What would you have done? (Engine out on 747-400)

[CatYaaak]

well you know.. because it's not the right thing to do..

You tell me anything about the Learjets 20 series or the 747's and I can hold my own, but when I look at your history, and at your avatar, they don't coincide. no big deal, but somebody that has multiple jet type ratings should know better.

You mean......(sniff)....you don't like my Yak?

Why, it's only the finest aircraft ever made! and when the glorious hammer and sickle are once again proudly flying over the restored Motherland the -40 will take it's righful place amongst the lesser aircraft not built by proletariat men and women using unmatched Soviet steel ; standing tall, head and shoulders above your capitalist-dog Boeings and pansy-socialist Airbuses.

 

[CSY Mon]

fact is that as of now BA is still flying so they weren't breaking the rules that much that they immediatley got shut down) to follow.

Aye, that is true too.
Any airline would be shut down immediately if a crew or a dispatcher broke any rule...

He-he, ya are a riot man.

Did ya learn that on daddy's MS Flight Simulator like the other stuff ya been posting?

Good trolling however, for a second I almost thought ya knew what ya were talking about.

 

[CSY Mon]

You mean......(sniff)....you don't like my Yak?

Falconski...?

 

[Hawker rider]

Oh no.... wrong once again.... I love that plane!!!

One of the best things to ever have happened to that country is the aviation heritage that it brought forward....



come on! with an avatar like that... can you blame me for being a little jealous??/

 

[CatYaaak]

Oh no.... wrong once again.... I love that plane!!!

One of the best things to ever have happened to that country is the aviation heritage that it brought forward....



come on! with an avatar like that... can you blame me for being a little jealous??/

I can't wait to spend a couple days per diem to buy a nice, pretty red one....then the Bolshie chicks will really dig me!

 

[Hawker rider]

Anyhow back once again to the original subject.


Are there any other current or past captains on a 747 variant that like to elaborate???

 

[CSY Mon]

Are there any other current or past captains on a 747 variant that like to elaborate???

I thought you had it pretty much under control?

Anyhow, I think a lot of wrong things are being said about this issue at hand.

I can't see any rules that were broken.

So as far as I'm concerned a busy day in the office, but mission succesfull nonetheless

What else is there to be said...?

He-he, ya are funny, keep on posting man, ya are making my day..

 

[Dubya]

Fire...the other emergency.

As I read through the posts...impressed with all the discussion and second guessing of fuel remaining and diverting to other airports...I failed to see any mention of returning to LAX because ATC said flames and sparks were coming out of the injured engine. Now maybe I just missed it...but to me...with 0.0 747 time in my log....fire=land...engine shut down is fine..but sheesh.

Call me a sissy(shaddup)

W

 

[CSY Mon]

Well, according to the BA crowd over at PPRuNe, there was no fire, or fire warning, just an engine surge with some flames out the tail-pipe.

Yeah, if there was a real fire, turn back and land, and don't worry about the fuel-dumping.

Remember the SwissAir MD-11?

RIP.

 

[NuGuy]

Again guys and girls.

I don't seriously think that a company like BRITISH airways flies according to FAA regulations. I think it's rather that it's JAA or English regulations. So stop interpreting the FAA regs, it's simply that the FAA approved of their " national OPS-SPECS".

As we all are familiar with right?

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

But if the reports of this incident are accurate, you can bet that there will be some ringing of whatever Batphone the FAA and CAA has between them.

Nu

 

[Hawker rider]

Yeah, if there was a real fire, turn back and land, and don't worry about the fuel-dumping.

Well, offcourse if there was some kind of uncontained fire that wasn't under control I fully agree, but a flame out, or engine fire that got extinguished is hardly a reason to land at the same aerodrome of departure, being over 220 000 pounds overweight. There is a lot of added risk with doing a landing at that weight that did not need to be taken in a one engine out situation.

If I could only fill out the lottery numbers after I have heard the results, I would never have to worry about money either

 

[Hawker rider]

But if the reports of this incident are accurate

Well we don't really know about that do we now? but we are all really good in speculating what we would have done, not even knowing what actually happened

 

[Lead Sled]

...since ya can no longer cruise at optimum altitude, ya need to descend, then the total fuel flow goes up...

I'm sorry, but I'm still assuming that the SFC will be the same or perhaps even a bit higher with 3 engines. "Still air" range shouldn't be affected - if flown at the optimum altitudes. But again, I'm not familiar with the 747.
'Sled

 

[CSY Mon]

"Still air" range shouldn't be affected - if flown at the optimum altitudes

Well, this is the big picture:

Optimum gives ya the most miles for each pound of fuel.....But if ya loose an engine, ya got to descend as the craft may not be able to maintain optimum on 3 engines...So ya are 7 to 8000 below optimum, and the milage goes down.

Of course there is a 3 engine optimum, but it is lower than 4 engine optimum:
More burn, less miles.

Well, offcourse if there was some kind of uncontained fire that wasn't under control I fully agree, but a flame out, or engine fire that got extinguished is hardly a reason to land at the same aerodrome of departure, being over 220 000 pounds overweight.

Yeah, that goes without saying...Din't think I even had to mention it:

If the fire goes out, as confirmed by both fire loops, and visual inspection, then ya dump and land...Or parhaps continue.

Flame-out, and over weight landing.....?
Of course not...Did somebody even hint at that..?

 

[Vector4fun]

Don't know why you think this flight was conducted in the "polar regions"? Not likely on a eastboumd crossing. More likely in the NAT Tracks way south of anything that could be considerd polar.

Hell, I'm from Texas, anything North of Quebec is "polar" to me.

Actually, my Great Circle calculator puts the shortest flight path up over Hudson Bay and Southern Greenland. I would have guessed the line was a bit further north than that without looking it up.

 

[Spooky 1]

Hell, I'm from Texas, anything North of Quebec is "polar" to me.

Actually, my Great Circle calculator puts the shortest flight path up over Hudson Bay and Southern Greenland. I would have guessed the line was a bit further north than that without looking it up.

Hi Vector4Fun,

The term polar is bantied about pretty carelessly sometimes. In fact it has any number of restrictions that are put in place when you are actually in the Polar mode of navigation. Boeing has published a number of good articles on this subject that are probably available on the Boeing Airliner website.

Going back a long time when SAS first started flying the Polar Routes in the DC6B and on up to the current state of the art navigation is a story worth reading if you are a air navigation buff.

Yes, your great circle does take you up over the Hudson Bay area and parts of Greenland as well. In pratice many so called polar flights from the west coast to Europe actually coast out at some pretty low Latitudes during the summer months and move north as winter sets in and the wind patterns change.

 

[CSY Mon]

Going back a long time when SAS first started flying the Polar Routes in the DC6B

Meh seem to remember the polar routes was indeed pioneered by SAS, but with DC-7s..?

Of course I could be wrong, as age affects ya in 2 ways, the first one is a fading memory, the second I don't remember..

 

[Spooky 1]

Meh seem to remember the polar routes was indeed pioneered by SAS, but with DC-7s..?

Of course I could be wrong, as age affects ya in 2 ways, the first one is a fading memory, the second I don't remember..

SAS did use DC7C'Seas as Douglas liked to call them, but before that they used the DC6 and DC6B. I believe they actually did a couple of proving flights in the DC4. Usually made a stop at Frobisher before continuing on to SEA and then LAX. I think TWA was the first US airline to do the "polar" thing in the L1649 "StarStream" sometime around 1956. Paris to Los Angeles in something like 22 hours (non-stop). I did a couple of London to Los Angeles trips as a navigator
at Pan Am and then numerous Los Angeles, Frankfurt trips later on at the big D.
Do a couple of Seattle to Nice trips every year nowadays. We have come along way baby!

 

[CSY Mon]

Yeah, they did start New York flights with DC-4s after WW 2.

Aha, ex-Pan Am?

Ya guys had to start as navigators back then..
No INS, Omega, Loran or GPS....?..

Good 'ol days.

 

[Spooky 1]

Back in the good ole 60's Pan Am newhires were divided up between Navigators (2nd Officers) or Flight Engineers. The FE's had a different union and got significantly more at start than the Nav's. All went on a single combined seniority list so that eventually you would wind up on the pilots list even though you may have started as a FE.

At the end of the 60's the Boeing 707's were equipped with a dual Bendix doppler set up and Loran A was used to cross check and update the doppler if required. Pan Am and most other airlines that had been using navigators migrated over to the dual doppler and loran combination for long range navigation. Some areas of the world did not lend themselves to doppler and loran as a primary nav technique. The polar or AMU regions still required grid navigation procedures and thus these area did in deed still require the services of a navigator.

The rest is history, just like the FE a thing of the past in most cockpits today. I kinda liked it the way it was.

 

[CSY Mon]

Ah, the doppler, forgot about that one.

My first jet was DC-8s, but that was long after the navigators were kicked out.

Did got to nav school for a while...Does Tongas grid ring a bell?

 

[Spooky 1]

No I can't say that it does. Somewhere around Juneau, AK maybe? It's been awhile and although I maintain a certain interest, a lot escapes me.

Looked up the SAS polar dates in the Boeing library and it looks like they did the first revenue flights in 1952 with the DC6B and later from Copenhagen to Tokyo with the DC 7C. Must of been interesting. We ceratinly take a lot for granted today!

Sorry for getting so far off the subject of this string. I still think we should sit back and wait unitil all the facts are in before we judge this BA crew. It's the least we can do as fellow avaitors. Been there, done that, and that's my story and I am sticking to it!

 

[Spooky 1]

Hell, I'm from Texas, anything North of Quebec is "polar" to me.

Actually, my Great Circle calculator puts the shortest flight path up over Hudson Bay and Southern Greenland. I would have guessed the line was a bit further north than that without looking it up.

More miunitia regarding polar ops. As far as Boeing and Honeywell are concerned in the B747-400, you are in the "polar region" when you are N8400.0 and above. This would be a very unlikely flight plan routing for a eastbound trip out of LAX at any time of the year.

 

[TurboS7]

That is what they are paid the big bucks for.

 

[CSY Mon]

That is what they are paid the big bucks for.

The "Big Bucks" times are over.

The scabs sure didn't help the cause.

 

[Spooky 1]

The "Big Bucks" times are over.

The scabs sure didn't help the cause.

Well for one thing I don't think the BA pilots haved anymore but not taken the dollar hits that out legacy guys have here in the US? Suspect that they are way ahead of us.

Exactly what Scabs are you refering to here in your statement? Can't recall any scabing since the old CAL debacle and maybe a few more recently at UAL in the early 90's

 

[CSY Mon]

Exactly what Scabs are you refering to here in your statement?

TurboS7 = Eastern Scab.

 

[767pilot]

It is quite legal

Sec. 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:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.
(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 shall report each stoppage of engine rotation in flight to the appropriate ground radio station as soon as practicable and shall keep that station 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.

Amdt. 121-253, Eff. 2/26/96

 

[Airbusdrvr]

BA operates under the UK CAA rules not the FAR's.
4000 KG is 30 minutes i.e. reserve fuel for a 747-400 with RR engines and our manuals state :

Flight Beyond The Nearest Suitable Airport (4-Engined Aircraft)

The prime requirement following an engine shutdown in-flight is the continued safety of the aircraft and its occupants.

The Commander may elect to continue beyond the nearest suitable airport, to a more

distant airport, if the following requirements are met:

:

A. The Commander considers that in all respects it is safe to continue to that airport.



B. Capability exists with two engines inoperative to clear all obstacles by at least 2000 FT within 10nm either side of intended track to that airport.



C. Normal Fuel Required must be available unless the requirements of In-flight Reduction of Normal Fuel Required can be met. ((Normal fuel is fuel to destination, execute a MAP divert to alternate with Fuel + 5% contingency adn land with reserve fuel ( approx 4000 kg ))



D. Sufficient fuel must be available at all times for two engine inoperative flight to the nearest suitable airport, plus a fixed reserve of + 30 minutes.



E. Sufficient fuel must be available at all times to support depressurized flight to the nearest suitable airport, plus a fixed reserve of + 30 minutes.

 

[767pilot]

Well for one thing I don't think the BA pilots haved anymore but not taken the dollar hits that out legacy guys have here in the US? Suspect that they are way ahead of us.

Exactly what Scabs are you refering to here in your statement? Can't recall any scabing since the old CAL debacle and maybe a few more recently at UAL in the early 90's

Did you forget Eastern?