Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Quads Landing On Two Or One Engine  
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6563 times:

Does anyone know of any examples of quads landing with two or three engines in operation than they started with? How often has this happened down the years? I am guessing extremely rarely, if at all. Seems to me that a situation serious enough to knock out a couple of engines or more could quickly become catastrophic, though obviously aircraft have put down with no engines before (although the two obvious examples of that I think of were twins - Gimli glider and the Air Transat Madeira landing).

Interested to hear of any such instances and the issues involved.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3208 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6542 times:

An Electra landed at ANC on only one engine. To make matters worse, the engine speed was uncontrollable.

http://contactapproach.blogspot.com/...11/paper-for-flight-safety_10.html

An EA L-1011 landed on only one engine also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_855


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2456 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6503 times:

I read here that the A380 has been landed at NCE using only the two inboard engines...

A380 To NCE? (by Kennyone Mar 2 2009 in Civil Aviation)

See the first posting, and # 16 and 17.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6462 times:

I would think having two engines out on the same side in a quad would be a bad situation...does Vmc certification in a quad cover this? I know Vmc is going to be different with one engine out versus two out on the same side...


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3208 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6440 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3):
I would think having two engines out on the same side in a quad would be a bad situation...does Vmc certification in a quad cover this? I know Vmc is going to be different with one engine out versus two out on the same side...

It might be a problem if it happened at V1, but normally flying and landing at the nearest suitable airport with two engines out on the same side could be safely done.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6416 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 4):
normally flying and landing at the nearest suitable airport with two engines out on the same side could be safely done.

Yes, but when we landed an EC-121 (Super Constellation) at Danang with both right side engines out in the fall of 1972 - it was a very high pucker factor.

One thing is we made a very wide unusual pattern because the aircraft commander did not want to put the right wing down.

In Dec 1972 I saw a USAF C-130 crash at NAS Agana Guam. They were doing TNG and had feathered the right outboard engine. The investigation said simulating engine out landings was part of the flight plan.

Just after they lifted off on the last TNG from 6L at about 100 ft agl, the inboard right engine emitted a huge cloud of smoke and the propeller stopped turning, unfeathered. The aircraft started to turn to the right and the right wing went down. It turned about 100-110 degrees and came across 6R and the wing struck the ground just short of the main apron area for the US Navy.



[Edited 2012-07-24 18:33:30]

User currently offlineglen From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 225 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days ago) and read 6276 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3):
I would think having two engines out on the same side in a quad would be a bad situation...does Vmc certification in a quad cover this? I know Vmc is going to be different with one engine out versus two out on the same side...

On the A340-300 for example Vmc for two engines inoperative on opposite wings is 125 kt, whereas Vmc for two engines inoperative on the same wing is 157 kt.



"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." - Albert Einstein
User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6039 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3):
I would think having two engines out on the same side in a quad would be a bad situation..

There was the UA 747 incident in HNL in 1989 where the forward cargo door ripped open and took out a chunk of fuselage skin with it. The debris as well as some of the passengers unfortunately got sucked into the #3 and 4 engines causing failure to those engines. The crew was dealing with an explosive decompression and two engines on the same side out at the same time. Thy were able to land the plane back in HNL with only the two left side engines running.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5878 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 7):
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3):
I would think having two engines out on the same side in a quad would be a bad situation..

There was the UA 747 incident in HNL in 1989 where the forward cargo door ripped open and took out a chunk of fuselage skin with it. The debris as well as some of the passengers unfortunately got sucked into the #3 and 4 engines causing failure to those engines. The crew was dealing with an explosive decompression and two engines on the same side out at the same time. Thy were able to land the plane back in HNL with only the two left side engines running.

Photo at HNL.



Same aircraft 4 years later. After repairs it was re-registered from N4713U to N4724U.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Konstantin von Wedelstaedt



User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9101 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5646 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):

I don't know how often it happened, but I do it several times a year in the simulator. I am flying 744's and we have to train 2 engine out quite often. Of course it is the worst case and both engines on one side stop working, so you need to use a lot of rudder. But you can fly the 744 still pretty nicely. Of course climbing is not so good anymore. And even a go around is possible!
Never tried 3 engines out. But will suggest that on my next Sim ride 

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3208 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5613 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 9):
Of course climbing is not so good anymore. And even a go around is possible!

Boeing has a procedure for a Two Engine go-around on the 747. Obviously, it's far preferable not to have to do so though.


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9101 posts, RR: 76
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5609 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 10):
Boeing has a procedure for a Two Engine go-around on the 747. Obviously, it's far preferable not to have to do so though.

I know. As I said, I am flying 744's so I train this every once in a while. It works pretty well. But as you said: better land than go around 

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5562 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 9):
Never tried 3 engines out. But will suggest that on my next Sim ride

Didn't Pan Am have a 747 do a one engine landing in Tokyo once? Use that as the basis of your suggestion, I'd like to hear how it performs on 1 engine when you're done  



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5530 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 12):
Didn't Pan Am have a 747 do a one engine landing in Tokyo once? Use that as the basis of your suggestion, I'd like to hear how it performs on 1 engine when you're done  

I believe it was a UA 747:

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-...s/mn-1523_1_tokyo-jet-lands-safely



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5515 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 13):
I believe it was a UA 747:

A great quote in that article you linked, "Boeing spokesman David Jimenez, reached at home in Seattle this morning, said he hadn't heard of the incident but wasn't surprised the jet was able to land safely.

"Almost any aircraft we have is capable of operating on one engine," he said.


I suppose that covers just about all Boeing's planes, except maybe the B-52.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineRaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5289 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 14):
A great quote in that article you linked, "Boeing spokesman David Jimenez, reached at home in Seattle this morning, said he hadn't heard of the incident but wasn't surprised the jet was able to land safely.

"Almost any aircraft we have is capable of operating on one engine," he said.

Of course, a badly managed approach on two engines can end in tragedy:



http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123018520

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5xTmmPbsY

Fortunately in this case, everyone lived.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5285 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 9):
Never tried 3 engines out. But will suggest that on my next Sim ride

I look forward to hearing how that goes! Fascinating!



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 9):
I don't know how often it happened, but I do it several times a year in the simulator. I am flying 744's and we have to train 2 engine out quite often. Of course it is the worst case and both engines on one side stop working, so you need to use a lot of rudder. But you can fly the 744 still pretty nicely. Of course climbing is not so good anymore. And even a go around is possible!

What's the Vmc in such a scenario? I'm guessing you'd have to land at quite a high speed?


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4730 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 14):
A great quote in that article you linked, "Boeing spokesman David Jimenez, reached at home in Seattle this morning, said he hadn't heard of the incident but wasn't surprised the jet was able to land safely.

"Almost any aircraft we have is capable of operating on one engine," he said.

I suppose that covers just about all Boeing's planes, except maybe the B-52.

I guess we would have to first define the meaning of the term "operating on one engine". I suppose in the case of a 52, she could surely glide to a landing, with the one engine providing power to critical on board systems.  



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinelitz From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1774 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4719 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A380 that blew the rotor disc certainly had 1 fewer landing than it started with ...

Question is, if they had to throttle back on another to even out thrust, could have ended up with less than the 3 remaining

[Edited 2012-07-30 11:44:07]

User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3208 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4698 times:

Quoting litz (Reply 19):
Question is, if they had to throttle back on another to even out thrust, could have ended up with less than the 3 remaining

AFAIK, every airplane is designed so you don't have to throttle back other engines to even out thrust. The 777 and 787 would have automatic rudder input called "Thrust Asymmetry Compensation" (TAC). Other Boeing airplanes have rudder trim, or good old fashioned feet on the rudder pedals. You wouldn't want an airplane designed that would require throttling back good engines just to maintain yaw in the event of an engine failure.

I'm quite sure Airbus airplanes have some equivalent to TAC to also allow safe flight in the event of an engine failure.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4574 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 20):
AFAIK, every airplane is designed so you don't have to throttle back other engines to even out thrust.

There are corners of the flight envelope where large twins with very large engines at low weight must throttle back the running engine if they're really slow (i.e. at approach speed). This is relatively rare; most twins don't have the problem.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 20):
The 777 and 787 would have automatic rudder input called "Thrust Asymmetry Compensation" (TAC).

TAC, on a 787, is called iTAC and only operates on the ground. The inflight equivalent of TAC on a 787 is a byproduct of other parts of the lateral-directional control law and is embedded in the flight control system. The 787 has another system called Thrust Asymmetry Protection (TAP) which will throttle back the good engine if the airplane is in danger of dropping below Vmca.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 20):
You wouldn't want an airplane designed that would require throttling back good engines just to maintain yaw in the event of an engine failure.

It's not an issue at takeoff. The most common time to run into it is a light-weight single-engine go-around. The single-engine thrust is so high to meet the takeoff requirements that, when combined with the very low approach speed of a light aircraft at the end of its trip, it can get very close to Vmca.

Tom.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):
The most common time to run into it is a light-weight single-engine go-around.

That's the critical time.

Landing with multiple engines out is a high intensity event - but a go around with multiple engines out is what I would consider near the worst possible event for a pilot/ crew.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4534 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 22):
a go around with multiple engines out is what I would consider near the worst possible event for a pilot/ crew.

I accidentally did this to a poor coworker in the sim; we'd done an engine out at altitude earlier in the session and hadn't noticed that the dead engine never came properly restarted (simulator bug). When he tried to go-around it got ugly in a big hurry.

Tom.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Quads Landing On Two Or One Engine
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...
Taxi On One Engine A Fuel Saver? posted Fri Mar 6 2009 13:59:38 by Singel09
772LR Climb Performance On One Engine posted Fri Feb 29 2008 21:47:35 by VikingA346
Two Or Three Pilots On Transatlantic Flights posted Thu Feb 28 2008 18:30:41 by Haggis79
Can A 777/767/757 Fly Only On One Engine? posted Wed Mar 1 2006 07:43:52 by Swank300
Operating On One Engine?! posted Sun Jun 6 2004 10:45:49 by Soaringadi
T/O On One Engine? posted Fri Dec 12 2003 09:36:15 by Cricri
Can A 747 Survive On One Engine? posted Mon Sep 22 2003 04:33:24 by Tarzanboy
Landing With One Engine (twins) posted Sun Nov 3 2002 22:46:55 by Mr.BA
Flying On One Engine posted Thu Aug 30 2001 12:04:42 by EFG
Can A Twin Jet Go Around On One Engine? posted Wed Aug 29 2001 12:34:42 by STEINWAY

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format