A hypothetical situation, and a doubt

[[email protected]]

This won't happen, yet...

On takeoff, one of your engines sucks in a bird or simply fails, and
you're left with just one turbine. You declare emergency, etc. but in
returning for a landing, there occurs a situation during finals - you
somehow botch up the approach or some unexpected weather is encountered
- which in normal circumstances would've warranted a go-around. Since
you can't do that now with one engine, how would you salvage the
situation?

No "I'm good enough never to screw up approaches" for an answer, thanks
:)

Regards,

Ramapriya

[Jim Macklin]

Turbine powered airplanes can make single-engine missed
approaches, some piston engined twins can also. Gross
weights above 6,000 pounds require positive climb on one
engine. But even if you can't do a missed approach, you're
no worse off than you'd be in a single in the same place.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
| This won't happen, yet...
|
| On takeoff, one of your engines sucks in a bird or simply
fails, and
| you're left with just one turbine. You declare emergency,
etc. but in
| returning for a landing, there occurs a situation during
finals - you
| somehow botch up the approach or some unexpected weather
is encountered
| - which in normal circumstances would've warranted a
go-around. Since
| you can't do that now with one engine, how would you
salvage the
| situation?
|
| No "I'm good enough never to screw up approaches" for an
answer, thanks
| :)
|
| Regards,
|
| Ramapriya
|
|

[john smith]

In article om>,
wrote:

> This won't happen, yet...
>
> On takeoff, one of your engines sucks in a bird or simply fails, and
> you're left with just one turbine. You declare emergency, etc. but in
> returning for a landing, there occurs a situation during finals - you
> somehow botch up the approach or some unexpected weather is encountered
> - which in normal circumstances would've warranted a go-around. Since
> you can't do that now with one engine, how would you salvage the
> situation?

One of the things I was taught during my instrument training was not to
takeoff into conditions which were not good enough to make an immediate
return should just such a instance occur.

[.Blueskies.]

> wrote in message ups.com...
> This won't happen, yet...
>
> On takeoff, one of your engines sucks in a bird or simply fails, and
> you're left with just one turbine. You declare emergency, etc. but in
> returning for a landing, there occurs a situation during finals - you
> somehow botch up the approach or some unexpected weather is encountered
> - which in normal circumstances would've warranted a go-around. Since
> you can't do that now with one engine, how would you salvage the
> situation?
>
> No "I'm good enough never to screw up approaches" for an answer, thanks
> :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Ramapriya
>
>

Maybe that is what happened here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/03/c5.crash/

[Bob Moore]

> - which in normal circumstances would've warranted a go-around. Since
> you can't do that now with one engine,

Of course you can go-around on one engine. Transport category a/c
are required by regulation to be able to do that.
After all....the airplane is able to continue the takeoff after
an engine failure while still on the runway and past the V1 speed,
it stands to reason that if already airborne and at a speed higher
than V1, it can continue flying.
:-) :-)

Bob Moore

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>> - which in normal circumstances would've warranted a go-around. Since
>> you can't do that now with one engine,
>
>Of course you can go-around on one engine. Transport category a/c
>are required by regulation to be able to do that.

Correct - Since the OP said "turbine" and "ingestion" we can assume we
are referring to a transport category aircraft, which is indeed capable
of doing the go-aound on one engine (or two, or three - depends on what
an engine-out condition indicates for a given type).

Nevertheless, such situations have given rise to many incidents and some
accidents. Examples : What seemed to be an engine-out condition, due to a
bird strike, turned out to be a both-engines-out condition (due to bird
strike) and the plane did not complete the go-around procedure. OR : In
haste and confusion, flight crew raised gear but not flaps, and the plane
was not able to initiate go around, settled to runway with too little
runway remaining, but was able to stop in available runway due to gear-up
landing - OR : Go-around was initiated, but fuel selection was
inappropriate and plane made forced landing, believing they had a total
power loss.....

In a smaller plane (light twin) the available power is not adequate to
perform a go-around on one engine with adequate safety margins, and you
must get it down, even if you break it. In a transport plane with two
engines, it is perfectly possible, but you must weigh the risk to benefit
ratio, and maximize crew resource management to make sure everything is
done by the book. In a 747 you should hardly notice any performance loss.

GF

[BTIZ]

>
> Maybe that is what happened here:
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/03/c5.crash/
>

I believe he (C5) lost 3 of 4, not just 1 of 2.
Of course I have lost 1 of 4, and even 2 of 8, and returned safely. Granted,
we could not dump fuel with the 8 engine bird, and had to fly about 5 hours
to burn down to landing weight.

BT

[[email protected]]

Bob Moore wrote:
>
> Of course you can go-around on one engine. Transport category a/c
> are required by regulation to be able to do that.
> After all....the airplane is able to continue the takeoff after
> an engine failure while still on the runway and past the V1 speed,
> it stands to reason that if already airborne and at a speed higher
> than V1, it can continue flying.
> :-) :-)
>
> Bob Moore

I get it now.
And nicely put, buddy, as usual :)
I thought you were still snowed under with computer work, thus Option 2
:)

Ramapriya

[Flyingmonk]

BTIZ wrote:
> >
> > Maybe that is what happened here:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/03/c5.crash/
> >
>
> I believe he (C5) lost 3 of 4, not just 1 of 2.
> Of course I have lost 1 of 4, and even 2 of 8, and returned safely. Granted,
> we could not dump fuel with the 8 engine bird, and had to fly about 5 hours
> to burn down to landing weight.
>
> BT

Hmmm... lost two of eight huh? Eight engines, you a Buff driver?
Cool...

The Monk

[[email protected]]

Greg Farris wrote:

> done by the book. In a 747 you should hardly notice any performance loss.
>
> GF

I know it isn't what you're saying but if you lose one engine in a
4-engine craft, you don't return but carry on, surely?!

Ramapriya

[Grumman-581]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hmmm... lost two of eight huh? Eight engines, you a Buff driver?

Yep, that dreaded 6 engine approach...

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...

>
>I know it isn't what you're saying but if you lose one engine in a
>4-engine craft, you don't return but carry on, surely?!
>

No, that would probably be a bad call. You have just suffered an accident,
you don't really know what other damage there may be, to other engines or
otherwise to the airframe, you are already at your departure airport, where
at least you assume you can land safely, so knowingly launching on a flight
(which may be a long flight, if it's a 747) with reduced margins would likely
not win you much airmanship praise. Your biggest problem though, in this
case, is that you may be too heavy to land safely - If it's a question of
climbing to where you can dump fuel, and/or flying around to burn fuel, and
your main airport, with the best maintenance facilities is a couple hours
away and you're confident, from the nature of the accident and the engine
monitoring instruments that you're not about to lose two more, then your
passengers who thought they were headed to Singapore may end up in Atlanta.

GF

[Marty Shapiro]

wrote in
oups.com:

> Greg Farris wrote:
>
>> done by the book. In a 747 you should hardly notice any performance
>> loss.
>>
>> GF
>
> I know it isn't what you're saying but if you lose one engine in a
> 4-engine craft, you don't return but carry on, surely?!
>
> Ramapriya
>

Only if you are British Airways.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Tauno Voipio]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>
>>Greg Farris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>done by the book. In a 747 you should hardly notice any performance
>>>loss.
>>>
>>>GF
>>
>>I know it isn't what you're saying but if you lose one engine in a
>>4-engine craft, you don't return but carry on, surely?!
>>
>>Ramapriya
>>
>
>
> Only if you are British Airways.


It was BA which returned to Bangkok after losing
no 3 engine on takeoff in a 747-400. The roll
felt to last forever and we lifted shortly before
opposing PAPI lights. We climbed to Gulf of Siam,
dumped fuel for nearly an hour and returned.


This happened about ten years ago.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[.Blueskies.]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message news:a1EZf.55$3s4.43@fed1read11...
> >
>> Maybe that is what happened here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/03/c5.crash/
>>
>
> I believe he (C5) lost 3 of 4, not just 1 of 2.
> Of course I have lost 1 of 4, and even 2 of 8, and returned safely. Granted, we could not dump fuel with the 8 engine
> bird, and had to fly about 5 hours to burn down to landing weight.
>
> BT
>

From what I read he (C5) lost #2 only....

[Montblack]

("Marty Shapiro" wrote)
> Only if you are British Airways.


I give them thumbs up for their decision to continue that flight, from
California to England, on 3 engines.


Montblack
Safe does not = risk free.

[Jim Macklin]

Regulations require that any failure requires a landing as
soon as reasonably possible. If over the open ocean with no
place close, you still divert and land at the nearest
suitable airport. This may be your departure point, the
destination or some airport along the way.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
| Greg Farris wrote:
|
| > done by the book. In a 747 you should hardly notice any
performance loss.
| >
| > GF
|
| I know it isn't what you're saying but if you lose one
engine in a
| 4-engine craft, you don't return but carry on, surely?!
|
| Ramapriya
|

[Jim Macklin]

Just fire up the Hounddogs



"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message ...
| "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > Hmmm... lost two of eight huh? Eight engines, you a
Buff driver?
|
| Yep, that dreaded 6 engine approach...
|
|

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 10:26:51 GMT, Tauno Voipio
> wrote:

>Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>>
>>>Greg Farris wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>done by the book. In a 747 you should hardly notice any performance
>>>>loss.
>>>>
>>>>GF
>>>
>>>I know it isn't what you're saying but if you lose one engine in a
>>>4-engine craft, you don't return but carry on, surely?!
>>>
>>>Ramapriya
>>>
>>
>>
>> Only if you are British Airways.
>
>
>It was BA which returned to Bangkok after losing
>no 3 engine on takeoff in a 747-400. The roll
>felt to last forever and we lifted shortly before
>opposing PAPI lights. We climbed to Gulf of Siam,
>dumped fuel for nearly an hour and returned.
>
>
>This happened about ten years ago.

It was BA which took a 747 all the way from LAX to the UK on 3 after a
loss on takeoff just a few months ago.

[Dave S]

Greg Farris wrote:

>
> In a smaller plane (light twin) the available power is not adequate to
> perform a go-around on one engine with adequate safety margins, and you
> must get it down, even if you break it. In a transport plane with two
> engines, it is perfectly possible, but you must weigh the risk to benefit
> ratio, and maximize crew resource management to make sure everything is
> done by the book. In a 747 you should hardly notice any performance loss.
>
> GF
>

Scuse me.. I'm not a multi driver... let alone a 747 pilot...

but if I lost 25 percent of my power I think that I would notice some
performance loss...

Dave

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>>
>
>Scuse me.. I'm not a multi driver... let alone a 747 pilot...
>
>but if I lost 25 percent of my power I think that I would notice some
>performance loss...
>

Remember, you are not using 100% power for TOGA, and you have FADEC which will
compensate immediately. Of course you will notice, because the systems will
tell you in unmistakeable terms - but it's a non-event compared with a light
twin, where control is going to present a real challenge.

GF

[Jim Macklin]

Are you a multiengine pilot?



"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
says...
| >
| >
snip

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

| PS. I am not a 747 pilot either, and will obviously
welcome corrections from
| those with more experience. I only state what I believe to
be the case from the
| aviation experience I have, and from what I read and try
to learn from others.
|
| GF
|

[[email protected]]

Peter Clark wrote:
>
> It was BA which took a 747 all the way from LAX to the UK on 3 after a
> loss on takeoff just a few months ago.

Peter,

I'm neither speaking for BA nor indeed know the particulars of the
incident you mention, but if the AutoPilot had been switched on shortly
after rotation and landing gear retraction, chances are that the pilots
wouldn't even have noticed the engine loss if it occurred during the
automatic flying phase, and you'd be unnecessarily harsh on BA. Bob
Moore once related me a fascinating similar occurrence when he was PIC
and had an attractive visitor in the flight deck when one of the 4
turbines of his B-707 went blimp (albeit temporarily) and nobody in the
flight deck as much as realized it. And that wasn't even a modern-day
aircraft. Over to you, Bob :)

Ramapriya

[Peter Clark]

On 9 Apr 2006 08:38:41 -0700, wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>> It was BA which took a 747 all the way from LAX to the UK on 3 after a
>> loss on takeoff just a few months ago.
>
>Peter,
>
>I'm neither speaking for BA nor indeed know the particulars of the
>incident you mention, but if the AutoPilot had been switched on shortly
>after rotation and landing gear retraction, chances are that the pilots
>wouldn't even have noticed the engine loss if it occurred during the
>automatic flying phase, and you'd be unnecessarily harsh on BA. Bob
>Moore once related me a fascinating similar occurrence when he was PIC
>and had an attractive visitor in the flight deck when one of the 4
>turbines of his B-707 went blimp (albeit temporarily) and nobody in the
>flight deck as much as realized it. And that wasn't even a modern-day
>aircraft. Over to you, Bob :)

I wasn't attempting to be harsh on BA, I was just pointing out to the
poster who mentioned being onboard a turnaround in a BA 747 10+ years
ago, that they had appeared to miss reading about the incident on Feb
19 2005 where they continued on from LAX on 3 for an 11 hour flight.
Or the subsequent flight where that same aircraft lost the same engine
6 days later, 3 hours into a 14 hour leg from Hong Kong back to the UK
and continued on.

As a multi-engine pilot, I can't think of any way that you would not
know that one of the engines was failing to produce power for an
extended period of time, autopilot or not. I'm sure Bob can give
details on the 707 incident if he's interested, but even in a light
twin a temporary issue might go unobserved. However, in light twins
(piston engines) it's quite obvious when one completely stops giving
power for an extended period because the autopilot will attempt to use
ailerons to maintain heading, giving a really strange flight attitude,
and it will need to be disconnected to allow the pilot to overcome the
yaw and roll forces coming from the remaining engine while setting
rudder trim, feathering the prop, etc etc etc. If you're hand-flying
it when it stops, the need to stomp on the rudder is a quick giveaway.
As for transport category, I'm not too sure, I'd have to go play
around in a sim since I don't have a type rating yet, but in the case
of the 400 there would minimally be EICAS caution messages and the
conspicuous lack of data in one of the 4 engine readings in the upper
display. Someone more up on the type can tell us whether the yaw
dampers have enough authority to overcome the engine out issue, but
eventually they'd have to dial in rudder trim.

Specifically addressing the incident I was alluding to, they did know.
In both cases, they shut it down themselves, and I seem to recall that
for the LAX takeoff they even declared an emergency, circled for 20
minutes, and then headed out for the UK.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61698-2005Feb28.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05061/465083.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2005-03-01-britair-la_x.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/30/news/fly.php

Take care.
P

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-08, Greg Farris > wrote:
[one engine loss]
> done by the book. In a 747 you should hardly notice any performance loss.

Depends how heavy the B747 is. There is an 'I Learned about flying from
that' article in one of the books published by Flying magazine where a
B747 lost one engine due to a compressor stall on takeoff out of London
Gatwick. They were at maximum takeoff weight when it happened. They
almost rolled it into a ball - it took them a couple of miles just to
get out of ground effect (one of the passengers recalls looking through
the windows of a nice Georgean mansion as they roared past, with the
trees waving in their wake).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Dave S wrote:
> Scuse me.. I'm not a multi driver... let alone a 747 pilot...
>
> but if I lost 25 percent of my power I think that I would notice some
> performance loss...



I am a multi pilot but I've never flown anything bigger than a cabin class twin.
So I asked my father, who flew various large aircraft for the USAF from 1943 to
1967. He wrote:

"There are just two issues involved in losing an engine in a four engine
aircraft.....thrust and control. The C-54 was designed to function almost
completely normally on three engines. I don't remember the actual numbers,
but assuming normal cruise to be 160 mph on four, you might lose as much as
10 mph if one fan went out. IOW, the impact on performance would have been
negligible.

In terms of lateral control, especially near or on the ground, loss of an
inboard would have been preferable to loss of an outboard.

When you got into loss of two engines, it got a lot more sticky if they were
both the same side. If you lost one on each side, it wouldn't make hardly
any difference whether one was inboard and the other outboard or vice versa
as long as you remembered that your operating outboard engine would have a
tendency to want to turn the plane towards the inboard. Apart from that,
you were running essentially a twin with not too much margin of error left
for you."

I assumed if you lost both engines on one side, you'd be in the same situation
as if a twin lost one engine.... you would have an immediate and unmistakable
change in your flight situation requiring some sort of action. What I didn't
know was how much stronger the reaction from a four engined aircraft might be if
it lost an outboard vs an inboard engine.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[[email protected]]

Greg F. wrote:

>>>Remember, you are not using 100% power for TOGA, and you have FADEC which will
compensate immediately.<<<

Not using 100% power for takeoff? I don't fly jets but that sounds odd
to me. What T/O power setting are you suggesting is used in a 747? Is
it whatever the engine controller will allow when the power levers are
firewalled?

Also, the FADEC controller will not compensate in the way you think.
IIRC it adjusts fuel flow rate to maintain temps, EPRs & rpm parameters
to stay within limits. It's there to efficiently manage power and keep
a ham-fisted pilot from smoking the engine's hot section. I doubt it
will have any effect in a engine-out go around as it won't allow the
engine to exceed parameters.

[Bob Moore]

wrote

> Greg F. wrote:
>>>>Remember, you are not using 100% power for TOGA, and you have FADEC
>>>>which will compensate immediately.<<<
>
> Not using 100% power for takeoff? I don't fly jets but that sounds odd
> to me. What T/O power setting are you suggesting is used in a 747? Is
> it whatever the engine controller will allow when the power levers are
> firewalled?

Transport Category Jets normally only use 100% power for takeoff if
the weight/temperature/runway require it. Reduced Thrust Takeoffs
are the norm. Reduced takeoff thrust is calculated to provide the
same safety margins as if the aircraft were weight limited on a short
runway using full thrust.

On the B-727, it was APR (automatic power reserve) that automatically
set the engines to full thrust in the event that any engine lost thrust
during takeoff.

Takeoff thrust is achieved well before the thrust levers reach "firewall".
During 25 years of airline jet flying, I never saw the thrust leverd
"firewalled".

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[[email protected]]

Bob Moore wrote:

>>>On the B-727, it was APR (automatic power reserve) that automatically
set the engines to full thrust in the event that any engine lost thrust

during takeoff. snip Takeoff thrust is achieved well before the
thrust levers reach "firewall".
During 25 years of airline jet flying, I never saw the thrust leverd
"firewalled".<<<

I was hoping you'd weigh in on this Bob : )

I'm guessing the pre-FADEC JT3s and JT8s on the 707 & 727 had to be
carefully monitored during an APR enabled takeoff, as they could easily
be overtemped? Nice thing about the FADEC is that it won't let you burn
up the engine. Maybe the newer equipment has a different T/O procedure
than the old birds with respect to thrust lever position?

Will

[skym]

Gee, now I'm not so worried about just flying behind a single fan! ;)

smackey
C172 pilot

[Morgans]

"Bob Moore" > wrote

> Takeoff thrust is achieved well before the thrust levers reach "firewall".
> During 25 years of airline jet flying, I never saw the thrust leverd
> "firewalled".

It does happen though, does it not? Like a charter 747 at near max takeoff
weight, on a shorter than normal (for them) runway? I am pretty sure I was
aboard one such flight. (Ohio
State band, and instruments, leaving Columbus to California)
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
> I'm guessing the pre-FADEC JT3s and JT8s on the 707 & 727 had to be
> carefully monitored during an APR enabled takeoff, as they could easily
> be overtemped? Nice thing about the FADEC is that it won't let you burn
> up the engine. Maybe the newer equipment has a different T/O procedure
> than the old birds with respect to thrust lever position?
>
> Will

Might this help, Will, unless you knew it already? :)
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/4b385bb9e4e9c4da862569d00076acf7/$FILE/AC25-13.pdf

Ramapriya

[Bob Moore]

Morgans wrote
> It does happen though, does it not?

Nope! In a GA airplane operating from a "hot-high' airport, you
simply don't have rated T.O. power available. In a jet transport,
you simply move the thrust levers forward some more to make-up for
the "hot-high" conditions. In the 50's era Navy jets that I flew,
full throttle was T.O. thrust, but then, they never flew from "hot-
high" airports, and if they did, they could not develope the engine's
rated T.O. thrust.

Bob Moore

[Morgans]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Morgans wrote
>> It does happen though, does it not?
>
> Nope! In a GA airplane operating from a "hot-high' airport, you
> simply don't have rated T.O. power available. In a jet transport,
> you simply move the thrust levers forward some more to make-up for
> the "hot-high" conditions. In the 50's era Navy jets that I flew,
> full throttle was T.O. thrust, but then, they never flew from "hot-
> high" airports, and if they did, they could not develope the engine's
> rated T.O. thrust.

So if jet transports never use full throttle, why is there ever a limitation
on the length of the runway? There has to be some position of throttle that
can not be exceeded, therefore, that is full throttle, right?

I may be dense, but I just don't understand.
--
Jim in NC

[Allen]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 122...
>> Morgans wrote
>>> It does happen though, does it not?
>>
>> Nope! In a GA airplane operating from a "hot-high' airport, you
>> simply don't have rated T.O. power available. In a jet transport,
>> you simply move the thrust levers forward some more to make-up for
>> the "hot-high" conditions. In the 50's era Navy jets that I flew,
>> full throttle was T.O. thrust, but then, they never flew from "hot-
>> high" airports, and if they did, they could not develope the engine's
>> rated T.O. thrust.
>
> So if jet transports never use full throttle, why is there ever a
> limitation on the length of the runway? There has to be some position of
> throttle that can not be exceeded, therefore, that is full throttle,
> right?

On the turbine engines I flew you were limited by temperature inside the
turbine. The higher the field or hotter the ambient temperature the less %
of power you could apply before reaching the maximum allowed temperature. I
never saw a time we could apply "full throttle".

Allen

[Al]

> Regulations require that any failure requires a landing as
> soon as reasonably possible.


Better quote a cite on that one Jim, and surely not ANY failure.

By the way, the 747 is CERTIFIED to fly on 3 and the British Airways ops
manual allows it. In this case, it was an oil pressure problem, and they
did a precautionary shut down.

Even the Minimum Equipt List says "Thou shalt not launch with (device of
choice here)... inoperative"

Al




"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:_PPZf.159$8q.140@dukeread08...
If over the open ocean with no
> place close, you still divert and land at the nearest
> suitable airport. This may be your departure point, the
> destination or some airport along the way.
>
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
> some support
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
> See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> | Greg Farris wrote:
> |
> | > done by the book. In a 747 you should hardly notice any
> performance loss.
> | >
> | > GF
> |
> | I know it isn't what you're saying but if you lose one
> engine in a
> | 4-engine craft, you don't return but carry on, surely?!
> |
> | Ramapriya
> |
>
>

[Bob Moore]

Al wrote

>> Regulations require that any failure requires a landing as
>> soon as reasonably possible.
>
>
> Better quote a cite on that one Jim, and surely not ANY failure.

Section 121.565: Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an engine
of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to
prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at
the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can
be made.

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more
engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed
to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he
decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the
nearest suitable airport:

Bob Moore