Sacamojus From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 228 posts, RR: 1 Posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11825 times:
I have always wondered what would happen if a plane lost both engines lets say 10 seconds after take off? How high would a plane have to get to make a safe landing with both engines out? Finally, what is the possibility of this event occuring?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11815 times:
10 seconds after take-off, losing both engines on a twin would result in controlled flight into terrain.
ADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1179 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11740 times:
Never could survive. Of wait there have been several cases of twins losing both engines at cruise - seems about 50-50 on successful outcomes (I can think of 4).
10 sec after takeoff would be very bad. I can't think of any all engines out take off accidents, but there have been crashes for other reasons. Flap settings and ice/snow are the most common. Air Florida into the Potomac (reduced engine power due to ice) and NW at DTW (flaps) would be in the ball park of your scenario.
FlyHoss From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11725 times:
There was a Diamond Twinstar DA-42 accident in Germany a few months ago. At gear retraction, both engines shut down. IIRC, the aircraft received damage, but the occupants were able to walk away.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11647 times:
A twin with 2 engines out in cruise should be able to land. It really depends on the skill of the pilots and the available airfields. Unfortunately, pilots will tend to over react.
But the planes are built to be able to "glide home" if needed.
But no, right after takeoff, if both engines go out, everyone dies...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11576 times:
Quoting LouA340 (Reply 4): How about a 4 engined aircraft such as a 747 or an A340?? Could it still climb properly with 2 engines out?
That would depend on several factors including TOW and which engines were out. If both of the working engines were on the same wing, then no way. With symmetrical thrust and a low TOW, a 747 or an A340 could probably maintain speed and altitude. Anyone tried this in the simulator?
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11548 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5): A twin with 2 engines out in cruise should be able to land. It really depends on the skill of the pilots and the available airfields. Unfortunately, pilots will tend to over react.
But the planes are built to be able to "glide home" if needed.
But no, right after takeoff, if both engines go out, everyone dies...
Here I would disagree. Gliding home requires lots of altitude, because you have to trade altitude for airspeed. As for loosing both engines just after rotation, what matters is the terrain straight ahead, because that is the only place you can go -- a turn would be suicide because you could easily get into a "departure stall".
Returning to those 10 white knuckled seconds after your twin became a glider, if you have the gear up and flaps down, you can pan cake it onto the ground -- assuming the ground is relatively flat and soft -- such as a corn field. Even if there are trees you can point the nose between two trees and let them rip the wings off. Only if you have really rough terrain are you sh*t out of luck. Will people die -- likely. But there is a good chance of survival with a controlled crash. I once watch an Piper Apache do exactly that at FCM near Minneapolis. A pilot was on a check ride, the inspector turned the fuel to off, and the knob came off in his hand. The pilot ducked under some power lines and plowed up a field. Both walked away. They fired the inspector.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11529 times:
Recently, there was the case of a British Airways 747 that lost an engine at take-off from LAX and flew to LHR with only three engines. Captain was given some flack, but the maintenance levels on airplanes is such that the odds of an engine failure have dropped to VERY low levels, and the odds of a second occuring simultaneously are miniscule, at best.
Two in-flight occurances of total engine failure with a happy ending come to mind - the British Airways 747 that flew into an ash cloud of the erupting Mt. Galunggung on the Indonesian island of Java, and the more recent Air Transat A330 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic but made an emergency landing in the Azores:
JetJeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1415 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11530 times:
they would have to have another runway in sight maybe like something around seattle and bfi? or just a smooth surface
im sure it could be done anythings possible... but 10 seconds you really dont get a lot of alt. what maybe 1500 to 2000
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11513 times:
some years ago a Hapag Lloyd A310 sailed into Vienna with both engines stopped due to low fuel (they started in Greece and flew with gear down nearly to Vienna.
About 30 miles out of Schwechat both engines flamed out and the plane made a crash-sail landing in Vienna-some minor injuries though..
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11490 times:
Let's remember that the engines are not required for flight. They are required to impart energy. This energy is used to gain speed and/or altitude (which are also energy). At low altitude, there isn't a lot of energy stored, so options are limited. It depends on the terrain, the amount of altitude gained, and a lot of other things.
At cruise, you have a lot of options. Just after take-off, not so much. Other factors take on a much bigger importance.
Quoting ADent (Reply 2): I can't think of any all engines out take off accidents, but there have been crashes for other reasons
SK managed to bellyland an MD-80 with two engines out shortly after takeoff from ARN. Everyone survived. One person was paralyzed. So it is possible.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
AirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3639 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11459 times:
Ten seconds after take off you will have the gear up, and most likely be accelerating through 190 kts (assuming you are in an airliner). If you kill the engines you will not be able to pitch for your best glide and make a safe landing. The nose is going to drop like a rock, and the rest of the plane will follow.
[Edited 2007-07-06 20:32:52]
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11395 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):
SK managed to bellyland an MD-80 with two engines out shortly after takeoff from ARN. Everyone survived. One person was paralyzed. So it is possible.
In that incident, the MD-80 didn't experience engine failure until a full minute after take-off when the aircraft had gained at least 3,000 feet in altitude. That gave the flight crew considerably more options than a dual failure just ten seconds after becoming airborne. Not that 3,000 feet of altitude is a whole lot to work with either.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3233 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11395 times:
Don't forget the Gimli Glider. One of the best stories in aviation, I think.
TIS
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
ContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1436 posts, RR: 50 Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11394 times:
Quoting JetJeanes (Reply 10): but 10 seconds you really dont get a lot of alt. what maybe 1500 to 2000
Not remotely! To gain 1500 feet of altitude in 10 seconds you would need a climb rate of 9000 ft/minute I'd say your figure is too high by five to ten multiples. In 10 seconds you'd only be a few hundred feet off the ground.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11339 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14): In that incident, the MD-80 didn't experience engine failure until a full minute after take-off when the aircraft had gained at least 3,000 feet in altitude. That gave the flight crew considerably more options than a dual failure just ten seconds after becoming airborne. Not that 3,000 feet of altitude is a whole lot to work with either.
Oh absolutely. The more altitude and speed (one can be exchanged for the other), the more options.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4537 posts, RR: 13 Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11267 times:
It all depends on the terrain and how quickly the pilot can establish the glide but given a favorable terrain and glide id put the odds that some would survive at 50-75%... unfavorable terrain that number goes down quickly
Airports in the midwest would be considered to have favorable terrain for the most part,,, like DEN and the open feilds surrounding it. an airport like SFO would be far less favorable between the large hills, dense development and water.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7713 posts, RR: 55 Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11156 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 9): Recently, there was the case of a British Airways 747 that lost an engine at take-off from LAX and flew to LHR with only three engines.
This was a big deal cos in the end they couldn't make LHR, and had to land in Manchester, which was 300 mi closer.
Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 11): some years ago a Hapag Lloyd A310 sailed into Vienna with both engines stopped due to low fuel
Didn't quite make it. They crashed within the airport boundary but short of the runway. Good enough - everyone got out - but wanted to make this clarification.
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12): SK managed to bellyland an MD-80 with two engines out shortly after takeoff from ARN.
Yes and a masterful bit of flying - deliberately flew through treetops before coming down to earth, to lose some speed.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5): Unfortunately, pilots will tend to over react.
"WHAT?! ARE YOU CRAZY?! GO F*** YOURSELF!!" That's overreacting. But understandable in the light of such an ill-founded statement.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5934 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11131 times:
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 15): Don't forget the Gimli Glider. One of the best stories in aviation, I think.
TIS
Yeah, but the Gimli Glider didn't run out of fuel until it was already at cruise altitude...10 sec. after takeoff=not many options
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11082 times:
Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 19): Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 9):
Recently, there was the case of a British Airways 747 that lost an engine at take-off from LAX and flew to LHR with only three engines.
This was a big deal cos in the end they couldn't make LHR, and had to land in Manchester, which was 300 mi closer.
That was due to an unrelated issue. Nothing to do with the engine out.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3251 posts, RR: 14 Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11058 times:
Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 18): an airport like SFO would be far less favorable between the large hills, dense development and water.
A water ditching would be quite survivable at low speed.
There have been many cases of airplanes rolling off the ends of runways into water with little to no damage. A glide into the water is more dangerous, but several have been done without many injuries.
The closest that I can personally remember to what we're talking about here was probably the crash of USAir flight 5050 at LGA. That was an aborted takeoff, not an engine failure, but it basically "flew" for a few seconds as it went over the runway berm and then fell into the water. There were only two fatalities.
On the other hand, the crash of USAir flight 405 just a couple years later at LGA was similar in that it involved a plane barely being airborne before crashing into the bay. 27 out of 51 people died. The cause of that crash was icing.
Neither of these is exactly comparable to a double-engine out situation, where you would expect the pilot to be preparing for a ditching by slowing the airplane as much as he could and getting it in the right attitude for a ditching. In the case of flight 5050, the airplane actually hit several poles beyond the end of the runway and broke up... but still, not many deaths due to the low speed. In flight 405's case, the pilots were still desperately trying to gain altitude when the wingtip hit the runway before the plane spun violently into the bay. But the speed in that case was greater than what you'd expect in a proper ditching, while there was much less control of the airplane.
A proper water ditching right after takeoff could be entirely survivable, and should at the very least be survivable for some passengers.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11048 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 9): Two in-flight occurences of total engine failure with a happy ending come to mind - the British Airways 747 that flew into an ash cloud of the erupting Mt. Galunggung on the Indonesian island of Java, and the more recent Air Transat A330 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic but made an emergency landing in the Azores:
In addition to the AC "Gimli Glider" B767, a KL 747-400 had all 4 engines fail after flying through a volcanic ash cloud at 25,000 ft while descending into ANC in 1989. Two engines restarted at 13,000 ft. and the other two at 11,000 ft. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19891215-1
25 Cubastar: However these guys did lose both 767 engines shortly after liftoff at LAX and did all of the right things to save the situation sucessfully even thoug
26 Ikramerica: What are you disagreeing with? Home in ""? I didn't mean glide to anywhere, but glide to a suitable airport. Availability of airfields is the key. If
27 WildcatYXU: Nah... The "Glide Home TM" feature is only sold in Canada...
28 Ikramerica: See what the metric system gets you? Over confidence on fuel reserves, that's what!
29 CruzinAltitude: The amount of vairables that come into play that would effect the proposed situation makes this question almost impossible to give an intelligent answ
30 Jpax: Took the words right out of my mouth. I can't believe how many pessimists we have in here. Also, flying into terrain doesn't neccessarily mean everyo
31 F9Animal: I remember reading about a Southern Airlines DC-9 losing its engines at altitude. Sadly, IIRC, they tried to bring it down on a road, and I guess swer
32 EBGflyer: Back in the days, 3rd September 1979, Danish airline Sterling Airways crashed after a double engine-failure on final approach. http://www.airdisaster.
33 Spacecadet: Yes, it lost both engines in a hailstorm. They were too badly damaged to restart. IIRC it wasn't full at cruise but something more like 14,000 feet.
34 Travatl: F9 - flt was enroute HSV-ATL. Of the crew, 2 of 4 survived (both flight attendants), and of the passengers 20 of 81 survived.
35 Threepoint: As well as Gimli (AC) as mentioned in reply 15, there was also a KLM 747 that flew into a volcanic ash cloud over the Aleutians, lost power in, and e
36 IFEMaster: Just to clarify this, they could have made LHR but the issue was that had they continued to LHR, they wouldn't have had enough fuel reserves to meet
37 Cedarjet: Fair enough. I wasn't sure what was left in the tanks.
38 SFOFlyer: Interesting article about a United 747-400 that lost an engine right after take off from SFO bound for SYD on June 28, 1998. Cleared the San Bruno Mou
39 PYP757: I remember reading about this incident, and always wondered how soon after takeoff (and how high) the incident started. Is there a more detailled inc
40 LTU932: Curious that nobody has mentioned the Azores Glider, the TS A330 that had to glide all the way down to Lajes due to a fuel leak that went unnoticed an
41 Boston92: 10 seconds after takeoff, you better hope that you were a 318 at a airport with 15000 feet of runway... If you are at cruise, I would assume you would
42 Alangirvan: Nobody has mentioned the A330 test flight in 1994 where the engines were deliberately reduced to idle just after rotation to see what would happen. Th
43 ADB1: I know it's not quite the same thing, but there's an incredible bit of footage on www.flightlevel350.com featuring a 757 rotating out of MAN when it l
44 PYP757: I'm not sure this example is fully relevant here. This test flight was meant to simulate the loss of one engine only. The captain only reduced power
45 JetMech: Really? So the pilots of the Air Transat A330 over reacted? Sure, they were partly responsible for the incident (not the root cause), but they did gl
46 EDICHC: There was a Loganair Shorts 360 operating a mail flight out of EDI lost power in both enginies, I think about a minute after rotation. Even after a mi
47 KhelmDTW: They actually didn't "run out of fuel." They put an incorrect part in the engine or something, and then they cross fed the tanks to balance the plane
48 Curmudgeon: Then keep checking. A jet transport 10 seconds after take-off will still have flaps set, and be at 400 ft or so. The "best glide" speed that you clin
49 LTBEWR: It wouldn't be so much 'survival' but if you have a semi-controled crash landing with a minimal loss of life. Low level wind directions and it's speed
50 Arecibo: Hmmmm....if a twin (any kind) .... jet fuel + heat + G forces + jagged twisted metal + skin + bones + smoke. Four engines .....Hmmm; lost of use, reve
51 CO777DAL: How about this one. 24 May 1988; TACA 737-300; near New Orleans, LA: The aircraft was approaching the New Orleans airport when it encountered heavy pr
52 ContnlEliteCMH: You have a curious definition for running out of fuel. When there's no fuel left in the tank, and the engines quit because there's no fuel to burn, I
53 Planespotting: Are you kidding? There are loads of situations where ALL occupants could easily survive such a situation. Losing both engines right after takeoff in
54 Jerald01: The initial question is too vague to come up with a definitive answer because of the numerous variabilities that can be thought of. I think it is agre
55 Fewsolarge: Both means "all two." That's not the question here.
56 SSTsomeday: Do all large twins have that fan mechanism that can be dropped into the slipstream to create enough electric power to operate the controls, power the
57 Charliejag1: No. CFIT is a TOTALLY different occurrence. CFIT occurs when the flight crew unknowingly guides the plane into terrain, like the side of a mountain.
58 Morvious: Well, with their weights etc they have no issues for a direct SXM-CDG flight wile the heavier B747 must make a fuel stop somewhere regarding safety i
60 Starlionblue: A RAT (Ram Air Turbine). Yes, this is pretty much standard on big twins. "Properly" is a big word. It might limp upward. In some circumstances, yes,
61 BCAL: I should check the facts before posting like this. First The Captain was not given any flack. He consulted BA Operations and the decision was made wi
62 Ferengi80: They still declared a fuel emergency. I work for the ambulance service, and was answering 999 calls in Manchester that day. The crew declared a fuel
63 BCAL: I am only going on what was stated on Pprune when the incident was covered. Maybe it was a "precautionary" emergency situation. Besides which, if the
64 David L: Yes, I heard that one on my scanner. Well done for correcting that commonly recurring piece of misinformation. Yes he was... by a lot of armchair exp
66 EDICHC: I'm afraid to say that if the unfortunate crew of the LC Shorts 360 at EDI that I referred to in my previous post, were around to discuss the matter
67 LVHGEL: Yes it can climb properly to turn arround, I've experienced one while being a passenger in one PA 747-100, quite a ride. While climbing we felt the l
68 Arecibo: Bh4007 ........ That (video) was one superb statement. The skills of the crew, the reliability of the 757, how a lonely bird can change fate. And yes.
69 Ajd1992: More like 150. It's not even 300 by road (It's about 200).
70 StearmanNut: Quote from earlier: "Recently, there was the case of a British Airways 747 that lost an engine at take-off from LAX and flew to LHR with only three en
71 EDICHC: Oh dear, that's one transmission I wouldn't want to have heard!
72 OHLHD: ??? How do you know? Ever had the situation? Same with a OS F70 in approach to MUC. They had an engine power loss and flew into flat terrain near MUC
73 BCAL: Been reading the Daily Mail then? How do you know it was a revenue saving measure? Do you for one second think that BA, the Captain of the aircraft a
74 Starlionblue: As has been noted above, the situation was more complex. This was a test flight as you say, but not properly briefed and prepared. Indeed. Losing an
75 David L: What nonsense. It was seen as the best option, all things considered. It's been discussed to death by people who actually do this for a living and wa
76 EDICHC: Absolutely right. I am long out of the industry, and the airline I worked for never operated long haul big quads but even I saw the common sense in w
77 David L: True and, before anyone tries it, let's just clarify that the BA flight was still one engine failure away from having to divert, which is the situati
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 228 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 376 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7713 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2782 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
