787 ... Can't maintain altitude on one engine?

Reduced altitude to attempt a relight?

Regards,

Art S.

 

The term is single engine service ceiling. All twin engine planes have one, and it's generally lower than normal cruise. Nothing out of the ordinary, probably perfectly save. Yellow journalism with an uneducated reporter.

Art

 

Exactly what was supposed to happen with an ETOPS 180 aircraft. Flew smoothly to a divert base single engine.

When an engine fails, it is not the aircraft's fault. That may have been a precautionary shut down or pull back to idle.

 

Engines Turn Or People Swim. It worked. I, too, am getting sick of sensational journalism by uneducated drama kings and queens in the news media. Correct, Terry, the airplane did what it was designed to do.

 

When we do ETOPS we know the engine out cruise altitude. If we were to lose an engine the we set up a gentle descent to keep the proper airspeed and the airplane will descend until it levels off at the single engine cruise altitude. The altitude is based on aircraft weight and desired airspeed. For the 767-300er this is typically around FL 210.

 

The C172 I fly has trouble maintaining altitude when It looses an engine....call the media, sounds like we have a serious aviation dilemma here

 

OH, YES, and a faulty airplane with a history of ...well, something !

 

Just remember, that airplane would not have been certified if it could not have maintained flight on one engine fully loaded.

If that was the case on twins in general ALL of the current commercial airliners would still be running FOUR engines. (or maybe three)

 

It's always fun taking off from a field where your service ceiling with one engine out is below ground. I'm not sure how the airlines handle those scenarios or if they even occur but there have been a few situations where the prudent course of action before takeoff was to unguard the fuel dump switches and things were coordinated to start dumping first and keep engines running as long as they produce thrust.

 

Mark- A-10s had that problem when they were doing high altitude testing out of Cannon AFB, NM (4295') in the 70s. Luckily it was only simulated single engine, so no casualties.

 

We do have to remember for Joe Average (people like me) who do not know everything about planes this would have been somewhat scary, but I assume the pilot(s) informed the passengers why they were loosing altitude. So yes there would have been tension and some nervous passengers would be thinking the worst.

But it is good to read that the plane performed correctly in such situations. And yes aware that it is likely not the planes fault it lost an engine but as far as the passengers are concerned the plane had to have an emergency landing. Just like when a department that uses computers talks to me, they see any issue or outage as being IT's fault, whether I work on that system or not; "You're part of IT aren't you?"
Pete
ps: I'll keep sticking to not flying in a Dreamliner for a while yet ...

 

The news media consistently gets aviation wrong. I must assume everything else it reports is equally inaccurate. So I turned it off long ago.

 

Isn't that a 757 in the picture ? more accurate reporting...

 

Yes, that is a 757. I noticed that the first time I looked at the picture. Well, whatever. It's a twin engine jet airliner...aren't they all?

 

Sad to see Boeing and GE having another problem with their latest products. They've both had such a great reputation from a reliability standpoint that it makes you wonder what was different in the development of the 787 and 747-8 and the GEnx engines that has lead to all these high profile issues. The joke among those flying the -8 is that it's the most expensive 'day VFR only' aircraft in history with its requirement to avoid convective activity by 50 miles to stay out of ice crystal icing, I believe the 787 has the same limitation. We have the updated EEC software that is supposed to solve the flame out problem but the FAA has yet to sign off on the fix. The latest wrinkle with the GEnx are altitude limitations at low weight. Apparently, the engines are so efficient that at high altitude and low weights, the thrust is pulled back to the point that the high pressure bleeds have to open to provide adequate pressure, which then overheats the ducts. Point being, its one issue after another. Maybe its always been this way with revolutionary designs but it seems out of character for Boeing and GE. Resident expert engineers opinions?

 

757, these do well with a bird strike/flame out on take-off, LOADED.

It's a Thomson too.

They pulled the gear up, called May Day, shut down the engine and continued to climb.
Great airplane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

 

Yes! It is one of Boeing's best but pretty much unsung.

 

I think that one has the Rolls Royce engines on it too.