Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See Great Circle Mapper for a rough flight path. Other than Baghdad, it would seem that the last major airport that you pass prior to reaching Kuwait is Ankara -- over 1000 miles from Kuwait. Unless, of course, northern Syria or Kurdistan meets EK's druthers.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes...that limits the diversion distance to a maximum of 500 miles !
Plenty of flights cross The Pacific, Atlantic, Siberia, etc. more than 500 miles from a diversion airfield every day.
Plenty of flights cross The Pacific, Atlantic, Siberia, etc. more than 500 miles from a diversion airfield every day.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. But my question is whether the decision to continue a 3 out of 4 aircraft is made oblivious to whether their are suitable diversion airports along the flight path, or whether this decision would be sensitive to this issue.
To me it would seem necessary that this be an important consideration. After all, with ETOPS, diversion fields must be within certain minimum distances/times. Given that a 2 out of 4 will be in a clear emergency, it would seem that if you only have 3 operating, you wouldn't ever want to be too far away from a diversion field.
To me it would seem necessary that this be an important consideration. After all, with ETOPS, diversion fields must be within certain minimum distances/times. Given that a 2 out of 4 will be in a clear emergency, it would seem that if you only have 3 operating, you wouldn't ever want to be too far away from a diversion field.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that most pilots consider possible diversion airfields when everything is working normally, and no doubt pay a little more attention when things are less than perfect.
Decisions....decisions....
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...bccKn8vr3_nxWg
Decisions....decisions....
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...bccKn8vr3_nxWg
Last edited by Sir Richard; 14th Nov 2013 at 16:54.
I went solo in 1957. From 1962 until I retired in 2006 I never had less than 4 engines to play with (apart from 8 years on the DC-10).
Crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific in an aeroplane with only two engines was something that would have filled me and my colleagues with horror. I never had to do it. (In fact, I never flew a commercial twin so I didn't even have to contemplate the exercise.)
For me, it was quite easy. If you have four engines running, think three.
If you have three engines running, think two.
In most occasions, the loss of one engine on a four engined aircraft was a bit of an annoyance but was seldom anything even remotely resembling an emergency.
Now, with the advance of modern economics, we are into a situation where just about everything that goes across the Pond does so on two engines so it is hardly surprising that the two engine lobby can't understand the thinking of the four engine lobby who are now in the minority.
The loss of one out of four is a bit of an annoyance.
The loss of one out of two IS AN EMERGENCY.
I don't give a toss about all of these wonderful statistics that we are constantly regaled with. It was probably ten years ago when a United Airlines 777 was headed from the Far East to the USA when it lost an engine. It took it over three hours to get to Hilo in Hawaii on the remaining engine.
Are any of you out there really going to tell me that the crew were more than happy with their situation or do you not think that they might just have wished that they had started off with four engines?
As far as I am concerned, those of you you who have become convinced that flying across the oceans of the world is statistically safer on two engines than it is on four engines have been brain-washed and are more than somewhat deluded.
Purely an observation from a retired old fart (who is still alive).
Crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific in an aeroplane with only two engines was something that would have filled me and my colleagues with horror. I never had to do it. (In fact, I never flew a commercial twin so I didn't even have to contemplate the exercise.)
For me, it was quite easy. If you have four engines running, think three.
If you have three engines running, think two.
In most occasions, the loss of one engine on a four engined aircraft was a bit of an annoyance but was seldom anything even remotely resembling an emergency.
Now, with the advance of modern economics, we are into a situation where just about everything that goes across the Pond does so on two engines so it is hardly surprising that the two engine lobby can't understand the thinking of the four engine lobby who are now in the minority.
The loss of one out of four is a bit of an annoyance.
The loss of one out of two IS AN EMERGENCY.
I don't give a toss about all of these wonderful statistics that we are constantly regaled with. It was probably ten years ago when a United Airlines 777 was headed from the Far East to the USA when it lost an engine. It took it over three hours to get to Hilo in Hawaii on the remaining engine.
Are any of you out there really going to tell me that the crew were more than happy with their situation or do you not think that they might just have wished that they had started off with four engines?
As far as I am concerned, those of you you who have become convinced that flying across the oceans of the world is statistically safer on two engines than it is on four engines have been brain-washed and are more than somewhat deluded.
Purely an observation from a retired old fart (who is still alive).
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't get it; some of the thinking. To be fair I've only flown 2 engine ETOPS, so know only the rules appertaining to that. The route is allowed to be within 3 hours engine out = 1 engine from a suitable airfield. On a B737 that is 1200nm: on B767 it was slightly further. Those are of the slower modern a/c. I'm not aware of the 'ETOPS?' rules for an engine out on a 4 engine a/c. If a 2 engine a/c, suitable equipped for ETOPS is allowed to be 1200nm from a suitable airfield, I'm mighty sure a 4 engine a/c can be almost without limits. Thus I suspect that on 3 engines they would then need to be within +/- 1200nm of a suitable airfield to continue. Then if they ended up on 2 engines they would divert to the 'within 1200nm nearest suitable airfield'.
Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
Amazing, truly amazing, that some guys on this forum think they know better than the four type rated pilots, including the two captains, on this A380 who were there and knew all the facts, including their company ops. manual and policy. Critics of this operation would do well to read the AAIB report into the BA 747 engine failure ex LAX including the reference to windmilling and seized engines.
Talk of keyboard warriors !!!
(former 4 engine guy but with 2 engine ETOPS time in the LHS, and my 76 or 75 would have been landed at the nearest suitable airport, pronto, after engine failure, but what's the big deal about an A380 on three ? )
Talk of keyboard warriors !!!
(former 4 engine guy but with 2 engine ETOPS time in the LHS, and my 76 or 75 would have been landed at the nearest suitable airport, pronto, after engine failure, but what's the big deal about an A380 on three ? )
Airbus A380 lOSES engine, goes 5000 miles on 3 engines
UPDATE : Lost engine found.
It was found attached to its pylon on the wing.
Much relief from all. !!!!!!!!!
That silly statement has about as much value and useful information as most of the posts about this minor issue.
There are some posters that are spot on.
The 4 engine drivers particularly the ones involved in the story are the only ones who really understand it all.
It really is not a big deal.
But I guess it gives Pruners something to air their considerable knowledge about.
To quote William Shakespeare " much ado about nothing "
It was found attached to its pylon on the wing.
Much relief from all. !!!!!!!!!
That silly statement has about as much value and useful information as most of the posts about this minor issue.
There are some posters that are spot on.
The 4 engine drivers particularly the ones involved in the story are the only ones who really understand it all.
It really is not a big deal.
But I guess it gives Pruners something to air their considerable knowledge about.
To quote William Shakespeare " much ado about nothing "
RAT 5
- yes
So a 737 has to be within 1200 miles on two but a quad, with all of it's extensive systems redundancy, has to be within 1200 miles on three
It's definitely a worry that people think its ok to run around on one because its "ETOPS" but down to three engines on a quad is dangerous - weird world - glad I'm retiring.
barking !!
Am I missing something?
So a 737 has to be within 1200 miles on two but a quad, with all of it's extensive systems redundancy, has to be within 1200 miles on three
It's definitely a worry that people think its ok to run around on one because its "ETOPS" but down to three engines on a quad is dangerous - weird world - glad I'm retiring.
barking !!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the best of my knowledge in 1962, there was only one four-holer capable of flying indefinitely on one donk. That was the VC-10, and it wasn't common knowledge that it could even back then! :
As an instructor in the RAF VC10 sim we had to similate the procedure for crew activity prior to ditching.
To save time we wrote a programme which meant the crew would leave Brize for Gander/Goose Bay (I forget). After many faults, during start and T.O which we would tick-off the training sheet, we would re-position the crew half-way across the Atlantic close to a weather ship. The briefing was we would cause numerous engine failures where they would apply the appropriate drills, so we could tick them as complete, then we would leave the crew with only one engine and thus they would carry out the flight side of a ditching drill.
On one occasion this crew were descending on one engine at full power and the Air Eng was dumping fuel as per....when the Capt. said "Stop dumping!".
The VC10 had levelled out at full power! A quick check of the fuel indicated they could still fly and they then established they could make it to the coast of Ireland with the prevailing wind.
As instructors we were flummoxed and, as there was another training session later, we needed get this one finished so we reversed the tailwind
However, after establishing that the computer and the condition were accurate we reviewed our training to include the possibility of flying on one engine to a better location to land or ditch.
Amazing Aircraft.
To save time we wrote a programme which meant the crew would leave Brize for Gander/Goose Bay (I forget). After many faults, during start and T.O which we would tick-off the training sheet, we would re-position the crew half-way across the Atlantic close to a weather ship. The briefing was we would cause numerous engine failures where they would apply the appropriate drills, so we could tick them as complete, then we would leave the crew with only one engine and thus they would carry out the flight side of a ditching drill.
On one occasion this crew were descending on one engine at full power and the Air Eng was dumping fuel as per....when the Capt. said "Stop dumping!".
The VC10 had levelled out at full power! A quick check of the fuel indicated they could still fly and they then established they could make it to the coast of Ireland with the prevailing wind.
As instructors we were flummoxed and, as there was another training session later, we needed get this one finished so we reversed the tailwind
However, after establishing that the computer and the condition were accurate we reviewed our training to include the possibility of flying on one engine to a better location to land or ditch.
Amazing Aircraft.
Crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific in an aeroplane with only two engines was something that would have filled me and my colleagues with horror.
As others have alluded to, the advent of stupendously powerful high-bypass donks meant that there was enough power in one of them to keep most airliners flying indefinitely on one.
For me, it was quite easy. If you have four engines running, think three.
If you have three engines running, think two.
If you have three engines running, think two.
...it is hardly surprising that the two engine lobby can't understand the thinking of the four engine lobby who are now in the minority.
The loss of one out of four is a bit of an annoyance.
The loss of one out of two IS AN EMERGENCY.
The loss of one out of two IS AN EMERGENCY.
It was probably ten years ago when a United Airlines 777 was headed from the Far East to the USA when it lost an engine.
...
Are any of you out there really going to tell me that the crew were more than happy with their situation or do you not think that they might just have wished that they had started off with four engines?
...
Are any of you out there really going to tell me that the crew were more than happy with their situation or do you not think that they might just have wished that they had started off with four engines?
As far as I am concerned, those of you you who have become convinced that flying across the oceans of the world is statistically safer on two engines than it is on four engines have been brain-washed and are more than somewhat deluded.
* - Advocate means lawyers - I prefer booze.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 15th Nov 2013 at 00:00.
AFAIK, ETOPS only applies to twin-engined aircraft.
I haven't paid much attention to the new 3 engine ETOPS rules, but the 4 engine ETOPS rules have much more to do with how the other aircraft systems perform during an extended diversion (and the diversion need not be for an engine failure, although that is one of the scenarios that needs to be evaluated).
In-flight shutdown rate is not specified for 4 engine ETOPS.
Boeing is currently in the process of obtaining ETOPS for the 747-8i.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glofish, your conclusions are not applicable - you're now into another universe with probability stats if you start to look at two engine failures on a four engine aircraft on the same flight.
You probably have a far higher chance of being hit by a meteorite.
As an industry we generally don't do, if, if, if and if and that's what is being done in this thread - there is no evidence that there is a problem here nor that engine out flight has been dealt with other than with successful outcomes.
The statistical probability calculations argue that we've more chance of an engine failure in a 3 or 4 engine aircraft etc - well, that's good, the 747 gets "safer" after it's engine failure.
Don't forget that the engine failure stats/data on which ETOPS was founded did not include many failures such as the engine stopping due to a gearbox malfunction etc - the engine had stopped and it was not possible to start it again but as it wasn't a "core engine" problem it didn't count
PS there are regs to be complied with if you lose another engine including drift down on two ..... at high weights on two engines most aircraft like the 747, A340 etc need a drift down altitude of circa 10-15,000 feet - there is still a safety net.
You probably have a far higher chance of being hit by a meteorite.
As an industry we generally don't do, if, if, if and if and that's what is being done in this thread - there is no evidence that there is a problem here nor that engine out flight has been dealt with other than with successful outcomes.
The statistical probability calculations argue that we've more chance of an engine failure in a 3 or 4 engine aircraft etc - well, that's good, the 747 gets "safer" after it's engine failure.
Don't forget that the engine failure stats/data on which ETOPS was founded did not include many failures such as the engine stopping due to a gearbox malfunction etc - the engine had stopped and it was not possible to start it again but as it wasn't a "core engine" problem it didn't count
PS there are regs to be complied with if you lose another engine including drift down on two ..... at high weights on two engines most aircraft like the 747, A340 etc need a drift down altitude of circa 10-15,000 feet - there is still a safety net.
You see if there are times when Murphy walks around doing the before flights carefully breaking each engine (*) the fault tree can get very short and simple. This is the probability of a human failure which unfortunately can be far higher than people allow for. I won't bore you with anecdotes but there are lots. So yes - if your engines are all perfectly serviced and there are no outside influences the reliability is such that the summed probability of multiple failures is vanishingly small - but common mode failures are not affected by the number of engines slushy fuel, wrong fuel or oil or fuel replenishment etc etc can lead to all of your engines going embarrassingly quiet all for the same reason - often at close to the same time.
That is why when a supposedly redundant (dualed) items both fail you are in different territory and simplistic probability no longer applies. Such a common failure means that there is the potential for an external input that was common to all engines. That's when people earn their pennies making the go/no-go decisions and the crew of course have their own 'flesh in the game' - these decisions should be soundly based.
Fault tolerance, resilience and redundancy is an interesting field
( * Muphy's Law - "If there is a way of doing something wrong - someone somewhere will do it that way."
Not to be confused with
'Sod's Law:- "If anything can go wrong - it will." )
Last edited by Ian W; 14th Nov 2013 at 23:13. Reason: Grammar
Back in the days of recips and those lovely turbo-compounds, loss of a donk before PNR would generally get a turn around.
Pan Am ditched a 377 (aka. Boeing Trimotor) next to a ship on station. Another disappeared. Happily no IFSD with us aboard. Lots of room for me and my sis to run around -- and a capacious flight deck that would put many modern condos to shame
Pan Am ditched a 377 (aka. Boeing Trimotor) next to a ship on station. Another disappeared. Happily no IFSD with us aboard. Lots of room for me and my sis to run around -- and a capacious flight deck that would put many modern condos to shame
Pan Am ditched a 377 (aka. Boeing Trimotor)
There is/was a Boeing Trimotor, and a Boeing 377. Very, very different airplanes. Boeing Trimotor was pre-WWII and could be mistaken at quick glance for the better known Ford Trimotor.
Boeing 377 was based on the B-29 and had four engine (aka Stratocruiser).
(Hows that for a thread drift
)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per a new "Appendix K" to the FAA regulations, effective no later than Jan 1 2015, all new production Part 25 passenger aircraft will be subject to "ETOPS", regardless of the number of engines
It seems that some regulators come to similar conclusions as i pointed out earlier concerning extended operations for the multi-holers.
Now why would that be? Maybe because there were some decisions when losing one of four that needed a little looking into.
This what i slightly criticised and what you can abundantly read on this site: Some jockeys and operators are a little overconfident when it comes to the capability of their 4-holer limping on three. The regulators feel the need to intervene and put in some rules.
Never nice, but mostly provoked.
Glofish, more like envious twin operators/manufacturers...
No insight as to how Brand A plans to show compliance, but in the case of Brand B it's going to mean boring holes in the sky for hundreds of hours to show their four engine airplane operates just fine on three engines or other systems failures. It's not impossible to take credit for in-service experience, but it's very, very difficult.
New regulations cost money - often lots of it. Sometimes they improve safety. More often they just cost money.
The moniker Boeing Trimotor was applied to the 377 because of the time it spent with three operating engines.\