That may well be true of the A380 (though it's not immediately obvious why), but as a generalisation re twins vs 4-engined aircraft it isn't.

Nothing to discuss at all!
ANY 4-eng aircraft MAY continue to the destination!!!
Good job, well done!

:= May I suggest to exclude A340-200s and -300s ...?

Gravity Feed?
 

OK, obviously the engine could not gravity-feed.

And I suppose the reason is "because they didn't design it that way".

Excuse my ignorance: I thought all wet-wing aircraft with under-slung engines could gravity-feed fuel to the engines if you kept the tank above the engine full.

So my question is "Why did they design the A-380 so that it can't gravity-feed?"

Or are you saying that the failure of one of the pumps blocked the fuel line to the No. 4 engine?

Curious minds...

Deefer Dog, what a very rude chap you are, what type of power plant one has hanging off ones wing is not an indication of ones ability or knowledge.

There are many talented individuals who have never operated jet equipment, they are not lesser people because of that, you sir are a brigand.


jefferson-airplane said...

Option 2 is irrelevant in this instance.

Really? I absolutely doubt that... :ugh:

True, but posts around here sometimes correlate with knowledge and it is only natural to assume folks who have no idea about four engine long range operations have never participated in them - alternative explanation would be just too scary. I'll never understand why people feel the need to parade their opinionated ignorance on the site that has "Professional" in its title. If you want to impress someone with your "knowledge" of quad operations or whatever, why don't you go with your comments to some general media outlet? Larger public and smaller chance of calling your bluff there.

I don't know why people would be upset with the crew on these sorts of decisions anyway.

It's long standing policy for operators of four engine jets to continue after a single engine failure unless there is a good reason not to. The decisions are made in conjunction with dispatch, maintenance, and various other entities within the hierarchy of the operating airline. If the captain were to unilaterally make the decision to divert simply out of an abundance of caution, it would be viewed as an overreaction and disciplinary action would probably be considered by his or her superiors.

The manufacturer approved checklists for such scenarios do not say "divert to the nearest suitable airport". They do however, say to do so for engine severe damage or separation.

If you want to be upset with someone over 4 engine jets covering long distances on 3 engines, consider taking it up with the manufacturers of these aircraft and the airlines that operate them. The crews are simply doing their best to adhere to the procedural framework established by these entities.

First rule in aviation, never assume!

Of course this crew looked at all options and deemed
it safe and prudent to continue, what irks is the rationale
of some with 4 jet (not 'quad'... please)
experience is rather blinkered, and quite frankly pompous!
Some need to read up on risk management methinks.

Safe to continue, but 'absolutely safe'? , as I said, doubt it.

I find that suggestion deeply troubling.

This is called the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. I honestly believe that some sort of filter should be put in place to try and ensure that that is what it returns to become just that!

Don't know if this has been posted but it is the report on the BA flight from LA and explains the occurrence quite well.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...LG%2006-06.pdf.

Just a guess but gravity feeding about 3000kg an hour would be impossible with the size of the fuel lines on any acft.

The following paragraph is taken from this document.

http://www.united-virtual.com/upload...Training_2.pdf

What is this, model aircraft design? Who in United is involved?
That site is full of half truths. When an engine is windmilling, it will produce hydraulic pressure, and power the dedicated generator for the FADEC. It will not produce electricity from the IDG.
I hope you are not a real pilot reading this!

.... seems a lot of people should not get out of bed in the morning - they certainly shouldn't go into the bathroom, statistically one of the most dangerous places on earth. The drive to the airport or the crew bus to the hotel aren't much better :)

I've been unlucky enough to have had quite a few (into double figures) engine failures on 2, 3 and 4 engine jet aircraft - the failures ranged from nasty to benign :eek:

As always after the noises were cancelled and the checklists run a cup of tea was ordered and the situation was considered carefully. Years of experience, technical knowledge, airmanship etc were then employed by all on the crew to decide on the way forward - it seemed to work out well on all occasions and yes, I did divert on one of them but then 330 people on one engine does call for a bit more prudence. Professionals at work or at least I like to think so.

Not once did the company exert any pressure, nor did they call me up afterwards for an "explanation" :D

A few years ago the monitoring of the aircraft, particularly the engines, by computers through satcom was an incredible leap forward as an aid to dealing with this type of situation. Call the maintenance dept and they can give you an incredible amount of detail on what is going on - oh, and handily ops would send you an updated engine out CFP ... mind you, the old rules of thumb still seem to work.

It might irk a few here but, I've got to say dealing with the failure of an engine is very much like dealing with the failure of any component on the aircraft.

If what everyone wants is the "LAND IMMEDIATELY/ASAP/NEAREST" instruction at the end of the checklist so that you don't have to think, exercise any airmanship or demonstrate any professionalism then two things will happen - firstly, you will actually cause yourself much more grief on most occasions (good luck in ADAK) and secondly, we'll see drones before you know it :)

I just think that if you want aviation to be so black and white you might be in the wrong business (I blame the digital age - particularly when the PNF is calling +2, +3 down the approach :) :ugh:)

... can't think of any flights in the recent past that crashed because they continued a flight after shutting down a jet engine (where the shut down engine caused the crash) - is it really an issue or, over the years, have we actually dealt with the scenarios/failures professionally as we should have done? Has anything changed ?

:ok:

Er, the author of the quote (and owner of the United-Virtual.com domain) is a Canadian eye surgeon and flight sim enthusiast - who is probably as surprised as you are that his sim rules are being quoted, unquestioningly, on a professional aviation forum. :O

lucky for this airbus 380 that the windshield didn't develop a crack.



oh, and regarding ''gravity'' feed...I can't think of a jet engine that doesn't require its own fuel pump to properly feed itself. that all important engine driven pump is pretty darn important. ''boost pumps'' ensure stability of fuel flow throughout the operational altitudes and attitudes, although some planes at some altitudes can lose all boost pumps and ''suction'' feed via engine pump....without that engine pump ouch

Are we talking about an engine driven fuel pump that produces the pressure necessary to feed spray nozzles in the burner ?

Or a pump that moves fuel between aircraft systems ?

the former and not the later. iompaseo

I am always confident that the flight deck crew will make the correct decision. After all there are enough of them, they are quite intelligent (at least as flying is concerned) and they are in no way over burdened by hard work. No flaming required, just saying .....

These days, most two engined aircraft take off and complete the flight on only two engines.

Once a four engine aircraft is safely airborne, it no longer needs all four engines to continue the flight to any destination with more safety than any two engine aircraft that hasn't yet taken off...

See the Air Regulations of any half respectable Authority concerning such operations...

These days (and for a few decades) I'm sure you are quite right.
However I remember the Lockheed Consternation and wouldn't have put it to the test - too often :oh: