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

  • #61
    Evan's aviation dictionary again. This is so very helpful for me. Especially if well known English - Deutsch dictionaries do not work with that expression.

    Maintenance stoogery
    On board a B773ER? A stooge is someone who gives the screw to the mechanic who fixes the screw. In German, hopefully you forgive me, I'd translate that with
    1) 'übertriebenes Subunternehmertum' ,
    or, not really much easier,
    2) 'Auflösung der hauseigenen Wartungsabteilung' . In an airline which exists since 1941? Probably not.

    Lufthansa Technik and its predecessors since 1962 owns the right to maintain not only all aircraft and jets in our own fleet, but since that year 'we' also maintain all flights with US-American origin. I don't know if Obama's 747 is an exception. But theoretically we are able to provide all the screws which are needed.

    Thus, maintenance failure is such a hard word for me, almost impossible to understand.

    You simply do not try to save money during the maintenance of a long haul jet! Or you appear in the jetphotos forum on a rather bad position.

    Is it that simple?
    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


    • #62
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

      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
      Yeah, I didn't quite understand the fuel contamination reference. Compressor stall is a stagnated flow situation. Compressor surge (Axi-symmetric stall), which we were seeing here, is a reverse-flow situation. When a surge results in intermittent flames ejecting from the intake, you have reverse flow. That's the result of either blade damage or blade contamination. How does that result from fuel contamination?

      Now, as I understand it, a scenario such as the one we are discussing in this thread is the result of either damage or contamination of the compressor blades. It seems to me that any common environmental factor that could cause a similar failure to the second engine would affect the second engine very shortly after the first one. The failure of the second engine beyond that would be coincidental, which is a very remote (yet very real) possibility.

      Comment


      • #63
        Wow. On a normal Friday morning I had tried to edit my #61. But this night seems to be special. Probably it is. When German Radio Hosts officially speak this sentence into the mic:
        (roughly translated by me) 'The calendar does not really yet say winter. But the weather for today asks you, ok, starting with 0400 p.m., what do our listeners like to do. Why not filling a decent amount of hot wine punch into yourself.' I do not quite remember the name of that local radio station. But I feel good now that I know that they are approx doing the same as I do.

        Back on topic. Not for nothing, the last chairman of the supervisory board of the Lufthansa AG which I know by name, Mr Dipl.-Ing. Wolfgang Mayrhuber was an
        engineer for jet engine construction (and maintenance), for almost 48 years, between 1970 and October 2017.

        In Germany, jet engines are not only maintained but constructed, fan blade material reliability, vib rate .. Again, no understanding for maintenance failure.

        Not in Germany. Not with Mayrhubers background, who was one of the best Austrians which I've ever seen. May God rest his soul.
        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


        • #64
          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 is a 747-800? And if you want to be called an Idiot, I will let another member do so.

          Comment


          • #65
            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.
            A few points of ironing:

            As curious as I am about big, beautiful, noisy aeroplanies, this incident seems to have been handled pretty darn well and the over-analysis in this thread is quite the eye roller. While I know it’s different on the inside, I got a very solid f’n’g clue that you should promptly land without doing anything stupid, and I praise the crew for apparently doing that.

            That being said, you hit on the exact point of Evan’s admonishment- should they have lightened up before landing...flown around for an hour or two, gear down, flaps down, spoilers up and the good engine at full power...maybe throw the carry-on luggage out the back door or something, too. It’s a valid question, but to me, not all that interesting, and I will trust that the crew did things well in that regard when they landed heavy.

            As to “mayday, mayday, mayday”, I get your point. Conversely, there’s been those cases where crews were vague and ATC a bit unhelpful, so no major foul here that they went nuclear. Also, it sounded like they were not native English speakers, and since I was not in the one in the seat, I won’t fault their style points for using the wrong emergency phraseology when dealing with a situation with a slight risk of flaming death and a huge risk of pissing off the chief pilot by causing 100K repair bills.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post

              A few points of ironing:

              As curious as I am about big, beautiful, noisy aeroplanies, this incident seems to have been handled pretty darn well and the over-analysis in this thread is quite the eye roller. While I know it’s different on the inside, I got a very solid f’n’g clue that you should promptly land without doing anything stupid, and I praise the crew for apparently doing that.

              That being said, you hit on the exact point of Evan’s admonishment- should they have lightened up before landing...flown around for an hour or two, gear down, flaps down, spoilers up and the good engine at full power...maybe throw the carry-on luggage out the back door or something, too. It’s a valid question, but to me, not all that interesting, and I will trust that the crew did things well in that regard when they landed heavy.

              As to “mayday, mayday, mayday”, I get your point. Conversely, there’s been those cases where crews were vague and ATC a bit unhelpful, so no major foul here that they went nuclear. Also, it sounded like they were not native English speakers, and since I was not in the one in the seat, I won’t fault their style points for using the wrong emergency phraseology when dealing with a situation with a slight risk of flaming death and a huge risk of pissing off the chief pilot by causing 100K repair bills.
              Proving my point, thank you.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                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.
                You might like this one. Nov 8th, Air India A321 experiences severe engine damage in the turbine sections resulting in a contained engine fire. The crew, who claimed that there were no unusual cockpit indications (??) was alerted by passengers. They shut down the engine and diverted without holding for fuel burn. They deployed the fire agent as a precaution (against the possibility of a breach perhaps), stopped on the runway and deployed the slides for evacuation. No word on whether or not they radioed 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday' or 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!!!' but the slide evac seems excessive and uncalled for. Unless there's more to this...

                http://avherald.com/h?article=4cefd7f5&opt=0

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post

                  You might like this one. Nov 8th, Air India A321 experiences severe engine damage in the turbine sections resulting in a contained engine fire. The crew, who claimed that there were no unusual cockpit indications (??) was alerted by passengers. They shut down the engine and diverted without holding for fuel burn. They deployed the fire agent as a precaution (against the possibility of a breach perhaps), stopped on the runway and deployed the slides for evacuation. No word on whether or not they radioed 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday' or 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!!!' but the slide evac seems excessive and uncalled for. Unless there's more to this...

                  http://avherald.com/h?article=4cefd7f5&opt=0
                  No offense ATL. It was an Airbus! I would have declared an emergency too!

                  If it ain't a Boeing, I'm not going.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post

                    You might like this one. Nov 8th, Air India A321 experiences severe engine damage in the turbine sections resulting in a contained engine fire. The crew, who claimed that there were no unusual cockpit indications (??) was alerted by passengers. They shut down the engine and diverted without holding for fuel burn. They deployed the fire agent as a precaution (against the possibility of a breach perhaps), stopped on the runway and deployed the slides for evacuation. No word on whether or not they radioed 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday' or 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!!!' but the slide evac seems excessive and uncalled for. Unless there's more to this...

                    http://avherald.com/h?article=4cefd7f5&opt=0

                    Not that it's a great video, but it looks like an awfully bright fire, so I might suspect a fuel leak from above hitting the aft part of the nozzle and igniting well aft of the EGT probes, hence it's entirely possible no abnormalities were indicated on the flight deck (except maybe excessive fuel loss on the left side, but that would take a while to show up). It follows then that the Captain did not have particularly reliable information in regards to what he was dealing with. Therefore, I don't disagree with the decision to evacuate, especially if ARFF resources at Raipur (an airport with which I am entirely unfamiliar) are not especially robust.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      .... I don't disagree with the decision to evacuate, especially if ARFF resources at Raipur (an airport with which I am entirely unfamiliar) are not especially robust.
                      Yet another reason to require full land and water rescue resources at every airport.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X