CPAir 4 life
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 1999 4:18 pm

AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 10:52 am

I was watching the news, and I saw an American Airlines 777 making an emergency landing with 1 engine out. The crew had to dump fuel.
This thew me a little, because the 777 has not been involved in a situation when 1 engine went out to my knowledge (I'm probably wrong)
The landing was PERFECT, it just gently glided to a soft touchdown in SFO I believe. I also believe the flight was bound for Japan.

If anybody has posted this already, sorry if I missed it
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 10:57 am

An engine failure on the 777 is basically a non-event. I believe it's the first and only jet that can land itself with an engine failure.

I think that the computer automatically shuts down the engine and continues flight without so much as a hick-up.

This was all included in the Discovery "On The Inside" series that premered late last year.

- Neil Harrison
 
johnboy
Posts: 2560
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:01 am

The newscast pointed out that it was an AA 777 bound from SJC - NRT. One of the engines shut down, so they circled around a bit, dumped some fuel, and made a perfect landing at SFO.

I can hear the 2 engines vs. 4 engines groups firing up THEIR jets right now.....LOL.
 
747-600X
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

757 Did This

Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:55 am

Boeing's book 'Flightlines' says that a 757-200 once took off, flew, and landed on one engine. It was empty, obviously, and from low altitude (Seattle), not the typical 'high and dry' thing 757s are good at.
 
Das Flugzeug
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 1999 1:17 pm

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 12:15 pm

Any word on what caused the shut down?
 
Guest

AF 777 Had It Too.......

Wed Apr 05, 2000 1:10 pm

I had a Air France 777 capt. in my store he flew the first 777 from Charles de gualle to LAX. He lost an engine in the 777 over the atlantic and landed on the island in the Atlantic. He claims it flew fine on one but if he lost the other one he would have been a day late a dollar (maybe a franc) short.
Iain
 
Droneklax
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2000 10:40 am

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 2:16 pm

Iainhol,

Where can I find more info on this AF incident? AF recently started using the 777 on the LAX-CDG route.
What "island of the Atlantic" are we talking about? Iceland? Greenland? How come we have not heard about this? When did this happen?

 
Guest

RE: EK777 Has Had This

Wed Apr 05, 2000 3:52 pm

An Emirates 777 suffered an engine failure on take-off from Dubai, on a scheduled flight to Male. The aircraft returned immediately, no problems. All EK777's are powered by the Rolls-Royce Trents.

The incident occurred about 1.5 years ago, and was reported in the Gulf News, and Flight International. And that is authentic, ladies and gentlemen.

Cheers,
Alexander.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 3:54 pm

Actually, the Air France incident did happen. If memory serves, it was about a year ago. The plane landed without incident in the Canary Islands (the infamous Teneref, I believe). The passengers were flown out and the engine eventually replaced. The French gov't used this incident to restrict AF's ETOPS to 120 mins (instead of 180) but that decision didn't last long.
Barnaby, if you truly love the 777 as I do, don't jump to conclusions about posters who are just trying to verify information. It makes us all look bad.

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
cathay250
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 6:16 pm

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 6:16 pm

Cathay Pacific also had a similar incident when the 777 takeoff in Korea , it safe finally! !
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 6:26 pm

When BA first introduced the GE90 powered 777 (wonderful American engines them...) they had a couple of inflight shutdowns whilst on test runs. GE had to modify the fanblades I think as well - all the a/c had to be meticulously inspected after flights over 1.1h - see FI for details.
 
avion
Posts: 2126
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:28 am

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 7:04 pm

The A340 also performs an automatic landing when it looses one engine.
The 777 is great over the Atlanticbut for the Pacific i prefer the 747 or the A 340.

Thanks

Avion
 
Guest

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 7:29 pm

It is this kind of situation that bothers me if one of the two engines on a 767 or 777 fails while over the largest part of the Atlantic or Pacific. What if you are miles from land? Can the other engine take the stress? This is where the debate of 2 vs. 4 engines comes into play. For a trip from SFO or LAX to Japan or Australia, this is the route that a three engine DC-10, MD-11, or L-1011 and four engine A340 & 747 should be used. What do you think?
 
turbulence
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 1999 1:33 am

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Wed Apr 05, 2000 11:18 pm

Hi to all!
First: Hamlet69, if you come aroud the forum often, you'll see that Barnaby's position is not to love 777 nor any Boeing, but to hate every Airbus A/Cs and Airbus supporters, and he/she shows it by insulting and posting silly words against everybody.
Second: Barnaby, as you see by the reports here, the failures on 777s and other Boeings are not as impossible as your “superior” American technology mind is able to accept. Just see also how many M8Xs have been called to revise their tail stabilizators, and remember how many 737s had accidents in only one summer (I remember they were 16... By the way, that year I was to fly LGW-BCN back home on a BAW 732, two days after another BAW 732 had crashed on take off killing 32 at Sheffield, UK) or how many 717s/M95s have been called to review), or how many 744s have been found with problems of possible fire close to the engines fuel conducts.
Barnaby: open your eyes and be a little critic with yourself. No comments about technology: nowadays air technology is a dream for anyone who has been an engineer and evolution is so fast that is even difficult to understand.
YES: I am an Airbus enthousiast, because of their commonality logics, making four different A/Cs (A318-A319-A320-A321) of one only project (A32x), same with A300-A310 and A330-A340. But contrarely to what you would do, I liked the idea of the Boeing 757-200 & 757-300 as one common A/C.
And, although I am an AB-enthousiast, it is not a psyco-sexual problem to me the fact of accepting that is a weird idea to fly an aircraft with a joystick, that some 320s crashed at landings at the beginning, or that one Olympic Airways A300-B4 remained for three days on the ground at BCN because of several problems with one turbine, even aborted two T/Os loaded with passengers.

TO ALL: c'mon, guys: ALL TWINS are capable to complete an emergency take off on one engine, on the event of failure AFTER V1 or VR, meaning that they are able to keep on the air as long as for trowing fuel out and re-land, even full-loaded. Off course they won't climb very happy..., but they won't necessarily crash because of this; and ALL TWINS are able to fly for several hours (MUCH further than the 180 min trans-oceanic ETOPS required) with only one engine. Also, an A32x captain told me that is perfectly possible not only to land on one engine (actually it is possible to land WITHOUT engines at all), but it is also possible to slow down by using the reverse thrust, at least on small/medium aircrafts, even with engines below the wings, thus much more assimetric (32Xs and 757s) than tail-engined ones (727s, M8Xs, etc.)

Best turbulences
 
Guest

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Thu Apr 06, 2000 3:08 am

This is getting to be quite an intresting thread, even if the topic has changed. Yep, pilots are managing 777 etc. engine failures at VR all the time in the sims. I think I would be fairly happy to fly the 777 across the Pacific, OK I would get a little nervous if one of the engines went, but so long as we had alternates (which they must have), I'd be OK.

My only engine failure experience, was on-board a BA 744 from EZE to LGW. We had been in the air about 20 mins when the No.2 made a bang. The Captain made a confirmation to the pax. in a reassuringly relaxed voice, so everyone was OK, although it was quite a loud bang. He contacted engineering in London, and they cleared him to proceed to Lisbon (!), so we flew in to LIS on 3 engines.

Cheers,
Alexander
P.S. Very good landing, nice and smooth, no problems.
 
Guest

RE: Pilot 1113

Thu Apr 06, 2000 3:32 am

I don't mean to criticize, but calling an engine shut down on the 777 a "non-event" is slightly an understatement. It dosen't matter if the plane can land itself or not. This IS NOT suppose to happen. Perhaps what you meant was that it would be a non-event for a pilot to handle.
There will be many questions asked, and it will be recorded in the airline incident report for the year.
 
D L X
Posts: 11663
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

2 Vs. 4 (again...)

Thu Apr 06, 2000 3:36 am

Tedski asks: What if you are miles from land [when an engine fails]? Can the other engine take the stress?

The simple answer is, yes. That is in fact the specification that the engines used on twins are designed to, and that is the spec that ETOPS is based on. That is the exact reason why when everything is functional, twins are very overpowered. It's all because they have to be able to perform well on just one engine. (Having two is just icing on the cake.) So, don't see it as a twin having to perform on half its engines when something goes wrong. Think of it as a twin getting to have a spare engine that is not truly necessary in case something should go wrong.

As for West Coast to Asia (Japan in particular) you would be surprised to find out that these are only ETOPS 120 routes. Two hours on one engine is *nothing*.

As for the BA jet that went EZE-LGW on three engines, I'm quite surprised that the journey continued. Any flight in which a jet loses an engine should be put on the ground as soon as prudent. (Another loss means the plane *is* coming down like it or not no matter if the plane has 0/2 or 2/4 engines running.) I've talked to pilots in the US, and they have told me that if an engine fails, you put it on the ground no matter how many you have left. I would suspect (after looking at the great circle map) that the 744 that diverted to LIS had been flying for longer than 20 minutes before the engine quit. In that case, landing at LIS makes more sense. In 20 minutes, a 744 won't get up to its final cruising altitude, and on 3 engines, would really lumber up there potentially not making it to Lisbon at all.
 
Guest

RE: 2 Vs. 4 (again...)

Thu Apr 06, 2000 3:53 am

DLX, you seem to know what you're talking about (no sarcasm-honest comment), but the fact was, that we departed EZE at 18:00 local, and I distinctly remembered looking at my watch after the bang: 18:26-so yes, we were still climbing, and and probably scarcely over the River Plate.

I posted this on the forum last year, and people were basically writing what you mentioned: they should have brought it back to EZE (the closest 744-capable airfield at the time)-And that's what I thought and still think, but there you go, they contacted LHR engineering, and went onwards (i.e. overnight, across the Atlantic, on 3). I've even mentioned this to an LHR controller, and he couldn't understand the rationale behind it either. But there you go, what can I say, at least we all landed at LIS in one piece!
 
CannedSpam
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 8:18 am

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Thu Apr 06, 2000 3:55 am

As mentioned above, a whole lot of fuel was dumped to make the landing....about 90,000 pounds worth!
 
Guest

RE: 2 Vs. 4 (again...)

Thu Apr 06, 2000 4:01 am

What is going on with the RR Trents on the 777 lately? First we had the GE90 having problems and now it's the RR Trent? Could it be that these two engines and the P&W version are overstressed or not durable enough to take the high thrust ratings required to power the 777?
 
Navion
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Tedski

Thu Apr 06, 2000 4:12 am

I don't think 777 engines are overstressed, this seems to be a normal progression of the "teething curve" experienced when a design is starting to mature. There are now well over 100 777's in service (maybe over 200?) and it takes a lot of cycles and time to start realizing some design weaknesses, all of which usually take very little "tweaking" to remedy.
 
747-600X
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

Flying On 1 Or 3 Engines (inst. 2 Or 4)

Thu Apr 06, 2000 6:07 am

I really would have no qualms about flying over any thing on a 777. First - what are the odds of an engine going? Second - what are the odds of that other engine going? Third - no one has ever seen the 777 do an emergency water landing, and the 707 that tried it recently stayed in one piece, so what are the odds of dying? I'm not going to calculate them, but I'll guess that they're not worth worrying about. Also - why on Earth would they bother turning a 4 around if it lost one engine? Sure it's probably good protocol, but realisticaly, the things are just fine with 3. If I were on a 744 going somewhere and an engine went out, I'd be mighty annoyed if they turned around instead of just going to where they needed to get with a limp engine.
 
D L X
Posts: 11663
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Flying On 1 Or 3 Engines (inst. 2 Or 4)

Thu Apr 06, 2000 6:35 am

The issue is that neither a plane with 1 of 2 engines or a plane with 3 of 4 engines functional has particularly good climb performance. Not a big deal if you're just manouvering to get the plane back on a runway (which is much prefered over say having a more firm landing somewhere else...) but the range of a plane is greatly determined by its ability to take certain altitudes when carrying a certain load. On long haul trips, you would surely expect a flight to begin at 33K feet and as fuel is burned off climb to 39K or possibly more because the plane gets more efficient at these altitudes. Being forced to fly low is probably the entire reason why the BA jet could only make it to Lisbon. Also, that blown engine is dead weight, and possibly a serious drag if the blades are damaged. So, not only is it not producing thrust, it is acting like a parachute slowing the plane down. That's not good.

If the flight was not over the ocean yet, (and it wouldn't be after just 20 minutes) it really seems stupid to put it in more peril where there are no good immediate landing strips when there are suitable landing strips in the immediate vicinity. The only issue would have been to dump fuel, which is quite costly for the airline, and I seriously hope that is not the reason why they continued.

BTW, remind me not to fly British Airways. This is the second incident that I've heard of them not turning around a long haul jet when an engine failed. Their pilots seem to have a case of get-there-itis.
 
Guest

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Thu Apr 06, 2000 6:53 am

Did anyone hear of Air Europe Italy 777 engine fire on takeoff out of Malpensa I think it was Dec.29,99? The fire was caused by a fuel nozzle not safety wired at P&W. The engine was shutdown and aircraft returned to Malpensa, I believe it was bound for Havana so it was probably pretty heavy. I know that Air Europe was the launch airline for Pratt 777s in Europe but haven't heard of any repercusions on ETOPS with JAA or Italian or Irish authorities.
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

C-FTOD

Thu Apr 06, 2000 12:05 pm

I'm not arguing with you; I do agree that an engine failure is serious business.

However, those were the words taken from the Discovery Channel and then reiteriated verbatium during a visit by the chief 777 designer here at Purdue.

He said that the designers didn't want the pilots fiddling with anything they didn't have to. This is from the 777 Chief Mechanic and Designer, these are not my words. He said that they designed the 777 so that the pilots didn't have to worry about the mechanical aspect. The computer reads 9000 parameters and maybe 900 of that are mission-critical 'alerts'. Those alerts are nothing more than a series of chimes and a warning on the EFIS.

Ever wonder why there's so few circut breakers in the cockpit of the 777... they 'hid' most of them under the aircraft so the pilots couldn't pull them.

Remember that human factors are the number 1 cause of aviation related accidents.

So... I'm justified in saying that an engine failure on the 777 is a 'non-event'.

- Neil Harrison
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: C-FTOD

Thu Apr 06, 2000 12:49 pm

Pilot1113 wrote:
-------------------------------
.Remember that human factors are the number 1 cause of aviation related accidents.

So... I'm justified in saying that an engine failure on the 777 is a 'non-event'.
-------------------------------

Whenever you eventually make the transition from "aspiring" airline pilot to "real-life" airline pilot, methinks your perspective is likely to change. Just an observation...

True, the 777 is quite sophisticated, and yes, it's well designed. The fact remains than when all that fails, and an engine is shut down, it's still a 2-engined aircraft making a single-engined approach. In this context, an engine failure (on *any* twin) is hardly a non-event, the point I believe the other gentleman was trying to make.

BTW, 121.565 mentions that any time a twin shuts one down, the aircraft must head for the nearest suitable airport in point-of-time, so it's not as if anyone has a choice of continuing to the original destination (ETOPS flights aside)....

Cheers...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
leon
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 10:51 am

Pacific ETOPs

Thu Apr 06, 2000 12:55 pm

Someone said ETOPS trans pacific to Japan is only 120. Anyone know the divert points along the way? Seems like there could be longer diversions than 120 minutes.
 
D L X
Posts: 11663
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Pacific ETOPs

Thu Apr 06, 2000 2:20 pm

The great circle route from the west coast to Japan takes you fairly close to Alaska and the Russian far east. Singapore is a different story, but you'd be surprised just how many routes both transatlantic and transpacific keep you within 2 hours of the shore. Besides that, there are oodles of islands in the Pacific. (Not so in the Atlantic however.)
 
Guest

RE: BA744 Limp To LIS.

Thu Apr 06, 2000 4:44 pm

OK, for those that were debating about that 744 flight that opted to continue to LIS overnight on 3 engines: I have e-mailed a BA pilot (he is a friend of my fathers). He is a senior First Officer on the 767, so although he doesn't fly the 744, he should know more than me! This was his reply to my question:

This is a perfectly acceptable alternative. Before continuing, the crew would have made several checks. They would have checked the weather reports and forcasts for LIS and various en-route alternates. They would have checked the safety heights along the route, and then for each stage would have checked the driftdown altitude for the appropriate weight at that time.
By using the Flight Management System and the performance manual they would check that they had enough fuel to fly to LIS with adequate reserves, and they would check that they could reach a suitable alternate if they were to lose another engine en-route.
Meanwhile the engineers at London would be examining the condition of the other engines via the ACMS datalink (the engineers at LHR would have known about the failure at the same time as the crew).
Only after taking all these factors into consideration would the crew, in consultation with London, decide to continue. It is a perfectly safe operation and much better for the passengers than an hour of fuel dumping followed by a return to EZE.
Hope this helps.
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

OPNLguy

Fri Apr 07, 2000 11:09 am

That's what Purdue teaches us anyways (that human factors are the #1 cause of accidents). That's what the NTSB guys told our class... who should I believe?

Purdue University likes to teach us how to avoid making 'human factor' mistakes. That's their main focus and I think they're right in doing so.

Compare the number of mechanical failure accidents to those caused by human error. Human error comes out on top all the time. Designers have basically solved all the problems on the airliners, except for the human part.

Out of the 7 incident records (on the NTSB's webpage) for the 777 only 2 or 3 were had to do with engine failures. The others were about taxiway collisions and turbulance. That's an impressive number for the 10 years that the 777 has been carrying pax.

If you get anything out of what I say, human factors are the leading cause of aviation accidents. I maybe singing a different tune later, but I doubt it. I will work hard to make sure that I don't fall into those 'traps.'

- Neil Harrison
 
Guest

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Fri Apr 07, 2000 3:39 pm

Ten years carrying pax? I don't think so, wasn't first flight in 95?
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Fri Apr 07, 2000 8:56 pm

Yaki1 wrote:
-------------------------------
Ten years carrying pax? I don't think so, wasn't first flight in 95?

>> I thought it premered in 1993 or 1994... at any rate I was rounding off.

- Neil Harrison
 
LN-KGL
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 1999 6:40 am

RE: First B777-200 Delivery Date

Sat Apr 08, 2000 7:36 am

The first commericial Boeing 777-200 was delivered to United Airlines on 05/24/95. The aircraft has the registration number N766UA. This is according to Commercial Jet Aircraft Census by Bill Harms, 271 B777 have been built (stand March 2000). The prototype, N7771, was delivered 06/12/94 and is still in the hands of The Boeing Company.
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: AA 777 1 Engine Emergency Landing In SFO

Sat Apr 08, 2000 9:59 am

Observation:
If a twin-engined plane like the 777 loses an engine at cruise, it can not maintain altitude, right? It needs both engines to stay high. But by flying at a lower altitude, it now flies in denser air, which presents more drag. So it needs more thrust to maintain even that altitude at that speed. But without additional thrust, it must slow down in this denser air. It loses altitude, speed, and economy after losing one engine.

Question:
Is a quad-engined plane forced lower by losing one engine? And if so, is its altitude and speed compromised as much as the twin-engined plane after losing this one engine?

Hmmmm...
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Re Hmmmmm

Sat Apr 08, 2000 1:57 pm

Obviously a quad will have a lower degradation in performance than a twin. However, a twin has a much greater margin of excess power than a quad, so it is not so bad.
But remember this, after the quag looses an engine, it still has three times the chance of loosing another engine compared to the twin, and then the quad is going nowhere either.
The decreased performance on one engine is taken into account in flight planning anyway, and as this incident shows, "the system works".
Ruscoe
 
D L X
Posts: 11663
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Re Hmmmmm

Sat Apr 08, 2000 3:38 pm

The fact is folks, if you have two engines or four, they both perform the same when one engine is malfunctioning.

I don't know the answer to Hmm's question, although I would believe it to be false. Aircraft engines produce much much more thrust than required at cruise. If they weren't throttled down, the plane would quickly reach the sound barrier which of course is a no-no. I'm fairly certain that a single engine is capable of pushing a plane to the sound barrier. You'll have to ask an aeronautical engineer, but as an engineer in another field, i would say that a twin with one engine out *could* continue at the altitude, but it is prudent to put the plane on the ground, just as it is prudent to put any plane with one engine out on the ground.
 
Guest

RE: Re Hmmmmm

Sat Apr 08, 2000 4:19 pm

Remember when ETOPS you must proceed to the nearest alternate with four it is possible to continue. This is important when one considers the cost and inconvenience to the airline ( and paxs ) of getting that engine repaired or replaced. Believe me AOG teams have to work in some less than optimum enviroments.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Re Hmmmmm

Sun Apr 09, 2000 5:44 am

D L X wrote:
-------------------------------
>>>Aircraft engines produce much much more thrust than required at cruise.

*True

>>>If they weren't throttled down, the plane would quickly reach the sound barrier

*Nope.


>>>I'm fairly certain that a single engine is capable of pushing a plane to the sound barrier.


*Nope again.


>>>You'll have to ask an aeronautical engineer, but as an engineer in another field, i would say that a twin with one engine out *could* continue at the altitude,

*Depends upon the weight of the aircraft at the time of engine failure, temp, terrain, etc.


>>>it is prudent to put any plane with one engine out on the ground.

*Also depends. FAR 121.565 mandates that a twin with an engine out land at the nearest suitable airport in point of time, period. If you're a 3- or 4-engined aircraft and have to shut one down, the PIC can continue on to the intended destination is he/she thinks that course of action is just as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport. An important item for crew consideration at that point is the nature of the engine shutdown itself. If it's a "precautionary" shutdown because a parameter (EGT, oil pressure, oil temp, oil qty, etc). being exceeded, continuing on to destination is usually OK. If the engine was shutdown for something more serious (fire, excessive vibration, internal and/or uncontained failure(s)), yeah, they're making a beeline to the nearest airport no matter how many engines they have.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

More Hmmmm...

Sun Apr 09, 2000 12:27 pm

So from what OPNLGUY is saying, that a routine shutdown of one engine on a 747, say, or an A340, might not interupt the flight. Yet, a 777, would be forced to put down. So I suppose after all the debate about twin vs quad engines, 2 is just as safe as 4, but not as convenient when things go awry.

Which begs the question, where does this leave the trijets? If an L-1011 has a routine shutdown of one engine, does it suffer the same fate as the twin, or does it have the luxury of the quad, continuing unabated to its destination?

Can a trijet maintain altitude say, 35,000 ft, with half a load, with only two engines?

Hmmmm...
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
Guest

RE: More Hmmmm...

Sun Apr 09, 2000 4:44 pm

Hmmmm, if you look at my post (you may have already), entitled "BA744 limp to LIS", you'll see that even our 4-engined jet couldn't actually reach it's final destination. Instead we made it as far as was possible SAFELY (1st priority), then within the safety bracket, as far as was convenient for ALL concerned (ie. the engineers that have to fly out from LGW, the empty 744 which has to fly out to "rescue" the stranded pax. etc.)

However, I agree with your post, which asks where the line is drawn with regard to whether the plane continues in the event of a shut-down, or whether it gets the hell back to the nearest airfield. I guess different airline crew have different approaches. (Perhaps a United or KLM 744 Captain, would have got the hell back to EZE, "who cares about the fuel, lets get rid of it, and get back down to earth." I also guess it depends on whether the engine has "exploded", or whether it has failed relatively intact. The crew on my flight obviously performed a lot of research before making their decision, and I'm grateful for that!

Cheers,
Tailscraper.