Perhaps because all of the abnormal indications on this paticular flight related to the number 4 engine only and it was that one that finally threw it's toys out...

I fail to see your logic. Three is still better than two - at least in my eyes when I'm crossing several thousand miles of ocean or mountain-chain!

Gosh! 5000 miles on 3 - just think how far it could go on 2.....................:p

I hate it when engines simply flame out as compared to tossing their cookies. Makes me think of contamination problems likely to affect all engines eventually.

Of course I wouldn't trust this report either :)

Are we really just becoming robots?

Squawk, Habibi you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Robots probably would have diverted immediately. The crew involved with this particular incident would have analysed the situation to some significant degree and consulted with MCC before committing to a decision.

The term we use is airmanship.

Could've made Dubai, maybe. I'd have shut down another...

;)

As I said. All of the ECAM warnings involved only the number 4 engine which eventually flamed out 2 hours later... Fuel pump failure, so no, it didn't just flame out on a whim:hmm:

Shut 'em all down and go anywhere you want as you'll be up there all day. Or was that Aer Lingus:D?

Do all those abnormal indications in the cockpit give you a complete overview of the situation? How can you be certain that there is not more to it? Let's look back a couple of months: Did the EK 777 crew (flight 132) have an indication of the outside physical damage? The indications available on the flight deck do not necessarily reveal the entire situation. Continuing a flight because everything seems normal, does not mean that it is safe.

Flying on one engine isn't a big deal either! Or with partial landing gear. Just ask the crew of HL-3378. The authorities were so impressed by the captain's decision that they revoked his license (shortly before his retirement).

Airmanship. Where do you draw the line between operational need (better: pressure) and safety? One could also argue because a certain item is MEL'd that it is (still) safe.

Where's the attention to detail?

and I just posted the link. imagine if I had actually said something.


and what I would have said was: ;-)

Better still, lets look back 10 or 20 or 40 years and all those millions of flights that dangerously flew around with "normal" indications. Do all those NORMAL indications in the cockpit give you a COMPLETE overview of the situation?

You will never have a complete overview in the same way a medical check doesn't mean you will be fit to fly for a year.

As was said earlier, it's airmanship based on experience, information, 3rd party input.

Better take the boat then :ugh:

Another way of using ignorance as an excuse? Or give in to company pressure?

Oddly, what about your pet argument when it comes to EK132 that I previously mentioned? Or applying it to HL-3378? :ugh:

B-b-b-b-but you are trying to minimize the risk (aka safety) and pushing your luck does not make it safe. Planes have become more complex with more possibilities of failures. Just because something has been done like this 40 years ago, doesn't make it safe!

One only needs to recall those very dangerous days prior to the mandatory high-viz vest requirement! ;) :hmm:

I'm fairly sure that the decision would have been made with the help/ consultation of their engineering department. By that I mean the engineering department would have been receiving real time data on the health of the aircraft, this is usually a lot more detailed than what is presented to the pilots.

In 40 years I've never had an engine failure and may it be so for the next couple before I call it a day. If after ticking all the boxes, I would also continue on 3 engines if I thought it were safe.

It is most primitive to conceptualize safety (or risk) as a binary parameter; that is, something is either "safe" or "not safe". Lets not perpetuate this foolishness, eh?

In the regulatory and engineering world, risk is measured as an analog quantity - x events per 100 million hours, etc.

Obviously, one needs an experience base to make sense of this science.

I'd be terrified flying in a four-engine plane - the risk of an engine failing is TWICE as great as in a twin!

(and ferry pilot Max Conrad preferred flying a single across the pond.) :ok:

(And you won't get me anyways near a B-52...) :rolleyes:

With passengers in the back I believe the convenience of service facilities and whether you have to buy room nights should not be the issue. The only issue should be "Which airport is the safest option at this point."

There have been a number of successfully continued flights in the last few years but I am wondering what the inspector would say in the case of a further shutdown and crash when the aircraft has flown past a safe landing point and further, what the flying public would think of the airline.

But then I prefer safety to convenience. Once we do something marginal we get used to it and sooner or later it becomes 'standard practice.' Just personally I think adjusted power take offs for noise reduction and 'saving the engines' are madness and the idea that we should fly an aircraft with three hundred passengers on it five thousand miles with a major systems failure, (and a quarter of your engine power lost is a major failure,) as an alternative to a safe landing that is immediately available is madness too. Just because the aviation community has got used to the idea doesn't make it sensible.

Sooner or later this will go wrong and then we'll have a major reset.

chrisvj

yours is really something to think about. it is steady and well thought out...from the perspective of our passengers.

what could have happened?

when a pilot makes a decision, does he do it with the best interest of his:

company

crew

passengers

self?


I would also sort of like to know what happened to the joke about the B52 and why it, and my post saying if it were an F4 it would be funnier , are no longer on this thread.?


and yes, the regulations would allow for this operation.

but just because something is ''legal'' does it make for the best decision?

But then I prefer safety to convenience. Once we do something marginal we get used to it and sooner or later it becomes 'standard practice.' Just personally I think adjusted power take offs for noise reduction and 'saving the engines' are madness and the idea that we should fly an aircraft with three hundred passengers on it five thousand miles with a major systems failure, (and a quarter of your engine power lost is a major failure,) as an alternative to a safe landing that is immediately available is madness too. Just because the aviation community has got used to the idea doesn't make it sensible.


What a load of tosh!! You assume there is no risk assessment! The crew would have looked at all the options! They would have reviewed their situation and made contingency plans for the remainder of the flight. Hence their eventual diversion! :ugh:

Normal operations on a well run four engine aeroplane!

Another non event that prompts a boat load of uninformed comments from many here who have never qualified to fly anything with more than one or two engines, and probably not even jet ones!

In the A380, after an engine has failed, does the telemetry for that engine still get transmitted? Limitations on windmilling I heard about, on a different and older design engine, were to do with ancillaries, like pumps and generators etc. that were driven by the engine and relied on the engine oil supply to function properly, might overheat if the oil supply and/or pressure dropped below an acceptable value and led to seizure of the ancillary component and damage to the engine. Functioning telemetry might well be able to monitor this thus removing any set time limit for windmilling?

Speaking from long experience with modern turbines:

Windmilling is a non-issue. Short of oil starvation, you can fly with one shut down until you run the tanks dry, and bearings/seals/pumps will suffer no harm.

And derated and/or reduced-thrust ops are so universally standard that they form the very foundation for the very safe & economical airline industry. Pprune seems to attract a few trolls who have never earned airline stripes, and they profess to have a better plan - but their engines get yanked many times more often than the airlines' engines. Hot rodding is just fine, but don't expect the airline pax to subsidize all that noise!