Superpilots Fly 5000 Miles on Three Engines

[ATR-DRIVR]

Unless you've flown an airplane with 3 or more engines, you're probably unaware of FAR 121.565(b):

121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing;
reporting.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, whenever an airplane
engine fails or whenever an engine
is shutdown to prevent possible
damage, the pilot in command must
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 is shut down to prevent possible
damage, the pilot-in-command
may proceed to an airport that the
pilot selects if, after considering the
following, the pilot makes a reasonable
decision that proceeding to that airport
is as safe as landing at the nearest
suitable airport:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and
the possible mechanical difficulties
that may occur if flight is continued.
(2) The altitude, weight, and useable
fuel at the time that the engine is
shutdown.
(3) The weather conditions en route
and at possible landing points.
(4) The air traffic congestion.
(5) The kind of terrain.
(6) His familiarity with the airport to
be used.
(c) The pilot-in-command must report
each engine shutdown in flight to
the appropriate communication facility
as soon as practicable and must
keep that facility fully informed of the
progress of the flight.
(d) If the pilot in command lands at
an airport other than the nearest suitable
airport, in point of time, he or she
shall (upon completing the trip) send a
written report, in duplicate, to his or
her director of operations stating the
reasons for determining that the selection
of an airport, other than the nearest
airport, was as safe a course of action
as landing at the nearest suitable
airport. The director of operations
shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns
to his or her home base, send a
copy of this report with the director of
operation?s comments to the certificate-
holding district office.

So since this is an aircrew from another country and airline, this would not apply, no?

 

[Dornier 335]

Correct. That's why the FAA and EU blacklist certain third world airlines to fly into/through their airspace.

 

[ackattacker]

So since this is an aircrew from another country and airline, this would not apply, no?

When they are operating in US Airspace, I've always though US Aviation Regulations do apply. However BA did argue otherwise when they did essentially the same thing and the FAA wanted to fine them $25,000 for operating an unairworthy airplane.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usauk-fail-to-agree-new-engine-out-rules-211630/

 

[Oakum_Boy]

So since this is an aircrew from another country and airline, this would not apply, no?

The fuel burn on the 747-400 is approximately 10% higher with OEI. If you have the fuel, and you've considered most everything and the weather is good- good enroute alternates, etc.; why not continue?

In a four-engined jet, an initial declaration of PAN would be normal. It isn't the full-blown criticality everyone here is thinking.

 

[likeitis]

Perfectly fine with a 4 engine plane. Especially since it was an obvious engine related issue and not fuel related. People who freak out about this are obviously unaware of the regs and Airbus/Boeing guidance. As someone pointed out earlier they probably had 4-5 hours fuel to burn to get below MLW anywho and dumping it for a PAN would be retarded. In addition a cat F aircraft just can't land anywhere and especially when it's not an emergency.