Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lufthansa A340-600 Transatlantic On 3 Engines  
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12078 times:

Noted following item in the Transport Canada daily occurrence reports for July 3. The report originated at 4519N/6134W, slightly east of Halifax, or about 1 hour after departure from BOS.

DLH425, Airbus A340-600, enroute from Boston (KBOS) to Munich (EDDM), requested descent clearance from 37,000 ft. to 35,000 ft. due to an engine problem. The flight crew reported that the number-two engine was shut down. No emergency was declared. The aircraft continued to destination.


Reminds me of the BA 744 that shut down an engine soon after takeoff from LAX in 2005 and continued to LHR on 3 engines which prompted quite a bit of criticism.

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17041 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12044 times:

It does seem quite similar. However just as in the BA case on three engines a quad still has to have two more engine shutdowns to get down to one. Say they had one more shutdown (this has never happened on jets if memory serves), they could get to an alternate on two.

Did the crew unduly endanger the aircraft? I would say not. Could this become a PR nightmare? Yes.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12018 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Say they had one more shutdown (this has never happened on jets if memory serves), they could get to an alternate on two.

Nitpick: They've never had independent failures. IIRC BA 009 lost all 4 flying through volcanic ash in 1984.


User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11794 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 2):
(this has never happened on jets if memory serves)

Things tend to have never happened before, until they occur for the first time...


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4525 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11712 times:

Here we go again..


How long before this non event is turned into 'how irresponsible the Pilots were to continue'



In an echo of the mudslinging from the Press and the FAA that the BA Pilots had to endure.



Just as a reminder the FAA had to back down from the threat of action against that Captain when it was realized that they were the agency that originally certified the B747 to continue on three engines after a shutdown.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17041 posts, RR: 66
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11698 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 2):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Say they had one more shutdown (this has never happened on jets if memory serves), they could get to an alternate on two.

Nitpick: They've never had independent failures. IIRC BA 009 lost all 4 flying through volcanic ash in 1984.

Yes fair enough. That is what I should have said. Independent failures. Apparently this crew felt that the fault was isolated to the one engine.

Quoting horstroad (Reply 3):
Things tend to have never happened before, until they occur for the first time...

Fair enough as well, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I'll take my chances of dual engine failures for independent reasons.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2607 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11569 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting horstroad (Reply 3):
Things tend to have never happened before, until they occur for the first time...

Thats what I was thinking.
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Did the crew unduly endanger the aircraft? I would say not. Could this become a PR nightmare? Yes.

Exactly. If the media will let it go instead of shaking it like a puppy with a rag-doll it may dissapear.

Personally, I'd rather be out over the Atlantic with three engines than one. -----Just 'sayin.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinespeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11437 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Thread starter):
Reminds me of the BA 744

Only difference is this crew managed to get to their destination unlike the BA 744.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 499 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11049 times:

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 7):
Only difference is this crew managed to get to their destination unlike the BA 744.

The difference being, they did have enough fuel to reach Heathrow, but encountered stronger than forecast winds, which resulted in more fuel than calculated being burned.

This happens with aircraft operating with all engines working (757)



Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9033 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10789 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Boeing officially states that continuing on 3 engines (for the B744) is no problem, UNLESS there was a severe damage to the engine if the structural integrity is in doubt. If you have a precautionary shutdown, then it is fine to continue to the destination.

I am sure this is same with Airbus and their quads. Flying on 3 engines is no big deal.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10785 times:

And for those that think flying over the ocean on 3 engines out of 4 is a big deal, I'd recommend talking to some P-3 pilots.. who do it as a matter of course  


Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10727 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 10):
I'd recommend talking to some P-3 pilots.. who do it as a matter of course

If I remember correctly the Nimrod also regularly shut down 2 engines for extended loiter, and like the P-3 folks this is more than likely to be done at low altitude, a fortifying routine!


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I realise that engine brakes would be too heavy for the the pax quads just to use in the even of a shutdown but does the nimrod (or similar) use engine brakes to reduce the windmill drag when the engines are shut down?

Fred


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4116 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9939 times:

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 8):
The difference being, they did have enough fuel to reach Heathrow, but encountered stronger than forecast winds, which resulted in more fuel than calculated being burned.

Going east, wouldn't he have been helped rather than hurt by prevailing winds?


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17041 posts, RR: 66
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9774 times:

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 13):
Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 8):
The difference being, they did have enough fuel to reach Heathrow, but encountered stronger than forecast winds, which resulted in more fuel than calculated being burned.

Going east, wouldn't he have been helped rather than hurt by prevailing winds?

Yes. However that is already built into the model. If the winds are less favorable than predicted...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 128 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8750 times:

Did the crew alert the passengers that they were out an engine? I can imagine that if they were continuing on to MUC that it may not have been necessary, but...

Also: have LH's mechanics been able to look at the engine yet? Has the issue been found?


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7957 times:

Quoting Mcoov (Reply 15):
Did the crew alert the passengers that they were out an engine?

Why would they?

Quoting Mcoov (Reply 15):
I can imagine that if they were continuing on to MUC that it may not have been necessary, but...

But what?

Quoting Mcoov (Reply 15):
Also: have LH's mechanics been able to look at the engine yet? Has the issue been found?

LH is one of the select few airlines in the world that has dedicated RR engineers based in Germany working along side the LH Technik mechanics. All the Trent engines will be transferring operational data to a RR monitoring station, which after a failure mode analysis will relay the information to the mechanics on the ground for a fix.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 16):
LH is one of the select few airlines in the world that has dedicated RR engineers based in Germany working along side the LH Technik mechanics. All the Trent engines will be transferring operational data to a RR monitoring station, which after a failure mode analysis will relay the information to the mechanics on the ground for a fix.

They could have dropped it off over derby on the way   

Fred


User currently offlineSasha From Russia, joined May 1999, 861 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7643 times:

Would a B-52 even notice a single engine shut down?  


An2/24/28,Yak42,Tu154/134,IL18/62/96,B737/757/767,A310/320/319,F100,BAe146,EMB-145,CRJ,A340-600,B747-400,A-330-300,A-340
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17041 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7644 times:

Quoting Sasha (Reply 18):

Would a B-52 even notice a single engine shut down?

There's an old joke about that, probably based on a true story:.

"A military pilot called ATC for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked." ATC told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one shut down.

"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach!""



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7244 times:

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 8):
The difference being, they did have enough fuel to reach Heathrow, but encountered stronger than forecast winds, which resulted in more fuel than calculated being burned.

...which means they didn't have enough fuel to reach Heathrow!

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17041 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7238 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 20):
Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 8):
The difference being, they did have enough fuel to reach Heathrow, but encountered stronger than forecast winds, which resulted in more fuel than calculated being burned.

...which means they didn't have enough fuel to reach Heathrow!

Diverting due to unexpected weather conditions happens to lots of flights.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7015 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21):
Diverting due to unexpected weather conditions happens to lots of flights.

Of course they do ... but they don't usually declare emergencies.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17041 posts, RR: 66
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7005 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 22):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21):
Diverting due to unexpected weather conditions happens to lots of flights.

Of course they do ... but they don't usually declare emergencies.

It was an unfortunate convergence of events. If the flight had diverted to MAN on four engines the press would never have noticed. If it had flown to LHR on three engines the press might not have noticed. The combination of the two made it such a big deal to the press.

In fact the event proved that current regs regarding alternates and so forth do work.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4992 posts, RR: 42
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7003 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 20):
Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 8):
The difference being, they did have enough fuel to reach Heathrow, but encountered stronger than forecast winds, which resulted in more fuel than calculated being burned.

...which means they didn't have enough fuel to reach Heathrow!

Jimbo

It would appear the point Dano was making is that, at the start of the 3 engine trip to LHR, there was sufficient fuel to make it all the way to LHR with reserves .... had flight planned winds been encountered. However, the encountered winds were not as forecast thus they were not able to make LHR.

The number of engines operating will have no bearing if winds are not as forecast, which is the point Starlionblue is making:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21):
Diverting due to unexpected weather conditions happens to lots of flights.

While "what if" always leaves open questions, there is a very good chance that even if that flight had not lost an engine climbing out of LAX, they still would not have been able to make it to LHR. While it is very rare that flight planned winds are incorrect, it does happen.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
25 Starlionblue : Thanks longhauler. That is exactly the point I was making. The hubbub surrounding the incident is classic "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" ("After this, t
26 bond007 : Is this really true? I may be wrong, but wasn't one of the favorable altitudes given by ATC declined because they couldn't reach it due to reduced pe
27 Starlionblue : The point, again, is that forecast winds may be wrong. If they are wrong, which does happen, an aircraft may not make its destination. In this case,
28 Post contains images bond007 : We'll agree to disagree then It does happen frequently, but doesn't cause the crew to declare an emergency (sorry to repeat myself).... that is my onl
29 zeke : They diverted to MAN as they could not access all the fuel they had onboard, something that could happen on all engines on any aircraft. They had eno
30 bond007 : So are you saying that the fuel issue was totally unrelated to the fact they were on 3 engines, and would still have happened if the engine failure d
31 longhauler : A Mayday or PanPan would have been declared due to the engine out, either at LHR or MAN. It would be prudent to advise ATC. This would be for many re
32 bond007 : ...and I don't disagree at all that this was the case, and in no way thought it was 'haphazard'. Just stating what the outcome was and asking some qu
33 longhauler : It doesn't say that on the (abbreviated) report I read, however, that would make sense with regard to what Zeke says above. In other words, it had no
34 zeke : A 747 with all 4 engines running can get itself into a situation where it cannot access all of the available fuel onboard, it can happen on any aircr
35 bond007 : Agreed, but in this particular incident, it was directly related to 3-engine fuel management, hence the recommendation on revising procedures for suc
36 747400sp : If a 747 can do it, and fly over the Polar Caps, why can't an A340 do the same thing over the Atlantic Ocean.
37 web500sjc : I think we have no problem saying the aircraft can do it... but taking an unnecessary risk is a problem. There is no reason to continue a trans-atlan
38 Starlionblue : Sure there are reasons: Wanting to get pax to their destination and returning to the main maintenance base. There are aircraft crossing the pond ever
39 zeke : It was related to fuel tank and fuel pump management, the engine being out was a red herring. The fuel pumps being used were not related to the engin
40 bond007 : That's not what the report said. "The three qualified pilots were not confident that all the fuel was available and their difficulties with fuel mana
41 zeke : I disagree with your take on the report, which essentially appears to come from not having relevant experience or knowledge of the type. The report s
42 bond007 : I wondered when this line was coming out! The report clearly says it was related to them being on 3-engines, and I've quoted it. It actually has litt
43 Mir : There's a big difference between intentionally shutting down an engine or two as part of normal ops and having to shut an engine down due to an abnor
44 strfyr51 : True to a point, We shut down enginges to save fuel in order to stay on station longer At times we also shut down #4 as WELL as the #1 engine to stay
45 Starlionblue : Quite. I bet the best endurance speed is lower than the best range speed, and that you get more range with all four engines.
46 zeke : I agree that their false belief/mindset was directly related to being on 3 engines, and I agree that the " the crew acted the way they did" because o
47 Viscount724 : There's an update on this event in today's Transport Canada occurrence reports. UPDATE TSB: A12A0070: The Lufthansa Airlines Airbus A340-600 aircraft
48 Jetlagged : The Nimrod didn't use rotor brakes. The drag from a non windmilling turbine engine would be far greater than for a windmilling one.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Lufthansa A340-600 Transatlantic On 3 Engines
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A340-600 Inboard Engines Point Down? Why? posted Thu Mar 6 2003 18:56:56 by KLAX
Etihad A340-600 Writeoff posted Wed Mar 21 2012 02:02:43 by SAAFNAV
A340-300 And A340-600 Cargo Config posted Fri Aug 12 2011 07:06:34 by Blueeagle
A340-600 Rejected Takeoff, Fire Below. posted Mon Nov 17 2008 09:03:22 by Readytotaxi
Does The A340-600 Take Off With Full Flaps? posted Thu Mar 13 2008 13:13:11 by Happy-flier
A340 600 Canoe Fairings? posted Tue Sep 25 2007 17:31:50 by Soon7x7
A340-600 Why No Body Gear Steering? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:16:18 by BALandorLivery
A340-600 RTO Test -- What Happened? posted Thu Sep 28 2006 10:24:31 by Brenintw
Question For Actual A340 600 Pilots posted Tue Jun 20 2006 20:42:01 by Tarzanboy
A340-600 APU Exhaust posted Tue Jan 3 2006 19:10:43 by Matt72033

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format