Re: ETOPS Question

Date:         20 Nov 97 02:53:41 
From: (Simon Craig)
Organization: OzEmail Ltd.
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>In Oz it was reported that the APU was definitely non-op. I seem to
>remember that there was only enough compressed air left for one more
>attempt to turn over an engine. But perhaps that was an embelishment
>added by the local tabloids.

It certainly was an embelishment, but what else can we expect from the
press?  I believe that the APU was inop, as many early 747s did not have
the capability to start the APU inflight.  As for compressed air, there is
no provision on the 747 for "storage" of "compressed air" (and no use for
it in starting engines - except in a test facility).  My understanding was
that they went to a lower altitude (and quickly) and attempted the
"standard" windmill start on any engine until they got one going.  Once
they had one going they could use bleed air to attempt starts on the other


Simon Craig

--- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going!