From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter J. Coe) Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 16 Jan 95 21:39:08 References: 1 2 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
>In article <airliners.1994.1743@ohare.Chicago.COM> Andrew Chuang <email@example.com> writes: >>I have no doubt that the B747 can safely fly with three engines. >>However, what is the usual practice if a pilot experiences an engine >>failure at take-off on a four-engined aircraft? I would think many >>passengers would be a little paranoid if they heard strange noises >>(and perhaps saw fire) Some real world experience here. I have had suffered two engine 'failures' on take off. The first was a 707 from JFK to LHR that suffered a bird-strike on one engine. We climbed to altitude with no noticeable problems before we were told that we would be returning to JFK because of the dead engine. We then spent an hour dumping fuel before returningh to a welcoming commitee of fire trucks! The second was an aborted take off at Harare in a 747, which in many ways was far more dramatic. That was a problem with the number 4 engine just not coming up to speed. I have no idea how close we were to V1 (the speed at which the plane cannot safely abort take-off), but we were certainly clocking along. More curious with that one, was as there was not a lot of traffic at that airport, the pilot was allowed to stay on the runway whilst he tried reving the engine. We must have been there for the best part of an hour before we returned to the terminal. As we were only flying to Jo'burg, that plane could easily flown on 3 engines. I won't go into the inflight shutdowns and engines that just won't start that I have encountered. I'm beginning to think that I'm cursed when it comes to intercontinental travel.