EAAC's 747 operation with 3 engines
Oops - thanks, spekesoftly! I'd somehow missed that; having read just the first few posts I thought that it must have been just a benign diversion.
No doubt the wisdom of the crew and company's decisions will be discussed at length within their safety departments.
Interestingly, a 744 captain of my acquaintance in that particular company is of the opinion that, if they maintain their current fuel policies, someone is going to die if there's an unforseen go-around at Heathrow - even on 4 engines.....
No doubt the wisdom of the crew and company's decisions will be discussed at length within their safety departments.
Interestingly, a 744 captain of my acquaintance in that particular company is of the opinion that, if they maintain their current fuel policies, someone is going to die if there's an unforseen go-around at Heathrow - even on 4 engines.....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then there was our old friend Kalitta Cargo, with their excellent reliability record, who had lost a donk (though not physically this time round) on a severly clapped out 747-100 coming into Bahrain. Problem could not be fixed on the wing, and an engine change in the sandpit would have been rather costly. What to do then? Oh yes, 3-engine take-off and ferry back stateside for repairs. Nice job, Connie!
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip Flop Flyer
3-engine ferry flights are standard practice on most 4-engined aircraft and are carried out by all of the major airlines. I have done several both on the 'classic' and the 744. They are always carried out without passengers, and at a weight that would allow for the failure of a second engine on take-off.
Airclues
3-engine ferry flights are standard practice on most 4-engined aircraft and are carried out by all of the major airlines. I have done several both on the 'classic' and the 744. They are always carried out without passengers, and at a weight that would allow for the failure of a second engine on take-off.
Airclues
As in a hole in the ground, 411A.
But not a smoking one as they're won't be any fuel to catch fire. My ba 744 colleague despairs at the pitifully low reserves they're encouraged to take in order to cater for 'statistical' diversion likelihoods.....
Whatever happened to fuel to go-around, proceed to alternate, hold for 30 min, IFR approach, go-around, visual circuit (closed pattern), land taxy and 'flame-out on the chocks' fuel - let alone 5% contingency on top?
"They'd never allow us to carry that much" was his comment...
But not a smoking one as they're won't be any fuel to catch fire. My ba 744 colleague despairs at the pitifully low reserves they're encouraged to take in order to cater for 'statistical' diversion likelihoods.....
Whatever happened to fuel to go-around, proceed to alternate, hold for 30 min, IFR approach, go-around, visual circuit (closed pattern), land taxy and 'flame-out on the chocks' fuel - let alone 5% contingency on top?
"They'd never allow us to carry that much" was his comment...
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I believe that BA always comply with the minimum fuel requirements laid down in JAR-OPS 1.255. Unless things have changed since I flew for them, the captain can carry whatever extra fuel he thinks is necessary.
"Whatever happened to fuel to go-around, proceed to alternate, hold for 30 min, IFR approach, go-around, visual circuit (closed pattern), land taxy and 'flame-out on the chocks' fuel - let alone 5% contingency on top?"
Once again, BA comply with JAR-OPS 1.297. If it was a requirement to carry enough fuel to get to an airfield where a 'visual circuit (closed pattern)' was possible, then the skies of Europe (and the US) would be very quiet on some winter days.
Perhaps your 'friend' has other issues?
Airclues
I believe that BA always comply with the minimum fuel requirements laid down in JAR-OPS 1.255. Unless things have changed since I flew for them, the captain can carry whatever extra fuel he thinks is necessary.
"Whatever happened to fuel to go-around, proceed to alternate, hold for 30 min, IFR approach, go-around, visual circuit (closed pattern), land taxy and 'flame-out on the chocks' fuel - let alone 5% contingency on top?"
Once again, BA comply with JAR-OPS 1.297. If it was a requirement to carry enough fuel to get to an airfield where a 'visual circuit (closed pattern)' was possible, then the skies of Europe (and the US) would be very quiet on some winter days.
Perhaps your 'friend' has other issues?
Airclues
