Airliners.net

Didn't see anything posted yet on this....
Mods please delete if already posted.

Anyway, as per title says
BA will ferry G-CIVM PHX-LHR on 3 engines.
Planning currently underway for above flight.

Happy Landings

T

The engine flameout was very loud. Very cool that the 747 can do that.

This time without passengers?

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

71Zulu wrote:

This time without passengers?

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

No aircraft can be granted for clearing takeoff in revenue service with an inoperative or missing engine.

In case of twins , AOG only (under FAA regulations, taking off a twin engined aircraft with one engine is illegal). Trijets and quads could to takeoff only to ferry for maintenance under special conditions and strict procedures.

vorellanaj wrote:

71Zulu wrote:

This time without passengers?

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

No aircraft can be granted for clearing takeoff in revenue service with an inoperative or missing engine.

In case of twins , AOG only (under FAA regulations, taking off a twin engined aircraft with one engine is illegal). Trijets and quads could to takeoff only to ferry for maintenance under special conditions and strict procedures.

You are right; I guess 71Zulu is referring to BA 744 flight from LA to London when they lost one engine early in the flight and went Transatlantic with 3 operative engines. It happened few years ago!
Cheers
D

And then there was the Connie, called by many in its day " the best three engine plane in the world".

sgbroimp wrote:

And then there was the Connie,

And yet again there is the other Connie, who's aircraft physically transition to 3 engine aircraft in flight!

Saw it fly over yesterday. Interesting...when was the last time BA did a 5 engine ferry?

I have seen a 747-400 being ferried with only 3 operating engines. The fan blades were removed from the damaged engine and an aerodynamic cover was placed over the center of the engine to prevent air going into the compressor section.

vorellanaj wrote:

71Zulu wrote:

This time without passengers?

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

No aircraft can be granted for clearing takeoff in revenue service with an inoperative or missing engine.

In case of twins , AOG only (under FAA regulations, taking off a twin engined aircraft with one engine is illegal). Trijets and quads could to takeoff only to ferry for maintenance under special conditions and strict procedures.

He was being sarcastic, referring to the BA 744 incident a few years ago where they lost an engine out of LAX I think, then carried on to LHR on 3. With passengers.

Generally speaking, the 744 seems to be a talented 3 engine performer, but what if they lose another engine after v1? Can a 744 really climb out on 2 engines?

This might be a stupid question, but how does an airline plan for a flight like this? Is there a 3 engine profile for flight planning?

KVH68 wrote:

I have seen a 747-400 being ferried with only 3 operating engines. The fan blades were removed from the damaged engine and an aerodynamic cover was placed over the center of the engine to prevent air going into the compressor section.

interesting article on the 5th engine ferry by Qantas.
How Qantas Ferried an Engine on the Wing of a 747

Flighty wrote:

Generally speaking, the 744 seems to be a talented 3 engine performer, but what if they lose another engine after v1? Can a 744 really climb out on 2 engines?

Since this was a ferry flight only, there would have been no passengers or bags - not sure about cargo. So weights would have been comfortably low for 2 engines to manage should that situation arise.

LH did a TATL flight after losing an engine just after takeoff from DEN-FRA earlier this year.

Goodyear wrote:

Saw it fly over yesterday. Interesting...when was the last time BA did a 5 engine ferry?

BA Aircraft are not equipped to do 5 engine ferry flights.

What happened to the article linked?

mpdpilot wrote:

This might be a stupid question, but how does an airline plan for a flight like this? Is there a 3 engine profile for flight planning?

The takeoff requieres a lot of planning, coordination and skill. Then there´s the fuel consumption to plan for, and many other issues regardind aircraft performance.

Remember the Eastern L-1011 on a 2 engine ferry MEX-MIA in the 70s. Lost an engine on liftoff. Made it back....

Here is a video of the takeoff!

https://www.facebook.com/chuck.ogier/videos/1912420212118959/

No GE 744 have V-Pods because the engine fan are too big to be fitted in a pod for ferry. I don't know if any PW 744 operator ordered V-Pod feature.

RR : 86in , PW 94in , GE 106in.

vorellanaj wrote:

No GE 744 have V-Pods because the engine fan are too big to be fitted in a pod for ferry. I don't know if any PW 744 operator ordered V-Pod feature.

RR : 86in , PW 94in , GE 106in.

No GE engines (-50E/E1/E2 and -80C2B series) were certified for fifth pod operation. Both GE engine types were designed to be split for (lower deck) transportation and all early 747/CF6 operators (KL, AF, LH, etc) had 74M and/or 74F in their fleets, able to transport a spare engine (no splitting required) at the main cargo deck.

See : viewtopic.php?t=770041#p11110281

flyPIT wrote:

sgbroimp wrote:

And then there was the Connie,

And yet again there is the other Connie, who's aircraft physically transition to 3 engine aircraft in flight!

Kalitta 747 on 3 engines? I saw that before



Viper911

747classic wrote:

vorellanaj wrote:

No GE 744 have V-Pods because the engine fan are too big to be fitted in a pod for ferry. I don't know if any PW 744 operator ordered V-Pod feature.

RR : 86in , PW 94in , GE 106in.

No GE engines (-50E/E1/E2 and -80C2B series) were certified for fifth pod operation. Both GE engine types were designed to be split for (lower deck) transportation and all early 747/CF6 operators (KL, AF, LH, etc) had 74M and/or 74F in their fleets, able to transport a spare engine (no splitting required) at the main cargo deck.

See : viewtopic.php?t=770041#p11110281

Slightly off-topic but GE CF6-50C engines could be transported as additional pod on the DC-10:

trijetsonly wrote:

747classic wrote:

vorellanaj wrote:

No GE 744 have V-Pods because the engine fan are too big to be fitted in a pod for ferry. I don't know if any PW 744 operator ordered V-Pod feature.

RR : 86in , PW 94in , GE 106in.

No GE engines (-50E/E1/E2 and -80C2B series) were certified for fifth pod operation. Both GE engine types were designed to be split for (lower deck) transportation and all early 747/CF6 operators (KL, AF, LH, etc) had 74M and/or 74F in their fleets, able to transport a spare engine (no splitting required) at the main cargo deck.

See : viewtopic.php?t=770041#p11110281

Slightly off-topic but GE CF6-50C engines could be transported as additional pod on the DC-10:

Engine ferry pods were available on the L-1011, VC-10, 707 and DC-8 as well.

This might be a stupid question, but how does an airline plan for a flight like this? Is there a 3 engine profile for flight planning?

I have twice been in the flight deck of a Tristar on a two engine ferry flight.
We had removed the fan blades, and boroscoped the other engines etc, and climbed on board.
There was no V1 speed. After rotate, the aircraft climbed slowly until it reached V2 and was safe. For about two minutes the aircraft would not have climbed on a single engine. But this was in the Arabian Gulf and the sea was warm
The aircraft were very light, minimum fuel, no catering, no containers, no water, no cabin crew.
The B744 does it much better. B744 will ferry SIN - DXB - LHR with no real problem. Except for an engine failure in SYD, BA will always 3 engine ferry a B744 back to LHR. It really saves time and money over shipping the new engine out to the broken aircraft.

airzona11 wrote:

The engine flameout was very loud. Very cool that the 747 can do that.

Bits of hot metal were ejected out the exhaust. This appears to have been some sort of contained failure. Bits of hot metal suggest that a spinny part inappropriately contacted a non-spinny part.

jetsetterusa wrote:

Here is a video of the takeoff!

https://www.facebook.com/chuck.ogier/videos/1912420212118959/

That's a good one. Thanks for sharing!

So did this not go as planned, because while driving through on my way to work, I was shocked to see this plane back at PHX so soon, this time on the North side with a ground vehicle driving around the nose. Looked like maybe it’s just landed. That was at 1PM today and it’s still parked there with air stairs on the starboard side now.

BA once had an engine shut down inflight on a 747 from LAX and the captain continued to Heathrow instead of diverting. He did eventually divert to MAN, and shortly after he was then suspended.

DocLightning wrote:

This appears to have been some sort of contained failure. Bits of hot metal suggest that a spinny part inappropriately contacted a non-spinny part.

With all due respect Doc, this post belongs in the Technical/Operations forum!

Still parked at PHX, now on the North side. Anyone know when it is leaving?

rajincajun01 wrote:

LH did a TATL flight after losing an engine just after takeoff from DEN-FRA earlier this year.

Did they? I don't see any mentions in the news. Rather they did an IFSD in 2012 (on A346) when they just started their transatlantic journey; they chose to continue to Munich in that occasion (this one: http://avherald.com/h?article=452374ea&opt=0).

Michael

Why so much drama. Can't BA bring a spare engine and AOG team to finish repairs.

Or ferry it to VCV and say adios.

Arion640 wrote:

BA once had an engine shut down inflight on a 747 from LAX and the captain continued to Heathrow instead of diverting. He did eventually divert to MAN, and shortly after he was then suspended.

I believe they consulted BA ops who told him to continue and not the way you present that story.

Indeed, the pilot talked to dispatch and they advised him to go as far as he could so he wouldn't have to dump 70 tons of fuel. Once they got to the Atlantic, conditions were not as favorable. They made it across the pond but didn't have enough fuel to make it to London, so they diverted.

The dust-up comes from the FAA declaring this unsafe, and the UK's CAA disagreeing. The pilot didn't do anything erroneous, he followed the directions he was given. It's not like he blew an engine, kept it a secret and flew a few hundred souls across the Atlantic.

It's BA 268. 2005. Feel free to look it up. Interesting occurrence.

The BA 744 in question is still in PHX, saw the plane while taxing for takeoff this am. Sitting at one of north pads.

CHI87LG wrote:

Indeed, the pilot talked to dispatch and they advised him to go as far as he could so he wouldn't have to dump 70 tons of fuel. Once they got to the Atlantic, conditions were not as favorable. They made it across the pond but didn't have enough fuel to make it to London, so they diverted.

The dust-up comes from the FAA declaring this unsafe, and the UK's CAA disagreeing. The pilot didn't do anything erroneous, he followed the directions he was given. It's not like he blew an engine, kept it a secret and flew a few hundred souls across the Atlantic.

It's BA 268. 2005. Feel free to look it up. Interesting occurrence.

Can somebody remind us according to what regulation this is considered unsafe? Is a diversion required when a quad loses an engine? Is a twin required to divert when it is operating normally? What is the difference?

That’s not exactly right, either. No dispatch system in the U.K. or most foreign airlines. Dispatching is a US process. In the U.K., the crew makes the decision and consults with Maintenance as to options as part of the crew’s decision.

Secondly, the arrived in the U.K. with the planned fuel, but thought some of the fuel was unusable (trapped) due to a misunderstanding in how the override pumps work. MAN was a conservative but not necessary divert.


GF

eamondzhang wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

LH did a TATL flight after losing an engine just after takeoff from DEN-FRA earlier this year.

Did they? I don't see any mentions in the news. Rather they did an IFSD in 2012 (on A346) when they just started their transatlantic journey; they chose to continue to Munich in that occasion (this one: http://avherald.com/h?article=452374ea&opt=0).

Michael

It happened a bit further into the flight than I remembered. Still flew nearly six hours on three engines. But here is the story: https://www.aeroinside.com/item/9128/lu ... -in-flight

rajincajun01 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

LH did a TATL flight after losing an engine just after takeoff from DEN-FRA earlier this year.

Did they? I don't see any mentions in the news. Rather they did an IFSD in 2012 (on A346) when they just started their transatlantic journey; they chose to continue to Munich in that occasion (this one: http://avherald.com/h?article=452374ea&opt=0).

Michael

It happened a bit further into the flight than I remembered. Still flew nearly six hours on three engines. But here is the story: https://www.aeroinside.com/item/9128/lu ... -in-flight

I see, thought was the one I mentioned. But as that incident highlighted, this is not LH's first time doing this and it doesn't seems to catch regulators' eyes. So I assume it's pretty safe to do so.

Michael

Last I heard this aircraft was going to ferry PHX-YYZ-London, on 3 engines.I also heard they took the #3 engine fans apart and they are laying in the first class section of the aircraft.

En route home tonight as BA9174 via BDA!

Yep,
PHX-YYZ-LHR was the planned routing.
But now going via BDA instead.
Specially Qualified captain required for 3 engine take off only.
Rest of flight can be conducted by regular line crew.
Engineers thoroughly checking everything on the good 3 engines, including horoscope checks.
Making sure they're all 100% before the fight home.
Believe flight number will be BA9174E...?
Aircraft is currently enroute BDA .

Home soon.

Didn't seem to affect altitude or speed much ..

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW9 ... /KPHX/TXKF

And I just looked up the Bermuda airport info on airnav and it says no published instrument approaches, is that right?



Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

TUGMASTER wrote:

Yep,
including horoscope checks.
Home soon.

Horoscope - you dont want to know what I pictured when reading that line!

TUGMASTER wrote:

horoscope checks.

Astral navigation?

77west wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Yep,
including horoscope checks.
Home soon.

Horoscope - you dont want to know what I pictured when reading that line!

Bloody spellcheck

I'll put that on my list of potential band names if I ever discover a long lost musical talent.

"Three Engine Ferry"

There’s ILSs in BDA, 12 and 30. I doubt they just laid the fan in first class.

GF