engine out ferry flight
 

Are there strict regulations to allow a take off and ferry an aircraft with one engine inoperative on a 4 engine aircraft or is is left to the Aircraft operator / Airline ?
The example I saw was a freighter , no pax ,

On this side there is Part 91.611 for guidance.

Ferry flights are almost by definition means no paying passengers.
Making it 'minimum crew' is pretty much up to the operator - although it would make sense in most cases.

Yes there are strict regulations and procedures, but don't know if they are company or CAA. I would imagine they are designed by the aircraft manufacturer.

We practised this scenario in the BAe 146 SIM; for the event of an engine failure on take-off leaving only 2 engines out of the 4.

Therefore obviously empty positioning flights only - no payload at all !

Thanks for the replies ,especially the FAA Part 91. text . The case here was an engine blew up on take off , fire extinguishers used, , cargo off loaded ,, prop feathered , take off on 3 engines back to base ( 8 hours flight) odd to watch but the FAA regulations clearly allow this I see., under some conditions, which I am sure were met . Just I had never seen this done before ,

Did one on a C130 about 35 years ago!

Once had to carry out a single engine departure and transit on a twin engined Puma HC1 helicopter after one failed to start. It required a running takeoff to get airborne. Crew only and approx 20nm, but it was overwater apart from the last three nm or so. But that was under RAF regulations. It required the Air Officer Commanding’s authorisation but he willingly granted it because he had actually been on the aircraft when the second engine wouldn’t start. We flew back to base, fetched a spare aircraft and went back to recover him and his entourage.

Spantax lost one of their CV990s at Stockholm trying such a ferry in 1970.

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/cras...kholm-5-killed

I’ve never done one but talking from people who have, Vmcg, Vmca and V1/V2 can be quite different to normal, especially on a heavy, sometimes leading to an awkward gap during takeoff where the options are very limited. For us it used to be volunteer managers/trainers only, given the risk exposure. I think on a long runway at sea level it probably works but add in a bit of WAT and things get complicated.

We have a select group of SkyGods that are blessed to do this.
Certainly not us mere mortal line pilots.

Did a three engine ferry flight on the Electra under FAA regs. but the UK CAA would not allow it as there were no certified performance figures.
Did an Accelerate - Stop windmill sart at EDI when a starter motor failed. We went back to the start of the runway and took-off normally.

Manufacturers approval (certification), including performance tables is required for ferry with an engine operative. This should also define engine and aircraft handling techniques, i.e. initial acceleration with symmetric engines and increasing power on the 'odd engine' to achieve maximum power at Vmcg.

Configurations other than engine failure require considerations of lateral weight distribution, control margin, …

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c4efbb96d.jpeg

Few years back an old 747 200 or 400 (can’t remember) had engine failure in Macau. They dispatched the aircraft a few days after on 3 engines. Not a big deal on a quad.

That accident shows how much safety margins are reduced in that situation; then you don't have them when you need them.

I watched a Viscount perform a 3-engined takeoff many years ago. Prudently, the engineers had removed the prop from the dead engine.

That said, I've been airborne in both 4- and 2-engined aircraft with a windmilling prop.

We did one on the RAF C130K from Seeb to Akrotiri ! I also authorised one from Mogadishu to Mombasa during Op Vigour. Both times basic five man crew (all men then !) plus the G/E.

I did a 3-engine ferry on a Vanguard(BEA) in the early '70s with an outboard prop feathered.

This was from BHX to LHR and my abiding memory is of how little runway remained at lift-off!

I had forgotten that one, but Spantax had a lot of accidents in that period . I was on duty when one of their CV990 did a belly landing in Cologne ( forgot to lower the gear ) they raised the fuselage on the runway and lowered the gear and the Capt wanted to bring the aircraft back to Palma with its ( mostly germans ) pax but the Germans BFS grounded it . After few days of negotiations they allowed it to be ferried to Zurich ( if I remember correctly ) for repairs .
Real cowboys but they welcomed controllers to fly for free with them , we did used them a lot and they got lots of directs in exchange .
A gone by era .

.

During UNOSOM 2 daze in Somalia +- 1994 there was a C-130 that had a little problem that led to a damaged #4 and a FODDED #3 at Baledogle Airport.
Departed with 1, 2, and 3 then feathered # 3 and completed the 530 Nm 2 engine ferry to Nairobi.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5dbba4f64.jpeg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....dc403dd50.jpeg

I recall from ancient annals an early model Lear that attempted to depart in Libya with one engine inoperable/one engine running. I don't think it ended well.

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.

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?

Where was the 747 ferry going? I'd be surprised if they had planned to send a 3-engined 747 across the Pond - only BA does that. :O

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.

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!!

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I wish I'd taken a photo of the kit we used on the TriStar third pod to stop the RB211 fan windmilling - basically a set of wooden blocks roped together and wound around the blades.

Not pretty, but presumably it worked.

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 ;-)

I have done two 3 engine ferries in a CL-44. No passengers or cargo allowed. The airplane takes off and climbs quite well (for a CL-44) when that light.

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!

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.

BP,should`ve got a `blow-job`...

Have done several in the DHC-7, performance is in the manual, lower MTOW, minimum crew. Worked out just fine!

BP: that old chestnut has done the rounds for years - last time I heard it it was supposed to be done at Bombay!

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.

[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.