What Happens if a 777 Loses An Engine? Or Both?

[Shan Man]

Here is the link ITS CRAZY! the plane just sinks! apparently someone died in it all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QguEfBMhpyc

"the plane is spiralling into the water"

from what I saw, some of the landings I've had into a windy CHC were rougher than that.

 

[keithplya9]

"the plane is spiralling into the water"

from what I saw, some of the landings I've had into a windy CHC were rougher than that.

Yeah i know. They landed it really smoothly. and everyone was <in control> too which was pretty cool

 

[Hvr]

This thread helped me remember this old joke:

[FONT=times new roman,helvetica]Two Irishmen were sitting in a four engined plane flying back from a shopping trip to Paris when the captain's voice came over the loudspeaker. "Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the engines appears to have failed. There's nothing to worry about but we will be 15 minutes late in landing at Gatwick."

Five minutes later he said, "Nothing to worry about, Ladies and Gentlemen, but one of the other engines has failed, and we will now be an hour late."

A moment later, "Er...sorry about this ladies and gentlemen, but the third engine has also given up the ghost and we will now be two hours later than expected."

One of the Irishmen tapped his friend on the shoulder. "Good heavens, Patrick, do you realise that if the other engine fails, we'll be here all night ?"[/FONT]

 

[medhead]

Here is the link ITS CRAZY! the plane just sinks! apparently someone died in it all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QguEfBMhpyc

Oh please! Crazy? As if. More likely over dramatic TV reporting. "spiralling into the sea". A funny spiral that is in a straight line. The Plane also floated for a while. Just like the plane on the hudson river. But you know full well that metal full of water sinks.

 

[NM]

Not quite NM. [/FONT]

ETOPS (insert number) is the single-engine flying time to the nearest suitable airport. ETOPS operation has no direct correlation to water or distance over water.

That is what I was trying to imply (less successfully than you ).

 

[Happy Trails]

As Lady Bracknell once famously said:
"To lose one engine may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."
Though she would have been talking about steam engines, probably.

 

[straitman]

I am a nervous flyer and so are a number of my friends. Whenever they worry about what could happen when they lose an engine I point them to this article and video as to what happens when a single engine plane loses its single engine (!)
Young pilots praised for 'textbook' crash landing at Victoria Point - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Always makes them and myself feel better about flying. The moral is you don't just drop out of the sky, and a good pilot should see you (relatively) safely to the ground.

There is absolutely no correlation between a Jabaru with a notoriously unreliable Rotex (piston) engine and a modern well maintained airliner so this hardly a valid comparison.

If your friends are comforted by that video then they should have quite happy in an airliner (even if flying on one engine).

 

[knasty]

Have a look at JB747's comments in the Ask the Pilot thread regarding the Sim training they do for events such as this and far worse.

 

[Mwenenzi]

The time on wing reliability of current jet engines is extremly high. A lot better tha 20 years ago and many magnitudes greater than the highly stressed radials that used to power airliners many decades ago (But radials do sound great starting, as my avatar)

From Rolls Royce

High time on-wing engine has completed 40,531 hours without a shop visit

IEEE Xplore Abstract - Demonstration of A Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Tool to Extend Engine's Time-On-Wing (...
RB211-535E4 - Rolls-Royce
Engine Alliance GP7200 - The Engine for the A380

 

[DC3]

keithplya9 I would recommend you take a Bex and a good lie down.

BEX. Now there' a word that I haven't heard for many years. I had aunties who were hooked on that stuff and took it every single day.

"All I need is a Bex, a cup of tea and a good lie down". A real cure-all.

 

[DC3]

As Lady Bracknell once famously said:
"To lose one engine may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."
Though she would have been talking about steam engines, probably.

... or about not knowing (meeting) your parents: "To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness." The Importance of Being Ernest. c 1895. Same theme, I guess.

 

[markis10]

BEX. Now there' a word that I haven't heard for many years. I had aunties who were hooked on that stuff and took it every single day.

"All I need is a Bex, a cup of tea and a good lie down". A real cure-all.

Given the effects now known re low dose aspirin not a bad policy, pity about the Phenacetin and Caffeine also in Bex.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[jb747]

Everything in life is a calculated risk..... The risk is so small though for two engine vs 4 engines that it is irrelevant. More risk driving your car or crossing the road.....



These days turbofan engines are extremely reliable, coupled with strict protocols and regulations in the operation of most airlines, crashes are actually due to other reasons than engine failure.



British airways 747. 4 engine flameout over indonesia due to volcanic ash - managed to restart in flight

Gimli Glider - ran out of fuel managed to land

British airways 777 2 engine flameout due to ice crystals retarding fuel flow. managed to land at airport.

QF32 One engine uncontained failure but damage also degraded performance of 2 other engines. Only one engine fully operational - managed to land

QF32. Not quite. One engine of course was dead. One was normal. The others were in degraded MODE. That simply means that the means of controlling them was an alternate program. They were no more degraded than ALL of the engines always were on a 747 Classic.

 

[jb747]

Engine failures are quite rare, but they do happen. I think the statistic is something like one for a pilot's entire career...and that's probably based on the reliability of engines from 20 years ago.

All airliners, no matter how many engines they have, can suffer an engine failure on takeoff, and if above V1 (a speed that is calculated for every takeoff), will be able to continue the takeoff, and fly away. If there is high terrain in the area, that will be accounted for in the calculations. Below V1, all will stop on the black stuff.

Airborne, the loss of an engine is less of a hassle in a 4 engined aircraft, but it isn't all that dramatic in a twin either. A quad will have to descend but not as far as a twin. In both cases they'll continue to fly perfectly well (and again, high terrain is accounted for in route planning).

Loss of an engine will reduce the range of a twin by about 30%, and a quad by 10-15%. A twin will not be allowed to fly past an acceptable airport with an engine shut down, though it may be acceptable to do so in a quad. As a general rule, if within approximately 2,000 miles of destination, a quad will be able to continue with one shut down.

Engine failures in the cruise are exceptionally rare.

Loss of all engines...the anti gravity systems look after that. Seriously...the aircraft remains totally controllable, and you have about 20 minutes to get one or more going again.

 

[Fruitcake]

There is absolutely no correlation between a Jabaru with a notoriously unreliable Rotex (piston) engine and a modern well maintained airliner so this hardly a valid comparison.

Generally it is Jabiru's own manufactured and branded engines that are considered by many to have less than stellar reliability. Some owners have re-engined Jabiru aircraft with a Rotax engine for higher reliability despite a weight penalty. However, I don't doubt it would be easy to find a large group who swear by the Jab engines over Rotax - GA/RA pilots and mechanics are as prone to confirmation bias as the rest of the population.

I've only flown a Jabiru aircraft once - and admittedly it was on a 35C day so I wasn't giving it too much of a chance - but when we could only achieve 1000 ft AGL abeam the threshold at the end of the downwind leg I told my instructor I'd prefer to wait until the other plane was back online. (That's no reflection on the performance of the engine alone, of course, but rather the total airframe/powerplant package and the limitations that the aircraft is designed to meet.)

 

[keithplya9]

Engine failures are quite rare, but they do happen. I think the statistic is something like one for a pilot's entire career...and that's probably based on the reliability of engines from 20 years ago.

All airliners, no matter how many engines they have, can suffer an engine failure on takeoff, and if above V1 (a speed that is calculated for every takeoff), will be able to continue the takeoff, and fly away. If there is high terrain in the area, that will be accounted for in the calculations. Below V1, all will stop on the black stuff.

Airborne, the loss of an engine is less of a hassle in a 4 engined aircraft, but it isn't all that dramatic in a twin either. A quad will have to descend but not as far as a twin. In both cases they'll continue to fly perfectly well (and again, high terrain is accounted for in route planning).

Loss of an engine will reduce the range of a twin by about 30%, and a quad by 10-15%. A twin will not be allowed to fly past an acceptable airport with an engine shut down, though it may be acceptable to do so in a quad. As a general rule, if within approximately 2,000 miles of destination, a quad will be able to continue with one shut down.

Engine failures in the cruise are exceptionally rare.

Loss of all engines...the anti gravity systems look after that. Seriously...the aircraft remains totally controllable, and you have about 20 minutes to get one or more going again.

Thanks JB for actually answering my question. That somehow seemed to get lost in this thread

 

[mannej]

Thanks JB for actually answering my question. That somehow seemed to get lost in this thread

But your question was actually answered a lot earlier in the thread. JB went into further detail.

 

[keithplya9]

yeah I'm aware of that. Im saying "that somehow seemed to get lost in this thread"

 

[keithplya9]

anyways i found this on Wiki, i thought it was interesting

"In October 2003, a Boeing 777-300ER broke the ETOPS record by being able to fly five and a half hours (330 minutes) with one engine shut down.[SUP][1][/SUP] The aircraft, with GE90-115B engines, flew from Seattle to Taiwan as part of the ETOPS certification programme."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90


thats pretty sweet