Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21462 posts, RR: 24 Posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10423 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.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, RR: 66 Reply 1, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10386 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
LH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 181 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10362 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.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 4, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10057 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.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, RR: 66 Reply 5, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10043 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
ImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1230 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9913 times:
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!"
Dano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 403 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9392 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
wilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, RR: 78 Reply 9, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9132 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.
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2069 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9127 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
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9071 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!
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9036 times:
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?
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3804 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8282 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?
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, RR: 66 Reply 14, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8118 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Mcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 110 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7094 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?
imiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6300 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.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6268 times:
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
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, RR: 66 Reply 19, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5987 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5588 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!
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, RR: 66 Reply 21, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5581 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, RR: 66 Reply 23, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5348 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4275 posts, RR: 36 Reply 24, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5348 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
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, RR: 66 Reply 25, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5525 times:
Thanks longhauler. That is exactly the point I was making.
The hubbub surrounding the incident is classic "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" ("After this, therefore because of this") fallacy. The events, while related, were not causally linked. The loss of an engine did not directly cause the diversion to MAN.
However the press interpreted things as "they lost an engine and then didn't even make it to their destination! The sky is falling!"
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 26, posted (10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5432 times:
Quoting longhauler (Reply 24): The number of engines operating will have no bearing if winds are not as forecast
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 25): The loss of an engine did not directly cause the diversion to MAN.
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 performance on 3 engines?
Even if this was not the case, the number of engines, hence performance, can certainly restrict the altitudes available, so to say it has no bearing if winds are not as forecast, is not true....it absolutely could.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 24): 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.
But again, they wouldn't have declared an emergency.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, RR: 66 Reply 27, posted (10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5551 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 26): Quoting longhauler (Reply 24):
The number of engines operating will have no bearing if winds are not as forecast
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 25):
The loss of an engine did not directly cause the diversion to MAN.
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 performance on 3 engines?
Even if this was not the case, the number of engines, hence performance, can certainly restrict the altitudes available, so to say it has no bearing if winds are not as forecast, is not true....it absolutely could.
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, yes, the loss of an engine had an effect, but it did not directly cause the diversion.
The crew did their calculations and figured they could make LHR. They did not make LHR and thus diverted. However they would have made analogous calculations on four engines. The fact that they were on three altered the calculations but they did not start flying across the Atlantic knowing they would not make LHR.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 28, posted (10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5540 times:
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 only differing point here.
If they were on four engines and didn't make it to LHR, they wouldn't have declared an emergency ...just diverted like everyone else does. They were unsure of their fuel situation, which was directly related to the engine failure.
The hype wasn't necessarily caused by the media, it was caused by the fact that the pilot declared a 'MAYDAY' and the aircraft was followed in by fire trucks etc... If it had diverted to MAN on 3 engines and no emergency was declared, I'm sure the media coverage would have been much different.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 29, posted (10 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5509 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 28):
If they were on four engines and didn't make it to LHR, they wouldn't have declared an emergency ...just diverted like everyone else does. They were unsure of their fuel situation, which was directly related to the engine failure.
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 enough fuel for LHR, just not where they could get at it.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 30, posted (10 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5480 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 29): 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.
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 did not occur?
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4275 posts, RR: 36 Reply 31, posted (10 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5482 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 28): It does happen frequently, but doesn't cause the crew to declare an emergency (sorry to repeat myself).... that is my only differing point here.
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 reasons, perhaps to inspect the aircraft on landing, (although after 9 hours cruising with it shut down, that really isn't necessary), more more likely to arrange traffic so that a go-around is less likely. The B747 is very capable of performing a 3 engine go-around, just no need to test it!
But with regard to the wind, let me explain how the decision process likely went. At cruise on 3 engines after leaving LAX, the crew likely advised their Operations of the condition of the aircraft. Who would then advice the Captain of the acceptable options, allowing a joint final decision to be made. Maybe return to LAX, maybe land en-route like YYZ or JFK, or continue to the destination.
The calculations to continue to LHR would have been at the LOWER 3 engine cruise altitude. And the forecast winds there would have been used. It is not haphazard like you may fear. I would imagine the decision to continue to LHR was a very careful decision made and agreed to by many people.
As luck would have it, other external factors changed the outcome, and alternate plans were made ... again, by more than one person.
Yes, the Captain has the final decision, but that is an informed decision, will all the considerations factored in. he could have responded that no, he is not continuing to LHR and he is returning to LAX. No one would have questioned it. What that Captain would NOT have done, is continued to LHR after having been told that he may not have sufficient fuel!
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 32, posted (10 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5461 times:
Quoting longhauler (Reply 31): It is not haphazard like you may fear. I would imagine the decision to continue to LHR was a very careful decision made and agreed to by many people.
...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 questions.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 31): 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 reasons, perhaps to inspect the aircraft on landing, (although after 9 hours cruising with it shut down, that really isn't necessary), more more likely to arrange traffic so that a go-around is less likely. The B747 is very capable of performing a 3 engine go-around, just no need to test it!
But that wasn't why a Mayday was declared at MAN ... this was due to the Captain being concerned the useable fuel at landing would be below the minimum reserve.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4275 posts, RR: 36 Reply 33, posted (10 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5456 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 32): But that wasn't why a Mayday was declared at MAN ... this was due to the Captain being concerned the useable fuel at landing would be below the minimum reserve.
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 nothing to due with how many engines were running.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 34, posted (10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5500 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 30): 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 did not occur?
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 aircraft that has multiple fuel tanks. To get the fuel to transfer from the inboard tanks to the outboard, they actually needed to select both of the main pumps in the outboard tanks off.
Quoting bond007 (Reply 32): But that wasn't why a Mayday was declared at MAN ... this was due to the Captain being concerned the useable fuel at landing would be below the minimum reserve.
Useable is the operative word, if it is not accessible, it is not useable.
Just to clear up this with some numbers :
Minimum they were required to land with : 4.5 t
Predicted landing value 3 engines at LAX : 7t
After flying across the US, fuel prediction for LHR : 10t
Unable to get 350, flew the NA at 290, prediction showed : 7t
After flying the NA, FMC showed LHR with 6.5t, this was their no go figure, they re-planned for MAN with a prediction of 7t.
On descent into MAN, they thought the fuel was not feed from the tanks correctly, they thought some of the fuel would be unusable, hence they thought would be landing with less than 4.5t useable
They landed with 5.8t, 1.3t above what is required for a MAYDAY.
The aircraft was eventually flown on 3 engines from MAN to LHR empty without further incident.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 35, posted (10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5403 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 34): 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 aircraft that has multiple fuel tanks
Agreed, but in this particular incident, it was directly related to 3-engine fuel management, hence the recommendation on revising procedures for such.
I understand how much fuel they 'really' had, but that isn't really the point.
I don't disagree that losing an engine, and fuel mis-mananagment, can be totally unrelated, but in case they were. It was the crew's management of the fuel systems specifically for a 3-engine scenario.
AFAIK they didn't revise 4-engine fuel management procedures.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
web500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 588 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5211 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 36): 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.
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-atlantic 1/5 of the way through the crossing on three engines out of four engines.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, RR: 66 Reply 38, posted (10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5210 times:
Quoting web500sjc (Reply 37): There is no reason to continue a trans-atlantic 1/5 of the way through the crossing on three engines out of four engines.
Sure there are reasons: Wanting to get pax to their destination and returning to the main maintenance base.
There are aircraft crossing the pond every day on two engines. Today four-holers have to follow pretty much the same strict rules regarding redundancy as the twins. Three engines hardly seems like a death-defying stunt. Stuff is broken on planes all the time.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 39, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5190 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 35): it was directly related to 3-engine fuel management
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 engine or the engine out, they are related to the respective fuel tanks.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 40, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5171 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 39): the engine being out was a red herring.
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 management indicated that their knowledge
of the fuel system with three engines operating was
insufficient."
"It is therefore recommended that the
operator include relevant instruction on 3-engined fuel
handling during initial and recurrent training."
Apparently not.
No 'Red Herring' here unless you disagree with the report.
Really, I'm not sure why this is in question.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 41, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5130 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 40):
No 'Red Herring' here unless you disagree with the report.
Really, I'm not sure why this is in question.
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 said pilots from the same operator flew the same aircraft on 3 engines to LHR from MAN, and they were able to correctly apply the correct fuel management technique with an engine out. I should also add, they very same aircraft had another in flight shutdown on the way back from SIN about a week later, that crew also continued to LHR without incident.
The engine out situation gave that particular crew from LAX a mindset/bias that somehow the fuel situation was associated with engine being out, you appear have the same mindset/bias. They are independent systems, an example of this independence is that one can happily transfer fuel around between tanks without any of the engines running, this is a common practice on the ground to get a desired fuel distribution if the fuel load is not balanced. If someone had asked them how they would transfer fuel if none of the engines were running, I think the penny would have dropped.
The technique is the same to transfer fuel with the engine running or not, it is a fuel management issue, not a engine issue. The pumps are associated with the tanks and not the engine. They are not the first crews to experience this, and they will not be the last. I know we had some very red faced crews one day when we first got the 744 almost divert into SEA with all engines running as they thought they could not get access to all the fuel onboard, this was another case of a fuel management issue and not understanding the fuel system. It took one of the guys on the ground a few thousand miles away, that did not come into the situation with a group bias to ask a few questions. He simply told them it is behaving like it should, and once the fuel level reduced more, the fuel will begin to transfer. The aircraft continued on without incident.
This incident happened on descent, they probably thought it would be best just to get it on the ground rather than trouble shoot. If it was in the cruise, I am sure they would have also phoned a friendly mechanic, and would have been reminded on the technique and that would have been the end of it.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 42, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5023 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 41): I disagree with your take on the report, which essentially appears to come from not having relevant experience or knowledge of the type.
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 little to do with whether the systems/procedures are the same with 4 or 3 engines ... the crew acted the way they did from a fuel management perspective, because they were on only 3-engines...apparently different than they would have done on 4 engines.
Little of this is my opinion.
Let's move on ...... I don't fly 4-engine airliners, so not qualified to comment.
Jimbo
[Edited 2012-07-10 04:54:43]
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19691 posts, RR: 56 Reply 43, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4930 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 11): 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!
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 abnormal situation. In the first scenario, nothing's wrong. In the second scenario, something clearly is, and you may not be sure what, and to what extent it affects the rest of the airplane.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
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 out the Max time. My longest Patrol was 17.6 Hrs takeoff to landing..
Since the average cruise was only 230Kias It didn't make that much difference how fast you got there but How long you could prosecute your search .
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 out the Max time. My longest Patrol was 17.6 Hrs takeoff to landing..
Since the average cruise was only 230Kias It didn't make that much difference how fast you got there but How long you could prosecute your search .
Quite. I bet the best endurance speed is lower than the best range speed, and that you get more range with all four engines.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 46, posted (10 months 1 week ago) and read 4233 times:
Quoting bond007 (Reply 42): the crew acted the way they did from a fuel management perspective, because they were on only 3-engines...apparently different than they would have done on 4 engines.
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 of this.
That is a CRM/Human factors issue with that particular crew, it is not a physical or mechanical characteristic of being on 3 engines, that was the point I was making.
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 45): I bet the best endurance speed is lower than the best range speed, and that you get more range with all four engines.
If you have a look at the P-3 specifications, I think you will be surprised at the MTOW and payload/range that aircraft can achieve. Not sure if the figures are public domain, they do have a peacetime and wartime MTOW. They are a very fast aircraft down low when they need to be. They are a bit deceptive if you think of them as just another turboprop.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21462 posts, RR: 24 Reply 47, posted (10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3720 times:
There's an update on this event in today's Transport Canada occurrence reports.
UPDATE TSB: A12A0070: The Lufthansa Airlines Airbus A340-600 aircraft (D-AIHU), operating as flight DLH425, was en route from Boston (KBOS) to Munich (EDDM). About 75 miles west of Sydney NS, the crew received several ECAM warnings for the #2 engine (Rolls Royce Trent 553). A precautionary shutdown was carried out and the flight continued to destination without further incident. Company maintenance personnel replaced the #2 engine's electronic engine control and returned the aircraft to service.
Jetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2452 posts, RR: 17 Reply 48, posted (10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3360 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 12): 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?
The Nimrod didn't use rotor brakes. The drag from a non windmilling turbine engine would be far greater than for a windmilling one.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21462 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15869 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 181 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 188 posts, 
From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 403 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, 
From Russia, joined May 1999, 858 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4275 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
