D L X wrote:
Three engine takeoffs are tricky and dangerous. Assymmetrical thrust meets speeds too slow to correct with rudder. It's a different animal than landing a bird with three engines. Indeed, the amazing amount of thrust is part of the problem.
Yes indeed, and likewise the Spantax CV990 mentioned earlier in the thread.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Span ... vair_crash
Of course these are the two that made the headlines, not the thousands of similar events that passed without any problem.
In post #536 Revelation quoted CaptainDave detailing specific training and procedures to be used by this A380 ferry crew.
D L X wrote:
Then why did you post this if you already knew why it was tricky from other posts?
If you are having trouble understanding my point, let's go back to what I said, since it was missing from your reply.
...it worries me that 50 days have elapsed and painfully slow progress is only being made at enormous cost & inconvenience. This is a FOUR engine a/c with a massive surplus of power when flying empty, that has already proved itself capable of flying on three engines whilst heavily loaded with pax.. What kind of sorry world have we arrived at where this ferry flight is such a problem?
At one end of the scale we have two catastrophic accidents (DC-8 & CV990), where the pilots just got on with it, apparently with little or no preparation, and it went pear-shaped (in one case mainly due to extremely adverse meteorological conditions). Meanwhile what about the thousands of similar events that passed without any problem.
At the other end of the scale, we have an A380 off-line for 50 days (& counting)
Yes, taking off with three engines is tricky, But is it really 50 days worth of tricky? Or have we arrived at a world where everybody is busy covering their backsides and therefore afraid to sanction a take off in an aircraft that even in it's current state is probably several degrees safer than the average Cessna152, that pilots jump into every day of the week. I thought the question was worth asking.
Unless I have missed something, Airbus are insisting that a replacement engine (non-functioning) is mounted in place, and that an equivalent metal slug or counter-weight was unacceptable. And yet I recall seeing a Kuwaiti 747 at LHR, on a standard passenger flight, carrying a spare fifth engine in a pod under it's wing.
Indeed, here is a thread from a rival site that I have only just come across, referencing Qantas 747s carrying a fifth engine, and whether the A380 could do the same. It also mentions three-engine ferry flights. This was Jan 2016, long before the AF66 event.https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... ke-the-747
Qantas pilots say that a 747 flying with the fifth pod doesn’t really handle differently than a normally configured 747, but that special flight configurations, such as trim, are used to keep the aircraft flying straight and level
Obviously in the Qantas case they had four functioning engines, plus a dead weight plus additional drag, all taking place close to the centreline. They also carried a full quota of passengers!
With this A380, the missing engine results in an absence
of weight and drag, and we also have no passengers on board, but only three functioning engines. Whilst by no means a direct comparison [understatement], the differing attitude is leaving me perplexed.
I'm guessing AF will ask for volunteer pilots, or even ask Airbus for one of their test pilots(?). Are there any pilots on this site who would have qualms about stepping forward if they were certified on the A380?
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?