Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles
 

Cue the "they must be ex-BA" comments.

I suppose it might have been easier to turn-around and get a manufacturer's warranty repair. :p

They must be ex BA doing it correctly as per SOPs ;)

Just wondering.....
Of course the flight was operated with an augmented crew. Were there two captains on board or does it work differently with EK?
So what if captain A elects to press on, and is relieved by captain B because of the flight duty time. Could there be a problem if this captain B does not agree with continuing towards Kuwait?
Is there any regulation in place as to who calls the shots in such cases as this?

The biggest and ugliest Captain makes the decisions :cool:

I do wish people would stop fussing about this. On a four engine aircraft, if the engine failure is 'benign' and there are no other problems, it is no big deal. Of course one has to consider en-route alternates differently and calculate the various options in case of a further failure but, if done correctly, the whole operation is perfectly safe.

Newspaper "shock, horror" headlines sell "shock horror" newspapers.

People have been flying across the Atlantic on only TWO engines for years now. Some even do it on one.

Bergerie1
 

If I remember correctly, BA landed short of LHR (Stansted?) with just 9,000# of fuel. I wonder how much fuel the 380 had when it had to land at Kuwait, just up the Gulf from Dubai?

And some brave entrepreneurs have been known to fly across the Atlantic without even a single engine.......:cool:

I can't pedal that fast.... :p

Well done boys! Exactly what any pilot with a four engine aircrft would do!!:ok:

There is only one legal commander and that is the operating captain. The captain who is part of the augmented crew is a subordinate. Having said that any decent captain would, of course, discuss, listen to and take into account the opinions of all his flight crew before making a decision on how to proceed.

Manchester actually and they landed there despite having sufficient fuel to make LHR.

They didn't think that when they upgraded the pan to a mayday!
Nor did they understand the fuel system....

Aah, the hysterical chattering of the ignorant masses.

This is why aircraft are built with four engines. There is absolutely nothing unsafe about continuing on three engines. The big twins are certified to 207 minutes and more on ONE engine.

Consider the practicalities of a diversion at the time of the engine failure which, I believe, occurred about two hours after take-off:

1. A significant amount of fuel would have to be jettisoned
2. Hotel accommodation for 20+ crew and 450-500 passengers
3. Nothing less than a 24 -36 hour delay before replacement components could be sourced, shipped and installed

By continuing the flight, the company has 12 hours to formulate a recovery plan and position a replacement aircraft at the en-route alternate (in this case Kuwait).

The A380 completes a dramatic three-engine approach, lands and pax and crew transfer to the waiting aircraft and the mission is completed with minimum delay.

And in absolute safely.

Well done to the four professionals up front.

Perhaps but the report on BA stated that an undamaged windmilling engine is certified for three hours...so who gives a "professional" pilot the authority to be a test pilot with pax on board?

Shock horror - only three engines !!!
 

Over the years, on more than one occasion, managed to log quite a bit of single engine jet time ...... with over 300 people down the back :8

Ignorance on which side?

Reminds me of the EK 777 that suffered engine damage shortly after t/o from Moscow to DXB. No Warning, or Caution message, only two or three Advisory messages. The crew continued the flight, only to discover "more than just cosmetic damage" on the right (?) engine. Luckily, it didn't cause more harm.

Statements like these make me nervous, it is like the three monkeys that see, hear and speak no evil. No abnormal indications up front on the flight deck, nothing mentioned per SOPs, so life must be good...

Are we really just becoming robots?

Because, my dear blind chap, there is NO limitation for the 380 with the 7270 engines with regards to windmilling. Just note the 'windmill' time in the tech log... So our 'professional' pilots are indeed being professional.

Bl00dy drama queens here:hmm::hmm:

Squawk7777

Do you think we just have a quick look at the EICAS and decide whether to continue or not? Part of the fault diagnosis will be to discuss the failure with MAINTROL, determine if there's a history with the engine, ensure the continued viability of the remaining engines etc etc. I guess you've never flown a four-engined Boeing or read the Flight Continuation Policy associated with such aircraft?

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!