3-engine 747 NAT crossings becoming the norm
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
3-engine 747 NAT crossings becoming the norm
A11A0095: The Kalitta Air LLC Boeing 747-251B aircraft, registration N790CK, operating as flight CKS206 was in cruise flight enroute from Newark Liberty to Amsterdam Schiphol airport. About 50 miles NE of Yarmouth Nova Scotia at FL380, the flight crew received a low oil pressure warning on the number 1 engine. The engine was shut down in accordance with the quick reference handbook procedures and an emergency was declared. CKS206 descended to FL 340 and carried on to destination where an uneventful landing was carried out. Company maintenance replaced the number 1 engine and the aircraft was returned to service.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also agree...but, having declared an emergency, isn't one (not by reg, but by common sense) committed to land at 'nearest suitable field'? My point is not against continuing to destination, but declaring an emergency, when such a declaration is not required. Sam
Just to make it crystal clear to potentially concerned passengers:
The aircraft MUST descend so a minor state of emergency exists until stabilised at the new level. (unless you hit someone on the way down, in which case it becomes a major emergency
) This can be cancelled.
The crew would then look at the two engine case: terrain, drift-down (Not a problem over the sea), alternates.
Gander to Shannon is about 1700nm. Still air: 3h30m so never more than 1h45m from an alternate if another donk stops. Twins do much more than that all the time.
Pedants: These are 'ball park' figures and would be refined on the day.
The aircraft MUST descend so a minor state of emergency exists until stabilised at the new level. (unless you hit someone on the way down, in which case it becomes a major emergency
) This can be cancelled.The crew would then look at the two engine case: terrain, drift-down (Not a problem over the sea), alternates.
Gander to Shannon is about 1700nm. Still air: 3h30m so never more than 1h45m from an alternate if another donk stops. Twins do much more than that all the time.
Pedants: These are 'ball park' figures and would be refined on the day.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does that matter?
Last edited by Hotel Tango; 15th Dec 2011 at 22:13.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The relevant FAR doesn't make any distinction regarding the payload, so what you are carrying makes no difference. It's the rationale behind the decision that counts. So if the checklist doesn't say "land as soon as is practical" you don't have to, you may wish to but that's another story.
Would I be right in thinking that the appropriate FAR is 121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting?
Sauce for the goose and all that!
PM
Would I be right in thinking that the appropriate FAR is 121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting?
Sauce for the goose and all that!
PM
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,656
Received 315 Likes
on
175 Posts
Regarding the emergency descent, does the loss of power mean the aircraft simply cannot maintain FL380 on three at the weight concerned, or is there a tech reason to descend. Apologies for the question, just unbearably inquisitive...
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Puget Sound
Age: 86
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think FAR 121.565 is pretty clear.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) .. whenever an airplane engine fails or whenever an engine is shutdown to prevent possible damage, the pilot-in-command must land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.
(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or is shut down to prevent possible dame, the pilot-in-command may proceed to an airport that the pilot selects ... if the pilot makes a reasonable decision that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport.
I don't see how anyone can say continuing a flight across the pond is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport.
As far as BA's decision is concerned, I would assume that the UK rules have something similar.
Goldfish (who has moved BA to my personal "no fly list
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) .. whenever an airplane engine fails or whenever an engine is shutdown to prevent possible damage, the pilot-in-command must land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.
(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or is shut down to prevent possible dame, the pilot-in-command may proceed to an airport that the pilot selects ... if the pilot makes a reasonable decision that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport.
I don't see how anyone can say continuing a flight across the pond is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport.
As far as BA's decision is concerned, I would assume that the UK rules have something similar.
Goldfish (who has moved BA to my personal "no fly list
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freighter, therefore ETOPS considerations do not apply (since ETOPS is based on 1 engine out), a recalculation of diversion/route just in case a second engine were to fail would satisfy me if ETOPS was a consideration (pax carrying ops).
1 engine shut down on a 3+ engine A/C is no big deal as far as the flying goes. If you don't have sufficient fuel at the lower FL then by all means please stop and get some more before continuing to the final destination.
Illogical and "heat of the moment/panic" decision making processes have no place at FL380. Going straight to the nearest airport when no true emergency exists is purely panic.
Oh and goldfish, welcome to my no hire list. (Not that you're worried about it at 73)
1 engine shut down on a 3+ engine A/C is no big deal as far as the flying goes. If you don't have sufficient fuel at the lower FL then by all means please stop and get some more before continuing to the final destination.
Illogical and "heat of the moment/panic" decision making processes have no place at FL380. Going straight to the nearest airport when no true emergency exists is purely panic.
Oh and goldfish, welcome to my no hire list.
(Not that you're worried about it at 73)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that ETOPS applies to twin engine aircraft only and that there is no distinction about what the payload is.
Stopping off for fuel before continuing to final destination? We used to do this on the DC10, specific crew training required and only possible as an empty engine out ferry.
Stopping off for fuel before continuing to final destination? We used to do this on the DC10, specific crew training required and only possible as an empty engine out ferry.
There are some not to subtle differences between the BA incident and the Kalitta incident.
The BA engine failure occured just after take-off from LAX and the aircraft then overflew a large part of the continental US on three engines. The Kalitta shutdown occured over Canada right at the start of the Oceanic crossing. I am sure flying over the US on three engines played a considerable part in the FAA's overreaction.
The BA engine failure occured just after take-off from LAX and the aircraft then overflew a large part of the continental US on three engines. The Kalitta shutdown occured over Canada right at the start of the Oceanic crossing. I am sure flying over the US on three engines played a considerable part in the FAA's overreaction.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that ETOPS applies to twin engine aircraft only and that there is no distinction about what the payload is.
Any amount of engine + pax = ETOPS
2 engines + cargo = ETOPS
3+ engines + cargo = non-ETOPS
Last edited by aviatorhi; 16th Dec 2011 at 10:56.
does the loss of power mean the aircraft simply cannot maintain FL380 on three at the weight concerned
Last edited by Max Angle; 16th Dec 2011 at 10:36.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew B747 100, 200 and 400, for 18 years copilot and captain. If the 3 engine stabilised cruise before crossing was FL340, it doesn't sound as if the aircraft was that heavy. We lost an engine over the Labrador coast in a -200 and continued to Chicago at FL250, climbing up to FL290 before descent. We calculated we had just enough fuel to make it at that level. In this case, a perfectly acceptable decision (in a 747) as long as the fault is known and confined. As stated, the only reason for the emergency call was having to make an involuntary descent. Maybe only those who have flown the 747 understand what a small issue it is? Back in the 70s, we got used to losing an engine up to twice a year. Flying the -400 up to 6 years ago, the RB211s were performing superbly. That would have been a factor in continuing the LAX-LHR flight from a failure in the climb, a decision any of us would have happily taken. Incidently, the severe FAA reaction was withdrawn as they were not justified in their comments, and the crew was strongly supported by the airline.