[driven]

FOXNews.com - Report: Engine Failure Caused British Airways Crash - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

The pilot claims that both engines didn't respond about 2 miles out. This caused the plane to drop. (obviously)

Am I the only one who's been nervous about Boeing's steadfast desire to use dual-engine planes instead of quad-engines as Airbus uses?

I've never heard of a jetliner losing all FOUR of it's engines. But ... when you only have two ... hmm ...

(Just my un-informed perception here.)

[design219]

Hmmm, does anybody hear have an opinion about Boeing and Airbus?

[driven]

Actually I was more asking about dual engines vs. four engines. It just happens that Airbus almost always uses four engines vs. Boeing who usually goes with 2. (Obvious exceptions here ... the 727 had 3 and the 707 and 747 has 4.

I love the 777, but I feel safer on the "old boat" known as the 747.

[Eug]

Fly-by-wire vs. fly-by-night?*

* NB: I have a drive-by-wire car.

P.S. I'm impressed how he managed to glide this in. Some of the passengers interviewed didn't initially think they had crashed. They thought it was it was just a very bumpy landing.

Mind you, given the amount of damage to the plane, you have to wonder if those passengers were drunk or something.

[CreepDogg]

<stating the obvious> Well, I'm no expert, but losing control of BOTH engines at once would seem to indicate more of a control problem than an engine problem. If the controls go, it doesn't matter if you have 4 engines or 2 - you can't control any of them. Not sure if that's the cause; I'm sure we'll hear more about the cause through the investigation.</stating the obvious>

As far as which is safer, I don't know. The question is how many engines does the plane actually need to maintain flight? I know the 777 was designed so it can fly - I think even take off - on one engine - I'm assuming most of the time if a pilot loses one, he would look to land for repairs at the earliest/safest possible time and place. How many engines does a 4-engine plan actually need to fly? If it needs 3, then I guess it's no safer than the 777 in that if you lose one, you still have no more margin for error. If it needs 2, then you've got that additional margin (unless you happen to lose 2 in one shot...). Again, I'm no expert - but I doubt most 4-engine planes would be able to fly far on 1 engine.

I think Boeing went to 2 engine designs as a trade-off and balance between safety and efficiency/cost.

[Eug]

I've been told that with some 4-engine planes, you can still manage on 1 engine. I don't know how true that is.

I also wonder how redundant those two engines' control mechanisms are.

Could this be a pure software glitch?

[OreoCookie]

It was a discussion in the past and the reason why Airbus went for a four-engine configuration with their A380 (there were some FAA safety regulations favoring four-engine planes over two-engine planes for obvious reasons). That was actually an edge Airbus used to have. Times have changed and two-engine planes are an option even for long-distance flights (B787, A350) despite additional safety regs.

Personally, I don't see a problem: all the security measures have worked like they should have, all passengers are alright. It's a testament to the extremely high level of security of modern airliners Since it was a BA plane, I'm sure maintenance was good, too.

[Mrjinglesusa]

The pilot stated that both engines "did not respond" when more thrust was requested by the autopilot and then manually. This suggests that the engines lost power, not a control problem. Someone speculated that the loss of power to two engines within seconds of one another suggests a fuel flow problem.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Mind you, given the amount of damage to the plane, you have to wonder if those passengers were drunk or something.

All I know is when I hear the attention call three times in a row, I put on my shoes and braise myself

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It was a discussion in the past and the reason why Airbus went for a four-engine configuration with their A380 (there were some FAA safety regulations favoring four-engine planes over two-engine planes for obvious reasons). That was actually an edge Airbus used to have. Times have changed and two-engine planes are an option even for long-distance flights (B787, A350) despite additional safety regs.

Personally, I don't see a problem: all the security measures have worked like they should have, all passengers are alright. It's a testament to the extremely high level of security of modern airliners Since it was a BA plane, I'm sure maintenance was good, too.

Had this happened 1 minute earlier, or say at a different airport where the approach was very different, everyone could very well have died.

I see a huge problem.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

All I know is when I hear the attention call three times in a row, I put on my shoes and braise myself

[cSurfr]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

The pilot stated that both engines "did not respond" when more thrust was requested by the autopilot and then manually. This suggests that the engines lost power, not a control problem. Someone speculated that the loss of power to two engines within seconds of one another suggests a fuel flow problem.

The issue with it being a fuel flow problem is that the engines are fed from different pumps, and (usually) different tanks. Our jet has 7 different fuel bladders for instance. We do sometimes burn from the same tank, but that's a forward or aft, which is only during cruise. We always land burning from the wings. Also, I know when we're 2 miles out, AP is off.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

I heard from somewhere that having 4 engines increased the probability of engine failure.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

A report said Canadian Geese may have flown into the engines... so blame Canada.

[driven]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

I heard from somewhere that having 4 engines increased the probability of engine failure.

I don't see how, but if true you've got 3 others to go with.

[OreoCookie]

That's simple mathematics, but if you have four engines and one fails, then you have three others, with two engines you have just one more.

@Eug
Sure, I'm not saying there aren't any dangers associated to flying. But AFAIK there are additional restrictions on planes with two engines.
In any case, we cannot totally exclude the possibility of accidents.

[cSurfr]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's simple mathematics, but if you have four engines and one fails, then you have three others, with two engines you have just one more.

@Eug
Sure, I'm not saying there aren't any dangers associated to flying. But AFAIK there are additional restrictions on planes with two engines.
In any case, we cannot totally exclude the possibility of accidents.

You're right, but what you must understand is that a 747 with 4 engines has a rating of approx 62,000 lbs of thrust per engine, and a 777 has 2 engines with approx 115,000 lbs of thrust per engine. The new engines on the 777 are the most reliable, and fuel efficient engines out there. That's the main reason for 2 vs. 4. Also, back when the 747 was new, the FAA required a minimum of 3 engines for transatlantic flights. Which is why Douglas had 3 on the DC-10.

When GE was testing the 777 engines, they mounted one on the 747, and even with one engine running and the others shut down, the plane took-off and landed just fine.

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't claim pilot error on the BA flight. Then again, the first people they look at are the maintenance guys, so only time will tell.

[imitchellg5]

I doubt it was a software glitch. My dad (who was an electrician on the first 777's) says most of the systems have redundant backups that if one computer fails, the other can take on the work of the failed computer. I'm going with pilot error, even though the pilot has been with BA for 20 years. Whether or not two engines or four is safer than the other is something that nowadays isn't really a valid question. Aircraft engines and systems are so much more reliable than they were that it's just as safe either way.

BTW, the BA 777s have Rolls-Royce Trent engines.

[philm]

I don't know much about planes, but most Airbus planes have two engines, right? This makes the OP incorrect.

I remember a quotation from some senior airline executive (maybe someone knows who). He made a point of always flying planes with four engines. Asked why, he responded: 'Because they don't make 'em with five!'

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by philm 

I don't know much about planes, but most Airbus planes have two engines, right? This makes the OP incorrect.

The larger, 777 sized ones are mostly four engined.

[chabig]

In general, the larger the airplane the more engines it has. It's really that simple.

[is not]

There are redundant systems all over.

[JohnM15141]

Since the pilots stated the engines didn't respond to throttle, inputs implies the engines where still running. There are numerous indications to tell them if an engine quits, they would know the difference instantly. Also, just because your engines don't work doesn't mean you quit flying, luckily they were on very short final and the runway overrun was an empty field.

Either a glitch occurred during the configuration for landing or the pilots made an error during preparation for landing. This is going to probably be pilot error, the aircraft was not in the proper configuration for the approach. However it may not be there fault. The error could have occurred because they were trained to operate the aircraft incorrectly either by the company or Boeing itself. A glitch could have many causes, an improper mechanical procedure during maintenance to a software error from maintenance updates either from the company or again Boeing itself.

It will be interesting to see which it is and what caused it...

[Mastrap]

It's going to have to be one hell of a pilot error to override all the fail safes in place. I could understand speed or altitude errors, like the Air France jet that crashed on landing in Toronto last year, but setting up the engines so they don't respond to throttle seems... difficult is probably the most appropriate word. This happened after a long, uneventful flight.

[cSurfr]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

It's going to have to be one hell of a pilot error to override all the fail safes in place. I could understand speed or altitude errors, like the Air France jet that crashed on landing in Toronto last year, but setting up the engines so they don't respond to throttle seems... difficult is probably the most appropriate word. This happened after a long, uneventful flight.

It's always possible they thought that auto-throttle was on, and in fact it wasn't. . .

And, the most dangerous part of any flight is the take-off and landing.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The larger, 777 sized ones are mostly four engined.

Airbus currently has only two four-engined models, the A340 and the A380. Most of their fleet is twin-engined. The majority of Airbus models flying are the twin-engined A319, A320 and A330. And, as this seems to be a problem with systems feeding the engines, rather than the engines themselves, it wouldn't have mattered if you had two, four or nine engines, none of them would've responded.

This is the first serious incident on a 777 ever, which is an amazing record.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Airbus currently has only two four-engined models, the A340 and the A380. Most of their fleet is twin-engined. The majority of Airbus models flying are the twin-engined A319, A320 and A330. And, as this seems to be a problem with systems feeding the engines, rather than the engines themselves, it wouldn't have mattered if you had two, four or nine engines, none of them would've responded.

This is the first serious incident on a 777 ever, which is an amazing record.

And only the A340 and A380 are 777 sized

[chabig]

The A340 is older than the 777, and it had 4 engines so it could fly long range overwater routes. The A380 is not 777 sized, it's about twice as big, and requires 4 engines due to it's weight.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

And only the A340 and A380 are 777 sized

The point still stands: most Airbus models, by active number, are twin-engined. In fact, the vast majority of jetliners currently flying are twin-engined.

[SVass]

The basic rules are that an airplane has to be able to take off even if one engine fails and that if it is to fly more than x miles from a landing field (over the ocean), then it must have sufficient power to remain aloft, etc. Once upon a time when an engine fire occurred, a pilot reached up and turned off the wrong engine causing a crash. Another time, someone used the wrong measurement units when filling a tank causing a plane to run out of fuel. S... happens.

Wait for the investigation. sam

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

The point still stands: most Airbus models, by active number, are twin-engined. In fact, the vast majority of jetliners currently flying are twin-engined.

Although true, I don't see how this fact is relevant to anything. Most airplanes are monoplanes too.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by chabig 

Although true, I don't see how this fact is relevant to anything. Most airplanes are monoplanes too.

Just a reply to something above about Airbus having four engined models. Which they do. But there are so many more twins out there you chances of being on a twin are much greater.

Just your standard thread drift.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Just a reply to something above about Airbus having four engined models. Which they do. But there are so many more twins out there you chances of being on a twin are much greater.

Just your standard thread drift.

Yeah, but 95% of their twins are smaller planes that aren't flying overseas. The point it moot. Let's get back on track.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Yeah, but 95% of their twins are smaller planes that aren't flying overseas. The point it moot. Let's get back on track.

There's really no back on track, because we won't know anything until the accident report comes out, which will take months. Until then it's empty speculation.

Back to drift: Even if you fly long distances, chances are you will be on a twin, either a 777 or an A330.

[chabig]

Further drift for those who don't know...except for the very oldest of airplanes, you only have two pilots on duty up front.

[stevesnj]

Time to buy AirBus

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Time to buy AirBus

Why? What do they offer that Boeing doesn't, besides giving the French jobs?

[stevesnj]

I've flown both and AirBus planes are quieter, configured roomier than any Boeing I have been on.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

I've flown both and AirBus planes are quieter, configured roomier than any Boeing I have been on.

It's spelled Airbus. Comfort depends on the carrier, not really the aircraft. Carriers determine the amount of room you get.

[cSurfr]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

It's spelled Airbus. Comfort depends on the carrier, not really the aircraft. Carriers determine the amount of room you get.

Not in the cockpit, and that's where it counts However, the 777 cp is huge!

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

Not in the cockpit, and that's where it counts However, the 777 cp is huge!

Ha ha. My dad always complains about that in the CRJ-700 and 900s. They might have a first class, but the cockpit's still as comfortable as a 500.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

It's spelled Airbus. Comfort depends on the carrier, not really the aircraft. Carriers determine the amount of room you get.

delete