Emirates A380 flies 5000 miles on three engines...

I would imagine the line of thinking would be different on whether you fly cargo or passengers. With cargo, carry on since it doesn't seem to be that big of an issue. With passengers, I would divert just to avoid the headache of the media saying you flew so long with *gasp* one engine failed!
 
No they don't. The BA airplane lost an engine in the United States. The emirates plane in question did not. So I ask again, what jurisdiction does the FAA have on this flight?

Not sure, however, the fact that the flight departed from a US Airport, Emirates may be opening themselves up to some extra scrutiny.
 
Not sure, however, the fact that the flight departed from a US Airport, Emirates may be opening themselves up to some extra scrutiny.
I think that's a stretch. They are in cruise by that point over eastern canada. The FAA would have an uphill battle is my guess.
 
I think that's a stretch. They are in cruise by that point over eastern canada. The FAA would have an uphill battle is my guess.

It would be an uphill battle for this incident, but they can put pressure on the airlines when parked on US Soil.
 
It would be an uphill battle for this incident, but they can put pressure on the airlines when parked on US Soil.
Whatever came about the JetBlue incident in St. Marten? The situation was reversed being an American carrier on foreign soil.
 
It would be an uphill battle for this incident, but they can put pressure on the airlines when parked on US Soil.
That I can see. I'm sure they want to know why two fuel pumps failed on the same engine. That seems like incredible odds to me.
 
That I can see. I'm sure they want to know why two fuel pumps failed on the same engine. That seems like incredible odds to me.

Yep.

People LOVE bashing the 787, but the A380 has had their issues as well, look at the Qantas 32 incident. Furthermore, the A380 program is going to be a huge bust for Le'Airbus. The plane has GREATLY underperformed with orders.
 
Last edited:
Yep.

People LOVE bashing the 787, but the A380 has had their issues as well, look at the Qantas 32 incident. Furthermore, the A380 program is going to be a huge bust for Le'Airbus. The plane has GREATLY underperformed with orders.
Well it may be a huge "bust" from expected sales but Airbus was subsidized by EADS and other government bodies for all the development work. There was no penalty to make the A380 and any sales are going to be a profit.
 
I'm glad that the FAA dropped their case against BA... Getting into funny business trying to violate a foreign registered air carrier and crew.
 
Wasn't the Qantas A380 thing more of a Rolls Royce issue? Engines frag themselves...planes mysteriously catching on fire, not good.
 
I don't fly the 747 but I figured the FAA was getting into a tizzy because it happened right after takeoff (the article doesn't specify what altitude) vs. in cruise at FL380 over Toledo?
 
. The jet can actually takeoff on 3 engines only in ferry situations with a specifically trained crew.

I remember when this UA 74 landed in ATL and they did a 3-engine takeoff/ferry flight to ORD (I believe)
0253811.jpg
 
While I respect the view of @Polar742 and @Alchemy, the FAA sees to disagree.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ing-747-engine-shutdown-safety-breach-205869/

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usauk-fail-to-agree-new-engine-out-rules-211630/

Has the FAA revisited their view? I tried to dig around but couldn't find anything.

You can respectfully disagree, however I know what we do, and so does the FAA.

If we suffer a rollback or choose to shut it down, the FARs allow the Captain to determine whether to continue or not.

If the motor has severe damage, it's land at nearest suitable airport.
 
Back
Top