Airbus A333 single engine ops

Greebo

Greebo

N9017H - C172M (1976)
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
10,976
Location
Baltimore, MD
Display Name
Display name:
Retired Evil Overlord
Question for the heavy fliers out there...

We're flying to England in about a month. My brother in law is worried about flying overseas on a twin jet in case one engine fails. (Oddly enough, he wasn't reassured by my, "the other engine will get us to the scene of the crash just fine" remark...) ;)

Anyway - I was wondering what the A333's operating speed is on a single engine? I just would like some numbers to be able to reassure my brother-in-law. (Hell, make em up but don't tell me you did until we get back, cause I won't lie to him if I know its a lie :) )

Thanks!
 
I don't have the numbers, but a little research on ETOPS might give you some useful information.
 
Greebo said:
(Oddly enough, he wasn't reassured by my, "the other engine will get us to the scene of the crash just fine" remark...) ;)
Click to expand...
Guess he won't be too happy with the acronym ETOPS = Engines Turn Or People Swim either. :)
 
Greebo said:
Anyway - I was wondering what the A333's operating speed is on a single engine?
Click to expand...

A333? Airbus design a new airplane while I wasn't looking? :D

When my wife gets home, I will look it up for the 777, but you may have to remind me. :yes:
 
Hey look I just report what US Airways said on their site. Maybe it was an A330...

It's the US Airways flight from Philly to Manchester if anyone wants to check, I already did and don't feel like repeating the search. :)
 
Why not just tell him that (1) the plane can complete the trip to an appropriate place of landing, single-engined, from any place in the flight, with reserves, (2) the statistical likelihood of one engne failure is astronomically low, and (3) the statistical likelihood of both engines failing on the same flight is so remote as to be beneath the threshold of noise.
 
Spike,

My brother-in-law is a chronic worrier with depressive tendencies. Just telling him that doesn't do the trick - and in fact mentioning that the chance even exists is more likely to worry him than relieve him.

So I'm focusing on the ONE engine failure scenario to keep his mind on that and now that I have the ETOPS acronym in my toolbelt, I can spin that in his mind to think that even if 1 engine goes, we'll be just fine.

Plus I'd forgotten that we'll be great-circling which means we'll have iceland and greenland as divert points if necessary.

Funny thing was? He never worried one bit when I took him flying along the MD coast to take some low altitude pics along the cliffs in a C172. I mean, if we lost an engine there, we were getting wet...no question.

This is mostly media-frenzy inspired paranoia.
 
considering that the thing is certified to CLIMB on one engine at max gross weight, i would have no worries about it being able to hold altitude or descend slightly to a divert point after an engine failure enroute, after tons (literally) of fuel has been burned off
 
SCCutler said:
(3) the statistical likelihood of both engines failing on the same flight is so remote as to be beneath the threshold of noise.
Click to expand...

Except that it did happen when a crew ran one out of gas and deadsticked it into the Azores. But we won't mention that.
 
A little volcanic ash can do it too (all 4 on a 747), or a missing O-ring, or a mis-calculated fuel reserve or......:rofl:

Greg Bockelman said:
Except that it did happen when a crew ran one out of gas and deadsticked it into the Azores. But we won't mention that.
Click to expand...
 
At the typical weights we fly over the ocean, the airplane will maintain between 12,000 and 15,000 feet at a speed of about 260 knots.
 
tonycondon said:
considering that the thing is certified to CLIMB on one engine at max gross weight, i would have no worries about it being able to hold altitude or descend slightly to a divert point after an engine failure enroute, after tons (literally) of fuel has been burned off
Click to expand...

I think the whole ETOPS issue is that once one dies, you no longer have any engine redundancy. IIRC the requirements are based on the reliability of the remaining engine and keeping the chances of losing that one on the way to the nearest suitable airport to a very small number like 1/10^6.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
At the typical weights we fly over the ocean, the airplane will maintain between 12,000 and 15,000 feet at a speed of about 260 knots.
Click to expand...
Greg, thanks!! Thats EXACTLY the information that will reassure my brother in law. :)
 
lancefisher said:
I think the whole ETOPS issue is that once one dies, you no longer have any engine redundancy. IIRC the requirements are based on the reliability of the remaining engine and keeping the chances of losing that one on the way to the nearest suitable airport to a very small number like 1/10^6.
Click to expand...
Let's hope their calculations include the possibility that one engine takes out the other... as in the AA 767 runup photos in another thread, where the turbine wheel exploded out of one engine and damaged the other.... :fcross:

-Skip
 
Here's a map that shows the route from PHL to MAN and all the 120-min ETOPS ranges. Dunno if USAir is certified for 120 or 138 minute ETOPS over the North Atlantic so I used the lesser figure.

There's discussion afoot to raise the maximum ETOPS range to 5 1/2 hours this fall - about the only routes you couldn't fly then would be across the South Pole.

Regards,
Joe
 
Joe B said:
Dunno if USAir is certified for 120 or 138 minute ETOPS over the North Atlantic so I used the lesser figure.
Click to expand...
I saw (somewhere) that all Airbus A330-300's are ETOPS-180 certified. But I dunno if that's 100% true.
 
Skip Miller said:
Let's hope their calculations include the possibility that one engine takes out the other... as in the AA 767 runup photos in another thread, where the turbine wheel exploded out of one engine and damaged the other.... :fcross:

-Skip
Click to expand...

if that other engine had been moving forward at 3 or 400 miles per hour, i doubt that this wouldve happened.
 
tonycondon said:
if that other engine had been moving forward at 3 or 400 miles per hour, i doubt that this wouldve happened.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, Tony, that the parts being thrown by the shelled out engine are ALSO going forward at 3 to 4 hundred miles per hour. Plus, turning as several 10s of thousand rpms, they will cross the 50 feet or so to the other engine in no time flat.
 
true, but, after they are thrown there is nothing keeping them moving 3 or 400, plus the spinning will keep them flat against the oncoming air (think drag from windmilling prop) Since it only has to get outrun by the engine by about 20 feet max to miss it its dicey. could hit could miss.
 
tonycondon said:
true, but, after they are thrown there is nothing keeping them moving 3 or 400, plus the spinning will keep them flat against the oncoming air (think drag from windmilling prop) Since it only has to get outrun by the engine by about 20 feet max to miss it its dicey. could hit could miss.
Click to expand...
Here is another angel to dance on the head of this pin: The turbine wheel will be spinning in a direction that would create forward thrust, until it lost the rotational momentum to provide it. That is assuming, of course, that there are any blades remaining.

-Skip
 
hmm i dunno if it would help it out any skip. yes it would be spinning, but it wouldnt be under any power, i imagine it more like a windmilling prop, which is huge drag, the same as a flat plate of the same diameter.
 
Also, cutting the instantaneous thrust in half will most certainly cause the other engine housing to slow.:yes:

Greg Bockelman said:
Sure there is. It is called inertia.
Click to expand...
 
Greebo said:
Hey look I just report what US Airways said on their site. Maybe it was an A330...
Click to expand...

From FAA Order 7110.65 Appendix A (the definitive list of type designators - And did you know that Archer is really a P28A, not a PA28?):

Model: A330-300
Type designator: A333
Description: 2J/H (2 Jet engines / Heavy)
Climb: 3,500 fpm
Descent: 3,500 fpm
SRS Category: III

I'da never known this either, until I took a flight on a Boeing "B738" once. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top