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

  • LH-B744
    replied
    Can you please draw me a diagram
    Oh 747Bob. You shouldn't be so theoretical. I am SO proud that the 747-400 and the 747-800 jets still are in the air without MCAS software garbage,
    and that indeed since almost half a century. That's a real practical advantage! Not only for members who are in the 747 club since 1970..

    Btw... the 747 in cube design (150x150) works, but beautiful are different resolutions, or what do you think.

    Back on topic. I have found also a German source for that PR-B773ER incident. Here it is.
    https://www.flugrevue.de/zivil/phili...777-triebwerk/

    342 passengers and a 18 soul crew. I always compare passenger numbers to my avatar.. Certainly I'm old school, I was born when the 744 was not yet invented, so my avatar should rather be the LH-B742. INS navigation, and not less than 700 clocks instead of 4 displays..

    Back then in 1980 nobody on Earth would have tried to cross the Pacific Ocean with only 2 engines, as I assume. I always show this jetphoto as evidence:
    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/6463299
    LH-B742B at Tullamarine International, January 1980.

    I also do not assume that the B773ER (inauguration 1994) is unsafe. We can ask the Moustache. But it is a different aviation era.
    Call me an idiot, but why does Qantas still cross the Pacific Ocean
    in their unique QF-B744ERs (with 4 jet engines as we all know).
    Imho Qantas never owned one 777, never since 1920...

    Signature: Jubilees do count. Believe me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    He didn't did he do the point is moot. But let's have a 5 minute argument anyway, right?
    Five-minute? More like five-page...

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    No he didn't. Would you be criticizing him if he did?
    He didn't did he do the point is moot. But let's have a 5 minute argument anyway, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan said an engine surging is very unlikely to be related to anything happening with the other engine...
    Is it? If an engine is surging, one of MY first suspects would be fuel contamination, which would lead me to expect the second engine not to be too terribly far behind...

    But that's just me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    That's why we (or at least I) value the interaction with the transport category pilots in the forum...
    No, you don't. Now, where I disagree with BB is that I don't necessarily think you HAVE TO value it, it's entirely your business what you do or don't value.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Like I said... Can you please draw me a diagram or two? Did Sully call out pan-pan-pan or Mayday Mayday Mayday?
    No he didn't. Would you be criticizing him if he did?

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Right. The alternative is to broadcast PAN-PAN, PAN=PAN, PAN-PAN. You can also just state the nature of the problem, intentions and assistance requested, but the official distress and urgency procedures (that involve broadcasting 3 Mayday or 3 PAN-PAN) have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above, and is the recommended procedure by the FAA in its AIM.



    Also the AIM suggest that an emergency situation arising from mechanical failure is more in line with a distress situation than an urgency one.



    And yes, all this from a non-ATP sitting in an armchair typing in a computer. Real pilot real situation can be different.
    Like I said... Can you please draw me a diagram or two? Did Sully call out pan-pan-pan or Mayday Mayday Mayday?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Declaring an emergency and broadcasting Mayday Mayday Mayday are two distinctly different things.
    Right. The alternative is to broadcast PAN-PAN, PAN=PAN, PAN-PAN. You can also just state the nature of the problem, intentions and assistance requested, but the official distress and urgency procedures (that involve broadcasting 3 Mayday or 3 PAN-PAN) have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above, and is the recommended procedure by the FAA in its AIM.

    6-3-1. Distress and Urgency Communications
    1. A pilot who encounters a distress or urgency condition can obtain assistance simply by contacting the air traffic facility or other agency in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, stating the nature of the difficulty, pilot's intentions and assistance desired. Distress and urgency communications procedures are prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however, and have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above.
    2. Distress and urgency communications procedures discussed in the following paragraphs relate to the use of air ground voice communications.
    3. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN-PAN should be used in the same manner for an urgency condition.
    4. Distress communications have absolute priority over all other communications, and the word MAYDAY commands radio silence on the frequency in use. Urgency communications have priority over all other communications except distress, and the word PAN-PAN warns other stations not to interfere with urgency transmissions.
    Also the AIM suggest that an emergency situation arising from mechanical failure is more in line with a distress situation than an urgency one.

    6-1-2. Emergency Condition- Request Assistance Immediately
    1. An emergency can be either a distress or urgency condition. Pilots do not hesitate to declare an emergency when they are faced with distress conditions such as fire, mechanical failure, or structural damage. However, some are reluctant to report an urgency condition when they encounter situations which may not be immediately perilous, but are potentially catastrophic. An aircraft is in at least an urgency condition the moment the pilot becomes doubtful about position, fuel endurance, weather, or any other condition that could adversely affect flight safety.
    And yes, all this from a non-ATP sitting in an armchair typing in a computer. Real pilot real situation can be different.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Still producing thrust? One compressor stall after another? If you weren't in the seat, you can second guess all day. However, Mayday, Mayday, Mayday was uncalled for in my opinion, but I was not in the seat.
    The EL AL flight Gabriel linked to on this thread also declared "Mayday, mayday, mayday" after an engine failure that involved a 40 min delay for fuel dump, so maybe it's a bit of culture clash, or...

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    I think that at least for some operators it is their SOP to declare emergency when an engine fails in a twin. So perhaps the pilot was just following his company's SOP by declaring emergency.
    That doesn't answer your point though, it just moves the goalpost. Perhaps what is uncalled for is not the the pilot declared emergency but that the SOP is to declare emergency.

    In any event, always biased towards safety, better to declare an unnecessary emergency than not to declare a necessary one. At least you will get the full attention from ATC, get fast routing/clearing, and be approved for anything you need. In a twin you cannot afford loosing a second engine, so the FAR requirement is landing at the nearest suitable airport in point of time (as opposed to airplanes with 3 or more engines where it gives a guideline on things to take into account for selecting an airport other than the nearest suitable one).
    Declaring an emergency and broadcasting Mayday Mayday Mayday are two distinctly different things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    However, Mayday, Mayday, Mayday was uncalled for in my opinion, but I was not in the seat.
    I think that at least for some operators it is their SOP to declare emergency when an engine fails in a twin. So perhaps the pilot was just following his company's SOP by declaring emergency.
    That doesn't answer your point though, it just moves the goalpost. Perhaps what is uncalled for is not the the pilot declared emergency but that the SOP is to declare emergency.

    In any event, always biased towards safety, better to declare an unnecessary emergency than not to declare a necessary one. At least you will get the full attention from ATC, get fast routing/clearing, and be approved for anything you need. In a twin you cannot afford loosing a second engine, so the FAR requirement is landing at the nearest suitable airport in point of time (as opposed to airplanes with 3 or more engines where it gives a guideline on things to take into account for selecting an airport other than the nearest suitable one).

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Hey BB, actually I agree with you more than you think. I said that I must be missing something and that they probably have a good reason to weight towards keep flying and burn or dump fuel vs landing ASAP. You said "You have no f'n clue to how the real world works when YOU are the one sitting in the seat". Kinda in the same line, isn't it?

    That's why we (or at least I) value the interaction with the transport category pilots in the forum, you bring a good dose of reality to our outsider's speculation.
    Now, that I value i doesn't mean that I will always agree ot that you will convince me with "because I say so and I know better than you". Which brings us to my signature.

    In the post above, you did not impose your credentials. You didn't expect us (or at least me) to just surrender under your authority and believe at face value anything you said just because you said it and you are YOU, the one who knows. And you did NOT do that in the post above.

    You explained things, you disclosed how things work in the real world. You brought the braking issue that I had not considered (I was focused on the touchdown loads). the potential maintenance cost that can be incurred in such landing, the "pressure" that the pilots have to avoid such cost (which is a reasonable pressure and something that the pilot will have to weight into his decision making), and the consulting with operations, dispatch, maintenance etc as part of the decision making.

    If you ask me, this was a great contribution by you and happens to be totally in line with my signature.

    I still have doubts or questions, and one of the biggest ones is whether that FAR that I cited above should be improved. I am ok with your explanation and that in a case where the pilot is very confident that the failure of the the engine is independent of the other engine (and as Evan said an engine surging is very unlikely to be related to anything happening with the other engine) the risk of a second engine failing is very remote and hence go ahead, take costs and other business concerns into account, burn/dump fuel and save money and time of AOG for the company. However, the FAR doesn't say anything about that. If that is a reasonable and acceptable course of action, as it seems to be, then the FAR should reflect that instead of calling to just "land at the closest suitable airport in point of time where a safe landing can be accomplished".

    Thank you for your previous post and happy Thanksgiving.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    It's always nice when you actually give us something. Happy Thanksgiving.

    What effect does a rotating or locked-in stall have on this, where the engine is still running but damaged and not going to recover and will eventually either seize or self-destruct? I'm curious because I've never seen anything like the video posted on this incident showing what appears to be final approach with the #1 engine clearly still surging and ejecting flames out the intake. Wouldn't you normally shut that down at some point?
    Still producing thrust? One compressor stall after another? If you weren't in the seat, you can second guess all day. However, Mayday, Mayday, Mayday was uncalled for in my opinion, but I was not in the seat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    As I have said many times in other posts that the three big posters, Evan, Gabriel and 3, constantly try and analyze. You have no f'n clue to how the real world works when YOU are the one sitting in the seat. An overweight landing can be a big problem. As I understand it, some if not most of the fuse plugs went after his landing. Rims damaged? Brakes? Chief pilot not going to be real happy with a couple of hundred thousand dollars in repairs if not completely necessary. Lets start with this one and then we will talk shortly about the Air Canada flight a few days later with the cracked windshield. First, MAYDAY is for a flight about to go down, NOT for an engine failure in a multi-engine aircraft that is still capable of maintaining flight. Usual scenario after the check lists have been run, ask for a location to hold and dump fuel down to max landing weight. NOW we get on the radio or the SATCOM and call the company. What do THEY want you to do? Has a lot of bearing on what action you take next. This brings me to the Air Canada fight. They were already East of Iceland. From what I saw on a Flight Aware track that somebody posted, it looks like they did a turn in a hold over Iceland, and then went back to LHR. I would bet a couple of thousand dollars that while they were in the hold they contacted the company and were TOLD to return to LHR where they have a maintenance base and probably spares. Any of these situations can ALWAYS be challenged by the Captain depending on the situation. WITHOUT being in the seat, all of Evans wiki info and all of Gabriels engineering math calculations and drawings don't mean a G.D. thing! Gabe, you can keep that signature on the bottom of you page until long after I am dead and gone, you have no idea what it's like, and until you have ever been one of the flight crew on a transport category aircraft, you never will! Happy Thanksgiving to all.
    It's always nice when you actually give us something. Happy Thanksgiving.

    What effect does a rotating or locked-in stall have on this, where the engine is still running but damaged and not going to recover and will eventually either seize or self-destruct? I'm curious because I've never seen anything like the video posted on this incident showing what appears to be final approach with the #1 engine clearly still surging and ejecting flames out the intake. Wouldn't you normally shut that down at some point?

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    As I have said many times in other posts that the three big posters, Evan, Gabriel and 3, constantly try and analyze. You have no f'n clue to how the real world works when YOU are the one sitting in the seat. An overweight landing can be a big problem. As I understand it, some if not most of the fuse plugs went after his landing. Rims damaged? Brakes? Chief pilot not going to be real happy with a couple of hundred thousand dollars in repairs if not completely necessary. Lets start with this one and then we will talk shortly about the Air Canada flight a few days later with the cracked windshield. First, MAYDAY is for a flight about to go down, NOT for an engine failure in a multi-engine aircraft that is still capable of maintaining flight. Usual scenario after the check lists have been run, ask for a location to hold and dump fuel down to max landing weight. NOW we get on the radio or the SATCOM and call the company. What do THEY want you to do? Has a lot of bearing on what action you take next. This brings me to the Air Canada fight. They were already East of Iceland. From what I saw on a Flight Aware track that somebody posted, it looks like they did a turn in a hold over Iceland, and then went back to LHR. I would bet a couple of thousand dollars that while they were in the hold they contacted the company and were TOLD to return to LHR where they have a maintenance base and probably spares. Any of these situations can ALWAYS be challenged by the Captain depending on the situation. WITHOUT being in the seat, all of Evans wiki info and all of Gabriels engineering math calculations and drawings don't mean a G.D. thing! Gabe, you can keep that signature on the bottom of your page until long after I am dead and gone, you have no idea what it's like, and until you have ever been one of the flight crew on a transport category aircraft, you never will! Happy Thanksgiving to all.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X