Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles

Old 3rd Jan 2014, 06:38
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Consider the NEXT failure, in a twin you are gliding, in a Quad you just may limp to somewhere.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 13:29
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Twin: Probability of second engine failure = xx * 1

Quad: Probability of second engine failure = xx * 3

barit1 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 13:36
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think there's been a single case of a failure of ETOPS basic principles - i.e. a second engine failure - unless you count Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
barit1 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 13:56
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by barit1
Twin: Probability of second engine failure = xx * 1

Quad: Probability of second engine failure = xx * 3

Yes, and the probablility in a single is 0 - so clearly a single is infinitely safer! Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics...
HDRW is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 14:49
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
(xx)quad vs (xx)twin and "the next failure"

This value of xx should be less when there are ETOPS ratings and procedures involved.

Either environmental or common-servicing-error reasons could also come into play to make two failures on a quad more likely than just xx-squared.

When discussing this it might be better to consider not the number of accidents due to 3/4 or 1/2 of the engines working, or 2/4-or-2/2 failing, but rather to the incidences of these failures. From that, it might be clear whether we're overdue for the first accident to occur due to engine failures taking place a long way from safety in a twin.

Very roughly, with ~1000 ETOPS flights per day, and a few reported failures per year, it seems that ~1:100,000 flights have failures, and so a double failure might only be expected every ~10,000 years. If this is valid, then the current practice should be safe enough.

Last edited by awblain; 4th Jan 2014 at 19:58.
awblain is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 14:49
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Even a glider can fly
It depends....
A quad on one engine will probably have problems maintaining altitude depending on weight. But it will have a better chance of getting to a suitable landing site than a twin on none.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 14:50
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ElectricJohn
... Genuine question, since I don't know - can a quad actually fly on one engine?
Oh it can fly on *none* - see Gimli, and the quad-flameout in a volcalic ash cloud - but it will certainly be flying downwards. The rate-of-descent is what matters, and having one working donkey will certainly help in that regard.
HDRW is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 18:56
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, a quad can fly on one, but only in a shallow glide. Can even fly on none if needs be!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

Gimli was a twin, btw

Last edited by Super VC-10; 4th Jan 2014 at 18:57. Reason: Note re Gimli
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 20:23
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stop Press: Quad flies on one



P&W's Boeing 299Z testbed with T34 turboprop in the nose.
barit1 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2014, 21:51
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas
Age: 85
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But Sir, that not a quad.
Ozlander1 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 02:22
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pedant! Beancounter!
barit1 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 02:55
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is that the one Lord King tried to buy?

(when asked, with all the twins coming into service, why BA was still buying 4-engined aircraft, he supposedly responded with "because they don't make them with five!")
llondel is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 10:52
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Part of the risk analysis of the 4 engine argument is a conservative assessment of the unknown. Zero risk is unattainable. On your remaining engines you still have wear out, infant mortality and random failure mode. When you mentioned lies and stratistics HDRW, I laughed when I also recall one of the models most commonly used in deciding on chances of failure of 4, 3, 2, 1 is the Monte Carlo Simulation (named after the gambling resort).

Perhaps the 'per flight' risk in the subject of this discussion was calculated as being low and that is why they decided to 'push on'. The data and engineering judgement so far (EK this incident of push on and SQ return) indicates there is not yet a consistent set of ground rules.
Sober Lark is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 16:43
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Perhaps the 'per flight' risk in the subject of this discussion was calculated as being low and that is why they decided to 'push on'. The data and engineering judgement so far (EK this incident of push on and SQ return) indicates there is not yet a consistent set of ground rules.
I'm not convinced that we need a rule, although it might quiet down the after incident challenges.

Too many what-ifs that are best handled today by pilots considering their resources both on-the-ground and in-the air.

then just to prepare for deep thinking arguments, why do we need an EROPs rule ? Has it saved anything ?

As you might suspect I see any diversion or air-turn-back as an increased risk as well as continuing.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2014, 23:38
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the lake
Age: 82
Posts: 670
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ETOPS was perused by both Boeing and Scarebus so they could sell big twins to airlines to operate the Atlantic and Pacific more economically, with the comparable safety to the quads they replaced.
Who can forget the A340 demonstrator at various airshows with "FOUR ENGINES FOR LONG HAUL" scrawled along the belt line in 3 metre high letters!!

That didn't last long but, then again, neither did the A340!
twochai is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 08:00
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,844
Received 213 Likes on 99 Posts
Who can forget the A340 demonstrator at various airshows with "FOUR ENGINES FOR LONG HAUL" scrawled along the belt line in 3 metre high letters!!
Not to mention a well-known UK airline that used to market the same concept:



Well until they bought their A330s.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 05:28
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Loopy Land
Posts: 45
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
losing engines....

Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles.

Airbus 380 loses 2 engines, goes 10,000 miles.

Airbus 380 loses 3 engines, goes 15,000 miles.

Airbus 380 loses 4 engines, goes 20,000 miles.

DoT
Dead on Time is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 05:59
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Simple question. Does the one engine inoperative checklist finish with the words; "land at the nearest suitable airport"?
George Glass is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 16:00
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,833
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Simple answer if you can't be bothered to read the thread George Class.


NO.....
White Knight is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 14:26
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Following it's diversion to Kuwait on the 26th Oct, the aircraft departed for it's original destination, Dubai on 28th Oct.
Sober Lark is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.