Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles
Just wondering.....
Of course the flight was operated with an augmented crew. Were there two captains on board or does it work differently with EK?
So what if captain A elects to press on, and is relieved by captain B because of the flight duty time. Could there be a problem if this captain B does not agree with continuing towards Kuwait?
Is there any regulation in place as to who calls the shots in such cases as this?
Of course the flight was operated with an augmented crew. Were there two captains on board or does it work differently with EK?
So what if captain A elects to press on, and is relieved by captain B because of the flight duty time. Could there be a problem if this captain B does not agree with continuing towards Kuwait?
Is there any regulation in place as to who calls the shots in such cases as this?
I do wish people would stop fussing about this. On a four engine aircraft, if the engine failure is 'benign' and there are no other problems, it is no big deal. Of course one has to consider en-route alternates differently and calculate the various options in case of a further failure but, if done correctly, the whole operation is perfectly safe.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Newspaper "shock, horror" headlines sell "shock horror" newspapers.
People have been flying across the Atlantic on only TWO engines for years now. Some even do it on one.
People have been flying across the Atlantic on only TWO engines for years now. Some even do it on one.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bergerie1
I do wish people would stop fussing about this. On a four engine aircraft, if the engine failure is 'benign' and there are no other problems, it is no big deal. Of course one has to consider en-route alternates differently and calculate the various options in case of a further failure but, if done correctly, the whole operation is perfectly safe.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People have been flying across the Atlantic on only TWO engines for years now. Some even do it on one.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
I can't pedal that fast.... 
Controversial, moi?
So what if captain A elects to press on, and is relieved by captain B because of the flight duty time. Could there be a problem if this captain B does not agree with continuing towards Kuwait?
If I remember correctly, BA landed short of LHR (Stansted?) with just 9,000# of fuel.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: 90N to 45S & Everywhere in Between
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aah, the hysterical chattering of the ignorant masses.
This is why aircraft are built with four engines. There is absolutely nothing unsafe about continuing on three engines. The big twins are certified to 207 minutes and more on ONE engine.
Consider the practicalities of a diversion at the time of the engine failure which, I believe, occurred about two hours after take-off:
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
By continuing the flight, the company has 12 hours to formulate a recovery plan and position a replacement aircraft at the en-route alternate (in this case Kuwait).
The A380 completes a dramatic three-engine approach, lands and pax and crew transfer to the waiting aircraft and the mission is completed with minimum delay.
And in absolute safely.
Well done to the four professionals up front.
This is why aircraft are built with four engines. There is absolutely nothing unsafe about continuing on three engines. The big twins are certified to 207 minutes and more on ONE engine.
Consider the practicalities of a diversion at the time of the engine failure which, I believe, occurred about two hours after take-off:
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
By continuing the flight, the company has 12 hours to formulate a recovery plan and position a replacement aircraft at the en-route alternate (in this case Kuwait).
The A380 completes a dramatic three-engine approach, lands and pax and crew transfer to the waiting aircraft and the mission is completed with minimum delay.
And in absolute safely.
Well done to the four professionals up front.
Perhaps but the report on BA stated that an undamaged windmilling engine is certified for three hours...so who gives a "professional" pilot the authority to be a test pilot with pax on board?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignorance on which side?
Reminds me of the EK 777 that suffered engine damage shortly after t/o from Moscow to DXB. No Warning, or Caution message, only two or three Advisory messages. The crew continued the flight, only to discover "more than just cosmetic damage" on the right (?) engine. Luckily, it didn't cause more harm.
Statements like these make me nervous, it is like the three monkeys that see, hear and speak no evil. No abnormal indications up front on the flight deck, nothing mentioned per SOPs, so life must be good...
Are we really just becoming robots?
Reminds me of the EK 777 that suffered engine damage shortly after t/o from Moscow to DXB. No Warning, or Caution message, only two or three Advisory messages. The crew continued the flight, only to discover "more than just cosmetic damage" on the right (?) engine. Luckily, it didn't cause more harm.
There is absolutely nothing unsafe about continuing on three engines. The big twins are certified to 207 minutes and more on ONE engine.
Are we really just becoming robots?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blind Pew
Perhaps but the report on BA stated that an undamaged windmilling engine is certified for three hours...so who gives a "professional" pilot the authority to be a test pilot with pax on board?
Bl00dy drama queens here
Squawk7777
Do you think we just have a quick look at the EICAS and decide whether to continue or not? Part of the fault diagnosis will be to discuss the failure with MAINTROL, determine if there's a history with the engine, ensure the continued viability of the remaining engines etc etc. I guess you've never flown a four-engined Boeing or read the Flight Continuation Policy associated with such aircraft?
Do you think we just have a quick look at the EICAS and decide whether to continue or not? Part of the fault diagnosis will be to discuss the failure with MAINTROL, determine if there's a history with the engine, ensure the continued viability of the remaining engines etc etc. I guess you've never flown a four-engined Boeing or read the Flight Continuation Policy associated with such aircraft?