4 engines, one fail. Go, no go?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JumboDriver,
Sorry if that sounded a bit blunt, I must admit I was a bit quick off the blocks, as these days there have been so many people pressing the "go" case that sometimes some of the "anti-go" reasons (like, as you point out, VMCG/VMCA) seem to be drowned out. Continuing a take off from 15kts prior to V1 because you can carry the problem into the air is one thing... but not actually getting off the runway is an entirely different one
The discussion as to if pilots should consider in what way V1 is limiting on a certain day is one can of worms I don't want to open. The relationship between the speeds is something I too will stay away from... someone with a much larger brain than mine is required to debate that one.
I agree with you 100% that this is what command decision making is all about. I'd much rather have the captain to be able to make the call and continue than some rule maker stipulate you must land ASAP.
As to 3 engine ferries... as BelArgUSA points out, they are approved... although the 3 major airlines I have any knowledge about all prohibit 3 engine ferries on their aircraft, with the preference being to taking a spare to the aircraft, rather than the aircraft to the spare.
I've recently moved to a 2 engine aircraft, so I guess I can happily continue on my "land soon" way without causing a fuss
Sorry if that sounded a bit blunt, I must admit I was a bit quick off the blocks, as these days there have been so many people pressing the "go" case that sometimes some of the "anti-go" reasons (like, as you point out, VMCG/VMCA) seem to be drowned out. Continuing a take off from 15kts prior to V1 because you can carry the problem into the air is one thing... but not actually getting off the runway is an entirely different one
The discussion as to if pilots should consider in what way V1 is limiting on a certain day is one can of worms I don't want to open. The relationship between the speeds is something I too will stay away from... someone with a much larger brain than mine is required to debate that one.
I agree with you 100% that this is what command decision making is all about. I'd much rather have the captain to be able to make the call and continue than some rule maker stipulate you must land ASAP.
As to 3 engine ferries... as BelArgUSA points out, they are approved... although the 3 major airlines I have any knowledge about all prohibit 3 engine ferries on their aircraft, with the preference being to taking a spare to the aircraft, rather than the aircraft to the spare.
I've recently moved to a 2 engine aircraft, so I guess I can happily continue on my "land soon" way without causing a fuss
91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
in the US--that means land, as soon as practicable to me--never flew a four engine craft---[check the history of FAA prosecutions]----then offload the pax-- obtain a waiver--and then ferry the aircraft legally and safely on three---or---the FAA will say--
§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
just lately the FEDs have been in a very bad mood-
PA----
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
in the US--that means land, as soon as practicable to me--never flew a four engine craft---[check the history of FAA prosecutions]----then offload the pax-- obtain a waiver--and then ferry the aircraft legally and safely on three---or---the FAA will say--
§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
just lately the FEDs have been in a very bad mood-
PA----
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compare the regs for FAR 25 aircraft with FAR 23 - no guarantees for an engine failure in a Piper Navajo!
DCA80AA002
BTW he had plenty of r/w remaining.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may add, the B747 is also certified for initiating a take off with an engine out. This is a special procedure that is sometimes performed by different operators.
This obviously is for positioning the aircraft where repairs could be made, i.e. NO Revenue flt.
This obviously is for positioning the aircraft where repairs could be made, i.e. NO Revenue flt.
And it dates back to the DC-6. I believe almost all 3- and 4-engine transports have this certification, although the operator may have to pay extra for the rights.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The performance for FAR 25 (or equivalent) aircraft is based upon a guarantee that the aricraft can keep flying if an engine fails at any point of the flight.
This performance guarantee only became possible with the advent of jet engines, and their excess of power at low (i.e. take-off) altitudes.
This performance guarantee only became possible with the advent of jet engines, and their excess of power at low (i.e. take-off) altitudes.
CAR4b regulated the required performance of 4-engine piston types, and I can assure you that these were fully capable as well, for three engine continued flight.
I should know, I flew enough of 'em to find out, first hand.
DC-7, especially.
I'm glad to see that this has been a calmer thread then the BA 3 engine flight of a year or so ago.
It looks like a good job so far of sorting out the safety related regulatory issues which seeem to put the knowgeable pilot in charge of rational decision making seeing as there are many considerations at play.
I had mentioned in that earlier thread that crew workload during landing should be at least one of the major considerations if an alternate airport were chosen. An engine out during flight is well trained. The larger concerns in the historical data base have been with landing. Adding in to this with an unfamiliar airport makes this a more critical consideration in decision making.
However I am drawn back to the original question from the initiating thread post.
Do we really have a lot of variance in the SOPs between operators?
It looks like a good job so far of sorting out the safety related regulatory issues which seeem to put the knowgeable pilot in charge of rational decision making seeing as there are many considerations at play.
I had mentioned in that earlier thread that crew workload during landing should be at least one of the major considerations if an alternate airport were chosen. An engine out during flight is well trained. The larger concerns in the historical data base have been with landing. Adding in to this with an unfamiliar airport makes this a more critical consideration in decision making.
However I am drawn back to the original question from the initiating thread post.
Do we really have a lot of variance in the SOPs between operators?
Hi guys,
Not trying to bring the BA flight LAX-LHR on 3 engine, but I`m just wondering those of you flying 4 engines, what are your company SOPs in regards to flying with one engine out.
Thank you
Not trying to bring the BA flight LAX-LHR on 3 engine, but I`m just wondering those of you flying 4 engines, what are your company SOPs in regards to flying with one engine out.
Thank you
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PanAm way...
Lomapaseo -
xxx
Well, I am unfortunately not as qualified as BA pilots...
And my 747 has not been maintained as well.
xxx
Would the BA situation have happened 20 years ago, with PanAm... (SFO-LHR)
(1) The 747 would have continued to ORD or JFK, on 3 engines. Plenty airports between SFO-JFK.
(2) Captain would have made a PA advising pax of unscheduled stop.
(3) PanAm would have had a spare 747 ready with fresh crew at JFK.
(4) That is the safest and most acceptable operational considerations.
(5) It would have been the joint decision of captain and dispatch.
xxx
Of course, PanAm pax would have incurred late LHR arrival (3 or 4 hrs).
Darn Yanks... they cannot run on-time operations.
Happy contrails
xxx
Well, I am unfortunately not as qualified as BA pilots...
And my 747 has not been maintained as well.
xxx
Would the BA situation have happened 20 years ago, with PanAm... (SFO-LHR)
(1) The 747 would have continued to ORD or JFK, on 3 engines. Plenty airports between SFO-JFK.
(2) Captain would have made a PA advising pax of unscheduled stop.
(3) PanAm would have had a spare 747 ready with fresh crew at JFK.
(4) That is the safest and most acceptable operational considerations.
(5) It would have been the joint decision of captain and dispatch.
xxx
Of course, PanAm pax would have incurred late LHR arrival (3 or 4 hrs).
Darn Yanks... they cannot run on-time operations.
Happy contrails
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, 4 engined planes can take off for engine out ferry. They are not allowed to do so with passenger payloads, they do so with light loads, but they can do it. Actually, 3 engine planes can do the same - and in the way they operate, there have been actual cases of 3 engine planes like Tristars starting takeoff with 2 engines, losing one of the remaining engines during takeoff, climbing out on one engine and successfully returning to airport. And I understand that every 3 and 4 engine plane is supposed to be capable of climbing out of takeoff with 2 engines out, at ferry loads, after starting takeoff with 1 engine out.
Then what is the "minimum Go" V1 about? Are airplanes commonly in situation where they are able to Go with one engine loss early in takeoff?
Then what is the "minimum Go" V1 about? Are airplanes commonly in situation where they are able to Go with one engine loss early in takeoff?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BelArg
What happened 20 years ago in another lifetime is one thing (and mostly irrelevant nowadays). BA used to have spare engines dotted about the network as well, but don't nowadays (as I'm sure applies to many other carriers). This is mainly because of engine developments and monitoring technology rendering it unnecessary. Only last week in the in-house weekly paper I read that one of our 747-400s had just had an engine change. Nothing unusual in that, I hear you say. Exactly, but it had been 'on the wing' since delivery from Boeing in about 1997!
Yes, you read correctly - over 10 years and over 40,000 hours. The average (iirc) is over 25,000 hours on the wing.
ChornedSnack
Re 'min Go v1': Airlines can determine v1 on a variety of parameters. They include v1 which uses maximum stopping capabilities where the aircraft will only just stop on the paved surface (may be used to maximise payload for example) and the minimum Go v1, which is the point a which a failure still gives sufficient runway to reach take off speed.
As an example, a shorthaul aircraft taking off from a 4000m runway would only need about 1500m or so, it could accelerate to about 250kts and still stop (in the max v1 case) but that is pointless.
What happened 20 years ago in another lifetime is one thing (and mostly irrelevant nowadays). BA used to have spare engines dotted about the network as well, but don't nowadays (as I'm sure applies to many other carriers). This is mainly because of engine developments and monitoring technology rendering it unnecessary. Only last week in the in-house weekly paper I read that one of our 747-400s had just had an engine change. Nothing unusual in that, I hear you say. Exactly, but it had been 'on the wing' since delivery from Boeing in about 1997!
Yes, you read correctly - over 10 years and over 40,000 hours. The average (iirc) is over 25,000 hours on the wing.
ChornedSnack
Re 'min Go v1': Airlines can determine v1 on a variety of parameters. They include v1 which uses maximum stopping capabilities where the aircraft will only just stop on the paved surface (may be used to maximise payload for example) and the minimum Go v1, which is the point a which a failure still gives sufficient runway to reach take off speed.
As an example, a shorthaul aircraft taking off from a 4000m runway would only need about 1500m or so, it could accelerate to about 250kts and still stop (in the max v1 case) but that is pointless.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pugilistic Animus,
Thank you for quoting FAR91. As one of the few operators who operates B747 aircraft under FAR91, we would not consider an engine failure to have made the aircraft unairworthy, therefore the flight would continue. In fact, one of the main reasons for buying 4 engined VVIP aircraft is to ensure that we dont land!
Mutt
Thank you for quoting FAR91. As one of the few operators who operates B747 aircraft under FAR91, we would not consider an engine failure to have made the aircraft unairworthy, therefore the flight would continue. In fact, one of the main reasons for buying 4 engined VVIP aircraft is to ensure that we dont land!
Mutt
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see the RB211-524 getting a mention. An era has just ended actually, with the delivery of the very last RB211 powered 747F to Cargolux. Various marks in production for around 30 years.
On the 3 engine discussion, does the 747-400 have a lot more "spare" thrust than earlier -100 and -200s, or does the increase in max take off weight mean the later variant is similar?
RB
On the 3 engine discussion, does the 747-400 have a lot more "spare" thrust than earlier -100 and -200s, or does the increase in max take off weight mean the later variant is similar?
RB
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are 747-s doing under Part 91? They clearly have over 2700 kg payload capability, so that should be Part 125?
Also, for the people who want 4 engined VVIP planes, A340, A380 and Il-96 are obvious alternatives. How much spare thrust do they have for the case of one or two engines inoperative?
Also, for the people who want 4 engined VVIP planes, A340, A380 and Il-96 are obvious alternatives. How much spare thrust do they have for the case of one or two engines inoperative?
b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or is shut down to prevent possible damage, the pilot-in-command may proceed to an airport that the pilot selects if, after considering the following, the pilot makes a reasonable decision that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
(2) The altitude, weight, and useable fuel at the time that the engine is shutdown
(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.---low fuel
(4) The air traffic congestion.
(5) The kind of terrain.---oceanic/polar flight
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.--ok
(c) The pilot-in-command must report each engine shutdown in flight to the appropriate communication facility as soon as practicable and must keep that facility fully informed of the progress of the flight.
(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the certificate-holding district office.---so they can pin all the blame on you!!!!
§ 91.611 Authorization for ferry flight with one engine inoperative.
(a) General. The holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate issued under part 125 may conduct a ferry flight of a four-engine airplane or a turbine-engine-powered airplane equipped with three engines, with one engine inoperative, to a base for the purpose of repairing that engine subject to the following:..............................................,5) Persons other than required flight crewmembers shall not be carried during the flight.
RB-I saw you'd already posted 121, but didn't include part D--it's not irrlevant
--read between the lines
part 91 applies to all pilots
--91.3 IS the BEST example, as well as 91.13!!!
as far as prosecution--well almost they DID try-no?
and furthermore many criteria have to be assured and if they aren't then you broke the law--that's the ADMINISTRATOR---
I think BelArgUSA has the BEST answer--and it's very conservative
oh--I said I never flew a four engine jet I never commanded one--I do have the 707 rating and about 15 hrs RHS before they switched planes on me--it was free
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
(2) The altitude, weight, and useable fuel at the time that the engine is shutdown
(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.---low fuel
(4) The air traffic congestion.
(5) The kind of terrain.---oceanic/polar flight
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.--ok
(c) The pilot-in-command must report each engine shutdown in flight to the appropriate communication facility as soon as practicable and must keep that facility fully informed of the progress of the flight.
(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the certificate-holding district office.---so they can pin all the blame on you!!!!
§ 91.611 Authorization for ferry flight with one engine inoperative.
(a) General. The holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate issued under part 125 may conduct a ferry flight of a four-engine airplane or a turbine-engine-powered airplane equipped with three engines, with one engine inoperative, to a base for the purpose of repairing that engine subject to the following:..............................................,5) Persons other than required flight crewmembers shall not be carried during the flight.
RB-I saw you'd already posted 121, but didn't include part D--it's not irrlevant
--read between the linespart 91 applies to all pilots
--91.3 IS the BEST example, as well as 91.13!!!as far as prosecution--well almost they DID try-no?
and furthermore many criteria have to be assured and if they aren't then you broke the law--that's the ADMINISTRATOR
---I think BelArgUSA has the BEST answer--and it's very conservative
oh--I said I never flew a four engine jet I never commanded one
--I do have the 707 rating and about 15 hrs RHS before they switched planes on me--it was free
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 29th Oct 2008 at 22:58. Reason: said sooo wrongly, I meant waht BelArgUsa said in the subsequent post
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAR Part 91 applies to ALL operations... including "121", "125" and "135" as well.
The "VIP" 747 could not be under a Part 125 if operated under foreign, non-US certificate.
So, FAR 91 "Subpart D" applies.
xxx
Happy contrails
The "VIP" 747 could not be under a Part 125 if operated under foreign, non-US certificate.
So, FAR 91 "Subpart D" applies.
xxx
Happy contrails
Perhaps not all that useful, but USAF has for a long wanted 4-engines for the reason of being able to "carry on". We could in airlift continue past a divert with OEI, if no compounding problems had resulted, performance was considered, etc. Then on Xmas Eve, some crew shutdown an engine just airborne off Mildenhall, proceeded home to US. A little sheepish, they logged it as having been shutdown on descent. Well, the maintenance recorder caught 'em! Doh! Taken in shackles, and the rules were rewritten. I have used that the authority several times and agree that any of the four-engine steeds is completely airworthy with one shutdown, if it was "clean" shutdown and all other systems are operable. Crossing any ocean, not so much.
GF
GF
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I guess when a B52 loses one out of the eight, it has to land as soon as practicable? Funny rules. But we did establish before that as the US operates mainly twins in competition with foreign airlines 4 engine jets, it does take away the competetive advantage of the foreigners if you absurdly make them obey the same rules as for twin engined aeroplanes! Moi, cynical?