Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have no problem being on that flight. If ever there was a contingency likely to have been previously looked at every which way to Thursday, it's losing an engine; I very much doubt there were many decisions to make that hadn't been pre-planned, reviewed and signed off by everyone involved long before this incident.
What is interesting, as mentioned up-thread, is that both pumps failed. As the initial report said that the aircraft was signed off after they'd been replaced, the failure mode seems likely to be due to the pumps themselves rather than an external factor, excepting perhaps bad maintenance.
Does anyone know the details of the pump system on this engine, and whether any common factor could lead to dual pump failure?
What is interesting, as mentioned up-thread, is that both pumps failed. As the initial report said that the aircraft was signed off after they'd been replaced, the failure mode seems likely to be due to the pumps themselves rather than an external factor, excepting perhaps bad maintenance.
Does anyone know the details of the pump system on this engine, and whether any common factor could lead to dual pump failure?
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...
If not, could you explain the significance of your proviso that it "hasn't yet taken off"?
If there exists a definition of (and a way of measuring) "safety" that renders a 4-engined aircraft flying on 3 "safer" than a twin flying on both, it's not immediately obvious what that definition/metric would be.
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...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there exists a definition of (and a way of measuring) "safety" that renders a 4-engined aircraft flying on 3 "safer" than a twin flying on both, it's not immediately obvious what that definition/metric would be.
Thus after 2 failures, 'Mr 4' is in the same boat (no pun intended) as 'Mr 2' after 1.
So, given that the starting point for the comparison is an all-engines-operating twin vs a 4-engined aircraft with one failed, the argument seems to be that the likelihood of an engine failure on the twin is higher than the likelihood of one of the 3 remaining engines failing on the quad.
That's counter-intuitive.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paddy & Mick were en-route to XYZ in a 4 engined a/c. The captain came on the rail and apologised for "an engine failure, but no problem they would continue and arrive 1 hour late. Please enjoy the refreshments." Paddy & Mick thought this a great idea to have 1 hour more Guinness time. Later the captain came on again to inform them of a "2nd engine failure, but no problem, they would continue and arrive 2 hours late. Please enjoy the refreshments." Paddy and Mick could now look forward to 2 hours of extra Guinness time. A short while later the captain came on again with grave news. "a 3rd engine failure, but no problem, they would continue and arrive 4 hours late. Enjoy the refreshments." Paddy & Mick thought enough Guinness was enough and Paddy made the very astute observation that "good Lord Mick, I hope the other engine doesn't stop otherwise we'll be up here for ever."
I've flown ETOPS on 2 donks and would be far more wary of diverting 3 hours on 1 engine to 'nearest suitable' than continuing en-route on 3 .
I've flown ETOPS on 2 donks and would be far more wary of diverting 3 hours on 1 engine to 'nearest suitable' than continuing en-route on 3 .
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of our B727's lost an engine over El Paso and our op specs said we could continue with two engines, not land at nearest suitable airport as our twin jets. They landed at LAX and found one engine missing. It was found on someones property near El Paso. I was asked to fly our Jetstar on three engines from BUR to LAX for maintenance and refused because BUR has fairly short runways and terrain and it was just to save higher maintenance cost of having it fixed there.
It is the captains call how to handle it so let him decide. If it is legal decide if it is safe. A lot of things are legal but not necessarily as safe as erroring on the side of caution.
It is the captains call how to handle it so let him decide. If it is legal decide if it is safe. A lot of things are legal but not necessarily as safe as erroring on the side of caution.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly my point.
So, given that the starting point for the comparison is an all-engines-operating twin vs a 4-engined aircraft with one failed, the argument seems to be that the likelihood of an engine failure on the twin is higher than the likelihood of one of the 3 remaining engines failing on the quad.
That's counter-intuitive.
So, given that the starting point for the comparison is an all-engines-operating twin vs a 4-engined aircraft with one failed, the argument seems to be that the likelihood of an engine failure on the twin is higher than the likelihood of one of the 3 remaining engines failing on the quad.
That's counter-intuitive.
Given that all engines have the same probability of failure and are independent entities (so one failure does not cause another) an aircraft with 3 engines has more likelihood of an engine failure than an aircraft with two engines. If you like the aircraft has three tickets in the failure lottery compared with two tickets in the failure lottery.
The EFFECT of the failure may be more profound on the twin engined aircraft. Though even there some 4 jets reduced to two could be in a worse position than a twin reduced to one. An A340 with both engines out on one wing would be a little less capable than an A330 with one engine failed.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember the L1011 that took off from MIA over the Caribbean losing oil on all three engines, shutting two down and had to restart them because the last one was seizing? I think it was Delta a long time ago. Mechanic didn't replace O rings with his oil change.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 423 Likes
on
223 Posts
Strictly speaking, some aircraft don't even need the fourth engine to get airborne. I've operated a three-engine ferry on a four-engined aircraft without any drama.
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately, this proved to be irrelevant on trans-Atlantic routes so for us it was only ever a base-check questionnaire teaser.
Shows how much thought does go into the ramifications of continued flight with engines inoperative, though.
Yes, and you did read me right: Two engines inoperative.
Last edited by Georgeablelovehowindia; 13th Nov 2013 at 20:14. Reason: Two engines inoperative.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decision Making Process:
lose engine...worry for 12 hours get close to home.
or
lose engine, dump fuel return to land at airport I just took off from, where the weather is about the same as when I took off, go to hotel, go see a play and get a nice dinner.
Attempt trip next day.
there are many considerations in any situation
lose engine...worry for 12 hours get close to home.
or
lose engine, dump fuel return to land at airport I just took off from, where the weather is about the same as when I took off, go to hotel, go see a play and get a nice dinner.
Attempt trip next day.
there are many considerations in any situation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
23,000 hrs with no real engine failures just a precautionary shut down to avoid hydraulic contamination makes me feel very fortunate. I still treat each flight the same not expecting my luck to last. Flying one, two, three and four engine aircraft I have never lost an engine. I did once when I was showing my cousin how you could take a J3 Cub to altitude and stop the prop and get it windmilling again by diving it but I was young and stupid so had to dead stick it back to the airport and prop it on the runway to taxi in so they would rent to me again when I was 19.
One other time in a Jetstar they forgot to put oil in one engine and we had to shut it down. It was of course the number two engine again so lost normal hydraulics. My chief pilot was flying and I said we lost oil pressure on number two engine and he said it is just a indication problem. I said the low oil pressure light is on, we are going to destroy our engine if we don't shut it down. He reached over and shut it down and said don't tell the controllers. We only flew 20 miles but when he landed the only hydraulics we had was electrical pump. He heard it working so turned the switch off. I was a bit irritated by then but as we were approaching a line of AC and needing to turn saw our pressure drop to minimum so showed him the pressure was almost zero so was going to turn the pump back on. Thank God I got an airline job.
One other time in a Jetstar they forgot to put oil in one engine and we had to shut it down. It was of course the number two engine again so lost normal hydraulics. My chief pilot was flying and I said we lost oil pressure on number two engine and he said it is just a indication problem. I said the low oil pressure light is on, we are going to destroy our engine if we don't shut it down. He reached over and shut it down and said don't tell the controllers. We only flew 20 miles but when he landed the only hydraulics we had was electrical pump. He heard it working so turned the switch off. I was a bit irritated by then but as we were approaching a line of AC and needing to turn saw our pressure drop to minimum so showed him the pressure was almost zero so was going to turn the pump back on. Thank God I got an airline job.
Last edited by bubbers44; 13th Nov 2013 at 22:44. Reason: addition
All a very interesting read on ones take of eng failures in 4 eng planes.
Just off topic a little as it's going round in circles anyway it's obvious to me that the biggest & ugliest flying machine in the air 2day the A380 Dugong has 4 engines for one main reason, they needed x amount of thrust to move such a large mass thru the air & they couldn't get it with just 2 (3 would have meant a totally diff airframe design).
4 engines for the A380 was needed there where no other options not 'cause of 'just in case'
With large engines now producing somewhere around 105000lbs of thrust or so we could almost have a very large SE Airliner carrying hundreds of pax but we don't see anything like that on the drawing board for very obvious reasons.
Safety in numbers
Just off topic a little as it's going round in circles anyway it's obvious to me that the biggest & ugliest flying machine in the air 2day the A380 Dugong has 4 engines for one main reason, they needed x amount of thrust to move such a large mass thru the air & they couldn't get it with just 2 (3 would have meant a totally diff airframe design).
4 engines for the A380 was needed there where no other options not 'cause of 'just in case'
With large engines now producing somewhere around 105000lbs of thrust or so we could almost have a very large SE Airliner carrying hundreds of pax but we don't see anything like that on the drawing board for very obvious reasons.
Safety in numbers
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've posted before about a DC-10 that lost #1 at 0200 out of KHI, and after a sequence of diversion plans, pressed on up the Persian Gulf and beyond (DXB-KWI-BEY) to finally make a daylight landing at ATH. I believe he set some sort of record. 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wally mk2
Just off topic a little as it's going round in circles anyway it's obvious to me that the biggest & ugliest flying machine in the air 2day the A380 Dugong has 4 engines for one main reason, they needed x amount of thrust to move such a large mass thru the air & they couldn't get it with just 2 (3 would have meant a totally diff airframe design).
