This is gonna turn into a 2000 post thread, just like the BA on three.:E

In the case of KLM, when we looked at the data afterwards it appears that they aborted what would have been successful starts if they'd just left them alone (it was autostart equipped). However you are likely correct that the hot/cold cycles helped clear some of the glass that formed in the turbine, making subsequent start attempts 'more' successful.

The newer Boeing airplanes (787 and 747-8) have improved 'autostart is progressing' EICAS indications, in part due what happened during the KLM ash encounter.

On 20th of November, a chartered plane from SLM flew on one engine from SPL to Paramaribo, a trip of 9hrs plus.
This was a 767, after take off from SPL there was a loud bang and one of the two engines packed up.
The AC continued its flight to Paramaribo, where it landed safely.
No further news.

A 4-engine plane can safely fly with one shut down, however, when you have dozens of airports around you, drop an engine and decide to still head out over thousands of miles of cold ocean, I fail to understand why the Capt did not choose to turn around.
The cause of the failure was determined after the jet landed.
Sure, it's inconvenient and expensive to turn back, but how could he be so sure the remaining engines would not experience any issues and commit his passengers lives to that assumption for several hours, without knowing 100% why the failure happened.

Further news appears to be that engine didn't fail. Just burped shortly after takeoff, then normal operation across the pond:


Incident: Euro Atlantic B763 at Amsterdam on Nov 20th 2013, engine surge on departure, continued across Atlantic

So two A380s take off from Dubai and one has an engine failure hours later should the other one divert as well?

TIme to shut the thread ..... no pilots left ... only experts who have never flown an aircraft

I do most of my flying with one engine. Even with no engine problems, the answer to the question above is "The one I just left".:) I still press on.

Good Business Sense


You are so right!

to sum it all up.....SO WHAT!!!...

What about Kegworth? Stretching it a bit, I admit, and they were already on the home stretch, but one stopped producing power because it went bang, the other because it was shut down.

Stretching it quite a bit I'd say. Big difference between shutting down a perfectly good engine in response to the failure of the other engine, and a legitimate independent failure of both engines.

Granted, it wouldn't be nearly as bad had it happened on a 4 banger, but adding engines to protect against the crew shutting down the wrong engine after a failure isn't a particularly convincing argument :eek:

"A 4-engine plane can safely fly with one shut down, however, when you have dozens of airports around you, drop an engine and decide to still head out over thousands of miles of cold ocean, I fail to understand why the Capt did not choose to turn around."


You miss the point. A 4 engine airplane can often safely fly with TWO engines shut down. Thus loss of 1 is an issue to manage, and it might be prudently managed by pressing on -- IAW with 70 years of industry experience.

Let's face it 3 engine ferries are normal.:)

Were the flight crew qualified, current, and experienced to carry out 3 engine flights of such a distance with passengers and freight? Consideration of a second engine failure procedure and performance implications must have made for an unrestful crossing.

As a passenger it's not all about stir fried lobster, flat beds, showers and vanity tables.

Sober Lark,

Yep they are all trained and qualified in three ENG continuation, and well supported by a despatch team (also trained) and Engineering team (in real time and also trained). The companies OPs Manual addresses the when/what and how it can and can not be done (approved of course by overseeing authority). Its all well thought out and planned for as the aircraft is designed to be able to do it.
And as a PAX it is all about the Lie flat bed, cocktails and showers (you wont find that on the twin), as they not qualified for anything else. Nor should they be.

Correct. And of the few pilots that have posted recently, not many seem to have any four-engine experience.

Agreed. That's why I like Ironbutt's post =236= . Are the Mods on leave or something ? Of course, you don't have to read everything. I gave up after a few posts but looked in, now and again, to see where it was all going. Astonishing drivel. Lose one donk out of four (?), yeah, drills etc, re-plan for lower level, satisfy the CRM pundits with mnemonical diarrhoe like FORDEC,NOSDEC, FLIGHTDEC (I don't know what dek)-----------make a committee decision (don't forget to consult the Junior Cabin Attendant on the hours issue) and THEN, (not a mnemonic) summon the CA looking after you & ask what's for supper . On thread, these guys did everything right. Text book example for the rest of us to admire & replocate.

Not time to worry
 

Flarepilot

[QUOTE]lose engine...worry for 12 hours get close to home./QUOTE]

Time to worry is when your down to 2 engines and could have landed an hour ago. In all seriousness if you are established enroute and need to do a precautionary shutdown, of course you consider your options. The obvious being the destination and enroute weather. Next I would consider my options for landing short if need be, again check the weather. And if I were flying in South America I would check the MEA's over the Andes and ask for a reroute or if need be or land short of the destination. I really don't understand all the excitement about flying with an engine out.

Regards

Hmmm.

Within my failing memory, I recall an airline or two expressing reluctance to order the DC-10 or TriStar; Just how many customers would be comfortable flying the pond on fewer than four?

But that was then... :}