BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rainboe
Sky9 puts it nicely. Is the FAA going to ban ETOPs operations, or is that mysteriously 'acceptable' these days when Boeing wants to sell 777s that are not disadvantaged against the rest of the world's 747s? I was told recently there are only 12 747s on the US register with US majors- I don't know if it is true, but it certainly seems it!
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbers, it was brought up in the context of risk analysis. If it unsafe or even unwise to operate a 4 engined (overpowered) aircraft on 3 engines to destination how unsafe or unwise is certifying a 2 engined aircraft for a 3 hr ETOPS. Or to put it another way, would you prefer to be on a twin on 1 for 3 hrs, or a 4 on 3 for 12?
Yaw Damper: "Never Leave Home Without It"
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 49
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stagger
All I am suggesting is that before embarking on an extended flight over the North Atlantic it needs to be considered that the quad (on 3 engines) is 50% more likely to experience an IFSD than a twin on 2. This is just one factor to be considered - there are of course many others.
The discussion you guys are having, about 4 versus 2 engines is interesting but has nothing to do with why the FAA got involved.
Shooting in my owbn foot ... I do not think so.
Its a fact of life that the 4, 3 and 2 engine powered jet are there for sale... if you want one then pick one out. There are pro´s and con´s arguments for each type and are are all regulated in a differant way.
As I said before it will not be easy for BA to show that the rules that govern their ops were intended to cover this case and that´s the whole point.
Redundancy NOT to be used for strickly commercial reasons is not within the spirit of the regulations. That ´s the point I made earlier on and that´s where this tread stands right now.
That is the step foreward from endless debate about 4 versus 2 and may very well be the outcome of this conflict.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky9, I agree with you, always have. The 2 engine ETOPS has to do with economy. It has proven to be safe so the 4 engine planes are going away because of competition. When they built the B52 they needed 8 engines to make it fly, now they only need 2. I think the FAA should look at their own regulations and realize that BA didn't violate them by continuing because they had more than two engines.
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
Twins are taking over the oceanic and arctic routes -- however it will take one single ditching of a twin due to mechanical failure to occasion a change in regulatory philosophy and passenger demand.
Not to say that a twin ditching is inevitable; in fact, it's highly unlikely, but could happen tomorrow.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason that a twin hasn't already ditched is because there was an airfield in the Azores within glider range. (OK it wasn't a double engine failure but the result was the same).
Controversial, moi?
............however it will take one single ditching of a twin due to mechanical failure to occasion a change in regulatory philosophy and passenger demand.
Most passengers do not even know what aircraft they are flying on let alone how many engines it has.
Good thing too when Mr. Branson starts ETOPS and has to remove his opportunist slogans as well.
Yaw Damper: "Never Leave Home Without It"
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Age: 49
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bubbers44
Fuel exhaustion or an on board fire like a couple months ago are a lot more threatening to overwater flights than number of engines operating.
Or not being able to make a correct interpretation of a weather radar return by a highly qualified BA B 777 crew.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sky9
The only reason that a twin hasn't already ditched is because there was an airfield in the Azores within glider range. (OK it wasn't a double engine failure but the result was the same).
As I've pointed out before, the incidence of a second engine failure for an UNRELATED cause is measured in decades.
The folks seeking to eliminate all risk from air travel should focus their efforts on more productive pursuits--like the risk of driving from home to the airport.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think another "twin" ,though not etops, ditched also due to fuel exhaustion, a DC9 quite awhile ago.
I seem to recall a 4 engine plane landed in the water in the bay of San Francisco. a JAL DC8 back in the late 60's or early 70's... the plane was recovered and lived to fly again...though not a true ditching I suppose.
Until there is a regulation for everything, keeping the passengers, crew, and innocents on the ground safe and the reputation of your airline clear might be good advice regardless of the number of engines installed.
j
I seem to recall a 4 engine plane landed in the water in the bay of San Francisco. a JAL DC8 back in the late 60's or early 70's... the plane was recovered and lived to fly again...though not a true ditching I suppose.
Until there is a regulation for everything, keeping the passengers, crew, and innocents on the ground safe and the reputation of your airline clear might be good advice regardless of the number of engines installed.
j
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....which is far easier to achieve if you have four engines as opposed to two on long over-water flights, but the FAA seems mysteriously happy to ignore that aspect of long-range ops and focus strangely on looking minutely at aeroplanes with great redundancy instead of those that aren't that redundant and risk everybody on one engine over water for excessive periods.
Shall we call it a day?
Shall we call it a day?
Originally Posted by jondc9
I think another "twin" ,though not etops, ditched also due to fuel exhaustion, a DC9 quite awhile ago.
I seem to recall a 4 engine plane landed in the water in the bay of San Francisco. a JAL DC8 back in the late 60's or early 70's... the plane was recovered and lived to fly again...though not a true ditching I suppose.
Until there is a regulation for everything, keeping the passengers, crew, and innocents on the ground safe and the reputation of your airline clear might be good advice regardless of the number of engines installed.
j
I seem to recall a 4 engine plane landed in the water in the bay of San Francisco. a JAL DC8 back in the late 60's or early 70's... the plane was recovered and lived to fly again...though not a true ditching I suppose.
Until there is a regulation for everything, keeping the passengers, crew, and innocents on the ground safe and the reputation of your airline clear might be good advice regardless of the number of engines installed.
j
the DC9 ditched because of fuel exhaustion while diverting after missing several approaches on the destination.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...0502-0&lang=en
And the JAL DC8 "landed" short of the runway at SFO in full landing config during a CAT II approach which went haywire with all 4 running until they hit.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...1122-0&lang=en
Best regards
AN2 Driver
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an2
yes, I was living in San Francisco at the time and recall driving out to see the JAL...autopilot booboo or really a misunderstanding by the crew of the way autopilot was to be used, coupled with the so called, "black hole" effect of landing over water into SF's runway at night.
Somehow I think the concept of 2 engine vs 4 engine over water ops is the main point of the thread. Just to clarify, I think a good 4 engine plane is better at over water ops than a good 2 engine plane.
I think the reasons to deploy 2 engine over water planes are economic. I still recall the first TWA flight on two engines across the atlantic. Everyone shook their head and said: why?
And that if a malfunction happens, the remaining engines or engine should be used to get the plane to the best and nearest airport.
A quick question for the 747 guys: can the 747 fly on one engine? I thought I read it can, provided the operating engine is an inboard engine (ie: 2 or 3) and the weight/ altitude/ temps are all ok.
j
yes, I was living in San Francisco at the time and recall driving out to see the JAL...autopilot booboo or really a misunderstanding by the crew of the way autopilot was to be used, coupled with the so called, "black hole" effect of landing over water into SF's runway at night.
Somehow I think the concept of 2 engine vs 4 engine over water ops is the main point of the thread. Just to clarify, I think a good 4 engine plane is better at over water ops than a good 2 engine plane.
I think the reasons to deploy 2 engine over water planes are economic. I still recall the first TWA flight on two engines across the atlantic. Everyone shook their head and said: why?
And that if a malfunction happens, the remaining engines or engine should be used to get the plane to the best and nearest airport.
A quick question for the 747 guys: can the 747 fly on one engine? I thought I read it can, provided the operating engine is an inboard engine (ie: 2 or 3) and the weight/ altitude/ temps are all ok.
j
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ...amid quiet birds in circled flight....
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 engine failure on t/o...LAX to LHR...
I'm quite amazed at the hoo-haa about this.
Not a lot to do with twin vs. 4 eng issue. More a bizarre and 'somehow listened-to call from BA OPS'.
1/4 of power function/design of a/c has been lost on t/o.
Dump fuel and land asap. Overweight landing considered if other residual failures.
In my view, a rather bizarre attempt (knowing BA OPS LHR) of trying to get an a/c home. Quite extraordinary and nonsensical.
This HAS happened before (aka Penta Hotel LHR incident etc etc). Better to Land Now when first major problem has arisen before the third fatal one does later on in the flt. I mean it's not as if LAX can't sort out an engine change.
k
Not a lot to do with twin vs. 4 eng issue. More a bizarre and 'somehow listened-to call from BA OPS'.
1/4 of power function/design of a/c has been lost on t/o.
Dump fuel and land asap. Overweight landing considered if other residual failures.
In my view, a rather bizarre attempt (knowing BA OPS LHR) of trying to get an a/c home. Quite extraordinary and nonsensical.
This HAS happened before (aka Penta Hotel LHR incident etc etc). Better to Land Now when first major problem has arisen before the third fatal one does later on in the flt. I mean it's not as if LAX can't sort out an engine change.
k
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While there have been some peculiar posts on this subject my vote for the most biased, misinformed and distorted interpretation of the events in question goes to Karma-Air. A highly questionable judgment or statement in virtually every sentence. Who would be bothered?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ...amid quiet birds in circled flight....
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jondc9
an2
A quick question for the 747 guys: can the 747 fly on one engine? I thought I read it can, provided the operating engine is an inboard engine (ie: 2 or 3) and the weight/ altitude/ temps are all ok.
j
A quick question for the 747 guys: can the 747 fly on one engine? I thought I read it can, provided the operating engine is an inboard engine (ie: 2 or 3) and the weight/ altitude/ temps are all ok.
j
Methinks the question may be more apt to say can a 747 fly on 2 engines....as demostrated in real life cases like the Cargo ElAl classic at AMS. It all depends on residual damage/systems/airframe condition.
747 2 engine loss on one side = catastrophic if linked with flap/wing residual damage. 747 on one engine in a scenario similar to the Air Transat Azores incident (or on zero engines) is more about glide angle/ratio and no other airframe damage (residual factors) to complicate matters. (Wx/rudder hold factors et al, etc, etc).
k
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ...amid quiet birds in circled flight....
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judgement...yes
Originally Posted by GGV
While there have been some peculiar posts on this subject my vote for the most biased, misinformed and distorted interpretation of the events in question goes to Karma-Air. A highly questionable judgment or statement in virtually every sentence. Who would be bothered?
The 747 LAX incident is about wisdom of operation and is highly judgemental. To continue on with e/o on t/o for a 10hr+ op is a 'no go' in my considered book.
Not sure what backup/evidence you have to make your point.
K
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...is a 'no go' in my considered book.
Not sure what backup/evidence you have to make your point.
Not sure what backup/evidence you have to make your point.
Unfortunately, it would appear that we have yet another 'expert' B744 driver giving the rest of us his considered wisdom based on unrelated incidents.
Sadly, this thread has run its course and the fact that yet another 'opinion' based on nothing more than a knowledge that man has mastered powered flight has been aired, to the detriment of the debate, it's time to give this one a rest, at least until the case goes to court.
Too many Muppets.
Closed!
