News:

Precision Simulator update 10.173 (24 February 2024) is now available.
Navburo update 13 (23 November 2022) is now available.
NG FMC and More is released.

Main Menu

General 744 (748) events from avHerald

Started by Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers, Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:51

Hardy Heinlin

Quote from: United744 on Fri, 19 Nov 2021 23:05
Quote from: Hardy Heinlin on Fri, 19 Nov 2021 08:25
Good question.

Maybe they wanted the FMC to be in 1 E/O mode, so that the FMC can compute the fuel and ETA predictions and the altitude profile correctly. One engine at idle would keep the ALL ENG mode, and the predictions and altitude profile would become incorrect.
I actually tried this in PSX. By telling the FMC manually an engine had failed (ENG OUT>) it seemed to compute the same data as when the engine was completely shut down? The only difference was with the engine shut down, it displayed the re-light envelope on the upper EICAS.

Yes.

You mean, instead of shutting down the engine they should've selected ENG OUT on the FMC and just put that engine to idle?

United744

#21
Quote from: Hardy Heinlin on Sat, 20 Nov 2021 00:45
You mean, instead of shutting down the engine they should've selected ENG OUT on the FMC and just put that engine to idle?
The GC distance is 3479 NM between the airports. They'd already been airborne over an hour before spotting the issue, so it had burned around (guess) 8,000 lbs or so of fuel out of its tank (I assume it took off like this as well).

That put it about 3000 NM from Miami when they found the problem. At 500 kts that is 6 hours flight time. Idle fuel flow is 1100 lbs or so per hour, so a further 6600 lbs would be burned over 6 hours at idle.

Total burn would be ~10,000 lbs (or around 33% the #1 tank fuel capacity) at the point they noticed the problem.

At the point in the flight where they reach 80,000 lbs of total fuel remaining, they could resume normal operation of the engine.

In the meantime, they still have it as a backup for numerous systems (electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, and of course, thrust).

I don't see that shutting it down actually benefitted them, except to save a literal 3000 lbs or so of fuel (and not even that much, as they would be burning more fuel dragging a dead engine through the air).

In my unscientific test, PSX requires about another 0.5 units of rudder trim for an outside engine that is shutdown vs. idle, once established at the D/D altitude/speed (in my test GW was 640,000 lbs and DD alt was FL339 @ 262 kts).

All it seems to have achieved is a higher fuel quantity in the tank at the point where they could use the engine normally, but otherwise, I only see downsides.

I think it also counts as an in-flight shutdown event for the engine, so that's not good, either.

Hardy Heinlin

Regarding the risk of a failing restart of a good engine: Is that risk really so high that you want to keep that good engine running by all means? I don't know, but perhaps you could also invert the risk evaluation and say that it's safer to shutdown all engine accessories in case of a fuel leak within the engine system, so that you have more fuel available at the end in case the situation gets worse.

United744

Quoteperhaps you could also invert the risk evaluation and say that it's safer to shutdown all engine accessories in case of a fuel leak within the engine system, so that you have more fuel available at the end in case the situation gets worse.
AFAIK there would be no reason to suspect a fuel leak (though they perhaps thought this initially)?

With the fuel being trapped in tank 1, saving it doesn't make much sense beyond fuel balance if it was leaking with a running engine for some reason.

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Let's add some more, eh, fuel to the discussion.

Incident: Kalitta B744 near Cold Lake on Nov 4th 2021, two fuel filters clogged
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f06da07&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Singapore B744 at Sydney on Nov 28th 2019, engine pod strike during go around
http://avherald.com/h?article=4d019a7b&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers


Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Cargolux B744 at Novosibirsk on Dec 19th 2021, rejected takeoff due to engine problem
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f1f0b50&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Cargolux B744 at Amsterdam on Dec 26th 2021, main deck fire warning
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f23ec1e&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Accident: Kalitta B744 at Los Angeles on Feb 3rd 2020, rejected takeoff due to trash bin on runway
http://avherald.com/h?article=4d2d41d8&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: China Airlines B744 at Taipei on Jan 16th 2022, engine trouble
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f33e114&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Cargolux B744 over Atlantic on Feb 1st 2022, cargo smoke indication
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f4100e7&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Lufthansa B744 over English Channel on Feb 7th 2022, engine shut down in flight
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f44de96&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Nippon Cargo B748 at Tokyo on Feb 11th 2022, dropped flap fairing on landing
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f4a281e&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Accident: Martin B744 at Harare on Jul 8th 2019, dropped part of flaps
http://avherald.com/h?article=4ca2fb36&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Martin B744 near Amsterdam on Jan 16th 2021, lost panel in flight
http://avherald.com/h?article=4eaf9263&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Polar B748 at Tokyo on Mar 30th 2022, hydraulic failure
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f6bb4b0&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Lufthansa B748 enroute on Apr 18th 2022, unruly lavatories
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f7d59e7&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Longtail B744 over Atlantic on Apr 11th 2022, thrust lever causes engine shut down in flight
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f80d0da&opt=0

Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

Incident: Cargolux B744 at Chicago on Apr 20th 2022, wheel well fire indication
http://avherald.com/h?article=4f80e4be&opt=0