I flew JetsGo flight 178 (Toronto to Vancouver) on 19 January 2005. The
equipment was an MD-83.

I'm convinced the right-hand engine was not operational! I could not see
the turbofan spinning (looked stationary) and the flight took about an
hour longer than scheduled (they blamed strong headwinds).

Is this possible? Can/should/is it legal for a flight to take off and
fly an entire route with one engine? How much flight time would this add?

Are there publically-available safety logs that would record if this was
the case?

How are JetsGo's safety standards?

Lots of questions!

Thanks

S.

"Tyler Wordsworth" > wrote in message
. ..
> I flew JetsGo flight 178 (Toronto to Vancouver) on 19 January 2005. The
> equipment was an MD-83.
>
> I'm convinced the right-hand engine was not operational! I could not see
> the turbofan spinning (looked stationary) and the flight took about an
> hour longer than scheduled (they blamed strong headwinds).
>

Never heard of a passenger aircraft intentionally taking off with one engine
inop. I forget if the engine used on MD-80 series has the "inlet guide
vanes" which appears like a stationary set of fan blades at the front of the
engine. If it does have IGVs that would look a bit like the engine not
turning. However, even if the engine had zero fuel supplied to it, it would
turn, or windmill, due to the air flow through it. Strong headwinds sounds
far more likely.

--

Scott

Liberals love America like OJ loved Nicole. - Ann Coulter

It wouldn't have been possible for the fan to not be turning. It turns
even when a slight wind hits it while sitting on the ramp. Whatever you
saw, it couldn't have been the inlet fan or turbine not spinning. It
would not be legal to take off w/o the engine running since the plane
must be able to continue a takeoff after one engine fails after a
certain point. If you already started minus one, that wouldn't work.

Hi,

I am sure that there is no pilot in the world who would take-off any
multiengine airplane with one engine inop. (Disclaimer: some test pilots may
do something like that).
I don't know the company you flew with, but for sure the engine was working.
What can happen though is that the pilot may decide to turn off during the
flight an engine that may cause trouble, but in that case would likely
divert to the nearest suitable airport.

Regards,
Shkumbin
EFHF



"Tyler Wordsworth" > wrote in message
. ..
> I flew JetsGo flight 178 (Toronto to Vancouver) on 19 January 2005. The
> equipment was an MD-83.
>
> I'm convinced the right-hand engine was not operational! I could not see
> the turbofan spinning (looked stationary) and the flight took about an
> hour longer than scheduled (they blamed strong headwinds).
>
> Is this possible? Can/should/is it legal for a flight to take off and
> fly an entire route with one engine? How much flight time would this add?
>
> Are there publically-available safety logs that would record if this was
> the case?
>
> How are JetsGo's safety standards?
>
> Lots of questions!
>
> Thanks
>
> S.
>

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:28:13 GMT, "Shkumbin Hamiti"
> wrote:

>I am sure that there is no pilot in the world who would take-off any
>multiengine airplane with one engine inop.

Oh, at least on four-engine transports this is done pretty regularly
to ferry the airplane where repairs can be accomplished.
Of course without pax and with some additional restrictions.

The infamous crash of an ATI-DC8 proves, however, that things can get
ugly in a heartbeat.

Tobias

Well...there was the pilot in Portland, OR who tried to takeoff with one
engine inop in an Aerospatial (sp?)Corvette, with passengers. Everyone
survived and for some reason the pilot forgot what happened.
If I remember the report correctly, he was mentioning something about doing
an airstart on the engine that wouldn't start and the co-pilot said
something to the effect of "you are not serious, are you?".

"Shkumbin Hamiti" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I am sure that there is no pilot in the world who would take-off any
> multiengine airplane with one engine inop. (Disclaimer: some test pilots
may
> do something like that).
> I don't know the company you flew with, but for sure the engine was
working.
> What can happen though is that the pilot may decide to turn off during the
> flight an engine that may cause trouble, but in that case would likely
> divert to the nearest suitable airport.
>
> Regards,
> Shkumbin
> EFHF
>
>
>
> "Tyler Wordsworth" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I flew JetsGo flight 178 (Toronto to Vancouver) on 19 January 2005. The
> > equipment was an MD-83.
> >
> > I'm convinced the right-hand engine was not operational! I could not see
> > the turbofan spinning (looked stationary) and the flight took about an
> > hour longer than scheduled (they blamed strong headwinds).
> >
> > Is this possible? Can/should/is it legal for a flight to take off and
> > fly an entire route with one engine? How much flight time would this
add?
> >
> > Are there publically-available safety logs that would record if this was
> > the case?
> >
> > How are JetsGo's safety standards?
> >
> > Lots of questions!
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > S.
> >
>
>

Oops..forgot the link.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X09774&key=1

"John" > wrote in message
...
> Well...there was the pilot in Portland, OR who tried to takeoff with one
> engine inop in an Aerospatial (sp?)Corvette, with passengers. Everyone
> survived and for some reason the pilot forgot what happened.
> If I remember the report correctly, he was mentioning something about
doing
> an airstart on the engine that wouldn't start and the co-pilot said
> something to the effect of "you are not serious, are you?".
>
> "Shkumbin Hamiti" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am sure that there is no pilot in the world who would take-off any
> > multiengine airplane with one engine inop. (Disclaimer: some test pilots
> may
> > do something like that).
> > I don't know the company you flew with, but for sure the engine was
> working.
> > What can happen though is that the pilot may decide to turn off during
the
> > flight an engine that may cause trouble, but in that case would likely
> > divert to the nearest suitable airport.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Shkumbin
> > EFHF
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tyler Wordsworth" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > I flew JetsGo flight 178 (Toronto to Vancouver) on 19 January 2005.
The
> > > equipment was an MD-83.
> > >
> > > I'm convinced the right-hand engine was not operational! I could not
see
> > > the turbofan spinning (looked stationary) and the flight took about an
> > > hour longer than scheduled (they blamed strong headwinds).
> > >
> > > Is this possible? Can/should/is it legal for a flight to take off and
> > > fly an entire route with one engine? How much flight time would this
> add?
> > >
> > > Are there publically-available safety logs that would record if this
was
> > > the case?
> > >
> > > How are JetsGo's safety standards?
> > >
> > > Lots of questions!
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > S.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"John" > wrote in message
...
> Oops..forgot the link.
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X09774&key=1

I hope that pilot lost his certificate....Permanently. What could have he
been thinking?
--
Jim in NC

Unless the aircraft was very light and/or the runway was very long that
MD-83 couldn't get off the ground on one engine. To take off with one
engine you would have to begin takeoff roll at low power setting on the good
engine and increase the thrust as more rudder authority became available at
higher speeds. It takes nearly full rudder to control yaw if the engine
fails just above V-1 speed with full power on the remaining engine.

JetsGo is a safe airline. I trained many of their pilots in the MD-80. No
airline pilot would attempt a takeoff with one engine out before start of
take off. I flew the B-52H which had 8 fan jets. Even with 7 remaining,
no one would attempt a takeoff in normal circumstances with an engine
inoperative.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Tyler Wordsworth" > wrote in message
. ..
>I flew JetsGo flight 178 (Toronto to Vancouver) on 19 January 2005. The
> equipment was an MD-83.
>
> I'm convinced the right-hand engine was not operational! I could not see
> the turbofan spinning (looked stationary) and the flight took about an
> hour longer than scheduled (they blamed strong headwinds).
>
> Is this possible? Can/should/is it legal for a flight to take off and
> fly an entire route with one engine? How much flight time would this add?
>
> Are there publically-available safety logs that would record if this was
> the case?
>
> How are JetsGo's safety standards?
>
> Lots of questions!
>
> Thanks
>
> S.
>

John

In the Military I've heard about one jet being put in front of another
and the jet blast from the forward jet turning the dead engine of
bird behind up to enough RPM to get started.

Never heard of it being done with civilian jets however. Would be very
hard to do on a MD-80 type due to engines up on the fuselage in front
of the tail.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:50:06 -0800, "John" >
wrote:

>Well...there was the pilot in Portland, OR who tried to takeoff with one
>engine inop in an Aerospatial (sp?)Corvette, with passengers. Everyone
>survived and for some reason the pilot forgot what happened.
>If I remember the report correctly, he was mentioning something about doing
>an airstart on the engine that wouldn't start and the co-pilot said
>something to the effect of "you are not serious, are you?".
>
>"Shkumbin Hamiti" > wrote in message
...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am sure that there is no pilot in the world who would take-off any
>> multiengine airplane with one engine inop. (Disclaimer: some test pilots
>may
>> do something like that).
>> I don't know the company you flew with, but for sure the engine was
>working.
>> What can happen though is that the pilot may decide to turn off during the
>> flight an engine that may cause trouble, but in that case would likely
>> divert to the nearest suitable airport.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shkumbin
>> EFHF
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tyler Wordsworth" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > I flew JetsGo flight 178 (Toronto to Vancouver) on 19 January 2005. The
>> > equipment was an MD-83.
>> >
>> > I'm convinced the right-hand engine was not operational! I could not see
>> > the turbofan spinning (looked stationary) and the flight took about an
>> > hour longer than scheduled (they blamed strong headwinds).
>> >
>> > Is this possible? Can/should/is it legal for a flight to take off and
>> > fly an entire route with one engine? How much flight time would this
>add?
>> >
>> > Are there publically-available safety logs that would record if this was
>> > the case?
>> >
>> > How are JetsGo's safety standards?
>> >
>> > Lots of questions!
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > S.
>> >
>>
>>
>

"Darrell S" wrote
> JetsGo is a safe airline. I trained many of their pilots in the
> MD-80. No airline pilot would attempt a takeoff with one engine out
> before start of take off. I flew the B-52H which had 8 fan jets.
> Even with 7 remaining, no one would attempt a takeoff in normal
> circumstances with an engine inoperative.

I've done three engine take-offs in B-707s without too much
extra thought. Of course, they were accomplished in accordance
with the three engine ferry supplement to the flight manual.
Then again...in the P-3 that the US Navy let me fly, it seems
as if I spent most of the time running around at 100' to 200'
with at least one and often with two of the engines shut down.

Bob Moore

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Oops..forgot the link.
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X09774&key=1
>
> I hope that pilot lost his certificate....Permanently. What could have he
> been thinking?

Reading the full narrative it seems he was thinking he could get the engine
going by compression while they were rolling for takeoff.

Interestingly though, it appears the critical factor was the pilot's failure
to fly the plane properly. A 10-seat bizjet with 5 seats filled at a big
field near sea level (PDX IIRC?) ought to be able to take off and stay in
the air. It's arguable whether the engine could have been started but a
crash doesn't immediately appear to have been inevitable. Still, not really
justifiable unless you're in Saigon and the commies are closing in on the
city.

-cwk.