www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21674981/

I wonder how long the Airbus A380 could fly with one engine?

Then there are all the planes with only one engine.

The 380 would have to lose 3 engines first - highly unlikely.

747 can land with only 1 operational engine out of 4 so I assume the 380 must have the same capability.


Some years back a BA flight from LHR-AUK, ran into volcanic ashes over Indonesia and all 4 engines shut down for some time. The plane actually glided as it was losing altitude. Fortunately for all involved the pilots were able to restart all 4 engines once they got past the volcanic ashes and made it to Darwin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_009

and I love this part of the story:

<i>Despite the lack of time, Captain Moody made an announcement that has been described as &quot;a masterpiece of understatement&quot;2]

“ <b>Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.</b> </i>

I saw that re-creation on television last year. Really interesting. And also about the flight from Canada to Europe that had a fuel leak and ran out of fuel.

I wonder if I would be able to sleep better if they turned off the engines on my next flight?

Currently this thread appears directly beneath the one on fear of flying on international trip. If OP of that thread reads this one, they will select only driving trips for the future.

Actually, the one in Canada, the famous &quot;Gimli Glider&quot; had to do with a mistake in specifying the amount of fuel loaded owing to the difference between metric and imperial quantities. It took off with too little fuel and ran out over the prairies.

Fortunately, the pilot remembered a disused RCAF base and was able to glde the plane to an engineless landing. Or so I have read.

I used to know a formula for glide for an average commercial aircraft -- perhaps 1 mile horizontally for each 1000 feet of altitude, but I hope someone here has a better memory than I.

gail - I sorta disagree. The story can show how robust a modern aircraft is. It lost an engine during climb out, but the pilots maintain control using just one engine and make a safe landing.

rkkwan is right.

There was a lot of worry when twin engine jets started flying passengers across the Atlantic, especially about the 777, which was certified based substantially on computer testing rather than endless trials. I don't think any have crashed, certainly not on the North Atlantic route. Modern planes are very strong.

Even years ago, the father of a friend was flying a military aircraft that lost an engine and the outboard 13 feet of wing. He flew the plane to a safe landing several hundred miles away.

If I remember the Canadian situation correcty, the pilot balanced the fuel on the flight and this caused more fuel to go to the leaking engine. Finally, the plane ran out of fuel but they landed with no engines on a small landing strip, blowing most tires in the process.

I think the only time you need all engines is during rotation and before the plane is configured to fly. We were living near O&quot; Hare when the AA ? DC-10 dropped an engine at rotation. It didn't make it.

Twin engine TA flights were well established before the 777. The concern was about the 767. I remember this from 20 years ago. At wikipedia it says that it was a 767 operated by TWA that got the first ETOPS rating for STL-FRA. The 777 did get an early certification before introduction.

The DC-10 droped the engine on the runway just before takeoff. Unfortunately it damaged hydraulics and some wires that were connected to sensors which would tell the cockpit crew whats going on. They didn't (well they new something but not the full extend) and proceeded to follow normal takeoff procedures which was a mistake.

Actually if you read the history of that short and tragic flight, it was proven later in simulators that if the captain knew what was going on, the plane had a VERY good chance of landing.

They tested some pilots with and without warnings in the simulator and when the pilots were not warned almost all failed in the exact same way the DC-10 crew failed on that day.

OTOH, when the pilots were given full warnings, they were able to takeoff, turn around and land under the same conditions.

The plane did not have to crash and there were many new regulations and engineering improvements required by FAA and world wide aviation authorities after full investigation was completed. Unfortunately for the DC-10, it was the begging of the end

Just recently I read an article about 10 most influential airplane crashes. Influential because of the major rules and engineering changes made after each one. The DC-10 crash was one of the 10. I'll try to find it and post a link. The conclusion was that because of these accidents aviation is a great deal safer today then it ever was.

btw, I lived in Chicago at that time, working part time as a delivery guy for a manufacturing company. I had to make a pick-up in the Elk Grove Village area next morning and I drove right by the crash site. Couldn't see much except for many federal and state investigative cars, police vehicles some fire engines and ambulances sill sitting around. Tragic.

What I remember the most of that accident is that the local TV stations had gone to nearly full time coverage of the accident. The next day is a live TV reporter is walking near the edge of the debris field describing how crews were going through to id body parts with little flag -- and it is a sea of flags -- and how everything was busted up into little pieces. As he is talking he reaches down and the camera follows to turn over a foot square piece of AL. Underneath the AL is a severed hand -- Very clear -- and sudden cut to commercial. The risks of live TV.

here is the list:

http://www.origin.popularmechanics.c...html?series=36

Both Wally and Ackislander are correct in their recollections of Canadian instances of planes running out of fuel. That is because there have been two in recent history with both flights originating in Canada.

One called the Gimli Glider where a trans-Canada (Air Canada) flight ran out of fuel and had to put down on a closed airforce field at Gimli (Caused by a mix up in refuelling, the airline - Air Canada had just gone metric and the refuellers got their weights mixed up).

The other was an Air Transat flight from Montreal to Portugal. There was a fuel leak on board. Unfortunately the aircrew transferred fuel from the non leaking wing to the leaking wing, thus exacerbating their problem. (they thought they were reading a computer error). Thanks to the skill of the pilot and some fortuitous early flight plan changes the plane was able to land at the Azores in the middle of the Atlantic.

In both cases, good training, good luck and good planes meant that all pax walked away with just stories to tell.

Flying is still the safest way to travel. The most risky part of a flight is the drive to the airport.

Keep in mind that <i>all</i> airliners routinely glide during the descent portion of a flight, with engines set all the way back to idle (not turned off, although they are often so quiet that it seems like they've been turned off). The aircraft will begin the glide around 120 miles from the destination airport and will continue to glide all the way down to the final approach for landing.

Twin-engine airliners certified for service over the oceans typically can cruise, land, and even take off with just one engine. That's why the engines on 777s and 767s are so enormous&mdash;each of them must be capable of propelling the fully-loaded plane for several hours on its own. This also means that twin-engine aircraft are vastly overpowered, and so they rarely need anywhere near full power for take-off, and they accelerate and climb at truly impressive rates that may sometimes feel like straight up to passengers.