EK A380 flys over 5000 miles with an engine out

[NM]

Does each engine have its own fuel tank? If so, then one engine being out would reduce available fuel by a quarter.

No, fuel can be transferred between tanks. The issues with fuel when operating with an engine out is more about the additional drag from a windmilling engine and the likely need to operate at lower altitude and hence higher fuel burn.

 

[jb747]

No, fuel can be transferred between tanks. The issues with fuel when operating with an engine out is more about the additional drag from a windmilling engine and the likely need to operate at lower altitude and hence higher fuel burn.

The drag and loss of performance will give an increase of 10-12%. If you plan on 15% you'll have a little buffer....

Fuel can be moved anywhere around the aircraft, so no fuel would be trapped. There are some scenarios that can cause the contents of a tank to be lost, but a clean shutdown of an engine isn't one of them.

 

[QF WP]

Telling passengers whats going on often caused more harm than good, coming back on QF2 from DXB we were not told about an issue until top of descent, the issue had been obvious to the technical crew just after departure. As a result we got a good rest, so I have no issues!

Well it was Nancy Bird Walton we were on markis10, and theer were back up hydraulics .

Just imagine if it had been annonced on board as soon as it happened - I could think of one pax that would have wanted to get off there and then .

 

[jb747]

Well it was Nancy Bird Walton we were on markis10, and theer were back up hydraulics .

Just imagine if it had been annonced on board as soon as it happened - I could think of one pax that would have wanted to get off there and then .

Well, you can actually lose all of the hydraulics, and still continue the flight.... They truly are a bit different, in a good way.

 

[maninblack]

Not a chance. They would never have had the fuel to complete the journey. I'm quite surprised they got as far as they did, and would be very curious to know the landing fuel figure.

The drag and loss of performance will give an increase of 10-12%. If you plan on 15% you'll have a little buffer....

Fuel can be moved anywhere around the aircraft, so no fuel would be trapped. There are some scenarios that can cause the contents of a tank to be lost, but a clean shutdown of an engine isn't one of them.

Don't follow this. The A380 has a range of over 8000nm at full payload. JFK-DXB is 5951nm The drag and loss of performance equals an increase of fuel burn of 10 - 12%. This means that if they were carrying full tanks they should have had enough fuel to travel around 7000nm.

 

[jb747]

Don't follow this. The A380 has a range of over 8000nm at full payload. JFK-DXB is 5951nm The drag and loss of performance equals an increase of fuel burn of 10 - 12%. This means that if they were carrying full tanks they should have had enough fuel to travel around 7000nm.

The A380 has a range of whatever it can get out of the fuel it took off with. Departing JFK there is no chance it would have had anywhere max fuel on board.

And, looking at some real numbers, and not media blurb...at max potential payload it would have about 13.5 hours of range...so about 6750 NM (air miles).

Max fuel would be another 50 or so tonnes, but cargo/pax would have to be offloaded to use any of that.

 

[maninblack]

So LAX-MEL flights cannot carry full payload then.

 

[jb747]

So LAX-MEL flights cannot carry full payload then.

No aircraft that I've ever heard of simultaneously carries both full payload and full fuel, unless one or the other is rather small.

The limitations offer a set of options. You can carry a very heavy payload over a limited distance, or less over a greater range. Aircraft range is the classic piece of string.

 

[serfty]

...

And, looking at some real numbers, and not media blurb...at max potential payload it would have about 13.5 hours of range...so about 6750 NM (air miles).
...

6750nm less 12% is a little over 6000nm and would likely have made DXB much too tight.

[TD="align: right"] JFK-KWT:5520 nm[/TD]

[TD="align: right"] JFK-DXB:5951 nm[/TD]

 

[samh004]

I'm not sure why such a big deal is being made of this, after all, it has 4 engines to enable it to continue flying with less than 4 (among other things) and the crew correctly calculated how far they could get to not disrupt the service too much. They could have had a plane waiting for them when they arrived to minimise delays and in that sense it's good customer service.

As for informing those onboard, if the crew advised of every little issue it'd be crazy

 

[markis10]

I'm not sure why such a big deal is being made of this, after all, it has 4 engines to enable it to continue flying with less than 4 (among other things) and the crew correctly calculated how far they could get to not disrupt the service too much. They could have had a plane waiting for them when they arrived to minimise delays and in that sense it's good customer service.

As for informing those onboard, if the crew advised of every little issue it'd be crazy

It has four engines to allow it to continue to the nearest suitable airport should an engine fail, not keep flying per se. Aviation safety and contingancies work on the basis of any risk being a risk, while the chances of another event happening are slim, they should not be ignored just because of the low likelyhood of it happening.

If you look at most of the aircraft accidents you will find it was not one thing that went wrong but a combination, often things that on their own are rare.

When the topic arises about multiple engine failures and how common, the frequent response is that there has never been a multiple engine failure on a plane with three or more engines that caused a fatality, I have two issues with that statement, namely past performance is not an indicator of future performance, and the minor fact it's a myth, the Kalita Air 747 being a more recent example.

 

[jb747]

I'm not sure why such a big deal is being made of this, after all, it has 4 engines to enable it to continue flying with less than 4 (among other things) and the crew correctly calculated how far they could get to not disrupt the service too much. They could have had a plane waiting for them when they arrived to minimise delays and in that sense it's good customer service.

You seem to be under the impression that loss of an engine converts it into a DC10 or 727. It doesn't.

Loss of a second engine will convert it into something rather nasty. Oh it will still fly, but the fuel consumption issues will be horrendous. Terrain is very likely to be above you....! Landing will be interesting to say the least. Engine shutdowns are not common, and it is not unknown for any engine issue to affect others (fuel issues, maintenance, oil filler caps). Having something happen whilst over mid ocean is a case of 'stuff happens', but actually flying into a remote area once things have already started to happen is a call that is more driven by commercial than safety interests.

 

[Buzzard]

Many thanks for the professional input jb747, I have very much enjoyed reading your posts.

 

[maninblack]

You seem to be under the impression that loss of an engine converts it into a DC10 or 727. It doesn't.

Loss of a second engine will convert it into something rather nasty. Oh it will still fly, but the fuel consumption issues will be horrendous. Terrain is very likely to be above you....! Landing will be interesting to say the least. Engine shutdowns are not common, and it is not unknown for any engine issue to affect others (fuel issues, maintenance, oil filler caps). Having something happen whilst over mid ocean is a case of 'stuff happens', but actually flying into a remote area once things have already started to happen is a call that is more driven by commercial than safety interests.

Sounds to me from your posts that you would at least be questioning the decision to cross the Atlantic rather than turn back.

It appears that EK is very driven by commercial interests. But ultimately surely it's the Captains decision. Would such a decision (to turn back if the company said keep going) potentially cost him/her their job or possible penalties?

Further do you think there is any chance at all that a QF A380 that suffered such a problem/similar circumstance would continue on rather than turn back...I think I know the answer.

 

[jb747]

Sounds to me from your posts that you would at least be questioning the decision to cross the Atlantic rather than turn back.

It appears that EK is very driven by commercial interests. But ultimately surely it's the Captains decision. Would such a decision (to turn back if the company said keep going) potentially cost him/her their job or possible penalties?

Further do you think there is any chance at all that a QF A380 that suffered such a problem/similar circumstance would continue on rather than turn back...I think I know the answer.

I can only say that I wouldn't do it, unless the turn back option exposed me to other risk, i.e. weather.

 

[docjames]

Will there be an "incident report" or investigation finding (that gets made public)? Or will it be held within EK?

Thanks jb747 for his input here.

I'm not sure how to phrase this - but certainly adds food for thought in airline selection for personal travel......

 

[jb747]

Will there be an "incident report" or investigation finding (that gets made public)?

on the scale of incidents it's pretty minor, so I doubt that it will be much of a report.

I'm not sure how to phrase this - but certainly adds food for thought in airline selection for personal travel......

Be careful with that. You don't hear about the majority of events, and some operators are staggeringly good at smelling like roses, when perhaps they should reek of the other.

 

[tgh]

Be careful with that. You don't hear about the majority of events, and some operators are staggeringly good at smelling like roses, when perhaps they should reek of the other.


Which begs the question.. where can we find information to form an opinion .

 

[docjames]

on the scale of incidents it's pretty minor, so I doubt that it will be much of a report.


Be careful with that. You don't hear about the majority of events, and some operators are staggeringly good at smelling like roses, when perhaps they should reek of the other.

Be careful with that. You don't hear about the majority of events, and some operators are staggeringly good at smelling like roses, when perhaps they should reek of the other.


Which begs the question.. where can we find information to form an opinion .

+1 - there are some well known airlines I personally wont fly but more info is better.

Some of that is not around the actual incidents but the culture so hard to objectively measure.

I'm sure there's plenty I wouldn't fly if i knew.


Would love to know your "list" but not sure you'll be happy (or could face work repercussions) for naming those on "the jb list".....

 

[maninblack]

Which begs the question.. where can we find information to form an opinion .

Dr. Zaius: Don't look for it, Taylor. You may not like what you find.