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.