Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
4 Engine A/C Takes Off On 3 Engines W/pax?  
User currently offlineBohica From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4539 times:

http://www.toomuchfs.com/reallife/nicequality.htm

Can someone confirm or deny this really happened? To summarize, apparently an airliner had a bad engine and they just "deferred" the engine and strapped the fan so it would not windmill. Then the airline launched the plane full of passengers on only three engines. I just find it hard to believe.

[Edited 2005-04-01 05:50:32]

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4511 times:

One cannot legally defer obvious items like engines and wings... A -3 or 4-engined aircraft can be ferried with an engine inop, but it's a "maintenance ferry" i.e. crew only and never any passengers.

I don't doubt the account of the aircraft depicted in the photos, as there are parts of the world where regulatory compliance isn't a high priority.


User currently offlineN754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4371 times:

Thats an engine on a trolly so I dont trust this story.... someones Idea of fun me thinks... liar 

User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4335 times:

In this story, the crew decides to START a takeoff on 3 engines with passengers. That is indeed unusual, indeed, I believe it is unheard of in first world airlines.

However, there are many incidents in which a pilot will CONTINUE a takeoff when an engine fails after the takeoff begins. In fact, there is a point in the takeoff role after which this is standard procedure. This is because sometimes there is not enough runway left to stop the plane, but there is enough to take off even when short one engine. The FAA requires that there never be a point in the takeoff when the pilot can neither stop the plane nor takeoff safely, even if an engine fails.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

Not quite true. In addition to regulatory approval for the ferry flight, which prohibits all but the basic flight crew, you would also need approval from the aircraft manufacturer. I certainly doubt if Boeing or Airbus would even think of allowing a 3 engine ferry.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4273 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 3):
However, there are many incidents in which a pilot will CONTINUE a takeoff when an engine fails after the takeoff begins. In fact, there is a point in the takeoff role after which this is standard procedure. This is because sometimes there is not enough runway left to stop the plane, but there is enough to take off even when short one engine. The FAA requires that there never be a point in the takeoff when the pilot can neither stop the plane nor takeoff safely, even if an engine fails.

The point (actually it's a speed) you are tallking about is referred to as V1. Beyond this point the pilots are committed to take off. Attempting to stop beyond V1 will normally result in a runway overrun.

Reasons for stopping before 80 knots:
- Pretty much any problem.

Reasons for stopping beyond 80 knots but before V1:
- Engine failure.
- Fire.
- Flight control surfaces not responding.
- Other serious problem.

Beyond V1, it's up, up and away regardless. If there is a problem serious enough to warrant landing, you either dump fuel (if you are heavy enough) and land or land directly.


User currently offlineNORTHSEATIGER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4150 times:

This article surfaced about 2 years ago at work but the story was far more detailed and I'm sure there was pictures of the engine actually on the wing.

User currently offlineJeffSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3745 times:

I always got a kick out of this photo from the database:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/224038/L/

But since it's a cargo operator, the missing engine scenario doesn't really pertain to the original question but it's interesting nonetheless.

-Jeff


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3664 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 1):
I don't doubt the account of the aircraft depicted in the photos, as there are parts of the world where regulatory compliance isn't a high priority.

The pressure is on here as well in the cut throat aviation market. I know instances in Europe and the US, where mechanics had to stand their ground when they condidered an aircraft not to be airworthy, but the management insisted on sending the plane out because of the revenue. The refusal to sign off the log book was in many cases detriminial to the mechanic´s career. The management will do anything which keeps their statistics and bottom line look good, as long as theydon´t have to take personal responsibility for it (like the mechanic, who can face jail if he knowingly signs off and unairworthy aircraft).

Jan


User currently offlineSe210 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3619 times:

On March 19, 1979, I was booked on DL #930 from MIA-TPA. This was a DL DC-8-61 (N1302L #46029). Although not advised at the gate, once we boarded the aircraft in MIA the Captain said we'd be flying on 3 out of 4 engines and we would have to change planes in PBI (West Palm Beach). I sat in the window seat near the "dead" engine and I remember there being an orange non-ops sticker on it! We flew at a lower altitude but aside from that the flight was routine. It was also a pretty light load, about 30% full. The flight from MIA-PBI was only 18 minutes according to my log. Once in PBI, we switched over to a DL B727-232 (FL#362 N484DA #20864) for the PBI-TPA leg (32 minutes).

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Alaska Airlines Takes-off On Wrong Runway In Ksea posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:19:16 by Amwest2United
China Airlines 747 Takes Off On Wrong Runway posted Thu May 31 2001 14:41:05 by Singapore_Air
747 Taking Off On Two Engines .... posted Sat Dec 17 2005 17:41:09 by Condor24
747 With 3 Engines Takes Off From Detroit posted Mon Nov 1 2004 17:34:12 by Dayflyer
MCO-EWR On Delta - Pax Pulls Birds Head Off. posted Fri Dec 28 2001 22:03:29 by Bkkair
First Thai 777-200ER Takes Off! With Pics posted Tue Oct 24 2006 12:55:29 by Qantas744ER
FAA Signs Off On Wright posted Tue Oct 17 2006 01:35:08 by Utapao
PA-23 Ditches Off Bahamas Cay; Pax Swim To Shore posted Wed Oct 11 2006 04:51:26 by KFLLCFII
LH A343 GRU-MUC Takes Off posted Fri Sep 15 2006 09:49:53 by Hardiwv
Asiana Takes Off Without Passanger Crew posted Sat Aug 12 2006 14:15:01 by Mortyman
747 Taking Off On Two Engines .... posted Sat Dec 17 2005 17:41:09 by Condor24
747 With 3 Engines Takes Off From Detroit posted Mon Nov 1 2004 17:34:12 by Dayflyer
MCO-EWR On Delta - Pax Pulls Birds Head Off. posted Fri Dec 28 2001 22:03:29 by Bkkair
Plane Takes Off With No Power, No Pilot! posted Sat Nov 19 2011 15:55:26 by HaveBlue
Ice Pilots NWT Season 2 Set To Takes Off posted Sat Jan 1 2011 09:14:09 by ghYHZ
El Al Plane Almost Takes Off With Open Door- Again posted Mon Sep 20 2010 11:20:52 by todaReisinger
A-319 Engine With Flames On Final Into DCA posted Sun Aug 29 2010 18:28:24 by FLYjoe
FI: Uncontained Engine Rotor Failure On Trent 1000 posted Mon Aug 16 2010 11:39:02 by SSPhoenix