engine out ferry flight
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 199
Likes: 41
From: Laredo, TX
My FE sim checks on the 727 or 1011 (can't remember both or just one of them) sometimes had maintenance check pilots in the front. Takeoff was on two engines and the last landing was deadstick. The long time ago rumor mill did have a story about a line Captain taking off on two in the islands because one engine had starter problems that a screwdriver couldn't fix. Air started the third engine and landed. Kept it running while they loaded the airplane.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 463
Likes: 7
From: Deepest Essex.
ATC W - I've sent you privately the page from the Ops manual of the airline I worked for outlining the requirements we flew them under.
I once saw a 747 (I'm pretty sure it was TWA) do a 3 engine ferry out of Cairo. I believe it was flown out by a Boeing crew, who were sent in for the job. It did seem surprising, as the 747 was capable (I know, because I've experienced one) capable of carrying a "fifth pod" engine under the right wing. If a replacement engine was required, one would think it was better to bring an engine to the U/S plane rather than ferry it on 3 to the engine.
TDracer, can you enlighten us?
I once saw a 747 (I'm pretty sure it was TWA) do a 3 engine ferry out of Cairo. I believe it was flown out by a Boeing crew, who were sent in for the job. It did seem surprising, as the 747 was capable (I know, because I've experienced one) capable of carrying a "fifth pod" engine under the right wing. If a replacement engine was required, one would think it was better to bring an engine to the U/S plane rather than ferry it on 3 to the engine.
TDracer, can you enlighten us?
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,687
Likes: 2,030
From: Reading, UK
I once saw a 747 (I'm pretty sure it was TWA) do a 3 engine ferry out of Cairo. I believe it was flown out by a Boeing crew, who were sent in for the job. It did seem surprising, as the 747 was capable (I know, because I've experienced one) capable of carrying a "fifth pod" engine under the right wing. If a replacement engine was required, one would think it was better to bring an engine to the U/S plane rather than ferry it on 3 to the engine.
TWA may have judged that getting the aircraft to somewhere that they held a spare engine (Paris/Frankfurt/London?) would get the aircraft back in service quicker than tying up another 747 to transport the replacement engine.
Joined: Apr 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 484
From: A place in the sun
Back in the day, I did quite a lot of 3-engine ferry flights on Boeing 747-100 and -200 series aircraft. As well as careful flight planning, here are some of the practical piloting considerations. First, the regulations allow only the three flight crew on board because often there is a critical period during the take-off run when it is neither possible to continue nor to stop. Second, you had to be 3-engine ferry flight qualified.
The reasons for this are that, during the take-off acceleration and shortly before lift-off, there is a short ‘gap’ of about 10 knots of airspeed between V-stop and the 2 engine Vmcg, typically between 130 to 140 knots. If an engine fails when the airspeed is below V-stop there is still room to stop (just) before the end of the runway. If an engine fails on the same side as the inoperative engine after passing this gap, the aircraft is then above Vmcg-2eng and you can continue the take-off with just enough rudder control to keep the aircraft straight on the runway.
If the engine fails, and it is on the same side as the inoperative engine, within the 10 knot gap you can neither stop nor continue. If you try to stop, you will go off the end of the runway despite using full braking. If you try to continue, there is not enough rudder control, it is impossible to keep straight and you will career off the side of the runway. The take-off weight needs to be kept as low as possible (commensurate with the sector length to be flown) to minimise this gap, hence the criticality of the take-off performance calculations and the fuel load.
The other problem with an inoperative outboard engine is directional control during the first part of the take-off run. You have to push and hold full rudder to counteract the thrust from the two good engines. You start by holding the aircraft stationary on the brakes while spooling up all three engines until they are stable. Then, you release the brakes and the flight engineer opens up the two inboard engines as fast as reasonably possible. Once you start moving, you open up the good outboard engine yourself, keeping the power just within the capability of the full rudder control – in effect, steering the aircraft with the engine until you are above the critical control speed (perhaps around 120 knots). It is a fairly demanding exercise but, once airborne, everything is straight forward, apart from checking minimum safe altitudes along the way, and suitable en-route alternates in case a second engine fails.
The landing at destination is a 'normal' 3-engine landing.
It was all a long time ago - I hope I have remembered it correctly!!
The reasons for this are that, during the take-off acceleration and shortly before lift-off, there is a short ‘gap’ of about 10 knots of airspeed between V-stop and the 2 engine Vmcg, typically between 130 to 140 knots. If an engine fails when the airspeed is below V-stop there is still room to stop (just) before the end of the runway. If an engine fails on the same side as the inoperative engine after passing this gap, the aircraft is then above Vmcg-2eng and you can continue the take-off with just enough rudder control to keep the aircraft straight on the runway.
If the engine fails, and it is on the same side as the inoperative engine, within the 10 knot gap you can neither stop nor continue. If you try to stop, you will go off the end of the runway despite using full braking. If you try to continue, there is not enough rudder control, it is impossible to keep straight and you will career off the side of the runway. The take-off weight needs to be kept as low as possible (commensurate with the sector length to be flown) to minimise this gap, hence the criticality of the take-off performance calculations and the fuel load.
The other problem with an inoperative outboard engine is directional control during the first part of the take-off run. You have to push and hold full rudder to counteract the thrust from the two good engines. You start by holding the aircraft stationary on the brakes while spooling up all three engines until they are stable. Then, you release the brakes and the flight engineer opens up the two inboard engines as fast as reasonably possible. Once you start moving, you open up the good outboard engine yourself, keeping the power just within the capability of the full rudder control – in effect, steering the aircraft with the engine until you are above the critical control speed (perhaps around 120 knots). It is a fairly demanding exercise but, once airborne, everything is straight forward, apart from checking minimum safe altitudes along the way, and suitable en-route alternates in case a second engine fails.
The landing at destination is a 'normal' 3-engine landing.
It was all a long time ago - I hope I have remembered it correctly!!
Last edited by Bergerie1; 31st January 2026 at 14:31.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,726
Likes: 103
From: The Winchester
I've seen fifth pod done on a 744 on a scheduled service to sort out a prob with another airframe downroute, but as I recall it the company's preferred option was three engine ferry back to base using suitably trained crew..
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 812
Likes: 19
From: uk
Another factor to bear on the ferry versus extra pod option is that in the early days of the introduction of wide bodied aircraft ( early '70s) there were very few freight aircraft around which could physically carry complete large fan engines. When Court Line introduced their Tristars I believe they also acquired a Blackburn Beverley to cater for this possibility.
I believe later that some large fan engines could be transported by removing the fan and loading the two engine components as separate units.
I believe later that some large fan engines could be transported by removing the fan and loading the two engine components as separate units.
Joined: Apr 2004
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 2,279
Likes: 186
From: Dorset UK
GE CF-6 could be "Split and Shipped" in the belly hold of a DC-10-30. I can't remember if it would fit in an A300 belly hold, but it would go on the main deck of the freight conversions.
Phillipine Airlines bought an ex RAF Argosy to transport RB-211s for their TriStars.
Phillipine Airlines bought an ex RAF Argosy to transport RB-211s for their TriStars.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 316
Likes: 91
From: Honolulu
Kalitta has done a number of three engine ferries on their 747 fleet. Check airmen are trained for the specific procedures during take off.
There was one ferry from PHNL to KOSC where the #3 engine was physically removed and placed on the main deck due to bad pylon mounts found during an inspection.
It did take an EO from Boeing and the blessing of the FAA due to the unusual nature of it.
There was one ferry from PHNL to KOSC where the #3 engine was physically removed and placed on the main deck due to bad pylon mounts found during an inspection.
It did take an EO from Boeing and the blessing of the FAA due to the unusual nature of it.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,672
Likes: 3,316
From: Everett, WA
Boeing does publish specific requirements and techniques for a 3 engine 747 ferry flight, which include performance tables, V1 speeds, etc.)
The performance tables and such all assume you lose a second engine at V1, so the MTOW is quite limited, and there is guidance about advancing power on the opposite engine from the failed engine as forward airspeed increases so you retain rudder effectiveness.
Coincidentally, there was a new episode of Air Disasters a few weeks ago on Smithsonian (it's called Air Accident Investigation - or something like that - in other countries, created in Canada I believe). It was about an engine out ferry flight of a cargo DC-10 that crashed on takeoff from somewhere in the US sometime a while ago (I don't recall the airport).
The report blamed 3 main causes:
1) The crew was trained for the procedure, but had never actually done one outside the simulator.
2) The simulator they used did not accurately portray the actual aircraft engine out performance - especially the rudder effectiveness and accel characteristics.
3) The crew was severely fatigued - it seems that crew rest requirements did not apply to ferry flights (the FAA subsequently revised the rules to correct that oversight, but many other regulatory agencies haven't bothered.
The performance tables and such all assume you lose a second engine at V1, so the MTOW is quite limited, and there is guidance about advancing power on the opposite engine from the failed engine as forward airspeed increases so you retain rudder effectiveness.
Coincidentally, there was a new episode of Air Disasters a few weeks ago on Smithsonian (it's called Air Accident Investigation - or something like that - in other countries, created in Canada I believe). It was about an engine out ferry flight of a cargo DC-10 that crashed on takeoff from somewhere in the US sometime a while ago (I don't recall the airport).
The report blamed 3 main causes:
1) The crew was trained for the procedure, but had never actually done one outside the simulator.
2) The simulator they used did not accurately portray the actual aircraft engine out performance - especially the rudder effectiveness and accel characteristics.
3) The crew was severely fatigued - it seems that crew rest requirements did not apply to ferry flights (the FAA subsequently revised the rules to correct that oversight, but many other regulatory agencies haven't bothered.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 227
Likes: 14
From: Here and there....currently here.
I'm a Licensed Engineer and been involved with this scenario twice in my career.
First one was B744 dragged an engine landing in EWR and managed to severely crimp the main oil feed pipe at the base of the engine as the drain mast was pushed up and back into the oil feed pipe on impact. It flew back on a ferry flight to AMS for an engine change.
Second one an A346 which had a high oil consumption. At the time Trent 500 were in short supply so that flew to SIN as one had just come of the overhaul facility there.
Both times we had specially trained company crew flown out to do the ferry flight. I remember they said they start the take off role off the runway centre line to give some allowance for asymmetric thrust.
The prep work for dispatch is quite extensive involving boroscoping the other 3 engines, engine fault history check and various inspections. Both preps took 3-4 days and carried out away from main base. For the B744 there was also structural inspections of the engine, mounts and pylon. I think we strapped the fan on the B744 as well so as not to seize it up due to lack of oil flow. The A346 we didn't as the ferry flight was just within the windmilling time limit set by RR.
Most interesting part was as I was the one signing off the Airbus and releasing the aircraft as there is no MEL for inop engine. Quick call to the QA manager who advised that the 3 engine take off capability is part of the TC process and the aircraft is certified for this procedure so just raise a DD for "No1 engine inop - not to be used"!
I think there also a three engine ferry out of SYD with an A380 a few years ago as well by one the ME carriers?
First one was B744 dragged an engine landing in EWR and managed to severely crimp the main oil feed pipe at the base of the engine as the drain mast was pushed up and back into the oil feed pipe on impact. It flew back on a ferry flight to AMS for an engine change.
Second one an A346 which had a high oil consumption. At the time Trent 500 were in short supply so that flew to SIN as one had just come of the overhaul facility there.
Both times we had specially trained company crew flown out to do the ferry flight. I remember they said they start the take off role off the runway centre line to give some allowance for asymmetric thrust.
The prep work for dispatch is quite extensive involving boroscoping the other 3 engines, engine fault history check and various inspections. Both preps took 3-4 days and carried out away from main base. For the B744 there was also structural inspections of the engine, mounts and pylon. I think we strapped the fan on the B744 as well so as not to seize it up due to lack of oil flow. The A346 we didn't as the ferry flight was just within the windmilling time limit set by RR.
Most interesting part was as I was the one signing off the Airbus and releasing the aircraft as there is no MEL for inop engine. Quick call to the QA manager who advised that the 3 engine take off capability is part of the TC process and the aircraft is certified for this procedure so just raise a DD for "No1 engine inop - not to be used"!
I think there also a three engine ferry out of SYD with an A380 a few years ago as well by one the ME carriers?
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,687
Likes: 2,030
From: Reading, UK
Not pretty, but presumably it worked.
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 963
Likes: 43
From: 30 West
Way back in the day, an Islander was climbing up with parachutists on board at a long closed, northern jump centre. Loud bang and a whole cylinder departed, closely followed by the skydivers.
Pilot landed, lots of sucking of teeth etc etc as he calmly wandered into the bunk house, came back with his bag and climbed in....
What are you doing ?
Taking it to Manchester - and did !!!!!!!
Happy hard core days ;-)
Pilot landed, lots of sucking of teeth etc etc as he calmly wandered into the bunk house, came back with his bag and climbed in....
What are you doing ?
Taking it to Manchester - and did !!!!!!!
Happy hard core days ;-)
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 463
Likes: 7
From: Deepest Essex.
Froma an earlier post:
There was one ferry from PHNL to KOSC where the #3 engine was physically removed and placed on the main deck due to bad pylon mounts found during an inspection.
It did take an EO from Boeing and the blessing of the FAA due to the unusual nature of it.
Now that is intriguing. Cue an explanation from a structural engineer at this point: My understanding of pylon mounted engines was that the downforce of the engine's weight protruding out in front of the wing, and spreading its load, via the pylon to the wing spar, helped to stabilize the wing and give it rigidity,
Hence, possibly, the QRH instruction in 75, &76 QRH under "Engine severe damage or separation"
6 If high airframe vibration occurs and continues after engine shutdown:
Without delay, reduce airspeed and descend to a safe altitude which results in an acceptable vibration level.
If high airframe vibration returns and further airspeed reduction and descent are not practical, increasing the airspeed may reduce the vibration.
A bit like a mass balance on a control surface placed there to reduce flutter.
Could it be that only the inboard engines on a 4 engined aeroplane could be removed?
Someone, pleas enlighten me!
There was one ferry from PHNL to KOSC where the #3 engine was physically removed and placed on the main deck due to bad pylon mounts found during an inspection.
It did take an EO from Boeing and the blessing of the FAA due to the unusual nature of it.
Now that is intriguing. Cue an explanation from a structural engineer at this point: My understanding of pylon mounted engines was that the downforce of the engine's weight protruding out in front of the wing, and spreading its load, via the pylon to the wing spar, helped to stabilize the wing and give it rigidity,
Hence, possibly, the QRH instruction in 75, &76 QRH under "Engine severe damage or separation"
6 If high airframe vibration occurs and continues after engine shutdown:
Without delay, reduce airspeed and descend to a safe altitude which results in an acceptable vibration level.
If high airframe vibration returns and further airspeed reduction and descent are not practical, increasing the airspeed may reduce the vibration.
A bit like a mass balance on a control surface placed there to reduce flutter.
Could it be that only the inboard engines on a 4 engined aeroplane could be removed?
Someone, pleas enlighten me!
Joined: Sep 2010
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 884
Likes: 233
From: by the seaside
Two stories off on a tangent but brought to mind from previous stories;
The first from placing wooden chocks in the fan to stop rotation because of lack of lubrication; the BA flight from LAX to MAN did 11 hours with a damaged engine whilst the engine certification was for 2 hours windmilling.
Another BA 747 incident was in Dubai iirc when one engine starter motor broke; after consultation with the FE and looking through the relight envelope decided they could bump start the engine. This didn’t go well and they ended up having an extended layover whilst BA shipped out a full set of main undercarriage tyres/wheels after they aborted the attempt and blew the fuses.
The first from placing wooden chocks in the fan to stop rotation because of lack of lubrication; the BA flight from LAX to MAN did 11 hours with a damaged engine whilst the engine certification was for 2 hours windmilling.
Another BA 747 incident was in Dubai iirc when one engine starter motor broke; after consultation with the FE and looking through the relight envelope decided they could bump start the engine. This didn’t go well and they ended up having an extended layover whilst BA shipped out a full set of main undercarriage tyres/wheels after they aborted the attempt and blew the fuses.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: Europe
My only 3 end ferry was also done in a DH7. At some point our OMs were rewritten so only instructors were allowed to do 3 eng ferry. Fast forward a few months, a DH7 had a bad starter on a small strip looong way from maint base and bad wx was forecasted. Lo and behold, we got a permit for a normal line flight crew to ferry.
Joined: Sep 2010
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 884
Likes: 233
From: by the seaside
[QUOTE=Meikleour;12031505]BP: that old chestnut has done the rounds for years - last time I heard it it was supposed to be done at Bombay![/QUOTE
Wouldnt surprise me that some idiot had tried it more than once..they had two goes at the wrong taxiway in South Africa before they whacked the building.
Wouldnt surprise me that some idiot had tried it more than once..they had two goes at the wrong taxiway in South Africa before they whacked the building.