Jet Flies On With One Engine Out on Nonstop Trip to London

Mike Rapoport wrote:

I think that four engine airliners have to be able to fly with two engines
inoperative on one side but I am not certain.

This is the reason why they have rudders so large that they can be
ripped off when unproperly used.

Stefan

Mike,

I think that four engine airliners have to be able to fly with two engines
inoperative on one side but I am not certain.


New certification requirements want them to be able to take-off with two out
on the same side at max gross. The A380 for example will have to be able to
do that. The 747 needs three for take-off.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote
New certification requirements want them to be able to take-off with
two out on the same side at max gross. The A380 for example will have
to be able to do that.

That will never happen. Now..you might mean "continue the takeoff
after V1", but the aircraft cannot accelerate to V1 at maximum
weight and remain on the runway with only two engines on the same
side operating. In fact, the 747 cannot do it on three engines at
maximum weight. It can however continue the takeoff after V1 if one
engine fails at maximum weight.

Bob Moore

Bob,

Now..you might mean "continue the takeoff
after V1",


Yes. Sorry for being unclear.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
Scotland and all those intermediate airports.


Glasgow (2700m) and Prestwick near Glasgow(3000m) can take a 747, Edinburgh
at 2600m might also. There are two RAF bases which could also take anything
big as they are emergency diversion fields.

Long before there is Reyjavik in Iceland

So when did two 747s collide in Scotland?

Larry Dighera wrote
That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight
characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with
the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually
uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a
forced descent.

Nope! It has a two-engine VMC around 230 KTS. Its two-engine
service ceiling would probably be less than 20,000' depending
upon weight.

Bob Moore

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will
weigh in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and
this guy had three jet engines!!!

I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two
engine airplane?

The reason I fly on four engined planes is that they don't do any with five
engines

It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will
weigh in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and
this guy had three jet engines!!!

Ah, yes. The dreaded three-engine approach...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:lEkVd.83178$tl3.71593@attbi_s02...
It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will
weigh in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight
and
this guy had three jet engines!!!

Ah, yes. The dreaded three-engine approach...

And only enough fuel to fly 5,000 miles or so. How daring!


:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

So, is this good or bad?

I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
making the judgment.

British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.

The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
landing at his London destination.

Someone more qualified than me had this to say:

"It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
doesn't make any sense."

However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
operations in the United States, said:

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
our normal operating protocols."

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?


As a single engine pilot, three running engines sounds excessive to me.
Reliability of jet engines being what it is now days I would be fine with
the flight on three engines.