B744F Company question

Brogs · Post by **Brogs** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:08 am

"I remember seeing a programme, on Discovery I think about a Passenger Aircraft over the Ocean, "the details escape me " ,if I,ve got this right they had an engine fire,so they shut it down but neglected to close down the fuel lines and they lost a lot of fuel, by the time they realised ,they were virtually out ,and the nearest Airport was some Island about 160 km away, they where at about FL350 msl and as you say it turned into a Big glider and the guy managed to make it to the Airport without Fuel and landed at about 200 knts bursting all the tyres before he ran out of Runway, He was a French Canadian and he got some Flying Award for that particular feat and also some awkward questions regarding the Loss of Fuel, I think it was an Airbus ! Safe Landings, Mike

"

mlegein · Post by **mlegein** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:34 am

"

"Brogs" wrote:I remember seeing a programme, on Discovery I think about a Passenger Aircraft over the Ocean, "the details escape me " ,if I,ve got this right they had an engine fire,so they shut it down but neglected to close down the fuel lines and they lost a lot of fuel, by the time they realised ,they were virtually out ,and the nearest Airport was some Island about 160 km away, they where at about FL350 msl and as you say it turned into a Big glider and the guy managed to make it to the Airport without Fuel and landed at about 200 knts bursting all the tyres before he ran out of Runway, He was a French Canadian and he got some Flying Award for that particular feat and also some awkward questions regarding the Loss of Fuel, I think it was an Airbus ! Safe Landings, Mike

I believe it was an Air Transat Airbus 330 and it landed in the Azores. Can't remember the engine fire. I thought it was a fuel leak."

nharwood · Post by **nharwood** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:31 pm

"This is, by far, the best topic on these forums to date! Great info guys. Thanks!"

dave colavecchio · Post by **dave colavecchio** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:56 pm

"The problem with the Air Transat A330 was a fuel line break. Seems they did an engine change a few weeks before and a airworthiness directive came out that required them to install the fuel lines a certain way. They couldn't find the directive so the supervisor, who wanted to get the plane out on time, installed the lines the way he thought they were supposed to be installed. The lines frayed over time and eventually started to leak. The pilots had funny indications. First was a fuel imbalance and the aircraft started to configure itself for the imbalance automatically. Then they had an oil temp problem ( the cold fuel is what cools the oil) I have forgotten what the crew thought was wrong - but they misdiagnosed the problem ended up feeding the leak by crossfeeding the fuel imbalance rather than isolating the system. Anyway they glided to Lajes Airbase on Terceira, Azores. They landed so hard they blew all the tires and made deep grooves in the concrete runway. Everyone survived though...The Captain deserved something - but an award is not it - he literally blew several thousand gallons overboard - not exactly on par with Al Hatnes of United DC-10 fame. The mechanic's I'm sure were shown to the door and their licaenses revoked...Maybe they are playing that 9 hole course in B.C.?

"

cyoo eddie · Post by **cyoo eddie** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:35 pm

"I remember seen that one about air transat.... I seem to remember the captain was new to modern glass panel ariliners, and seemed to think the fuel problem was a computer error. The first officer was kind of green behind the ears, and took the word of the captain. The fuel leak could not be seen because it was night time. I dunno, if I was captain and saw fuel being used like that , I would have landed. That must give a real sinking feeling in the gut when at 30,000+ feet at night over water, the engines quit and everything goes dark

"

Brogs · Post by **Brogs** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:15 am

"

"dave colavecchio" wrote:The problem with the Air Transat A330 was a fuel line break. Seems they did an engine change a few weeks before and a airworthiness directive came out that required them to install the fuel lines a certain way. They couldn't find the directive so the supervisor, who wanted to get the plane out on time, installed the lines the way he thought they were supposed to be installed. The lines frayed over time and eventually started to leak. The pilots had funny indications. First was a fuel imbalance and the aircraft started to configure itself for the imbalance automatically. Then they had an oil temp problem ( the cold fuel is what cools the oil) I have forgotten what the crew thought was wrong - but they misdiagnosed the problem ended up feeding the leak by crossfeeding the fuel imbalance rather than isolating the system. Anyway they glided to Lajes Airbase on Terceira, Azores. They landed so hard they blew all the tires and made deep grooves in the concrete runway. Everyone survived though...The Captain deserved something - but an award is not it - he literally blew several thousand gallons overboard - not exactly on par with Al Hatnes of United DC-10 fame. The mechanic's I'm sure were shown to the door and their licaenses revoked...Maybe they are playing that 9 hole course in B.C.?

Thats the one Dave, thanks for reminding me, but he certainly got an award ! and then the questions started, Mike

"

Post by **esurfman** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:09 pm

"Maybe because he is also from Quebec but insight is always better

Gimlie, Teneriffe, WW I and II etc...

"

phil747fan · Post by **phil747fan** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:52 am

Bodo Mueller wrote:"The 744F of course is more economical than the 742F but still burns a lot of fuel, sometimes too much ....that is the reason why Lufthansa did not buy any 744F to replace their classic freighter. I belief the Airbus A380F will be the most efficiant freighter in future. Not sure if the 747-8F will be that good. However, calculation fuel for the PMDG 744F is a bit tricky as it varies from the PAX version significantly. I mostly add 10% of what FSBUILD calculates with wind data loaded by Active Sky. The insufficicant fuel message comes up if you get below the value you entered as reserve fuel calculated to the destination. So if you entered 11.0 as reserve and end up with 9.0 at landing somwhere in the last third of the route you will be bothered with that message all the time."

Bodo,

sorry to lite up very late this post/topic but there is not 10% difference between the Pax and F version they re using the same engine and wings designs and there is the same fuel difference as with the 743 and 742 powered by same engines of course ... it s more around 2.5 to 3% difference same as in a fleet for an operator. one pax/cargo operators in Asia using same datas for planning both versions and not pretty sure FMC PMDG is programmed to get both versions on fuel burn side even FS9 is not that good to make the differences lol

... last time i chatted with one PMDG developper they got one data on flightplanning and manual performance and this is for GE pax engine.

have a good day

Phil

ps i add the datas for 744 and 744F to show the slight differences in fuel burn.

747 400 GE LRC step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 103 t trip time 09h10
747 400F GE LRC step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 106 t trip time 09h20
747 400ERF GE LRC step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 101 t trip time 09h20
747 400 GE CI150 step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 101.5 t trip time 09h20
747 400ERF GE CI150 step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 102 t trip time 09h20

747 400 RRG&H LRC step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 104 t trip time 09h10
747 400 F RRH LRC step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 103 t trip time 09h25
747 400 F RRG LRC step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 104 t trip time 09h25

747 400F 4062 PW LRC step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 105 t trip time 09h25
747 400 4056 PW LRC step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 103 t trip time 09h20

747 200 GE CI50 step climb 4500 nm brake release weight 380 tonnes trip fuel 122 t trip time 09h40 (377800 kgs mtow)

Mike Bridge · Post by **Mike Bridge** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:54 am

At Qantas, one of our Fuel saving procedures is to shut down one Engine while Taxi to gate.

We have a whole depatrment dedicated to fuel saving

Virgin Atlantic is taking it a step further, they are investigating towing A/C to a engine start area next to the runway, like a pit area.

Brogs · Post by **Brogs** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:55 am

I use 24,000 reserve and 60 mins contingency when calculating Fuel

phil747fan · Post by **phil747fan** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:59 am

Brogs wrote:I use 24,000 reserve and 60 mins contingency when calculating Fuel

not a bad idea but if you re flying very long route no way for your contingency without a stopover ....

Post by **nwadc10** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:33 pm

Mike Bridge wrote:At Qantas, one of our Fuel saving procedures is to shut down one Engine while Taxi to gate.

This is a common practice for many airlines. NW has been in the fuel saving business way back when fuel was cheap. However, this practice got one crew into trouble...and the hospital. A couple/few years ago a DC-9 arriving in MSP had a hydraulic problem on one of the systems. The crew shutdown one engine for taxi in to save fuel, unfortunately they shutdown the engine with the good hydraulic system which rendered the wheel brakes useless. The plane taxiied into the tail and wing of an A320 at a pretty good speed. The top of the cockpit of the DC-9 was ripped off and fuel from the 320 started leaking into the DC-9. The captain was in the hospital for a few days. The accident was caught on a security camera and can probably be found on the internet somewhere.

At my airline we will taxi to the runway single engine if it will be a long wait. I believe other airlines do this as well.

I noticed our new checklists have us shutting down the inboard engines on taxi in on the 742 (haven't flown the new checklist on the other types yet). Shutting down any engine on taxi in is of course at the PIC's discretion as conditions may make a taxi in without all engines operating unsafe.