Not an emergency???

Robert Moore wrote:
"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote


I for one think you did the right thing. There are two sides to
an mechanical failure emergency--the mechanical failure itself
and the ability of the pilot to handle that failure. If you had
serious doubts about the ability to handle the situation, then
it truly was an emergency. I'm sure there are test pilots out
there that fail one system or another on a regular basis and can
handle most type of failures. These pilot may not consider many
mechanical failures emergencies where the majority of the pilot
population would find themselves in a world of hurt given the
same situation.


As a Naval Aviator, I flew the Lockheed P-3 Orion on 10-12 hour
patrols. After about 2 hours, we shut-down (feathered) the number
one engine and after 2-3 more hours, off went number four for the
remainder of the flight. All of this at 100' to 500'. Certainly
wasn't an emergency to us but for the average airline pilot flying
the same basic airplane (Electra), this would have been an emergency
for sure.

Yes, having a plane load of passengers isn't quite the same as a plane
with a military crew. The military by necessity accepts risks every day
that would be unacceptable to civilian commercial aviation.


Matt

Robert Moore wrote:

As a Naval Aviator, I flew the Lockheed P-3 Orion on 10-12 hour
patrols. After about 2 hours, we shut-down (feathered) the number
one engine and after 2-3 more hours, off went number four for the
remainder of the flight.

Why? I was thinking perhaps "for fuel economy", but then why wait?

- Andrew

Robert Moore wrote:
As a Naval Aviator, I flew the Lockheed P-3 Orion on 10-12 hour
patrols. After about 2 hours, we shut-down (feathered) the number
one engine and after 2-3 more hours, off went number four for the
remainder of the flight.

Why the staggered shutdown? Waiting to hit certain weight limits as
fuel burned off?

Once you had shut down two engines, what would happen if one of the
remaining two failed? Was the airplane capable of flying on one?

Roy Smith wrote

Why the staggered shutdown? Waiting to hit certain weight
limits as fuel burned off?

YEP!

Once you had shut down two engines, what would happen if one of
the remaining two failed? Was the airplane capable of flying on
one?

At least until we could get another started. That was the reason
for the 500' limitation on two engines. Wasn't adhered to very
often though. As I recall, it only took about 10-15 seconds get
one going again.

This fuel saving method only works on constant speed turboprop
engines. The Allison turned the prop a constant 1061 rpm....
TO...cruise...and... landing. The compressor section required
about 6000hp at that constant speed regardless of the power being
delivered to the prop (up to 4600hp).

Bob Moore

Robert Moore writes:
Roy Smith wrote

Why the staggered shutdown? Waiting to hit certain weight
limits as fuel burned off?

YEP!

Once you had shut down two engines, what would happen if one of
the remaining two failed? Was the airplane capable of flying on
one?

At least until we could get another started. That was the reason
for the 500' limitation on two engines. Wasn't adhered to very
often though. As I recall, it only took about 10-15 seconds get
one going again.

This fuel saving method only works on constant speed turboprop
engines. The Allison turned the prop a constant 1061 rpm....
TO...cruise...and... landing. The compressor section required
about 6000hp at that constant speed regardless of the power being
delivered to the prop (up to 4600hp).

I read/heard something about the Navy telling the crews to stop
routinely shutting down the engines in flight. Don't recall
what, if any, reason was given for the order.