Max Jet
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Stansted
Age: 64
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Jet
So, whats all this talk of Max Jet throwing a motor on take off out of Stansted and carrying on to the land of the free? Now thats what l call ETOPS!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to hear the whole story. I have a very good friend who flys for maxjet. I am sure he would like to hear the story too.
To those not in the know, to "lose" an engine on a 767, leave england and fly all the usa would be beyond the nutty.
so, let's all settle down and try to find out the truth.
To those not in the know, to "lose" an engine on a 767, leave england and fly all the usa would be beyond the nutty.
so, let's all settle down and try to find out the truth.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention the upset and inconvenience it would cause to the Essex Constabulary. In the unlikely case that it did occur, I wonder if the pilots (assuming they are US citizens) would be extradited to stand trial here?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: airports
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small part either a panel or a flap (description I got from a good source) was found on the runway and the airport are assuming it came from an aircraft that took off around yesterday afternoon and that the part found was hit by another aircraft. All operators were asked to check their aircraft for damage.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In my own world
Age: 47
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a 767 lost an engine on take-off from STN, is it really possible to continue flying all the way acroos the pond at drift-down altitude with the planned fuel burn?
Bearing in mind that not only will you be limited to a much lower altitude, possibly below NAT system FL's, but you will also be suffering from alot of extra drag.
Sounds made-up to be honest...
Bearing in mind that not only will you be limited to a much lower altitude, possibly below NAT system FL's, but you will also be suffering from alot of extra drag.
Sounds made-up to be honest...
DTD.
You're serious, aren't you ?
Come on, would you as a Captain continue ?
I don't think so.
You're serious, aren't you ?
Come on, would you as a Captain continue ?
I don't think so.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, Maxjet did not fly single engine from STN accross the atlantic.
Yeoman, do you remember the HLF A300 that landed short, out of gas, at VIE a few years back? They were trying to fly it on one gong from some Greek island to Germany. By my calculations a B762 wouldn't make it westbound to dest on single engine ops. They might make it to YQX - and then it would still be tight.
Yeoman, do you remember the HLF A300 that landed short, out of gas, at VIE a few years back? They were trying to fly it on one gong from some Greek island to Germany. By my calculations a B762 wouldn't make it westbound to dest on single engine ops. They might make it to YQX - and then it would still be tight.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sobelena,
A twin engine a/c flying on one donk is required to land at the nearest suitable airport. The HLF A300 to which you refer was flying with the gear down as I remember it, not on one engine. With the loss of one engine the Flight Management Computer (FMC) still gives accurate fuel usage predictions (on a Boeing at least, I assume Airbus are the same). This is not the case with the gear down. That is why HLF persuaded themselves they had enough fuel to get further than they did.
A twin engine a/c flying on one donk is required to land at the nearest suitable airport. The HLF A300 to which you refer was flying with the gear down as I remember it, not on one engine. With the loss of one engine the Flight Management Computer (FMC) still gives accurate fuel usage predictions (on a Boeing at least, I assume Airbus are the same). This is not the case with the gear down. That is why HLF persuaded themselves they had enough fuel to get further than they did.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Hapag-Lloyd plane was actually an A310, not an A300. It did fly for a short time on one engine as the fuel neared exhaustion. Of course, it also flew for a little while with no engines prior to impact.
http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-...2-year-ok.html
http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-...2-year-ok.html
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes quite right. I shoudn't post when less than half awake! It was of course an A310; it did have it's u/c down; and it flew on two donks instead of one gong. I think I need a rest 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clear it up, Maxjet lost part of a panel from the bypass duct of one of the engines. This was recovered from the STN runway. Crew would have known nothing about it.
The bigger issue was that it appeared that at least one aircraft had run over the remains that were left on the runway. The obvious danger here is what happened to Concorde.
The bigger issue was that it appeared that at least one aircraft had run over the remains that were left on the runway. The obvious danger here is what happened to Concorde.
