EAAC's 747 operation with 3 engines
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Le Chateau Anglais
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EAAC's 747 operation with 3 engines
Just seen this on another site.
Does anyone know if this is accurate or indeed what happened?
Gaz
From what I gather G-BDXE was flying back from Reunion Island (East of Madagascar) when the incident happened. Reports from the passengers were of fire, though this did cause some confusion as the cabin crew thought there was a fire in the cabin.
There was and engine fire after takeoff (something to do with the exhaust part of the engine) and as you can imagine this caused some panic among the pax an cabin crew. The captain in question decided to fly the rest of the 10 hour journey back to Paris rather than divert back to the Airport at Reunion Island. Apparently this was due to contractual reasons and the fact European didn't want to loose the contract.
The engineer that was travelling back had to supervise with changing the engine the following day in Paris, he did this with little or no sleep having been to Reunion Island with the plane the day before.
There were some senior people at the hotel in Paris who didn't even bother to check up on the operating crew when they arrived back into Paris. Apparently the flight deck were met by the airport authorities upon arrival back into Paris and quizzed as to what happened. The Black box has been taken by the CAA to be investigated.
I for one am happy I am not with European, there is no way I'd compromise my safety.
There was and engine fire after takeoff (something to do with the exhaust part of the engine) and as you can imagine this caused some panic among the pax an cabin crew. The captain in question decided to fly the rest of the 10 hour journey back to Paris rather than divert back to the Airport at Reunion Island. Apparently this was due to contractual reasons and the fact European didn't want to loose the contract.
The engineer that was travelling back had to supervise with changing the engine the following day in Paris, he did this with little or no sleep having been to Reunion Island with the plane the day before.
There were some senior people at the hotel in Paris who didn't even bother to check up on the operating crew when they arrived back into Paris. Apparently the flight deck were met by the airport authorities upon arrival back into Paris and quizzed as to what happened. The Black box has been taken by the CAA to be investigated.
I for one am happy I am not with European, there is no way I'd compromise my safety.
Gaz
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In a happy household...
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairly accurate.
Air Austral Boeing 777 ingests birds on take off and returns to La Reunion (2nd flight crew on board to shuttle another Air Austral 777 presently grounded in France back home)
Air Austral charters a European Boeing 747. On its first flight from Le Reunion, it ingests birds on take off (that same crew to shuttle the grounded 777 happens to be on board again)
Long flame could be be seen from the engines for several minutes. For over an hour passengers were sure plane was going to return. Severe communication difficulties (English speaking crew, French speaking passengers).
Upon nearing destination, a diversion to NCE is announced.. shortly before the crew decides to continue to CDG, obviously not adding to the comfort of the passengers.
All this was obviously poorly handled. I wouldn't like to be flying over darkest Africa in the middle of the night with an engine out and who knows what damage to the other three.
Air Austral Boeing 777 ingests birds on take off and returns to La Reunion (2nd flight crew on board to shuttle another Air Austral 777 presently grounded in France back home)
Air Austral charters a European Boeing 747. On its first flight from Le Reunion, it ingests birds on take off (that same crew to shuttle the grounded 777 happens to be on board again)
Long flame could be be seen from the engines for several minutes. For over an hour passengers were sure plane was going to return. Severe communication difficulties (English speaking crew, French speaking passengers).
Upon nearing destination, a diversion to NCE is announced.. shortly before the crew decides to continue to CDG, obviously not adding to the comfort of the passengers.
All this was obviously poorly handled. I wouldn't like to be flying over darkest Africa in the middle of the night with an engine out and who knows what damage to the other three.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to disagree.
First "flames out the back of an engine" is unlikely to be an Engine "Fire". Anyone who knows the first principle of a Jet Engine will know this characteristic of a "surge" "stall" and typical of the damage cause by a birdstrike. The "damage" "stall" may require shutting down the engine to clear it, the engine may be available for relight, either in emergency, or just if desired (particularly if the EGT did not exceed the limit). Very unlikely to result in a "fire" warning...
Again, if you had clue what you are talking about, it is often SOP on a 4 engine aircraft to continue to destination on 3 engines. For instance I know BA recently did this with a major surge ex LAX shortly after TO - got back to LHR. Assuming the engine is secured satisfactorily, where to land will often be dependant on where maintenance is etc. and often "get home as far as possible" is used.
Glad you are able to slag people off like this...
The Diversion yes/no to NCE would be for fuel. Again, if you knew what you were talking about, after an engine failure, the fuel consumption increases. Sounds a close run thing as to whether CDG could be reached, but weather, refining fuel calcs, SOPs, seems it could.
Seems handled fine to me, except maybe comms with the passengers. Given my p*ss poor French, not sure I could have got the message across either
First "flames out the back of an engine" is unlikely to be an Engine "Fire". Anyone who knows the first principle of a Jet Engine will know this characteristic of a "surge" "stall" and typical of the damage cause by a birdstrike. The "damage" "stall" may require shutting down the engine to clear it, the engine may be available for relight, either in emergency, or just if desired (particularly if the EGT did not exceed the limit). Very unlikely to result in a "fire" warning...
Again, if you had clue what you are talking about, it is often SOP on a 4 engine aircraft to continue to destination on 3 engines. For instance I know BA recently did this with a major surge ex LAX shortly after TO - got back to LHR. Assuming the engine is secured satisfactorily, where to land will often be dependant on where maintenance is etc. and often "get home as far as possible" is used.
All this was obviously poorly handled
The Diversion yes/no to NCE would be for fuel. Again, if you knew what you were talking about, after an engine failure, the fuel consumption increases. Sounds a close run thing as to whether CDG could be reached, but weather, refining fuel calcs, SOPs, seems it could.
Seems handled fine to me, except maybe comms with the passengers. Given my p*ss poor French, not sure I could have got the message across either
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DidItMyWay
It sounds to me as though they did an excellent job, and got the passenger to their desired destination. As NOD says, this sounds like an engine surge. The SOP on four engined aircraft is to continue unless it is unsafe to do so. The crew would have carried out extensive procedures to check the other engines and would have taken great care to calculate the fuel required, probably using an 'en-route alternate' such as Nice.
The EAAC crews are very experienced, being mainly ex BA, Virgin and Cathay, and they would have known that the tapes would be pulled and the CAA would check the paperwork. I think that it is a little unfair to say that this was poorly handled without knowing all of the facts.
Airclues
All this was obviously poorly handled
The EAAC crews are very experienced, being mainly ex BA, Virgin and Cathay, and they would have known that the tapes would be pulled and the CAA would check the paperwork. I think that it is a little unfair to say that this was poorly handled without knowing all of the facts.
Airclues
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presuming for the moment NOD's assertion that the possible call at NCE was for fuel, does he then go on to assert that said aircraft would then depart with one engine inop, enroute to CDG...with passengers?
I surely hope not.
This sort of operation, if reported (more or less) correctly here, would certainly give pause to the suitability of the carrier to conduct operations in a satisfactory manner.
Doesn't say all that much for BA either, if they did the same ex-LAX.
I surely hope not.
This sort of operation, if reported (more or less) correctly here, would certainly give pause to the suitability of the carrier to conduct operations in a satisfactory manner.
Doesn't say all that much for BA either, if they did the same ex-LAX.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presuming for the moment NOD's assertion that the possible call at NCE was for fuel, does he then go on to assert that said aircraft would then depart with one engine inop, enroute to CDG...with passengers?
However, the general point I was making is that for the 2 airlines I have worked for (VS, BA), a single engine failure, secured, with no further problem is not an "emergency". No need to land...
Of course, there now needs to be a plan, allowing for a possible second engine failure (a problem eastbound Transatlantic say) with associated fuel consumption and ceiling considerations. Depending on circs, this may be return to Departure A/F, call in at one en-route (and as you say, this means all PAX off and engine fixed or 3 engine ferry onwards), or continue to destination. A commerical bonus is if you can get say 75%+ of the way home, then the "spare" aircraft can be waiting at the intermediate stop to take the PAX onward, and even have brought out the 3 engine ferry crew...
It might have been different in your 707 days 411A, but seems SOP now for modern 4 jets (744, 340)...
Agree with you there, 411A.
Perf A requirements may well require that an a/c should be capable of continuing from V1 to destination with 1 engine inop; however, whether it would be desirable to do so is entirely another matter.
Not sure what the actual route from LAX to LHR would be, but the Great Circle is over Hudson Bay and Greenland. A lot of cold, inhospitable areas to cross with 1 engine out, in my view. A diversion to a suitable CONUS aerodrome for maintenance would seem rather more sensible than to carry on all the way across the GCFA and North Atlantic on 3?
And I'm not sure that I'd like any 'commercial advantage' to feature in the airmanship plans of anyone who makes that a consideration before electing to cross the pond on 3... Whether in a 747, 707, Comet or DC-7 for that matter.
Perf A requirements may well require that an a/c should be capable of continuing from V1 to destination with 1 engine inop; however, whether it would be desirable to do so is entirely another matter.
Not sure what the actual route from LAX to LHR would be, but the Great Circle is over Hudson Bay and Greenland. A lot of cold, inhospitable areas to cross with 1 engine out, in my view. A diversion to a suitable CONUS aerodrome for maintenance would seem rather more sensible than to carry on all the way across the GCFA and North Atlantic on 3?
And I'm not sure that I'd like any 'commercial advantage' to feature in the airmanship plans of anyone who makes that a consideration before electing to cross the pond on 3... Whether in a 747, 707, Comet or DC-7 for that matter.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
The aircraft did not land at Nice. Obviously if it had done so the passengers would have got off, but at least they were in their desired country of destination. As far as I am aware it was a re-flightplanning excercise. When overhead Nice they had sufficient fuel with reserves to continue to Paris. We used to do this flying northbound from Africa in the 60's, and is perfectly legal so long as you have the required trip, alternate and reserves when overhead the en-route alternate. The procedure is covered on most MCC courses.
Airclues
The aircraft did not land at Nice. Obviously if it had done so the passengers would have got off, but at least they were in their desired country of destination. As far as I am aware it was a re-flightplanning excercise. When overhead Nice they had sufficient fuel with reserves to continue to Paris. We used to do this flying northbound from Africa in the 60's, and is perfectly legal so long as you have the required trip, alternate and reserves when overhead the en-route alternate. The procedure is covered on most MCC courses.
Airclues
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A similar incident (continuing to destination despite engine problems early into the flight) is alleged to have happened with a Corsair 747 flying from Orly to Reunion on Oct 29th. There was an engine fire warning upon arrival.
News article (with pics) in French:
http://www.clicanoo.com/articles/article.asp?id=90078
I read on a French aviation site that, following the incident, the company's technical director has been fired. But surely (to a lay person) that seems to point at maintenance rather than the flight crew.
News article (with pics) in French:
http://www.clicanoo.com/articles/article.asp?id=90078
I read on a French aviation site that, following the incident, the company's technical director has been fired. But surely (to a lay person) that seems to point at maintenance rather than the flight crew.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle...
I know the LAX was initially planned to stop in JFK, but subsequently deemed unnecessary... Obviously the LAX-LHR leg will tend to be further south than Great Circle.
I don't know what you fly / flew. However, from my 4 Eng days, this was no problem with 3 continuing, so long as the obvious further failures were looked at. It is SOP, accepted by the authorities, and carried out more often than you might think. The BA example I gave is recent, but I know there are others...
What are your concerns? It is a 4 Eng aircraft, a single explainable failure, secured, after the point where 4 engs are required. We now have a 3 eng aircraft, which equates to a TriStar / DC10 / MD11, and still having a level of redundancy superior to a twin. In the event of a further failure, we are down to 2. The aircraft would still cruise, albeit at a lower level, use more fuel (allowed for), and can be landed fine via a regularly practiced profile.
I am all for not pushing airmanship boundaries, and I was initially surprised at this SOP. However, having then thought it through, you are still more failures away from a problem in a 3 engine 747, than a 2 engine 777!
Each case will need to be looked at for it's merits - both the cause of the failure, and as you say, the routing, weather etc. However, bearing in mind that 3 Engs is not an emergency, no justification can be made for landing overweight, and therefore, even with dumping (which rarely gets you to MLW), you are going to have to fly for some hours. Might as well be going somewhere...
I know the LAX was initially planned to stop in JFK, but subsequently deemed unnecessary... Obviously the LAX-LHR leg will tend to be further south than Great Circle.
I don't know what you fly / flew. However, from my 4 Eng days, this was no problem with 3 continuing, so long as the obvious further failures were looked at. It is SOP, accepted by the authorities, and carried out more often than you might think. The BA example I gave is recent, but I know there are others...
What are your concerns? It is a 4 Eng aircraft, a single explainable failure, secured, after the point where 4 engs are required. We now have a 3 eng aircraft, which equates to a TriStar / DC10 / MD11, and still having a level of redundancy superior to a twin. In the event of a further failure, we are down to 2. The aircraft would still cruise, albeit at a lower level, use more fuel (allowed for), and can be landed fine via a regularly practiced profile.
I am all for not pushing airmanship boundaries, and I was initially surprised at this SOP. However, having then thought it through, you are still more failures away from a problem in a 3 engine 747, than a 2 engine 777!
Each case will need to be looked at for it's merits - both the cause of the failure, and as you say, the routing, weather etc. However, bearing in mind that 3 Engs is not an emergency, no justification can be made for landing overweight, and therefore, even with dumping (which rarely gets you to MLW), you are going to have to fly for some hours. Might as well be going somewhere...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Getting home
The “re-planning” was in fact called a “re-dispatch”. You plan to a field and when you are near (or abeam) you “divert” to the real destination. It’s quite legit and works like a charm, so long as the weather at you “real” destination is OK.
Before anyone butts in, it’s also quite safe, but usually depends on not having burnt your contingency fuel and getting good levels.
On a related topic, is it not the FAA intention to introduce ETOPS for 3- and 4-engined aircraft ? I presume that in a case like this, the aircraft would need to land back at MRU ? Can anyone enlighten me please ?
oTd
Before anyone butts in, it’s also quite safe, but usually depends on not having burnt your contingency fuel and getting good levels.
On a related topic, is it not the FAA intention to introduce ETOPS for 3- and 4-engined aircraft ? I presume that in a case like this, the aircraft would need to land back at MRU ? Can anyone enlighten me please ?
oTd
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
however, whether it would be desirable to do so is entirely another matter
would seem rather more sensible than to carry on all the way across the GCFA and North Atlantic on 3?
As I did, please try to stand back and look at the situation. The aircraft is safely airborne on 3, all 3 are as serviceable as they were on departure. Emotionally "we have lost an engine". But practically we have loads of redundancy left, make contingency plans based on a further problem.. and decide on that basis (I am talking generically here, may or may not apply to the MRU case).
NoD
A TriStar was designed to operate on 3 engines, a 777 on 2. But a 747 was designed to operate on all 4 - and losing a substantial part of your normal level of redundancy is not the same thing as operating a fully serviceable a/c specifically designed to require fewer engines.
The in-flight re-plan for fuel reasons approaching NCE is an entirely different matter. Lots of en-route diversion alternates available and perfectly reasonable.
Having lost an engine in a 4-jet at Vr several years ago at MTOW, even with it safely secured and no further drama, there was no way I was going to press on to destination. Dumped to MLW, landed, then transferred to a spare a/c. Proceding to JFK would, to me, have seemed a much better option than crossing the the pond with your systems redundancy already used up.
I'd be intrigued to know why they then elected to carry on instead of landing at JFK - and whether 'commercial pressure' had any bearing on the matter.
Is it the same in other airlines?
The in-flight re-plan for fuel reasons approaching NCE is an entirely different matter. Lots of en-route diversion alternates available and perfectly reasonable.
Having lost an engine in a 4-jet at Vr several years ago at MTOW, even with it safely secured and no further drama, there was no way I was going to press on to destination. Dumped to MLW, landed, then transferred to a spare a/c. Proceding to JFK would, to me, have seemed a much better option than crossing the the pond with your systems redundancy already used up.
I'd be intrigued to know why they then elected to carry on instead of landing at JFK - and whether 'commercial pressure' had any bearing on the matter.
Is it the same in other airlines?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: HKG
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the pilot should had file a report (ASR?/MOR) to the national aviation authority, don't know if France or that of Reunion Island. By then every1 would have a better picture of whatz happened. However with the time lag in processing people may have less interest on this subject.
The monthly UK AAIB Bulletins are always something worth reading.
The monthly UK AAIB Bulletins are always something worth reading.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents:
Rather than debate the merits of landing or continuing to destination in a four engine aircraft I think we should go back to the more serious issue of the bird strike events at Reunion island.... Based on my reading there is a serious problem at this airport.
I have no expereience operating in this part of the world, but as a bird strike researcher I would be most interested to receive more detailed information on these events:
In particular I am looking for all the details; bird species & number of birds struck, when, where, time of day, weather conditions, type of aircraft & engine and the damage. I would also be really interested in in any pictures.
If anyone has factual information and could post it or send it to me via PM I would appreciate it.
Richard
A320 Captain & Bird Strike Researcher.
Rather than debate the merits of landing or continuing to destination in a four engine aircraft I think we should go back to the more serious issue of the bird strike events at Reunion island.... Based on my reading there is a serious problem at this airport.
I have no expereience operating in this part of the world, but as a bird strike researcher I would be most interested to receive more detailed information on these events:
In particular I am looking for all the details; bird species & number of birds struck, when, where, time of day, weather conditions, type of aircraft & engine and the damage. I would also be really interested in in any pictures.
If anyone has factual information and could post it or send it to me via PM I would appreciate it.
Richard
A320 Captain & Bird Strike Researcher.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
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 ?
1. The DC8, as alluded to earlier, may not have had the redundancy that modern 4 jets have.
2. The Fuel consumption increase may be more significant in these older types.
Each type / situation will be different...
NoD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been at this business for a very long time, I can appreciate both sides of the question...to continue or divert.
NoD makes a very compelling argument for continuing, and I would normally agree, provided diversion options remain plentiful.
However, having said this, I would not, except under the the most unusual circumstances, continue a long overwater crossing, where the next available could well be rather far away.
To do so would be foolhardy, in my opinion and, quite frankly, suspect it would definately be frowned upon by the FAA.
It does seem odd that the UKCAA (and their predecessor, the ARB) would be so stringent about the handling/stall characteristics of large jet transports, yet allow these rather long flights with an engine inoperative.
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.
NoD makes a very compelling argument for continuing, and I would normally agree, provided diversion options remain plentiful.
However, having said this, I would not, except under the the most unusual circumstances, continue a long overwater crossing, where the next available could well be rather far away.
To do so would be foolhardy, in my opinion and, quite frankly, suspect it would definately be frowned upon by the FAA.
It does seem odd that the UKCAA (and their predecessor, the ARB) would be so stringent about the handling/stall characteristics of large jet transports, yet allow these rather long flights with an engine inoperative.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Almaty
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely every case is different and the crew in this case decided to continue. All went well, as it should have done, and the aircraft arrived at its planned destination, with passengers. This was the purpose of the flight. The crew obviously would not have pressed on if they considered it too risky, after all their licenses were at risk if their decisions were wrong. If it was safe to continue on three (arguments seem pretty reasonable) then what purpose would be served by diverting to somewhere with little or no facilities. And what of the passengers, 24-48 hour delay to get a replacement aircraft, without a doubt.
Looks to me like a perfectly logical decision, and probably one which has been made many times before. Personally I can think of several similar which never made PPRUNE and even a couple of similar cases involving twins, where the decision to press on was rather more suspect!
Work in aviation long enough and you see it all.
Looks to me like a perfectly logical decision, and probably one which has been made many times before. Personally I can think of several similar which never made PPRUNE and even a couple of similar cases involving twins, where the decision to press on was rather more suspect!
Work in aviation long enough and you see it all.