It depends. If you have an engine failure and you think there may be internal mechanical damage (follow the QRH), you probably want to land before you tear up the engine anymore or worse, create an imbalance that causes destructive vibration. Further, it's likely you won't have the fuel to make it to the final destination due to the drag of the inop engine and the requirement to fly lower altitudes. While you probably won't make destination, you can get the company to pick out a convenient airport where maintenance and parts are available, not to mention a good long layover hotel with a beach and pretty girls.

Quite agree, Mr Rainboe. This has done before, but the FAA is so twin-centric; no one knows how 4-engine planes should be operated so they just apply the rules they know. (the short-sighted, know nothing idea) OR the cynical version, why let those furriners get away 4-engine ops.

The AF rule within the transport types-the bombers could depart on non-combat missions with one out, I believe.

....not if the FAA ruled military ops!

Funnily enough, I expect the B52 would be more efficient if it shut down 4 engines and operated 4 at high power? Maybe 2 shut down?

JAA vs. FAA????
 

What does JAA say about this...comparing to FAA 121?

It's my intrepretation of FAA 121 that the aircraft need not be landed at the nearest suitable airport in point of time IF those six criteria are satisfied. It is NOT intended that the aircraft be flown for another ten or twelve hours (over the ocean, etc.).

I am not familiar with JAA regs in this regard, so someone please educate me. I don't have any four-engine time, but I have some three-engine time.

Fly safe,

PantLoad

Doesn´t Nimrod have a SOP of shutting down two engines just to save fuel?

Would any civilian planes find it useful to follow suit? Starting with Comet itself...

We didn't shut them down but, at light weights and holding at high levels, I seem to recall the VC10 was more efficient if 2 were throttled back and 2 were at a high power setting.

I believe the original post pertained to three engine ferries. At our company, they are performed by all check airman, who are all three engine qualified, and have to have done a relevant sim run in the last year (I think). Though I am not a check airman, I rode support for one regaining his three engine currency recently, and it was quite entertaining. Our numbers for a three engine dispatch are actually predicated on doing the whole takeoff on two engines, which it will do just fine, though you may need a proctologist to find the seat cushion. There is no V1 speed, or rather it is always VR, and so is dropped. Of course you want superb weather, daylight, correctly aligned stars and anything else you can think off. We actually have a couple of check airman who like doing them:eek:.

My recollection is that the Queen of the Skies was more economical on three - i.e. with one engine actually shut down ! :ok:

JD
:)

This was tried many years ago
Dan Air asked the ARB (yes, that long ago, ARB) if it was permitted.
The ARB replied...NO.

End of discussion.
I believe David Davies was involved, and he shot the idea down.

With good reason, IMO.