A330 - One Engine Ferry?!?

[B727]

Heard yesterday of an A330 that carried out a one engine ferry from Stockholm to MAN for engine change earlier this week.

Sounds very unlikely to me, anyone heard anything else on this??

B727

[spoilers yellow]

I agree, would not happen on a twin engine aircraft, 3 eng ferry on a four engine aircraft is fairly common, but single engine I'd say no chance.

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

There was an SAS A330 in for an engine change but I was told it was just due
maintenance at Copenhagen being to busy to do it so guess it was just a planned change

G-I-B

[barit1]

The whole subject of engine-out ferry is covered in a special section of the AFM. I believe most 3- and 4-engine aircraft have such a supplement, covering procedures, performance (including a second failure along the way), restrictions (many, many restrictions!) - and the crew undergoes special training.

But if you check the AFM of any twins, you'll find no such section in the manual.

[Gargleblaster]

I guess a twin probably hasn't got sufficient thrust to take off from standstill on one engine, too much friction while rolling on ground ?

But even if it had thrust enough, untill speed builds up, you only have the nosewheel to counteract the yaw (dismissing differential braking, which will just make things worse). Can the nosewheel handle this ?

[Hamrah]

I think a discussion on VMCG would be helpful here.

H

[White Knight]

You may need a bit more than that methinks

[Neptunus Rex]

Moderators,
Please refer this inane topic to the 'Wannabe' forum. Quite clearly 'B727' and 'Gargleblaster' have no concept of asymmetric rules of engagement !!!

[Airbubba]

There is an old story about a single engine takeoff in a Learjet.

Now, this is no s**t <g>.

Bill Lear had a fed onboard one of the two prototypes days before the Lear Jet's [sic] introduction at the NBAA show at Reading, PA. The fed was so impressed with the two engine takeoff and landing that he asked Lear if it could takeoff and go around the pattern on one. This was in the days when almost all business aircraft were piston powered and some had a negative climb gradient on one engine (remember the Piper Apache?). Lear knew the plane was light and figured it was worth a try given the PR potential with the FAA for the pending certification.

Unfortunately, Lear had left the spoilers up from the previous landing and ending up going off the end of the runway in a ball of aluminum. As with the XB-70, the more advanced of the two prototypes was destroyed and Lear had to exhibit an aircraft without much of an interior.

There is an old thread here somewhere about a news report of a single engine airliner takeoff in Africa. Sounds dubious to me but, having flown in Africa, it's too close to call...

[BOAC]

Yes, it must be POSSIBLE, like the infinite monkeys/typewriters/time=Shakespeare, but you would need a long long runway to do it. You can certainly move off from a standstill on 'one' - happens frequently on the BA 737 fleet when one is shut down taxying in to save fuel - however this story............................

[speedalive]

barit1 is absolutely correct, which should end this thread. However, last sim check I did in an Astra we were asked to take off on one engine, which the aircraft did quite easily - after a lot of runway and a slow acceleration due to VMCG considerations.

[GrahamK]

T'was an SAS A330 in for regular maintenance at SR Technics/MyTravel Engineering.
Couldn't get a nice time to do it in CPH or something.

[Swedish Steve]

I may be a mere engineer, but I have been onboard two TriStar two engine ferries.
We did all the prep, boroscopes, new nosewheels, ATM duct clean, dump toilets and water, remove catering and cabin crew etc. Then off we went. With the RB211-22B we could manage MCT-BAH but not much further, with a RB211-524 we did KHI-BAH.
What i remember most was that there was no V1. We had Vr and V2. I asked the crew why and the answer was that if the second engine failed before V2, we were going in the sea. Why do you think you boroscoped the good engines? The steps were already off so I stayed on board.
If GF (and Lockheed) were prepared to ferry an aircraft like this, why not a one engine ferry? Can't be a lot worse.
The drill was wing engine to 100pc for one minute then back to idle. Then Centre engine to 100pc for one minute, then let off the brakes. Advance the good wing engine N1 in line with speed, i.e. 60pc N1 at 60kts. Any more and you were off the side of the runway (It happened once in JED in 1977).
In my 11 years at GF we never changed an engine away from a main base.

[osbo]

Swedish Steve,

"why not a one engine ferry? Can't be a lot worse"

err maybe......TriStar on one engine before v2=problem....

A330 airborne on zero engines at ANY point=problem!!!

The whole idea of flying a single engine ferry in a commercial twin is frankly ridiculous. What forum is this in anyway.......

[Gargleblaster]

Neptunus Rex: Affirmative, haven't got a clue, that's why I'm asking, goddamnit ! Perhaps that's not allowed ? If so, moderator, please delete at will. I didn't pretend to have a clue, see my profile. Anyway what's YOUR problem ?

Anyway again, why can't a wing mounted twin engine jet takeoff from standstill on one engine ?

Because of a) lack of thrust ? b) asymetric power problems ? c) something else ?

Sorry, I'd just like to know !

[barit1]

Gargleblaster has a point; if the 1011 has no takeoff redundancy in an engine-out ferry, then a twin is no worse. The only essential difference is that the TriStar can use 50% of available thrust at brake release. The twin needs another couple hundred meters before reaching VMCG and applying TO thrust.

I don't think the DC-10 is so critical in this condition. But then its wing engines are not so far outboard as the 1011's.

[r1830]

I have been told there is a supplement for the Twin Otter AFM (Airplane Flight Manual) that has a method and a performance chart for a single engine takeoff.

[Farmer 1]

if the 1011 has no takeoff redundancy in an engine-out ferry, then a twin is no worse.

Actually, from the viewpoint of another engine failure, a twin is surely 100% better off. It has only half as many engines remaining, so a corresponding chance of a failure.

Very simplistic, I know, and probably a light-blue-touchpaper job.

Looking in from the outside, I am guessing that the problem with a single-engine ferry is that you are starting with only 50% of normal power available, whereas with a three- or four-engined aircraft you have respectively 67% and 75%. And I also guess 50% of normal maximum power is simply not enough to take off in your average commercial twin.

Once again, I realise this is a very simplistic view.

[BOAC]

Time perhaps to summarise this before closing, unless there are any more useful inputs?

a) Twins like Aztec, Cessna 310, Seneca etc takeoff every time with no ability to climb away if an engine is lost just after lift-off.

b) There is nothing to stop an A330 taking off on one engine if the runway is long enough. The power needs to be applied slowly and carefully until Vmcg is achieved when full power can be applied. There is significant strain on the nosewheel during the first part of the run.

c) It is EXTREMELY unlikely that this happened with this aircraft.

d) With 3 or more engines, an engine-out take-off is a specially trained and conducted manoeuvre and rarely flown.

e) There is a suggestion that at least one small twin has this manoeuvre in its Flight Manual.

Any more inputs?

[barit1]

Twins like Aztec, Cessna 310, Seneca etc takeoff every time with no ability to climb away if an engine is lost just after lift-off.

True, but they are certified with a very low Vso (<60 kt IIRC?) so their crashability is much better.