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.

Not sure what point you're trying to make...

This is just part of the "luxuries/conveniences/privileges" of flying something with more than 2 powerplants.

Aviatorhi

You are totally correct and had been me i would not declare an emergency but just advised ATC
Did it several years ago on DC-8 and would do it again

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

The call was required for the emergency descent to 340.

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.

That should throw 'the cousins' into a frenzy of confusion - an American registered aircraft and all - what do we criticise here?:)

I vaguely remember that the FAA criticized BA for continuing a B744 flight from the west coast to the UK, so I presume that they will also criticize Kalitta.

MUtt

This was a cargo flight. No passengers.

Does that matter?

Just stating a fact given Basil's comment which may lead some readers to believe this was a passenger flight, and mutt's post comparing this case to the BAW case.

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

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...

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:)

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)

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.

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.

I think you will find AC120-42B has changed who and what ETOPS applies to. As far as the FAA and Kalitta is concerned anyway.

Any amount of engine + pax = ETOPS

2 engines + cargo = ETOPS

3+ engines + cargo = non-ETOPS

Yes, that is exactly the problem. The advantage of still having 3 of 4 left is the descent is pretty small. In a heavy twin you would be talking about coming down to 20-25,000ft.

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.