Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glofish, more like envious twin operators/manufacturers...
We basically discussed two incidents, the BA and the EK one, one on a B and the other on a A. Both airlines operate 2-holers and 4-holers.
Why would either manufacturer or airline be envious?
I was led to believe that the new rules for 3/4 engines are Extended Range Operations (EROPS) and are going to be 240 minutes from a suitable airport because that is the maximum cargo fire suppression time on most models.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref: G.B.Sense.
RAT 5 "Am I missing something?"
- 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 !!
Just to correct your mistaken impression of my thinking. I did not say a 3/4 engine a/c had to be within 1200nm of suitable. I do not know the rules and that is why I asked the question. It has not been answered by those in the know, so I am still ignorant of the rules. I do not profess to pontificate on things about which I do not know 100% of facts. IMHO maybe, but not factual statements.
RAT 5 "Am I missing something?"
- 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 !!
Just to correct your mistaken impression of my thinking. I did not say a 3/4 engine a/c had to be within 1200nm of suitable. I do not know the rules and that is why I asked the question. It has not been answered by those in the know, so I am still ignorant of the rules. I do not profess to pontificate on things about which I do not know 100% of facts. IMHO maybe, but not factual statements.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
As fly3 points out, the "ETOPS" expansion to quads is focused on systems and fires. They will still have the option to press on with 3, so the regulators are not in your camp.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming Fly3 is correct (and that is my understanding also) the extension of an ETOPS scenario to 3/4 engine a/c has little to do with this current discussion. I would have expected most crews to 'want' somewhere to go if they have a hold fire so as long as these a/c remain within the 'circle' there is nothing to stop continuing with a 'suitable' other failure.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two engine , no acrs
Hi Fellow Aviators!
Lovely to spend a standby day educating myself on this tread.
I have to say i like commanding a medium twin in Europe with no acars, why , You say :my craft, my crew and my conclusion and execution ! ( as per sop aom and regs. Of course)
About the case:
When in Parliament on the other hand some bright fella might have sugested a pit-stop in Tolouse the home of the Airbus ,for a fuelpump (s) replasment and bar replenisment , crewchange. Before charging on , max delay 2 hrs!?
On the other issue, : Engine shutdown or failiur , no damage or unrelated fail/mel :
"Captain, nr 1 of 4 has failed ,now we have 3 left and statistics tells me we shall not have another engine fail the next 10 million hrs, by the time we are out of fuel, so as per conferancecall and sop I sugest we press on to destination, Sir!
Correct, OR,:in a short time the rest of the fueltonoiceconwerters are going silent.
Try Airtransat, Aircanada , Ba 777 , KLM . When one engine fails statistics tells us the chances of the next engine to fail has gone up to one in 5000 . Ie the next 5 sec, min or 5 HRS ,the next one WILL fail , statisticaly.
Point is , You divert anyway. In this case to Airbus Main.
Lovely to spend a standby day educating myself on this tread.
I have to say i like commanding a medium twin in Europe with no acars, why , You say :my craft, my crew and my conclusion and execution ! ( as per sop aom and regs. Of course)
About the case:
When in Parliament on the other hand some bright fella might have sugested a pit-stop in Tolouse the home of the Airbus ,for a fuelpump (s) replasment and bar replenisment , crewchange. Before charging on , max delay 2 hrs!?
On the other issue, : Engine shutdown or failiur , no damage or unrelated fail/mel :
"Captain, nr 1 of 4 has failed ,now we have 3 left and statistics tells me we shall not have another engine fail the next 10 million hrs, by the time we are out of fuel, so as per conferancecall and sop I sugest we press on to destination, Sir!
Correct, OR,:in a short time the rest of the fueltonoiceconwerters are going silent.
Try Airtransat, Aircanada , Ba 777 , KLM . When one engine fails statistics tells us the chances of the next engine to fail has gone up to one in 5000 . Ie the next 5 sec, min or 5 HRS ,the next one WILL fail , statisticaly.
Point is , You divert anyway. In this case to Airbus Main.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sober Lark
Mr Sober
As You have LH experiance and I not, can you tell me wich flight plan system they, You use that brings us to dest on one less engine? It aint LIDO or pilotbrief,that I know.
And did the Ba 747 and the A-380 make it to dest. .?
Again -1 eng ,divert,
Questtion is were, say 737-800 OSL - Canary, :mtow 78 000kg ,max land 65andabit. N-1 at v2 winter , Scandiland, :ba good o/1000 ,
Hahn Frankfurt :cavok 10c.
I goto HHN, why , 11 tons to burn, no dump,
In Hahn I get arrested.
Why?
As You have LH experiance and I not, can you tell me wich flight plan system they, You use that brings us to dest on one less engine? It aint LIDO or pilotbrief,that I know.
And did the Ba 747 and the A-380 make it to dest. .?
Again -1 eng ,divert,
Questtion is were, say 737-800 OSL - Canary, :mtow 78 000kg ,max land 65andabit. N-1 at v2 winter , Scandiland, :ba good o/1000 ,
Hahn Frankfurt :cavok 10c.
I goto HHN, why , 11 tons to burn, no dump,
In Hahn I get arrested.
Why?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glofish you wrote:
I don't think you get it yet. They are not "limping" on three. The 4 engined aircraft have in effect become a Tristar except as the Tristar could not get much further than London to Bangor the 4 engine planes with an engine out are far more capable. They have adequate redundancy and will not crash if they lose another engine. In the event they did lose another engine and were down to two they would have to land at the nearest suitable airport, just as a twin has to if it loses an engine.
As regards previous comments asking what would happen if there was damage and a sudden leak started. The crew will be doing regular fuel checks and monitoring the situation and would be well aware of their drift down altitude should another engine fail and will be planning for it.
Their seems to be an attitude prevalent on this forum that if an aircraft has a technical problem it should immediately divert and land. That is actually a cop out. It takes skill to assess a situation and continue safely and legally to destination. The armchair theorists have their own judgement and do not appear to understand MEL, ADDs or commercial operations. Quite a few technical problems do have a checklist that direct the crew to land at the nearest suitable airport. A single engine failure on a 4 engine aircraft does not merit this. I write this as someone with many years experience on the 747.
Some jockeys and operators are a little overconfident when it comes to the capability of their 4-holer limping on three.
As regards previous comments asking what would happen if there was damage and a sudden leak started. The crew will be doing regular fuel checks and monitoring the situation and would be well aware of their drift down altitude should another engine fail and will be planning for it.
Their seems to be an attitude prevalent on this forum that if an aircraft has a technical problem it should immediately divert and land. That is actually a cop out. It takes skill to assess a situation and continue safely and legally to destination. The armchair theorists have their own judgement and do not appear to understand MEL, ADDs or commercial operations. Quite a few technical problems do have a checklist that direct the crew to land at the nearest suitable airport. A single engine failure on a 4 engine aircraft does not merit this. I write this as someone with many years experience on the 747.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a few people (non airlines pilots) here are getting ETOPS confused, it was created to make flying safer for twins, enhanced maintenance practices, flight planning, enroute weather etc the reason being should a twin have an engine failure it must divert and have the fuel to do it, these rules will enhance 3-4 engine ops but you're dreaming if you think the 3-4 engine aircraft will be required to divert to the nearest suitable like a twin, they will likely continue to the furthest suitable and land with whatever company/aviation body reserves that are required for a 3-4 engine landing at destination. Just like EK and BA (without the incorrect fuel balancing procedure) they would have made the destination had they been using the Boeing fuel balance procedure.
ETOPS isn't you must divert with an engine failure, it's should you have a engine failure the aviation body has made rules that the route is safe with suitable diversion airfields within range. And they've put maintenance practices in place to make failures even more unlikely.
FCOMs/QRHs/SOPs are "Land ASAP" or "plan to land at the nearest suitable" airfield.
Twin - Engine fail - ETOPS airfield "check", QRH - Land at nearest suitable.
3-4 engine - Engine fail - ETOPS airfields "check", QRH - "checklist complete"
The whole fire suppression thing is a nice planning stage exercise as we've seen on several occasions planes on fire don't last 30 mins let alone 240!
ETOPS isn't you must divert with an engine failure, it's should you have a engine failure the aviation body has made rules that the route is safe with suitable diversion airfields within range. And they've put maintenance practices in place to make failures even more unlikely.
FCOMs/QRHs/SOPs are "Land ASAP" or "plan to land at the nearest suitable" airfield.
Twin - Engine fail - ETOPS airfield "check", QRH - Land at nearest suitable.
3-4 engine - Engine fail - ETOPS airfields "check", QRH - "checklist complete"
The whole fire suppression thing is a nice planning stage exercise as we've seen on several occasions planes on fire don't last 30 mins let alone 240!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A similar mistake led to three of four engines failing on a BAe 146 of the Queen's Flight in 1997:
BBC News | UK | Three engines fail on Royal plane
(Though I'm aware that some wags consider the 146 to be equipped not so much with four engines as five APUs...
)My thoughts exactly.
Well, one would hope so - but even the most skilled pilots can sometimes misjudge a situation. The Captain of the Air Transat A330 that dead-sticked into the Azores did a bang-up job in saving his aircraft and for that he deserves full credit, but on the other hand he also spent a significant amount of time insisting that the abnormal fuel indications must have been a computer error, and ordered the crossfeed valves to be opened. Don't get me wrong, as a techie myself I can completely understand a little healthy scepticism when it comes to technology - but refusing to give it the benefit of the doubt and plan accordingly meant that he exposed his passengers and crew to significantly more danger than would otherwise have been the case.
I have had 2 747s with engine failures continue to dest in the last couple of years. I'm not naming the carriers (they were not Emirates or BA) no emergency declared, both descended and slowed, nothing major
Eventually more (not all) will understand the true statistics. That the odds of not being able to safely divert with an initial engine out failure condition is higher for a quad than a twin per flight segment.
Thankfully the odds for either are quite low and I wouldn't expect more than one in 20 years.
Thankfully the odds for either are quite low and I wouldn't expect more than one in 20 years.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... what if the An-225 loses an engine?
Decisions....decisions....
I think I read somewhere - perhaps in this very thread - that Kuwait was a logistics choice more than a fuel choice.
Last edited by rottenray; 16th Nov 2013 at 03:39.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That the odds of not being able to safely divert with an initial engine out
failure condition is higher for a quad than a twin per flight segment.
A universe where rational thought no longer exists.
Amazing that, to some twins are considered safer because there's 'less to go wrong'
I suppose when both engines have failed they are as safe as possible
Amazing that, to some twins are considered safer because there's 'less to go wrong'
I suppose when both engines have failed they are as safe as possible
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stilton
At the same level we can state:
Amazing that, to some, 4-holers having lost one of them seem as safe as Pampers because nothing more can go wrong to harm it .......
See the irony?
No one basically compared a twin to a 4-holer her. A twin losing a donkey is on emergency and will go down asap, ETOPS or 60min, whatever.
A 4-holer has the option to continue until it runs dry. Sure thing.
BUT, what we said, and tried to provide some arguments, and have been sometimes ridiculed as if we were pure beginners, is that this still needs careful consideration, because it IS an abnormal situation after all.
Simply take this as a contribution to a discussion and not an admonishment! Some reactions are more than condescending.
Leaves the question as to with which skipper you would prefer to be a FO raising some concern about a decision: The one listening to your argument, even very conservative ones, or the one telling you off in a condescending way, pointing out to the prowesses of a 4-holer ......
At the same level we can state:
Amazing that, to some, 4-holers having lost one of them seem as safe as Pampers because nothing more can go wrong to harm it .......
See the irony?
No one basically compared a twin to a 4-holer her. A twin losing a donkey is on emergency and will go down asap, ETOPS or 60min, whatever.
A 4-holer has the option to continue until it runs dry. Sure thing.
BUT, what we said, and tried to provide some arguments, and have been sometimes ridiculed as if we were pure beginners, is that this still needs careful consideration, because it IS an abnormal situation after all.
Simply take this as a contribution to a discussion and not an admonishment! Some reactions are more than condescending.
Leaves the question as to with which skipper you would prefer to be a FO raising some concern about a decision: The one listening to your argument, even very conservative ones, or the one telling you off in a condescending way, pointing out to the prowesses of a 4-holer ......
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glofish,
The manual (Part A) states actions in the event of an engine failure and continued flight, most crew know this usually by memory however it would obviously be reviewed in a real event.
Once all those boxes are ticked (consider a second engine failure, have other systems been affected other than what's a result of the engine shutdown, fuel req on 3, fuel req on 2, terrain on 3, terrain on 2, alternates/weather etc including the commander considers it safe to do so).
I'm sure most concerns would have been raised and discussed simply by going through Part A, both crew would clearly be in the same loop and if the 'go' boxes can't be met the prowess of a 4 holer won't cut it either. If someone thinks it's unsafe to continue on 3 they better not even leave the gate when boarding a twin. The rules that allow a twin to depart the gate are just like the rules that allow a 3-4 engine A/C with an engine failure to continue.
The manual (Part A) states actions in the event of an engine failure and continued flight, most crew know this usually by memory however it would obviously be reviewed in a real event.
Once all those boxes are ticked (consider a second engine failure, have other systems been affected other than what's a result of the engine shutdown, fuel req on 3, fuel req on 2, terrain on 3, terrain on 2, alternates/weather etc including the commander considers it safe to do so).
I'm sure most concerns would have been raised and discussed simply by going through Part A, both crew would clearly be in the same loop and if the 'go' boxes can't be met the prowess of a 4 holer won't cut it either. If someone thinks it's unsafe to continue on 3 they better not even leave the gate when boarding a twin. The rules that allow a twin to depart the gate are just like the rules that allow a 3-4 engine A/C with an engine failure to continue.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone thinks it's unsafe to continue on 3 they better not even leave the gate when boarding a twin
Nothing more to add. I rest my case.
Last edited by glofish; 16th Nov 2013 at 16:01. Reason: clarification