Just wondering, can an aircraft, under very good supervision from the pilots, fly with a lost (fallen off) engine?

The answer to your question is going to be "unknown" since it would depend on the severity of the engine separation. Did the engine explode causing damage to other components or fall away cleanly? Also, if the engine fails during a critical time such as takeoff or landing versus cruising. If it happened a dozen times, I think the outcome would be twelve different scenarios...

------------------
Addicted to airline miles? Check out: Mileage Workshop

Yes, even during take-off, as long there is no damage to any other part of the aircraft, the wiring etc..

It is, I believe, part of the certification-process that an aircraft has to take-off from Lima with one engine shut-off during acceleration.

Greetings - Dirk

[This message has been edited by djohannw (edited 11-12-2001).]

From today's New York Times

Pilots Could Do Little if Engine Fell Off
By MATTHEW L. WALD

The Airbus A-300 that crashed shortly after takeoff from Kennedy International Airport shed part of one of its two engines, raising the possibility that the jetliner suffered a catastrophic breakup of the engine or that the engine itself detached from the plane � an event so severe that pilots do not even train for it....

The plane can fly on one engine, but if an engine fell off or broke up, it could destroy the three hydraulic systems, which are required to fly. The plane's flight control surfaces, the moveable panels that the pilots use to make it bank, climb, dive and change direction, are run by the hydraulic systems, and the loss of an engine means the automatic loss of two hydraulic systems. Collateral damage could take out the third system, experts said, but they cautioned that it would take examination of the wreckage and the flight data recorder to know for certain....

Full story at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/ny...CND-PLANE.html
(free registration required)

A TWA 767 have successfully landed in TLV minutes after it lost an engine on take-off a few years ago. A few birds caused the engine to shut down but it did not tear apart as described in today's case.

An ElAl 747 have crashed into a building in Amsterdam after 2 engined fell casing some damage to the planes system. This happened about 10 years ago.

One of the first concrete examples of a 767 flying on one engine came shortly after the aircraft type was introduced into the world's airline fleets. And actually, it flew on no engines! The well-known story of The Gimli Glider involves an AC flight from YYZ to YEG which was fueled incorrectly, confusing metric with imperial. This meant the plane ran out of fuel half-way along its flight path. The pilot recalled a landing strip in Northern Manitoba and managed to glide the aircraft onto that strip, somewhat surprising a group of residents who were having a day of drag racing on the up-to-then abandoned runway.

Two months ago, a two-engined A330 ran out of fuel -- due to an unfastened valve -- over the Atlantic. Forturnately, the pilot was able to glide it onto a runway in the Azores.

ETOPs rules require twin engined jets to be able to fly for a certain amount of time on a single engine, in order to make land when crossing oceans.

Under "normal" engine loss circumstances, it would be the catastrophic loss of an engine, accompanied by a structural failure -- as appears to have occured today -- that makes the aircraft unstable and could pose problems of control of flight surfaces.

Another problem with the engine falling off is a large shift in the plane's center of gravity.

I thought that all Boeing designed planes they are supposed to be able to climb out with an engine failure at V1. They usually test this by shutting down engines at V1 and then proceeding with a takeoff.

Of course, a shutdown is much different from an engine failing and ripping hydraulic lines, puncturing fuel tanks or affecting the wing.

Shareholder,

Is the moral of the story to always ask if they've loaded enough fuel when flying on a Canadian airline?


[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 11-12-2001).]

Yes, I don't think anyone has ever tested a Boeing or Airbus aircraft by having an engine fall off the wing, tearing out avionic systems along the way. So any stats about the performance envelope of these aircraft is basically irrelevant.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=136732

This links to a photo and blurb about a 747 that lost an engine (as in fell off) over Anchorage in 1993.

My understanding is at V1 you would call off the takeoff attempt, but yes, at V2 you should be able to control and fly the craft with only one of two engines, provided the frame (and skin) is intact.

A sudden (physical, as opposed to operational) loss of the engine (it's only 4 bolts holding the darn thing on!) while in the sweep/turn and drive for the sky is the really bad place to be.

In both of the incidents that Shareholder mentioned, at the time that the planes ran out of fuel they were cruising at normal cruising altitude and speed. A plane that has just begun its ascent would surely be unable to fly without any engines.

(I know that that does not seem to have been the case today.)

In the Gimli Glider incident I've read that the pilto also happened to be an experienced glider pilot.

www.airdisaster.com has a report on each of these incidents, including pictures of the AC plane at Gimli with the drag racers!

(The site seems to be down right now.)

There's a big difference between flying without the power from one or more engines, versus continuing with controlled flight after the departure of an engine from the rest of the airplane. As has been reported by several posters, there have been several more or less successful outcomes to partial or total power failures.

I can't recall of a successful landing after physically losing an engine though. From what I understand, engine departure under certain circumstances is a good thing, as it is supposed to shear off and away from the aircraft without causing further damage (this is what I recall having heard in a flight test class I took too long ago). The problem is the collateral damage caused by the destruction of the engine which usually is too severe to be compensated by the aircraft or crew. I remember reading a lot about this at the time of the AA DC-10 accident in ORD. There were claims that the DC-10 design was flawed, since departure of the engine took out the ducts through which the flight control (and fuel, I believe) systems passed. Supposedly, Boeing aircraft would not be affected in the same way.

Someone with more accurate knowledge will surely be able to provide clarifications.

Any 2 engine plane, on rotation, with engines full throttle that physically loses an engine, even without damage to the hydraulics, would be completely uncontrollable.