Flirting with disaster?
 

Maybe a change to over water flying.


http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1165491658.html

I wonder what other restrictions they will have. Can a 777 fly fully loaded on one engine and maintain 35k feet?

That's the one i'm worried about.

Having flown to New Zealand on a United 777 (great flight by the way), I just couldn't get it out of my head that 2 more engines would have been better...I know that statistcally it doesn't add much, but still.

However, my seatmate, who made the trip regularly, commented that the Triple 7 was much more comfortable than the 744. I wouldn't know.

[QUOTE=ToiletDuck;89700]I wonder what other restrictions they will have. Can a 777 fly fully loaded on one engine and maintain 35k feet?



Probably not. A 767ER, fully loaded had a drift down altitude of around 22,000feet. That is the altitude that can be maintained on one engine. A friend was flying one from ATL to CDG, and lost an engine at the E.T.P. The nearest runway was in Iceland, 2 1/2 hours away. He said that he had the good one cobbed for 2 hours and 10 minutes, with a fuel flow of 15,000 pph...With 2 good engines at 350 they burn 5,000pph each. Personally, I`d like 6 engines over the pond. BTW, the 767 was rejected as a contender to be Air Force One because it only had the two engines. 4 for the president, but 2 are good enough for the rest of us.

Driftdown into ice
 

I heard about a similar case, but worse, because of severe icing conditions at the driftdown altitude. The dead engine formed a nucleus for a HUGE iceball, and the resulting drag forced them down to a very low altitude. They almost ran out of fuel. Hopefully, newer airplanes can de-ice both wings AND both nacelles with a single engine.