Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Engine Ignites Aboard Philippine Airlines Flight; Jet Lands Safely At LAX

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Engine Ignites Aboard Philippine Airlines Flight; Jet Lands Safely At LAX

    LOS ANGELES (CBSLA) – A Philippine Airlines flight was forced to return to Los Angeles International Airport after an engine caught fire Thursday.

    Flight 113 departed for Manila just after 11 a.m. and landed safely around noon after the aircraft was seen spewing flames from one its engines shortly after takeoff due to a mechanical issue, a LAX spokesperson told CBSLA.


    https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019...pine-airlines/

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...c7775#22ecff9f

    Below are some videos already posted on YouTube about the case.​​​​​​:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMOWx5z3Wqc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzlj9fYcuoE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMCMcmAnErU

  • #2
    Incident: Philippine B773 at Los Angeles on Nov 21st 2019, engine surge
    http://avherald.com/h?article=4cf94f2d&opt=0

    Comment


    • #3
      So just for the record, the engine was NOT on fire. The air going through the engine was not enough to burn the fuel that was being injected, so the exhaust gas still contained fuel that ignited OUTSIDE of the engine when finding fresh, oxygen-rich air.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #4
        I liked the part where the pilot declared "Mayday Mayday"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
          I liked the part where the pilot declared "Mayday Maday"
          Read carefully. The AvHerald article doesn't say that they declared "Mayday Mayday".
          It clearly says that they declared "Mayday Mayday Mayday".

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            Excuse me for leaving a "Mayday" out.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              I liked the part where the pilot declared "Mayday Mayday"
              They also chose not to dump fuel so they must have thought it was more serious than a typical IFES incident.

              Comment


              • #8
                Possibly a bird strike ?
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • #9
                  I considered the possibility that the crew believed that there was an external fire and thus made the immediate return but then I just saw one of the videos which appears to show the plane on final approach with the surges still occurring, so obviously the engine wasn't shut down and the fire handle wasn't used. Also the "mayday" and subsequent coms did not sound stressed. In this situation the crew would probably leave the engine running (and repeatedly surging) at flight idle to retain the accessory systems and minimize yaw (less drag plus a bit of thrust) but I still wonder why they opted to land overweight as I fail to see the emergency here. If they were concerned about the recurring surges, they could have just shut the engine down while dumping fuel.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    but I still wonder why they opted to land overweight as I fail to see the emergency here.
                    I don't.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree with ATL. Engine failure in a twin = land at closest suitable airport, Planes are certified for landing at MTOW. If done right the overweight landing inspection is limited to checking the landing Gs in the QAR or similar.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                        I don't.
                        But is this really a scenario where an immediate return is necessary? Certainly a fire outside the engine core could dictate that, but this was, as far as I can tell, a case of internal engine damage only, where the engine can always be shut down to eliminate any threat to the aircraft. I agree with Gabriel - land at the closest suitable airport, but if landing at MTOW is no big deal, then why are such incidents often followed by level-off and fuel-dumping/burning before returning?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          land at the closest suitable airport, but if landing at MTOW is no big deal, then why are such incidents often followed by level-off and fuel-dumping/burning before returning?
                          Yes, I never understood that. It even looks to me like a violation of requirement to land at the closest suitable field where a safe landing can be performed... So unless you consider an over-MLW landing unsafe... which I don't see why you would...

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            ... unless you consider an over-MLW landing unsafe... which I don't see why you would...
                            Hmm ... isn't landing at over MLW unsafe by definition, at least in the purest sense of the word?

                            Admittedly there's a lot of gray area to MLW, not least because it's often a design spec, rather than a number calculated from first principles (fuselage and wing flexing etc). And the "max" part does seem to be subject to some negotiation. For example, with enough incentive, aircraft manufacturers have been known to raise their initially declared MGLW a little if needs be.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                              Yes, I never understood that. It even looks to me like a violation of requirement to land at the closest suitable field where a safe landing can be performed... So unless you consider an over-MLW landing unsafe... which I don't see why you would...
                              I don't think it's a matter of safety. I think it's about preserving the company assets. The FAA requires the gear to be capable of a MTOW landing while touching down at 360ft/min (vs MLW up to 600ft/min). There are other issues such as fuselage bending and forces on the fuel-laden wing structures, but I assume that's all calc'd in as well. There's the higher Vref (about 15kts higher I think for a 777) which will usually still allow for full landing flaps and there's braking performance (brake overheating and potential for brake fade) and the need for about 1000' feet of extra runway (but any runway you took off from will have that).

                              I'm guessing the overweight landing inspection is not a major concern when you're going to have to swap out an engine anyway...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X