Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles
The simple fact is the A380 on 3 engines is as safe as any modern twin.
May I suggest to exclude A340-200s and -300s ...?
Gravity Feed?
OK, obviously the engine could not gravity-feed.
And I suppose the reason is "because they didn't design it that way".
Excuse my ignorance: I thought all wet-wing aircraft with under-slung engines could gravity-feed fuel to the engines if you kept the tank above the engine full.
So my question is "Why did they design the A-380 so that it can't gravity-feed?"
Or are you saying that the failure of one of the pumps blocked the fuel line to the No. 4 engine?
Curious minds...
And I suppose the reason is "because they didn't design it that way".
Excuse my ignorance: I thought all wet-wing aircraft with under-slung engines could gravity-feed fuel to the engines if you kept the tank above the engine full.
So my question is "Why did they design the A-380 so that it can't gravity-feed?"
Or are you saying that the failure of one of the pumps blocked the fuel line to the No. 4 engine?
Curious minds...
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deefer Dog, what a very rude chap you are, what type of power plant one has hanging off ones wing is not an indication of ones ability or knowledge.
There are many talented individuals who have never operated jet equipment, they are not lesser people because of that, you sir are a brigand.
jefferson-airplane said...
Option 2 is irrelevant in this instance.
Really? I absolutely doubt that... 
There are many talented individuals who have never operated jet equipment, they are not lesser people because of that, you sir are a brigand.
jefferson-airplane said...
1. A significant amount of fuel would have to be jettisoned
2. Hotel accommodation for 20+ crew and 450-500 passengers
3. Nothing less than a 24 -36 hour delay before replacement components could be sourced, shipped and installed
2. Hotel accommodation for 20+ crew and 450-500 passengers
3. Nothing less than a 24 -36 hour delay before replacement components could be sourced, shipped and installed
And in absolute safely.
what type of power plant one has hanging off ones wing is not an indication of ones ability or knowledge.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why people would be upset with the crew on these sorts of decisions anyway.
It's long standing policy for operators of four engine jets to continue after a single engine failure unless there is a good reason not to. The decisions are made in conjunction with dispatch, maintenance, and various other entities within the hierarchy of the operating airline. If the captain were to unilaterally make the decision to divert simply out of an abundance of caution, it would be viewed as an overreaction and disciplinary action would probably be considered by his or her superiors.
The manufacturer approved checklists for such scenarios do not say "divert to the nearest suitable airport". They do however, say to do so for engine severe damage or separation.
If you want to be upset with someone over 4 engine jets covering long distances on 3 engines, consider taking it up with the manufacturers of these aircraft and the airlines that operate them. The crews are simply doing their best to adhere to the procedural framework established by these entities.
It's long standing policy for operators of four engine jets to continue after a single engine failure unless there is a good reason not to. The decisions are made in conjunction with dispatch, maintenance, and various other entities within the hierarchy of the operating airline. If the captain were to unilaterally make the decision to divert simply out of an abundance of caution, it would be viewed as an overreaction and disciplinary action would probably be considered by his or her superiors.
The manufacturer approved checklists for such scenarios do not say "divert to the nearest suitable airport". They do however, say to do so for engine severe damage or separation.
If you want to be upset with someone over 4 engine jets covering long distances on 3 engines, consider taking it up with the manufacturers of these aircraft and the airlines that operate them. The crews are simply doing their best to adhere to the procedural framework established by these entities.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First rule in aviation, never assume!
Of course this crew looked at all options and deemed
it safe and prudent to continue, what irks is the rationale
of some with 4 jet (not 'quad'... please)
experience is rather blinkered, and quite frankly pompous!
Some need to read up on risk management methinks.
Safe to continue, but 'absolutely safe'? , as I said, doubt it.
Of course this crew looked at all options and deemed
it safe and prudent to continue, what irks is the rationale
of some with 4 jet (not 'quad'... please)
experience is rather blinkered, and quite frankly pompous!
Some need to read up on risk management methinks.
Safe to continue, but 'absolutely safe'? , as I said, doubt it.
If the captain were to unilaterally make the decision to divert simply out of an abundance of caution, it would be viewed as an overreaction and disciplinary action would probably be considered by his or her superiors
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Sussex
Age: 86
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is called the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. I honestly believe that some sort of filter should be put in place to try and ensure that that is what it returns to become just that!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if this has been posted but it is the report on the BA flight from LA and explains the occurrence quite well.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...LG%2006-06.pdf.
Just a guess but gravity feeding about 3000kg an hour would be impossible with the size of the fuel lines on any acft.
The following paragraph is taken from this document.
http://www.united-virtual.com/upload...Training_2.pdf
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...LG%2006-06.pdf.
Just a guess but gravity feeding about 3000kg an hour would be impossible with the size of the fuel lines on any acft.
The following paragraph is taken from this document.
http://www.united-virtual.com/upload...Training_2.pdf
So the use of APU in the 747 apart from gate power is limited to an APU-PACK departure. The reason is that
the engines on the 747 are deemed to have a very strong windmill, so even if "dead" they are able to turn freely
to generate electricity and of course there are 4 of them, so losing them all is very unlikely. So it was decided on
the 747 to allow the engines to windmill for electricity, or to have one of the running engines support power.
the engines on the 747 are deemed to have a very strong windmill, so even if "dead" they are able to turn freely
to generate electricity and of course there are 4 of them, so losing them all is very unlikely. So it was decided on
the 747 to allow the engines to windmill for electricity, or to have one of the running engines support power.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. The reason is that
the engines on the 747 are deemed to have a very strong windmill, so even if "dead" they are able to turn freely
to generate electricity and of course there are 4 of them, so losing them all is very unlikely. So it was decided on
the 747 to allow the engines to windmill for electricity, or to have one of the running engines support power.
the engines on the 747 are deemed to have a very strong windmill, so even if "dead" they are able to turn freely
to generate electricity and of course there are 4 of them, so losing them all is very unlikely. So it was decided on
the 747 to allow the engines to windmill for electricity, or to have one of the running engines support power.
That site is full of half truths. When an engine is windmilling, it will produce hydraulic pressure, and power the dedicated generator for the FADEC. It will not produce electricity from the IDG.
I hope you are not a real pilot reading this!
.... seems a lot of people should not get out of bed in the morning - they certainly shouldn't go into the bathroom, statistically one of the most dangerous places on earth. The drive to the airport or the crew bus to the hotel aren't much better 
I've been unlucky enough to have had quite a few (into double figures) engine failures on 2, 3 and 4 engine jet aircraft - the failures ranged from nasty to benign
As always after the noises were cancelled and the checklists run a cup of tea was ordered and the situation was considered carefully. Years of experience, technical knowledge, airmanship etc were then employed by all on the crew to decide on the way forward - it seemed to work out well on all occasions and yes, I did divert on one of them but then 330 people on one engine does call for a bit more prudence. Professionals at work or at least I like to think so.
Not once did the company exert any pressure, nor did they call me up afterwards for an "explanation"
A few years ago the monitoring of the aircraft, particularly the engines, by computers through satcom was an incredible leap forward as an aid to dealing with this type of situation. Call the maintenance dept and they can give you an incredible amount of detail on what is going on - oh, and handily ops would send you an updated engine out CFP ... mind you, the old rules of thumb still seem to work.
It might irk a few here but, I've got to say dealing with the failure of an engine is very much like dealing with the failure of any component on the aircraft.
If what everyone wants is the "LAND IMMEDIATELY/ASAP/NEAREST" instruction at the end of the checklist so that you don't have to think, exercise any airmanship or demonstrate any professionalism then two things will happen - firstly, you will actually cause yourself much more grief on most occasions (good luck in ADAK) and secondly, we'll see drones before you know it
I just think that if you want aviation to be so black and white you might be in the wrong business (I blame the digital age - particularly when the PNF is calling +2, +3 down the approach )
... can't think of any flights in the recent past that crashed because they continued a flight after shutting down a jet engine (where the shut down engine caused the crash) - is it really an issue or, over the years, have we actually dealt with the scenarios/failures professionally as we should have done? Has anything changed ?
I've been unlucky enough to have had quite a few (into double figures) engine failures on 2, 3 and 4 engine jet aircraft - the failures ranged from nasty to benign
As always after the noises were cancelled and the checklists run a cup of tea was ordered and the situation was considered carefully. Years of experience, technical knowledge, airmanship etc were then employed by all on the crew to decide on the way forward - it seemed to work out well on all occasions and yes, I did divert on one of them but then 330 people on one engine does call for a bit more prudence. Professionals at work or at least I like to think so.
Not once did the company exert any pressure, nor did they call me up afterwards for an "explanation"
A few years ago the monitoring of the aircraft, particularly the engines, by computers through satcom was an incredible leap forward as an aid to dealing with this type of situation. Call the maintenance dept and they can give you an incredible amount of detail on what is going on - oh, and handily ops would send you an updated engine out CFP ... mind you, the old rules of thumb still seem to work.
It might irk a few here but, I've got to say dealing with the failure of an engine is very much like dealing with the failure of any component on the aircraft.
If what everyone wants is the "LAND IMMEDIATELY/ASAP/NEAREST" instruction at the end of the checklist so that you don't have to think, exercise any airmanship or demonstrate any professionalism then two things will happen - firstly, you will actually cause yourself much more grief on most occasions (good luck in ADAK) and secondly, we'll see drones before you know it
I just think that if you want aviation to be so black and white you might be in the wrong business (I blame the digital age - particularly when the PNF is calling +2, +3 down the approach
)... can't think of any flights in the recent past that crashed because they continued a flight after shutting down a jet engine (where the shut down engine caused the crash) - is it really an issue or, over the years, have we actually dealt with the scenarios/failures professionally as we should have done? Has anything changed ?
I hope you are not a real pilot reading this!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lucky for this airbus 380 that the windshield didn't develop a crack.
oh, and regarding ''gravity'' feed...I can't think of a jet engine that doesn't require its own fuel pump to properly feed itself. that all important engine driven pump is pretty darn important. ''boost pumps'' ensure stability of fuel flow throughout the operational altitudes and attitudes, although some planes at some altitudes can lose all boost pumps and ''suction'' feed via engine pump....without that engine pump ouch
oh, and regarding ''gravity'' feed...I can't think of a jet engine that doesn't require its own fuel pump to properly feed itself. that all important engine driven pump is pretty darn important. ''boost pumps'' ensure stability of fuel flow throughout the operational altitudes and attitudes, although some planes at some altitudes can lose all boost pumps and ''suction'' feed via engine pump....without that engine pump ouch
Last edited by flarepilot; 13th Nov 2013 at 12:44.
Are we talking about an engine driven fuel pump that produces the pressure necessary to feed spray nozzles in the burner ?
Or a pump that moves fuel between aircraft systems ?
Or a pump that moves fuel between aircraft systems ?
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: london
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am always confident that the flight deck crew will make the correct decision. After all there are enough of them, they are quite intelligent (at least as flying is concerned) and they are in no way over burdened by hard work. No flaming required, just saying .....
These days, most two engined aircraft take off and complete the flight on only two engines.
Once a four engine aircraft is safely airborne, it no longer needs all four engines to continue the flight to any destination with more safety than any two engine aircraft that hasn't yet taken off...
See the Air Regulations of any half respectable Authority concerning such operations...
Once a four engine aircraft is safely airborne, it no longer needs all four engines to continue the flight to any destination with more safety than any two engine aircraft that hasn't yet taken off...
See the Air Regulations of any half respectable Authority concerning such operations...
