That's why I asked the question.

So unless he thinks they had two failures, then Hautemunde seems to be saying if a second engine were to fail in a high terrain, they'd face a driftdown scenario. Fair enough. And just like the twin does on every flight, for the case of a single engine failure.

Twins are a totally different animal.

When they started flying across the Atlantic they had to choose a route that took them near to alternates in Iceland and Greenland and Labrador, but with more experience of engine failures, or more properly, lack of failures, then the distance from a suitable alternate was gradually increased,statistics again not logistics.

The same philosophy must apply over the hostile territory of Afghanistan and the like, and I regret that I have no knowledge of the rules on that route - over to someone else.

Not the first 380 engine failure/shutdown in flt.

Surprised if MEL states number of eninges fitted/required, may be ECAM msg.

380 can ferry on 3, one 380 did this a few months ago between LHR/DXB.

Appears flight was nice and safe, well done all round.

Does anyone know problem with this so called engine problem ???

Indeed it was and it would have been after consultation with Ops/Engineering in Singapore, the Duty Ops Manager and the Duty Engineering Manager would have been contacted, (at 22.00 approx. local) and asked for their opinion which would have been passed to the captain. On today's modern aircraft just bring up a page on ACARS, identify the phone number you want, select the key and within seconds you will be talking, via satellite link, to base operations, clear as a bell.

A four engined long haul transport on three engines is still very flexible provided there has been no fire. The final decision will always rest with the captain but the advice of people who have the 'big picture' is the way to go, if it is possible and above all safe.

No Captain is ever going to be satisfied until he can reply to the Flt. Eng, telling him that No. 8 has failed, with the response ' which side ? "

Not quite there, but there's always the dreaded 7-engine approach on the B52!

Technically there is nothing to guarantee that all four engines won't stop at exactly the same time - why not ?

They have done in the past, such as BA flight 009.

British Airways Flight 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm a bit dumbfounded on the "why not go to DXB" thing.

1) Great circle between CDG and SIN goes nowhere near DXB

2) Emirates A380s are Engine Alliance powered; SQs are Rolls powered. Ergo there isn't a spare engine in DXB.

Why go back? Well I guess because there are not many diversion airfields in Siberia that can house 444 pax should the aircraft have to divert for a second engine problem or, indeed, any other issue.

3-engined ferrying as you know, joetom, is a different ballgame from carrying revenue pax.

Also there may be limitations on which diversion airfields the A380 could get into but I'd be very surprised if, as suggested by a previous poster, this was a runway strength problem. After all, the A380 has a lower ACN than a 77ER, does it not? More weight, yes, but more wheels, too!

Route will not be over Siberia. But more likely over eastern Europe, Southern former Soviet countries, afghanistan, pakistan, india and then the bay of bengal to singapore.

Command, and the training for . . .
 

This whole discussion reminds me of when I was training young Capts on the F27.

Late in training I'd hold the compressor overheat warning light press to test for a min (let go then - it got hot) to get them to think big picture.

The correct answer was "What was the phone number for the big pub we'd just flown past, so we could get the pax sorted after a successful shut down & divert?" ;)

And guess what? On NewCapt #4's check-out the compressor overheat light came on.

His reaction? "How did the #*% did he (on the jump seat) do that without hitting the press-to test?"

Switched on FO shot back to start the drill, and me pupil sailed through.

Point is, kids, there are a quidzillion things that you consider, and what management(s) suggest is just *one of them. All laws that I am aware of still state the buck stops with the Captain.

*That is the point.

Be one.

I don't agree with that. Neither the Captain, nor his Management have the ability to say if any engine is likely to fail or not. If they had this ability they would have replaced number 1 engine before the first flight.

Flying almost 3 hours over Europe with 500 souls and an engine out is not a responsible decision. There were many airports suitable for a landing along the way. Why return to Paris?

I suppose it is definitely because of maintenance possibilities. SQ has a station there, Airbus is not far away, nor is the engine alliance...

With a twin engined aircraft it says in our own procedures "Land at the nearast suitable airport" however as you know it's perfectly safe to fly on one engine in a twin. When flying on 3 out of 4 engines in an A380 or 747, you know you have more then enough performance left: knowing it can fly on 2 as well...

If it's not in the checklist to land ASAP, and you feel happy to continue to the point your company would like you to go then why not help the company and thus probably your pax as well!
If your not happy go somewhere else! But you can usally come to a good agreement, and in the end your the captain of the flight so it's your decision.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. SQ have RR engines. :ugh:

Why do they care where the Engine Alliance are? :ugh::ugh:

I am not familiar with the performance of the A380. How well can it fly in N-2 situation with full pax and fuel?

Any 380 crew out there that can answer the question: "assuming the 2 engine drift down was safe would it have made it to Singapore on 3?" One has to assume he left Paris with no excess fuel.

3 Eng crz
 

Generally a 4 ENG A/C operating on 3 ENGs will require 10% extra trip fuel. Therefore with even 5 % contingency fuel the is no chance of continuing to destination. However if an engine failed at approx 1/2 way to WSSS then if all contingency remains then there is a good chance if the require Alternate is close to Destination.

This thread is turning into ridiculous spotter speculations.

Thanks for that Captain Groper.
As he lost the engine say 25% into his flight he would have landed at WSSS having eaten a small way into his diversion fuel. It is acceptable practice under Eu ops to throw away alt fuel if desination has more than 1 runway. (do not know about Singapore regs). I know the 747 from LAX divided the camp as to whether it was wise, I wonder how the camp would divide on this one?

Just think about it ?
 

You were not in command, you know nothing of the dialogue between the acft & maintrol/ops control, so you have no authority to pass comments on SQ's operational
decision:= Most of you should be in the spotters box:ugh: SQ A380 crews alone should comment:ok:

I think you will find that SQ procedures are to land at nearest suitable, albeit different from the rest of us.

A 380 on 3 will NOT make it to planned destination at optimum engine out altitude.Even with 10 % extra on the contingency fuel.He had 10 hours+ of flight time when it happened.High ground starting within 15-30 minutes(depending on route taken that day),he probably would spend the good part of this year explaning to managment why he chose to continue,rather than return/divert.CP/PNR comes to mind too doesn't it(yes it works on 4 engines too!).Take 20 minutes to decide,why....take some more.Its not a land asap situation.But take the right decision.With regard to safety,commercial angles and pax comfort.In that very order.And well,if endorsed by the company,then you dont have to spend the better part of your next few days off at the chief pilot's office explaining/justifying your call.HE was part of your call.And he endorsed it! Out here its called CRM...:cool:. Involve the company.
Another thing one must keep in mind when dealing with a super sensitive airline such as SQ. The culture here is slightly different here from what we have been used to in the western world. An Acars 'suggestion' is taken,and assumed to be a strong 'recommendation'. Unless you can show very very strongly otherwise.At that point in time OR later in the sterility of your CP's office! Once accepted,it has to be executed as smoothly and safely as possible.In most cases the company is about 99% correct.Compared to the 2 heads in the cockpit,they have 200 to refer to at the FOCC control room.And then there is the concern of the 380 support system availaible after the diversion.Its not as if this is a 747.
I could go on and on here.Having said that,all in all a great job done.Flying wise and administratively(spello...??).
Now to find out why that big round thing stopped turning...:ouch:

Danny or whoever runs this board, can we have a flag or avtar or something that differentiates from Professional Pilots and those who are not! That way I don't have to wade through pages of...Why didn't he divert to Sywel there's a very good Chip Shop there!!!

Lord help us!

C-N Never heard of TOU/VOR? One of the app. for TLS/LFBO would have beenone of the initial clearances!

sorry for the drift, but I still DON'T understand. You mean the TOU/VOR in Washington?
there's also TOU/VOR just north of TLS, but "landing in TOU"? I won't call it landing, it's crashing into a VOR. There's only three TOU, an airport and 02 VORs. Is TOU really an approach? Can't find any TOU STAR either. Didn't intend to offend but as what i've posted, just to clarify things, as TOU is ambiguous if not misleading.

And still no idea why the "big round thing" stopped turning..........?

Seems Istanbul was a possible alternate:

But no comment (yet) on why.

- GY

Yea verily - and forsooth. (FOR SALE - One worn out crap detector.)

What a pointless waste of cyberspace this whole thread is!!! You want to discuss my engine failures that I had some years ago - just as exciting and mind blowing non events:ugh::ugh::ugh::{:{:{

Blue side up................

I for one will never question a pilots decision when he is on the hot seat but, two thoughts come to mind :
1: I thought that any 4 engine A/C can continue to destination “fuel wise “ by design .
2 : I remember “vaguely “ there was a recommendation by Air Bus not to fly a 340 for instance on 3 engines more than 7 hours due to lubrication issues if the engine did not seize .
can any one confirm this or deny it ?
Thanks

mkdar,

The 340-300 burns about 10% more (in total) than 4 eng when down to 3. No company will carry the extra fuel for a "just in case" engine fail scenario.

If my memory serves me correctly, it used to be about 3 hours, later extended to about 7.

Back to the thread.....

Why did it "fail"?

I believe 747's maiden commercial flight had an engine problem.

The decision to fly back to Paris is not a simple coin toss hastily taken decision. I believe the Capt, after judging that it's not a "Mayday" issue, must have called Maintrol to ask them on suggestions and after assessing the situation and roping in FOCC, must have made the decision to land in Paris, based on financial and logistical reasons. If the captain, at any point in time, felt that safety of the a/c was in danger(land ASAP), he would have landed at the nearest alternative, no questions asked. Remember, the company can only give him suggestions, not command him. Capt takes the final decision.
If an IFSD happened on a twin, the decision to land would have been taken in milli-seconds after relight fails.

For us knowledgable in aircrafts, we know that losing an engine in a 4 holer is not an issue and the aircraft can continue the journey with the remaining engines. But to the general public, losing an engine on any aircraft is a catastrophe. Can you imagine the public repercussion if they knew that SQ flew an aircraft with one engine down for 10 hours. SQ image would have been tarnished.

The CEO of the airline would benefit from a bit more knowledge of things 'aviation' if the quote from him is correct.

Obviously the right decision for reasons already given.Why do we get annoyed when discussing incidents like these?Its an open forum and an excellent chance to explain the thinking behind the decision with anyone interested.That is a good thing and theres no need to get elitist when explaining the logic to the curious.

Agreed. I try and pose questions to increase my understanding, rather than profer unwanted opinions outside my knowledge and experience (although I have a bit of that having many years experience building airports and the past 40 flying various small flying machines).

I am a regular flyer between Qatar and mid west USA and points in between but I have never posed as a Big Jet Driver and my profile is clear. (I don't care if I have a flag that says Aviation Industry Professional but not qualified on big jets).

Why then is it so easy to get flamed ? (dons hard hat again !)

What a waste of time and bandwidth, 74 posts to discuss an engine shutdown!:ugh:

Yet interestingly not a single post that either reports or speculates on the crux .... what actually happened to the engine in question. :ugh:

It wasn't always that way...but it changed right after one of their first 747's had two fail enroute (about forty minutes apart) enroute to ATH and a third wound down on the taxiway...severe fuel contamination ex-BAH.:ooh:

Don't quote me, but my sources in the grapevine say it could be a bearing failure.

Wasting whose time ? If it is such a problem why are you following it ?

QUOTE Yet interestingly not a single post that answers the question of what actually happened to the engine in question.

The Aviation Herald www.avherald.com usually a very reliable source say that "the crew detected an oil leak in engine #1 (Trent 970, outboard left hand) and decided to shut the engine down".

Nothing is said about how it was detected, i.e. oil observed on engine cowling or decrease in measured quantity.

So grab a beer for yourself. If you are not interested by this topic, nobody forces you to read it...

We are just discussing about an engine failure in a largest airliner flying today. I do find the subject very interesting and I am eager to read other professionals opinion about this failure and the crew performance.