Three engine airplane with two eng inop
 

Hi guys

maybe a silly question, I know that aircraft must be able to continue the flight with an engine inop, in case of four-engine plane even with two engines inop.
My question is, is it possible to continue the flight also in three-engine plane with two engines inop? In that case, it means that you have only 33 percent of thrust available:ooh: Is it sufficient?

Thanks for answers
Quest147

It depends...

- weight
- ambient conditions
- phase of flight

etc.

Not my specialtst subject...but I've always assumed that curvature of the earth will play a part.

Yes, there may be circumstances with SE on a threewholer where you won't make it.


However King of Marocc's 727 shot by missiles made it....

Thanks for answers

I mean failure of two engines in the cruise phase...

At typical mid-flight enroute weights, the L-1011 (specific model depending on the engines installed) will drift down to around 10,000 MSL with two engines inop.
Two engines inop go-arounds are also possible, if light enough (and started high enough), and the ambient temperature is reasonable.

In the latter case, two engine inop autolands are also possible, using Flap 10, depending on hydraulic system(s) status.

L-1011, a very systems redundant aeroplane.

727, mid weight at goaround, two eng out.

Max thrust, get the gear up, retract flaps soon, achieve 210 kts or so, select flaps 5 and land.

Good luck

The DC-10 could make it to either Gander or Shannon from the middle of the pond on one engine. Mind you, if I remember correctly, you were in for a no flap/no slat landing when you got there.

Scenario.
L1011 Sim, BAH.
Captain (myself) is performing a two engine inop go-around, for a PC.
At 800 agl, with gear extended (flaps 10) the runway is blocked.
Speed, Vref+30.
Result?
MAX absolute thrust from the operating engine (number three, as I recall), continue descent, request gear UP, and flaps 4.
So far, so good.
When 180 knots IAS achieved, I request flaps UP and anticipate descending until 210 is achieved, where a climb is then possible.

Opps!
The First Officer then says...sorry Captain, 180 is too slow for flaps UP.

Opps again.
These are under 'normal' circumstances...not in the present emergency situation
RTFB.

Check pilot has an absolute fit.
Stops the sim, and proceeds to chew out the (new) First Officer, thusly...
'The Captain has 9,000 command hours in the TriStar, you had better learn from him and actually read the manual, otherwise, you are dead meat.'

The First Officer, then suitably 'organized' performs extremely well, and is passed as suitable...with a reminder... 'Listen to the experience expat Captains bring to this airline, listen and learn, or you are no good.'

Firm, but fair...works every time.

An absolutely true story.
The Check Captain, by the way, was a local guy.
No surprise, there.

In the latter case, two engine inop autolands are also possible, using Flap 10, depending on hydraulic system(s) status.

I've heard you talking about your beloved Tristar before, 411A, but this has got to be the most impressive bit by far!

Yes, there may be circumstances with SE on a threewholer where you won't make it.

I always thought it was "threeholer"...

@Check Airman

Yes, you are correct.

Sorry, English isn't my native language.

Regards

Hetfield

The L-1011 was/IS unique, in many ways...just ask the folks who(m) have flown the aeroplane.
You will get an earfull...and with good reason.
Lockheed...often imitated, never equaled.

I remember a story about a PanAm L1011-500 that set off on a 2-engine ferry from Mexico City (alt 7,000ft+) and one of the 'good engines' failed shortly after take-off. After a low-level circuit, it landed safely on one engine and the Captain kissed the good engine! 411A may be able to confirm this or consign it to the "mythology" section!
Certainly, I remember a sim session on the TriStar partly devoted to one-engine flying, fortunately never did it for real.
The B747-400 also flies on one engine -at below a certain low weight it will maintain altitude when clean and will make an approach with certain conditions -such as above the GS and very little power applied!

Thanks for replies guys

Does anyone of you have performance charts for any threeholer regarding driftdoen altitude with two eng inop? Just for information:)

Thanks again

411A: One engine autoland?:ooh: Speechless... Could you provide some reference, excerpt from manual or so?

Yes, certainly.
From the L1011 manual from one very noteworthy airline.
" An automatic single engine approach/land maneuver is possible, provided that system 'B' hydraulics, is available."

TriStar..I repeat, a quite good aeroplane, that never let me (personally) down...for the last 28 years.
Yeah..it is that reliable.

Them's the facts.

Getting back to the orignal question...
 

Years ago (almost 30), I flew the 727 (both the 100 and 200), and it, in fact, could fly on only one engine. But, you had to have speed, no drag, and you had to realize that you were limited in terms of density altitude.

If I recall (others, help me out, please), you needed to be clean and have 200 KIAS. Then, you would be able to fly.

For example, coming down the glide path with only one engine turning...limited flaps/gear down...and, you decide to go around (for whatever reason)...you had to get the gear and flaps/slats up, and accelerate to about 200 KIAS (as you continue down the glide path). Once you got clean and 200 KIAS, you would be able to climb.

As memory serves, based on typical gross weights, you were limited to maybe 6000 to 8000 feet density altitude. But, at least it would fly.

I don't have any experience with any other three-engine aircraft, so I can't speak for the TriStar, etc. However, I DO remember that flying the 727 with only one turning was a required maneuver in the simulator to obtain the type rating.


Fly safe,


PantLoad

If I remember correctly (it was a long long time ago)the original 727 (as per the sales film by Boeing) did a take off on 1 engine (the tail-skid copped a hiding but it got off the ground) I think it was filmed at Edwards Air force base .(the other engines were at idle so electrics and hydraulics would still be available)

When I was flying KC-135s we practiced at the instructors' school doing single engine approaches and go arounds. And the J57s put out only a pathetic 13,000lbs of thrust and we considered the airplane 'light' when we had only 40-50k of fuel on board for a gross weight of 160k.

Yes, it was touchy and you had to pay attention and anticipate the increased drag with extending gear and flaps but one could hold level flight with gear retracted and flaps at 30deg.

And in the 727s, the concern was that once you lost a hyd system due to an engine being lost you could not retract the gear or flaps so that became a major concern.

Same with the L-1011, however the required speed was 210...with a 'reasonable' weight (mass, for you European folks.):rolleyes:
I have done this several times in the aeroplane, when the sim was not available for PC's...works as advertised.
This was a superb confidence maneuver for First Officers as well, although it was not a required (graded) requirement, for them.

I've done several engine out ferries in 727. Boeing provides takeoff data for one engine inop takeoffs and you compute runway and climb requirements to meet the same standards as when all engines are turning. Major part of flight crew training covered loss of a second engine during takeoff. Depending on the dash number engine and conditions, you're good up to 140,000 pounds. Had a sim default back to 170,000 pounds one time and got off the runway to 100 feet for about 10 miles while the sim instructor engaged some 'speed' dumping. As said above, when you get to 200 knots clean, you've got it made. We pulled the C/B on the ground interconnect to gang the electric "B" system to the engine driven "A" system hydraulics. Depending on whether you had engine hydraulics or not, the commit point for landing was flap extension or gear extension.

point8six:

The L-1011 operator doing the two engine ferry out of Mexico City was Eastern and it was a -1 not a -500. The No. 1 engine was inop, No. 3 failed on rotation. If it had been the No.2 engine that was the second failure the chances are they would not have been able to return.

411A:

B-System hydraulics is provided by the No. 2 engine, as is C-System.

Quite true.
However, if number two engine is shutdown, and the B or C hydraulic systems are not compromised, these systems can be pressurized with ATM's (ADP's for you Boeing folks), keeping these systems fully serviceable for all normal functions.
A nice arrangement.
However, should another engine fail, you would now have less bleed air to power the operating ATM's, so configuration changes need to be carefully planned for optimal operation.
As the TriStar has four independant hydraulic systems, redundancy is enhanced considerably over other three engine designs.

That is what I recall as well, with the possible exception that in the 200 series you might need 210 knots.

Yes, if you had to manually extend the gear you were committed to landing at that point. One day just playing around after finishing a recurrency course the sim instructor had me try to go around on one engine with the gear down just for the hell of it. We made it a lot farther that I thought we would, of course the instructor had configured the sim to be an empty aircraft with only about 15,000 pounds of fuel.

That is correct, at least it was with me. I started off with a V-1 cut, normal two engine climb out, return for an ILS to minimums, a miss due the old lost fuel truck on the runway and the second engine failure just after the gear and flaps were retracted. In my case the second engine failure was an uncontrollable engine fire. However, miraculously the weater suddenly became clear and the single engine approach and landing was visual.

I sure liked flying 727s, miss em. :(

411A, I never had the pleasure to fly the L1011, however, every person that I have talked to that have flown them loved them, must be a hell of an aircraft.

go round
 

the 10 would do a go round from 1000ft which was also the point you made the the comit to land and put the gear down ,and then it was land regardess

If you are manually extending the gear, it is likely because you lost A hydraulics which control gear and normal operation of flaps both on the leading and trailing edges. If A system has been lost(due to #1 and #2 engines out) do you not commit to land not at gear extension but earlier, at initial flap extension due to the inability to now retract the LED's?

Does this three engine design have manual reversion in case all hydraulics are lost?

If I remember correctly, you didn't want to take a 727 with #3 generator inop because IF you lost #1 and #2, you wouldn't be able to power the rudder and control would become questionable. Actually, as the sim instructor demo's, impossible. I still can picture looking up from the floor (cranking the mains down, figuring, at least, the mains should be down) as we scooted by the Marriott off of 9L at KMIA. 27 years ago.

GF

411A, The Galaxy was really a wonder also, if only it had decent maintenance support.

No.

However, you do have four independent systems each driven by its own variable speed pump. Backed up by two Air Turbin Motor (ATM) pumps and two Power Transfer Units (PTU). The ATM's are driven by engine bleed air or APU compressor air. The PTU's mechnically transmit power from one system to another, without fluid transfer. In the event of all three engines fail there is a Ram Air Turbin (RAT) which provides enough power for controled flight.

Don't think you will find a jet transport larger than a 707 with Manual reversion.

Three engine airplane with two eng inop
 

YES, however your need two very important elements to successfully perform this maneuver. #1, a Boeing B727. #2, have your act together.

CRM saves lives
 

"'Listen to the experience expat Captains bring to this airline, listen and learn, or you are no good.'"

I'm surprised at you 411A. Far too many crashes occur because young pilots are frightened to question the actions of captains. You're hardly helping the climate to improve, are you?

Two questions, twistedenginestarter.
Young (say, age 25, with 3-400 hours) less experienced pilots start off in the right hand seat to, among other things, gain the necessary skills to be able to handle the airplane well, and make the requisite decisions to transform themselves into more experienced airman.

Do you really believe that they can accomplish these tasks by not listening and learning from their more experienced senior crew members?

OR, do you truly believe that all things aeronautical can be learned in text books and classrom sessions, so that a brand new pilot truly 'knows it all' and hardly needs any input from more senior/experienced crew mewmbers?

Answers on a postcard.:rolleyes:

PS:
An airliner is not run by a committee.
Only one crew member is in charge, and that one crew member is the Captain...and this ain't gonna change anytime soon, junior pilots thoughts/pronouncemens notwithstanding.

Wasn't the 727 of Maroc's King Hassan (piloted by Mohammed Kabbej) on one engine only after an air attack?

Day two of the sim session, the instructor had reviewed the two-engine inop details during the brief prior to going into the box....and in any case, the go-around procedure is reviewed and called out by the Flight Engineer directly from the QRH, as part of the checklist.

In short, the F/O, who was quite junior, had no excuse whatsoever.
It simply is a matter of RTFB.

411A.

Quote. >"Do you really believe that they can accomplish these tasks by not listening and learning from their more experienced senior crew members?

OR, do you truly believe that all things aeronautical can be learned in text books and classrom sessions, so that a brand new pilot truly 'knows it all' and hardly needs any input from more senior/experienced crew mewmbers?"<

Not PC these days, I know, but with you all the way.

The number of times I must have mentioned to some callow "whizz kid" , "Think about it. The Captains don't get their four bars for nothing. Watch and listen. You'll always learn something.............even if it's sometimes how NOT to do it !

Sleeve.

Three engine airplane with two eng inop
 

. . *fires my recall of a sim incident many years ago, when, as middle order F/O 727, I was short noticed to do sim support for a Capt being checked by God. In those days the (ex airline) Ansett lifted the Boeing procedures exactly.

We did a number of eng failures, until at the end I asked what we were to do if we had a second, sequential, donk go.

I was imperiously informed that statistically this would not happen, and was not worth considering. This following a recent holiday where I had spoken to a VC-10 crew who had had just that happen two weeks prior, and one week later had talked to an engineer in SYD who described a L-1011 which had thrown a blade which was ingested by #2.

On a tryout, I just followed my basic instincts - @ 700' when it happened I started trading height & cleaning at absolute min retract speed (but I had a rule of thumb giving Vcl+/-1kt for any weight, and stuck to that. It was down 250' before I had the necessary 227kt (as I recall) clean, and started a gentle climb with the good one firewalled.


Longish final from a healthy 1,500', still firewalled but inside 5 mins, holding every gram of energy clean until I had to breath some flap out, FE briefed to drop one main gear mechanically at a time & await further orders, nosewheel locked down a few seconds before it touched. Done.


Just like any glider circuit, really. Energy management.

Indeed so, con-pilot, in fact I (personally) turned down the ahhh 'upgrade?' to the B747 (twice), simply because...as referenced to first generation wide-body jet transport aircraft, there is only ONE type that has never 'crashed' due to an aircraft/engine system malfunction.
It is the Lockheed L1011.

Made in America...with proper RollsRoyce engines..naturally.
RR, the best in the business, with turbine engines...bar NONE.

In my, ahhh, not so humble opinion, of course.:O

CRM at its best! :ouch:

There was obviously a signifcant difference between say a L1011, -1 and a, -500. In the -1 going between PHNL and KLAX or vice versa, you could get into a situation where upon the loss of two engines you had to dump some fuel so as to reduce weight for 2EO performance so as to stay out of the water. This tended to be a very critical stage length for this particular aircraft and on more than one occasion when it was determined your fuel load was falling behind on the score, a crew elected to return to their point of departure. Obviously this did not sit well with the airline (Delta) and they created a work around to prevent this from happening. I'm sure everyone here knows that the 2EO ETP for the L1011 and the DC10's were the norm. The scenario was a catastrophice failure of a wing engine that FOD'd the tail engine combined with a loss of pressurization. Not sure that anyone ever experienced this situation but that's was the logic as I understood it for this ETP construction.

Two engine out approaches were the norm for every PC check that I ever did in the DC10, L1011, MD11.

An approach with 50% engine failure is required on all PIC P/Cs in the US. The FAA doesn't count half an engine so all three engine types will get down to one engine