I arrived in BGI one evening to see a PanAm Tri-Star surrounded by red flashing, etc, found out it was a 2-engined ferry BGI-JFK that had an engine failure shortly into the climb. Apparently declared mayday and asked for immediate return only to be given some rather obtuse vectors.
He then positively informed controller he was coming back by the shortest possible route.
He was still dumping fuel when they touched down.
(Single engine go-around is just possible in L-10 at moderate weights, but involves loss of approx. 500'/800' whilst sucking flaps and gear.)
And yes, they had done all the special inspections etc required before 2-eng ferry.
Sometimes s**t just happens, I guess.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Knowing what you are talking about
Extremely interesting thread I reckon. Anyway, sorry to spoil it, but here’s my five bob’s worth. So many of these postings smack of “I fly a more modern aeroplane than you did, so I know more than you did (do)”. Hours are hours.
Mike Fleckney : My most sincere compliments and thanks for straightening out some strange views. I suspect quite a few posters don’t know much about decision making in two, three or four-engined aircraft. It was a no-brainer, I believe.
Tight circuit : Difficult to know what your point is. So you used to fly Nimrods ? Wow !
Flightwatch. A very sound and useful posting, mostly, but I do not quite see where the nonsense was in 411a’s posting. Maybe your evident dislike of him took over your sound judgement ? Perhaps you can enlighten us please ?
Basic point is this, Mike F and his crew did a top-cloass job and I guess a large number of posters have never been in a similar situation, nor will they ever be (I hope).
oTd
Mike Fleckney : My most sincere compliments and thanks for straightening out some strange views. I suspect quite a few posters don’t know much about decision making in two, three or four-engined aircraft. It was a no-brainer, I believe.
Tight circuit : Difficult to know what your point is. So you used to fly Nimrods ? Wow !
Flightwatch. A very sound and useful posting, mostly, but I do not quite see where the nonsense was in 411a’s posting. Maybe your evident dislike of him took over your sound judgement ? Perhaps you can enlighten us please ?
Basic point is this, Mike F and his crew did a top-cloass job and I guess a large number of posters have never been in a similar situation, nor will they ever be (I hope).
oTd
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown with Mike many times i found him to be an extremely professional captain and i can fully endorse his every word.
What i would like to know is how come he ended up flying for that lot ?
What i would like to know is how come he ended up flying for that lot ?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's called a JOB Norm, you know, paying the mortgage and the ex -wives.
Anyway that's what pilots seem to do with their money. Isn't that why Cathay drivers were paid SO much 'cos they always seem to have an 'extra' wife along the way?
FEs seem to buy more beer and houses.
Take care all.
I must say that I was delighted to read some of the later posts esp Flightwatch.
Well said chaps, well done EAAC crew.
Edited for spelling . . . one day, one day
Anyway that's what pilots seem to do with their money. Isn't that why Cathay drivers were paid SO much 'cos they always seem to have an 'extra' wife along the way?
FEs seem to buy more beer and houses.
Take care all.
I must say that I was delighted to read some of the later posts esp Flightwatch.
Well said chaps, well done EAAC crew.
Edited for spelling . . . one day, one day
I'm only voice activated freight, but for what it's worth, if they have done the fuel sums, know what they are going to do if they lose another one, and the other three are OK I'd rather go home.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: JMC Mining Ship, Red Dwarf. 3 million years from earth.
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carry on European eh????
Still, at least there were no casualties. I can't recall any incidents like this when I was at EAAC but if the crew got the plane back in one piece alon gwith all the PAX and crew then maybe praise him for doing his job well.
I must say that I'd have preferred to have gone back to reunion to get it checked out, but then I no longer work for them so I don't know all the circumstances surrounding the flight or what actually happened on the flight.
LJ
Still, at least there were no casualties. I can't recall any incidents like this when I was at EAAC but if the crew got the plane back in one piece alon gwith all the PAX and crew then maybe praise him for doing his job well.
I must say that I'd have preferred to have gone back to reunion to get it checked out, but then I no longer work for them so I don't know all the circumstances surrounding the flight or what actually happened on the flight.
LJ
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: asia
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironic isn't it. I just caught up with reading some threads, this one included, before setting out to go LHR HKG on CX250 last night (as slf)
Snoozing away NE of Moscow some 3 hours into the flight when the captain apologises for the flames that some people have seen, no2 is shut down, and we're turing back to LHR. 4hours later, coming back lower and slower, and we land at 2am!
Must say though, just in case any journos are reading, that the whole thing seemed extremely professionally handled, with absolutely no panic amongst the pax. Just some moans about being late for meetings!
Snoozing away NE of Moscow some 3 hours into the flight when the captain apologises for the flames that some people have seen, no2 is shut down, and we're turing back to LHR. 4hours later, coming back lower and slower, and we land at 2am!
Must say though, just in case any journos are reading, that the whole thing seemed extremely professionally handled, with absolutely no panic amongst the pax. Just some moans about being late for meetings!
Stickyb,
Don't know for sure but your situation was possibly significantly different from the EAAC incident because of the geographical position.
The drift down height for three engines may have put the flight below the minimum safe altitude for continuing over the mountains of Afghanistan or the foothills of the Himalayas. Also, someone me me able to confirm, there may be a minimum allowable altitude for civil flights to cross Afghanistan (if the flights routes over Afghanistan, that is).
The return all the way to LHR (still a bl**dy long way on three engines according to some people who have posted above) would be because of the maintenence facilities available to Cathay.
Don't know for sure but your situation was possibly significantly different from the EAAC incident because of the geographical position.
The drift down height for three engines may have put the flight below the minimum safe altitude for continuing over the mountains of Afghanistan or the foothills of the Himalayas. Also, someone me me able to confirm, there may be a minimum allowable altitude for civil flights to cross Afghanistan (if the flights routes over Afghanistan, that is).
The return all the way to LHR (still a bl**dy long way on three engines according to some people who have posted above) would be because of the maintenence facilities available to Cathay.
Same happened to me a few years ago. CX B744 out of SYD for HKG. Lost an engine after 2 hours, dumped fuel & did a 180 back to SYD.Although inconvenient,seemed preferable than flogging on for another 7 hours on three over remote areas.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cucumber Heaven
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am only SLF and flying restricted to light singles, but I could not help but be impressed with this thread, and the total professionalism in the way the incident was handled. Reading it has been totally revealing about the way you guys work and personally, it has made me feel even safer as a passenger knowing the caliber of those up the pointy end (and I dont mean first class)..
Thanks for a educational lunchtime.
Thanks for a educational lunchtime.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: on the move again...
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX shutdown
Groundloop probably almost totally spot on with his post, although I don't think it would be Himalayas that would be the problem, would more likely be the Tibet plateau where MSA is over 20,000ft if I recall correctly? (This supposes they were routing on the newer northerly routing, and I'm only guessing...)
One can imagine SLF questioning why not to land straight away in say Moscow, Helsinki or close by, but I'd prefer my chances of getting to HKG quickly via return to LHR, and as this thread has demonstrated, no problems returning to LHR on 3....
One can imagine SLF questioning why not to land straight away in say Moscow, Helsinki or close by, but I'd prefer my chances of getting to HKG quickly via return to LHR, and as this thread has demonstrated, no problems returning to LHR on 3....
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chaville / FRANCE
Age: 60
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Europeen 742 return from Reunion Island
I fly to Reunion Island every month, on 743 with CORSAIR. The flight time on return is about 11h on a 743. You can easly imagine that we are max fuel. Depending on the wind, we are usually using decision point procedures, and pretty often without an alternate on arrival. When Europeen had their engine problem after take off, they had 2 choices. 1/ Dump fuel and return to Reunion Island. 2/ Continue the flight, and try and get back to Paris.
The plane whas not full, and I believe that the crew toke extra fuel to fly back to the UK after CDG. The extra consumption would be about 12T with one engine out, so without extra fuel, impossible to get back. If they didn't land in Nice, they most likely had the minimum fuel to get to CDG ( minimum being 5T on a 747 classic, 30mn reserve ). ( The French authoritys are looking at that ). Having not been in the plane, it's difficult to give any jugement. My personnel view is that you have to consider flying for 3 hours over the Indian ocean, and then over the high moutains of Ethiopia ( 16000' MSA ), considering the loss of a second engine ( wich then becomes a Mayday ). I wouldn't have taken the same decision, but I don't think the crew did any mistake. I believe the COMMS with the pax were bad, in spite of a AIR AUSTRAL crew on board, and it's probably, and hopefully, the only thing we could disagree on with the CPT.
The plane whas not full, and I believe that the crew toke extra fuel to fly back to the UK after CDG. The extra consumption would be about 12T with one engine out, so without extra fuel, impossible to get back. If they didn't land in Nice, they most likely had the minimum fuel to get to CDG ( minimum being 5T on a 747 classic, 30mn reserve ). ( The French authoritys are looking at that ). Having not been in the plane, it's difficult to give any jugement. My personnel view is that you have to consider flying for 3 hours over the Indian ocean, and then over the high moutains of Ethiopia ( 16000' MSA ), considering the loss of a second engine ( wich then becomes a Mayday ). I wouldn't have taken the same decision, but I don't think the crew did any mistake. I believe the COMMS with the pax were bad, in spite of a AIR AUSTRAL crew on board, and it's probably, and hopefully, the only thing we could disagree on with the CPT.
Well, well. Not so very many months after this thread opened another 3-engined Atlantic crossing has been reported.....
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=164956
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=164956
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zones,
normal routing out to HKG oftentakes you across the Khazakstan/Chinese border just south of Mongolia, passing close to Urumqui and then continuing in a loop around the Tibetan plateau until tracking south to HKG.
Safety heights on the route are high (around 19,000 ft I think) but a 744 out of LHR would have a 2 Eng stab height in excess of 20000ft.
Crew call on the day!
normal routing out to HKG oftentakes you across the Khazakstan/Chinese border just south of Mongolia, passing close to Urumqui and then continuing in a loop around the Tibetan plateau until tracking south to HKG.
Safety heights on the route are high (around 19,000 ft I think) but a 744 out of LHR would have a 2 Eng stab height in excess of 20000ft.
Crew call on the day!