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

  • #46
    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      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...

      Comment


      • #48
        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.

        --- 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


        • #49
          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?

          Comment


          • #50
            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?

            --- 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


            • #51
              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.

              Comment


              • #52
                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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.
                      LH and the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955. A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
                      LH is member in the 747 club since April 1970. Jubilees do count, believe me.
                      Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post

                        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.
                        What?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                          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.
                          What Evan said is that if an engine is surging and after a certain period of time working the problem, the other engine shows no signs of trouble, it is unlikely to fail due to a common cause.

                          I think that covers fuel contamination and air contamination. So what common cause does that leave? Manufacturing flaws? Maintenance stoogery? What are the odds?

                          (Still, If this happens to you while I'm in the back and you decide to make an immediate, overweight return, I would feel nothing but the utmost gratitude).

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                            What?
                            Hm.

                            PS: There must be something between your home airport and my home airport. Something like .. DL #091 nonstop. This saturday with B764ER. Who would switch from B763ER (which I know with 250 seats) to the bigger B764ER without demand.
                            Nonstop flight conversation within one word.

                            Yes.
                            Last edited by LH-B744; 2019-11-29, 02:13. Reason: B764ER .
                            LH and the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955. A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
                            LH is member in the 747 club since April 1970. Jubilees do count, believe me.
                            Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                              No, you don't.
                              I do value BB's input, and also yours. We could keep this "yes I do, no you don't" game. But I have the final say on what I value.

                              --- 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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                What Evan said is that if an engine is surging and after a certain period of time working the problem, the other engine shows no signs of trouble, it is unlikely to fail due to a common cause.

                                I think that covers fuel contamination and air contamination.
                                I am not sure what is the exact definition of an engine surge (or how exactly that's different from a compressor stall, terms that tend to be used interchangeably but I don;t think that they are).
                                When I think of fuel contamination I tend to associate it with an engine just stopping working or under-performing. Not emitting bags and unburnt fuel through the tailpipe which then burns in contact with fresh air. Now I don't know what would happen for example if you put 100LL in a jet..

                                With that said, regardless of the symptom, I see no reason why fuel contamination has to affect both engines in a short time. There had been cases of fuel contamination affecting different engines with quite a span of time between them (see example below). If that sort of things can also cause a symptom like the one in this flight, then your argument stops being a good one.

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKxgne1J2pU

                                --- 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

                                Working...
                                X