Wow, if Embraer can delivery the performance numbers they’ll have quite a product. I see that the Eclipse has a Mmo of .64M and a service ceiling of 41,000′ compared to the .78M and FL450 for the Embraer. The only problem might be the pricing. I know the Eclipse folks are aiming at a $1 million or less price tag while the Embraer VLJ is well over twice that. The Embraer LJ price of $6.65 million would buy you quite a used jet.

This isn’t the article I remember reading but it makes mention of Boeing selling several A340-300’s.

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/02asia1/topsto01.htm

Boeing has been buying Airbus products in return for Boeing orders for a while now. There was an article a few years ago about Boeing selling a used Airbus aircraft that they had orginally bought from an airline a few years prior. The online article had a picture showing the goofy grins of the Boeing folks standing in front of the Airbus aircraft. Obviously the irony wasn’t lost on anyone there.

WD,

In a 3 or 4 engine jet, if you suffer an engine failure there is no requirement to land at the nearest suitable airfield, so legally they can continue to their destination but airmanship should have come in to effect. It clearly didn’t in the BA case. 😉

Is there a ETOPS similar engine failure guideline for 3-4 engine aircraft? ie. An engine failure doesn’t require one to land at the nearest field but you must land within the next 5 hours? (I’m making up this statement but I didn’t know how to word my question any better).

Typical uninformed reporting and surprising ignorance on the part of the FAA. The 747 is certified to continue on three, and I see no reason for a return or diversion in such circumstances.

Andy

What exactly do you mean by “certified to continue on three”? I don’t think there is a specific certification or regulation that permits an airliner to intentionally fly with 1 or more engines shutdown. My opinion, this is no different than if they shutdown the engine intentionally then continued on to their original destination.

The safety issue here is that there could very well be secondary system failures associated with the initial failure that they wouldn’t know about. Even a small issue will only grow or multiply over a 10 hour flight. A small oil leak during hour 1 will look a lot different at hour 10.

We had an engine fail to start a few years ago. We gave it a few good tries but something didn’t seem right. We had 1 or 2 more options but decided to have MX take a look at it (much to their dismay). It turns out that the starter had selfdestructed and in the process had thrown enough metal to cut a bleed air line. When the mechanics opened the cowl they were greeted by hot APU bleed air that was exhausting out of the severed bleed line. The failure had occured close to the accessory gear box so it was “upstream” from the bleed leak detectors so no bleed leak was indicated in our instruments.

Again, no failure was directly indicated on our displays nor was the somewhat dangerous bleed leak.

If an aircraft is out over the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic than sure continuing along for another 5-6 hours is expected. If you are an hour or less from another suitable airport, especially one that you serve, why continue on with an unknown?

I’d be curious to what you think is an acceptible reason to return or divert? I’m not too aware of many incidents that stemmed from being conservative regarding system failures, especially an engine.

Close….

Chautauqua Airlines

…as seen at ORD.

Interesting diagram WD, but you know I’d like to see that map of oil production actually rated as against oil consumed.

The UK has been a oil producer for years, yet has some of the highest petrol prices (for road transport) and it’s a UK government controlled (and taxed) industry. Rate of expolration and extraction in the North Sea is directed by HMGvt. Funny the stuff costs so much. Australia’s position on the above is useless, without knowing if Australia’s production exceeds domestic demand. (I’ve been amazed at the number of LPG cars on the road here – only notable by the sticker on the licence plate, but much greater than I’ve seen in the UK, Europe, Canada and the US.) Likewise, what about the US? I’m happy to be corrected, but per capita oil use in America is among the highest in the world, I understand. Using more that you produce? Who is? and who is getting shafted? The UK petrol user certainly is – coming and going.

A few numbers I dug up for comparison (numbers are a few years old):

Australia daily consumption: 797,000 bbl/day
Canada daily consumption: 1,703,000 bbl/day
UK daily consumption: 1,710,000 bbl/day
Germany daily consumption: 2,810,000 bbl/day
USA daily consumption: 19,650,000 bbl/day

Per Capita:

Austrailia population: 20,000,000 = .040 bbl/day
Canada populatoin: 32,000,000 = .053 bbl/day
UK population: 60,000,000 = .029 bbl/day
Germany population: 82,000,000 = .034 bbl/day
USA population: 290,000,000 = .068 bbl/day

I think that the numbers can be deceiving as they doesn’t point to the draw for such usage. I’d have to think that just the US domestic Steel and Aircraft/Automotive production account for quite a bit of the energy usage that isn’t seen in foreign numbers. The Bahamas, for example, don’t have to consume energy to build the cars they drive, they just import them from countries who do consume the energy to build the cars.