SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:26 pm

On 23 March 2006 - G-BNLP operated BA015.

It left the gate at LHR on time at 2145 and took off 20 minute late at 2205.
It landed in SIN at 1814 and arrived at the gate 2 minutes late at 1822.
The SIN - SYD leg of the flight was cancelled due to tech.

The aircraft was also to have flown the BA016 return flight on 25 March 2006 - this was cancelled. Passengers were transferred to Singapore Airlines Limited flight SQ222, Virgin Atlantic and various other air transport means on to Singapore and London.

From a FlyerTalk post - it now seems that BA will fly the aircraft on 3 engines from Singapore to London today or tomorrow. However, it will stop in Dubai due to "limitations" apparently.

Most intriguing.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aldo Bidini
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Je89 W.

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:30 pm

Nothing new, a BA B744 flew LAX-LHR on 3 engines after 1 cut out after takeoff a few years back.

It must require a hell load of extra work though!

Thanks
Mike
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:35 pm

The Nbr 1 engine failed and the aircraft is now in DXB on its way home for an engine change.
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:36 pm

A 3 engine maintenance ferry isn't that big of a deal for a 744. I'm an engineer and not a pilot but it's a legitimate procedure.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
Ansett767
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 9:33 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:40 pm

OMG thats totally freaky

So glad I took the flight BA 15 on this day. I left LHR at 21.25 via Bangkok - was originally on BA16 but changed as I wanted to transit BKK for a change!
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:40 pm

Also, the flight is being operated with only 5 flight crew, 0 cabin crew, 0 passengers.

Flight BA9158E left SIN Unknown. It is due to arrive in DXB at 1520 and leave one hour later.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Ansett767
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 9:33 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:41 pm

Quick qu though. I was flying BA World traveller plus... (premium economy)

If this was the case and was bumped to SQ or QF or whatever, would I have been compensated or upgraded or downgraded or what, as neither of these airlines have this product?
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:46 pm

Again ?
There is something that needs investigating, either there is something wrong with the aircraft, engines or engineering procedures.

I personaly think BA are putting too much pressure on the engineering staff (trust me I know) and this means that deadlines aren't met, or things aren't done properly to get it out on time. Wages are low and the number of engineering staff is at the lowest the airline has ever had.

Wrighbrothers
P.S- This not meant to be a personal attack on anyone, nor is it what all of BA engineering is like. This is just the thoughts of me.
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:07 pm

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 5):
Flight BA9158E left SIN Unknown. It is due to arrive in DXB at 1520 and leave one

ETA LHR 2030Z
and coincidently MML is back from its engine change in NBO ETA 2033Z
 
N754PR
Posts: 2909
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 1999 10:03 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:11 pm

intriguing...... freaky...

What are you talking about. Its ALLOWED for a 747 to ferry on 3 engines the same way a MD11 can Ferry on 2.
Bush, your a sad, sad man.
 
boeingfanyyz
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:12 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:59 am

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 7):
Wages are low and the number of engineering staff is at the lowest the airline has ever had.

But the fact of the matter is that they are getting the job done, with minimum problems!

Cheers,
Boeingfanyyz  airplane 
"If it aint boeing, it aint going!", "Friends are like condoms...they protect you when things get hard!"
 
speedbirdcrew
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:31 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:57 am

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 7):
Again ?
There is something that needs investigating, either there is something wrong with the aircraft, engines or engineering procedures.

Aircraft go Tech its one of those annoying facts of life, sometimes its human error sometimes its a mechanical problem. Its not commented on when most airlines aircraft go tech, as its a regular occurance to have minor faults. Of course an engine failure is a bigger problem but we don't know what happened so there isnt any point blaming anyone or anything at the moment is there.

[Edited 2006-03-26 17:57:48]
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:46 am

Quoting Boeingfanyyz (Reply 10):
But the fact of the matter is that they are getting the job done, with minimum problems!

And that's all good and well untill saftey is comprimized, but so far, that isn't the case.

Quoting Speedbirdcrew (Reply 11):
Aircraft go Tech its one of those annoying facts of life, sometimes its human error sometimes its a mechanical problem. Its not commented on when most airlines aircraft go tech, as its a regular occurance to have minor faults. Of course an engine failure is a bigger problem but we don't know what happened so there isnt any point blaming anyone or anything at the moment is there.

Yes, I wasn's blaming anyone or anything BTW  Smile

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:20 am

That's why it is called "four engines for long haul". Can a 777 fly such routes with one engine out?
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:23 am

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 1):
Nothing new, a BA B744 flew LAX-LHR on 3 engines after 1 cut out after takeoff a few years back.

It was last year. The difference is, the LAX aircraft was full of pax and they never made it to LHR. They had to make an emergency landing at MAN. The same plane lost an engine I think 2 days after the previous one was replaced. Had to fly again on 3 with pax. I guess BA caught a lot of cricisism from those 2 incidents that they didn't wanna try it again this time with pax. Is this the same aircraft by the way?
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:29 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 13):
That's why it is called "four engines for long haul". Can a 777 fly such routes with one engine out?

In theory yes, however it is highly unlikely.

The normal procedure is to change the engine where the aircraft is. Not too bad if its at a well equiped airport, but at some ETOPS diversion airports there isn't exactly much facilty to do engine changes.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
 
A319114
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:40 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:33 am

'3 engines 4 long haul' seems to do it just fine for BA  duck 
Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:41 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 13):
"four engines for long haul"

What is?? That's a VS slogan for their 747's and A340's and BA could care less since they do use the 777 for long haul.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:51 am

Quoting N754PR (Reply 9):
MD11 can Ferry on 2.

Hmm, MD-11 without the #2 engine, sounds like it could be a succesful plane.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 13):
That's why it is called "four engines for long haul". Can a 777 fly such routes with one engine out?

When was the last time a 777 was brought down to engine failure? ETOPS 227 means that things can fly what, like 3 hours, 47 minutes on one engine, or atleast is tested to do atleast that?

Interesting thought I had once, you could effectively power a 747-400 with only two GE90-115B's. Put 4 on a 747 and you'd have something that would have to be a lot of fun to fly.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:17 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
When was the last time a 777 was brought down to engine failure? ETOPS 227 means that things can fly what, like 3 hours, 47 minutes on one engine, or atleast is tested to do atleast that?

It's ETOPS 207, but the 777 can really do 330, which is 5.5 hours. It could likely do more than that, but do you really need more than that?

Brought down in a crash? Never. Nor would 1 engine out lead to that on this or any other multi-engine plane. It would require a systems failure or other damage.

Canceled or returned due to Engine out? Happens. CO lost an NRT a few months back due to an engine out. Had to return to IAH, canceled, took a while to fix it. BA had one go tech at MCO recently, etc.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 970
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:06 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
Hmm, MD-11 without the #2 engine, sounds like it could be a succesful plane.

It is, It's called the Boeing 777!  Big grin (I know they are totally different, it's just a joke)

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
Interesting thought I had once, you could effectively power a 747-400 with only two GE90-115B's. Put 4 on a 747 and you'd have something that would have to be a lot of fun to fly.

I have thought about this too! If most 747 engine make between 55,000 and 60,000 lbs of thrust, than 2 GE90-115Bs should do the job quite nicely! Hmm... Maybe you and I are barking up the tree of a potential Y3 plan?  Smile
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
trekster
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:47 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:17 am

Quoting Ansett767 (Reply 6):
Quick qu though. I was flying BA World traveller plus... (premium economy)

If this was the case and was bumped to SQ or QF or whatever, would I have been compensated or upgraded or downgraded or what, as neither of these airlines have this product

Unfortunetly it would of been a downgrade to Y class as wtp is a premium y, same y service though, where as j is premium class. Could of been lucky subject to loads though
Where does the time go???
 
mbj2000
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:28 am

I guess the question went more in the direction, could a 777 do a ferry flight on one engine and if so would that be allowed?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 19):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):When was the last time a 777 was brought down to engine failure? ETOPS 227 means that things can fly what, like 3 hours, 47 minutes on one engine, or atleast is tested to do atleast that?

It's ETOPS 207, but the 777 can really do 330, which is 5.5 hours. It could likely do more than that, but do you really need more than that?

Brought down in a crash? Never. Nor would 1 engine out lead to that on this or any other multi-engine plane. It would require a systems failure or other damage.

Canceled or returned due to Engine out? Happens. CO lost an NRT a few months back due to an engine out. Had to return to IAH, canceled, took a while to fix it. BA had one go tech at MCO recently, etc.
Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
 
G-CIVP
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:57 am

This isn't intriguing. BA are just cold-legging an aircraft from Singapore to LHR. No big deal; a few extra punters for the competition but hardly front page news!

As for the difference between this and the LAX flight, from a quick read of the above, the flight was pulled at Singapore before the flight commenced.
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:00 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
Quoting Thorben (Reply 13):
That's why it is called "four engines for long haul". Can a 777 fly such routes with one engine out?

When was the last time a 777 was brought down to engine failure? ETOPS 227 means that things can fly what, like 3 hours, 47 minutes on one engine, or atleast is tested to do atleast that?

ETOPS207 means that you must be within 207 minutes of a diversion airport at all times. So you CAN fly for that long if you have to, but if there's a closer suitable airport, you're going there no matter how long you can fly for. ETOPS is not authority to continue flight on one engine, it's authority to plan flights that go more than an hour from a suitable diversion airport. Example: you're on a 777 over the North Atlantic from New York to Dublin. You have an engine failure. You can make Dublin in 150 minutes (within your ETOPS limit), but you can also make Reykjavik in 110 minutes. You're going to go to Reykjavik.

I do remember a UA 777 that had to divert to Yellowkife due to an engine failure. The plane was stuck there for a considerable time due to the need to have a replacement engine trucked in. Engine failures on twins don't happen often, but they are far more crippling compared to quads or triples.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:07 am

Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 22):
I guess the question went more in the direction, could a 777 do a ferry flight on one engine and if so would that be allowed?

No.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:12 am

Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 22):
I guess the question went more in the direction, could a 777 do a ferry flight on one engine and if so would that be allowed?

No way, you have to take into account the possibility of an engine failure on the ferry flight. On a 3-engine 747 ferry, you still have 2 engines if you loose another. 2 engines are enough to fly to an airport and land. With a 1 engine flight on a 777 (or any other twin), you are hosed if you loose an engine and we'll be reading about you in the newspaper the next day.
 
PGV
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:08 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:21 am

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 23):
As for the difference between this and the LAX flight, from a quick read of the above, the flight was pulled at Singapore before the flight commenced.

Difference in regards to a 3 engine ferry...I would agree, there isn't much. However, BA is being smart about this one. The LAX - LHR flight had passengers on it, and the engine loss wasn't too far from LAX. Bad call...especially if there would have been an additional engine loss in the North Atlantic. Had the loss been the backup engine in the chain, there would be no hydraulics for certain functions. Then there would have been problems.

Most 4-holer drivers have received a good bit of info about this, and the BA pilot that made the LAX - LHR decision is having some real issues flying in the US again.
"To hell with a Ferrari...give me a Super 70!"
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:29 am

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 26):
With a 1 engine flight on a 777 (or any other twin), you are hosed if you loose an engine and we'll be reading about you in the newspaper the next day.

We might be reading about you but in a different way. An A330 lost two angines on it's way to YYZ and it landed. Ever heard of 'glinding'?
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:34 am

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 20):

I have thought about this too! If most 747 engine make between 55,000 and 60,000 lbs of thrust, than 2 GE90-115Bs should do the job quite nicely! Hmm... Maybe you and I are barking up the tree of a potential Y3 plan?

Keep in mind that Twins need higher installed thrust in the event of an engine failure. Rather than get off topic, http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eral_aviation/read.main/2550144/6/ has a good overview.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:35 am

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 28):
We might be reading about you but in a different way. An A330 lost two angines on it's way to YYZ and it landed. Ever heard of 'glinding'?

The ability to glide to an airport in the event of a total loss of engine power in a transport category airplane is almost entirely sheer luck - no pilot would ever make a conscious decision to rely on it. To do so would be extremely stupid.
 
NorthstarBoy
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:53 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:16 am

here's a stupid question, would it not have been easier for BA to contract with SQ to have them replace the engine? the a/c is out of service no matter what, so rather then endangering the flight crew, just have sq do it or are we talking completely different engine types?
Yes, I'd like to see airbus go under so Boeing can have their customers!
 
boo25
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:03 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:20 am

Quote........."I personaly think BA are putting too much pressure on the engineering staff (trust me I know) and this means that deadlines aren't met, or things aren't done properly to get it out on time."

...That is now a commonly held belief, sadly...........
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:28 am

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 31):
here's a stupid question, would it not have been easier for BA to contract with SQ to have them replace the engine? the a/c is out of service no matter what, so rather then endangering the flight crew, just have sq do it or are we talking completely different engine types?

BA uses RR engines on their 744s. I don't know what SQ uses, but it's not RR. That said, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a way to get an RR engine installed in SIN, since it's a major enough destination, and several Asian carriers use RR on their 744s.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
RandyWaldron
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:40 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:36 am

How amazing.

This website is like reading the Enquirer. Gossip, gossip, gossip. The biggest question should be: "Is this safe?" not, "which seat was I to sit in", etc.

So, was this SIN-DXB-LHR flight a ferry or were there passengers involved? If you don't know the answer, don't assume and don't answer the question.

:>)
"Flaps 20, gear down, landing checklist please..."
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:54 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 33):
Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 31):
here's a stupid question, would it not have been easier for BA to contract with SQ to have them replace the engine? the a/c is out of service no matter what, so rather then endangering the flight crew, just have sq do it or are we talking completely different engine types?

BA uses RR engines on their 744s. I don't know what SQ uses, but it's not RR. That said, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a way to get an RR engine installed in SIN, since it's a major enough destination, and several Asian carriers use RR on their 744s.-Mir

Aircraft engines cost millions of what ever currency you care to deal in, and airlines just don't loan other airlines engines. BA had two options: three engine ferry the aircraft to an engine or fly an engine to the aircraft. Both options are costly but I am sure the ferry flight was the least expensive option.
 
yvrtoyyz
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:10 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:22 pm

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 28):
An A330 lost two angines on it's way to YYZ and it landed. Ever heard of 'glinding'?

I think its more commonly referred to as gliding. Further, this was a TS flight originating in Toronto destined for Portugal. Because a part for an L1011 had been installed instead of the proper A330 part, there was wear along the fuel line, causing it to rupture and subsequently leak fuel.

Because of problems associated with pilot error, the aircraft ran out of fuel and was forced to glide upwards of 30 mins (correct me if I am wrong), where it made an emergency landing in the Azores, with minimal damage (blown tires, brake fires, etc).

As for the BA decision to fly their aircraft back to LHR through DXB, it appears to be the cheaper option and is perfectly within regulations.

-YVRtoYYZ
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:25 pm

Quoting Pgv (Reply 27):
Difference in regards to a 3 engine ferry...I would agree, there isn't much. However, BA is being smart about this one. The LAX - LHR flight had passengers on it, and the engine loss wasn't too far from LAX. Bad call...especially if there would have been an additional engine loss in the North Atlantic. Had the loss been the backup engine in the chain, there would be no hydraulics for certain functions. Then there would have been problems.

Most 4-holer drivers have received a good bit of info about this, and the BA pilot that made the LAX - LHR decision is having some real issues flying in the US again.

1) Under the FARs there is no requirement for the PIC to land at the "nearest airport in terms of time" for a 3-4 engine aircraft as there is on a two engine aircraft. Legally he did nothing wrong and there is nothing the FAA can do. Had they gotten the NAT track they were originally filed for, there would have been no publicity.

2) On the 744, losing an engine does not result in losing any hydraluic systems.

3) Perhaps you could provide some reference for your statement about the Capt having problems flying in the US. Since he violated no FAR, I really find your statement to be pure conjecture not fact!

Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 34):
So, was this SIN-DXB-LHR flight a ferry or were there passengers involved? If you don't know the answer, don't assume and don't answer the question

On a maintenance ferry flight, normally there is a prohibition on carrying passengers or revenue cargo. On a 3 engine ferry flight, you can only take the basic crew. In addition, the reason for the DXB stop is on a 3 engine ferry flight takeoff performance is based on losing the second engine. Thus your takeoff gross weight is reduced. Ironically, if you really look at the performance issues, you have more thrust/kg on a three engine takeoff than you would have at a MTOW with 4 engines. There is no really safety issue for a 3 engine ferry.
Fly fast, live slow
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:25 pm

Think of it this way - to singapore, BA is the enemy. I'm sure they could have done a special contract where BA paid an irrational price to have singapore drop an engine in their bird, but BA would lose face, and Singapore would be doing a favor for BA.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
RandyWaldron
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:40 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:00 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 37):
On a maintenance ferry flight, normally there is a prohibition on carrying passengers or revenue cargo. On a 3 engine ferry flight, you can only take the basic crew. In addition, the reason for the DXB stop is on a 3 engine ferry flight takeoff performance is based on losing the second engine. Thus your takeoff gross weight is reduced. Ironically, if you really look at the performance issues, you have more thrust/kg on a three engine takeoff than you would have at a MTOW with 4 engines. There is no really safety issue for a 3 engine ferry.

So, after you posted this answer, PhilSquares, and cited all of this techincal jargon, the question still remains. Did BA fly that a/c with or without passengers? I don't need your explanations about MTOW, Trust to weight ratios, ferry flights, etc. Were there passengers on board or not? If you don't know the answer, don't reply.  Smile

By the way, just the title "3 engine ferry" implies there's a safety issue: your fourth engine isn't working.
"Flaps 20, gear down, landing checklist please..."
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:00 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 38):
Think of it this way - to singapore, BA is the enemy. I'm sure they could have done a special contract where BA paid an irrational price to have singapore drop an engine in their bird, but BA would lose face, and Singapore would be doing a favor for BA.

Airlines don't act like little children. If BA had chose to change the engine in Singapore they may have contracted SQ for the change. But SQ would not charge them an "irrational price", because next time it may be SQ at LHR with an engine that requires replacement and they may need BA's help. While airlines may compete for the passengers money, the maintenance departments act very civil with one another.
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:18 pm

Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 34):
So, was this SIN-DXB-LHR flight a ferry or were there passengers involved? If you don't know the answer, don't assume and don't answer the question.



Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 39):
Did BA fly that a/c with or without passengers?

You obviously haven't been reading the damn thread. The ferry flight had no passengers so I'm not sure what you're antsy about.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:35 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 40):

Airlines don't act like little children. If BA had chose to change the engine in Singapore they may have contracted SQ for the change. But SQ would not charge them an "irrational price", because next time it may be SQ at LHR with an engine that requires replacement and they may need BA's help. While airlines may compete for the passengers money, the maintenance departments act very civil with one another.

I know this. DL and AA, intense competitors do maintanance for each other - DL maintains the PW engines on the 757s AA inheritted from TWA, and in exchange AA maintains the engines on DL's 777s. But here's the thing, I'm sure SQ doesn't have a contract rate for changing engines for other airlines. I see no reason they wouldn't charge a premium rate - enough so that BA decided doing something like that wouldn't be worth it, because you know having that 747 not flying is costing them money every day - and even so, it's not worth it to have it just changed out stat and press it back into service.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:56 pm

As a matter of interest, can a four still fly (and maintain height) if it loses a second engine on the same side? Strikes me they'd need an awful lot of rudder trim?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:40 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 38):
Think of it this way - to singapore, BA is the enemy. I'm sure they could have done a special contract where BA paid an irrational price to have singapore drop an engine in their bird, but BA would lose face, and Singapore would be doing a favor for BA.

These "favors" happen all the time between airlines. I've seen 10% of a component purchase price per day charged for "borrowing" a part from another airline. An engine change scenario is more complicated overall for a number of reasons but how does a 10% per day lease rate meet your expectation of an "irrational price"?

Quoting 474218 (Reply 40):
Airlines don't act like little children. If BA had chose to change the engine in Singapore they may have contracted SQ for the change. But SQ would not charge them an "irrational price", because next time it may be SQ at LHR with an engine that requires replacement and they may need BA's help. While airlines may compete for the passengers money, the maintenance departments act very civil with one another.

Absolutely correct.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 42):
I know this. DL and AA, intense competitors do maintanance for each other - DL maintains the PW engines on the 757s AA inheritted from TWA, and in exchange AA maintains the engines on DL's 777s. But here's the thing, I'm sure SQ doesn't have a contract rate for changing engines for other airlines. I see no reason they wouldn't charge a premium rate - enough so that BA decided doing something like that wouldn't be worth it, because you know having that 747 not flying is costing them money every day - and even so, it's not worth it to have it just changed out stat and press it back into service.

A premium labor rate is not even a consideration for something on the scale of an AOG engine change. The discussion of purchasing or leasing an engine short term is a non issue here due to the RB211/PW4056 conflict between carriers. However, the prospect of leasing or borrowing an engine from another carrier is not totally out of the question (but is somewhat unlikely for significantly more complicated reasons).
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
warszawa
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 11:37 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:48 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 18):
Hmm, MD-11 without the #2 engine, sounds like it could be a succesful plane.

Interesting to note that the DC-10 was originally designed as a two engine aircraft; it was American Airlines that pushed for a third engine, therefore getting the tail mounted engine. Since the MD-11 is modeled after the DC-10...its easy to say, it may very well have been a two engine aircraft.

Funny I just finished a research paper for college today...I did it on the DC-10 (Disasters), hence I used that little tidbit of info in my paper...lol.
Flying a plane is no diff. from riding a bicycle. Its just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes. -'Airplane'
 
studentflyer
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:02 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:09 pm

Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 44):
Quoting Tinkerbelle (Reply 41):
Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 34):
So, was this SIN-DXB-LHR flight a ferry or were there passengers involved? If you don't know the answer, don't assume and don't answer the question.



Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 39):
Did BA fly that a/c with or without passengers?

You obviously haven't been reading the damn thread. The ferry flight had no passengers so I'm not sure what you're antsy about.

Well, TINKERBELLE: I don't see it anywhere.

What are you so antsy about, you didn't answer the DAMN question. 747's passengers can't fly under Peter Pan's power...

Well, here's the answer.. read more carefully next time  scratchchin 

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 5):
Also, the flight is being operated with only 5 flight crew, 0 cabin crew, 0 passengers.

Flight BA9158E left SIN Unknown. It is due to arrive in DXB at 1520 and leave one hour later.



Quoting Mir (Reply 33):
BA uses RR engines on their 744s. I don't know what SQ uses, but it's not RR.

SQ uses PW engines for their 744s.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:20 pm

Quoting Molykote (Reply 45):
These "favors" happen all the time between airlines. I've seen 10% of a component purchase price per day charged for "borrowing" a part from another airline. An engine change scenario is more complicated overall for a number of reasons but how does a 10% per day lease rate meet your expectation of an "irrational price"?

At Lockheed were kept spares at key locations around the world (Hong Kong, New York, London and Amman). L-1011 operator could lease parts from these locations. Our charge 1/360 of the cost per day, and if you kept it a year you bought it. The leasing operator also had to pay for all shipping and to have the part overhauled, when they returned it. It doesn't sound like a lot of money 1/365 of the price, but an outboard slat cost $180,00 the rent was $500 a day. However, that is a small price to pay when the VP of Delta told that each L-1011 in their fleet generated $80,000 a day profit. So having one sit waiting for a slat to be repaired was not an option.
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:54 pm

Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 44):
Well, TINKERBELLE: I don't see it anywhere.

What are you so antsy about, you didn't answer the DAMN question. 747's passengers can't fly under Peter Pan's power

Take a chill pill, son! Read the whole thread before asking questions next time.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: BA To Fly B744 SIN-LHR On 3 Engines

Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:20 pm

Quoting RandyWaldron (Reply 39):
So, after you posted this answer, PhilSquares, and cited all of this techincal jargon, the question still remains. Did BA fly that a/c with or without passengers? I don't need your explanations about MTOW, Trust to weight ratios, ferry flights, etc. Were there passengers on board or not? If you don't know the answer, don't reply.



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 37):
On a maintenance ferry flight, normally there is a prohibition on carrying passengers or revenue cargo. On a 3 engine ferry flight, you can only take the basic crew.

There's your answer, next time perhaps you could take the time to read. And perhaps don't be so childlike!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 43):
As a matter of interest, can a four still fly (and maintain height) if it loses a second engine on the same side? Strikes me they'd need an awful lot of rudder trim?

Yes, the 744 will fly on 2 engines and you do need a lot of rudder trim, but it's very controllable.
Fly fast, live slow