question about lost engine procedure

[T.O.G.A.]

friends of mine were on a 1 hr flight(LGA-RDU) in an embrear 145. They weren't told, but they suspected they lost an engine. They showed me their flight path from flightaware.com and it looked like they flew a lot of figure 8's. They were told they had to burn fuel. They frequently changed altitudes. If they lost an engine, wouldn't it be prudent to land, or at least circle near an airport to burn fuel, or even continue to RDU? What would cause this flight around the eastern seaboard? What is standard procedure?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CHQ3037/history/20110331/1920Z/KLGA/KRDU

[Curtis Malone]

This should be interesting.

[Highkeas]

If they did not know if an engine had been lost maybe there was another reason. I was on an EMB 120 that flew a circles prior to landing. Problem was a landing gear did not retract (whether they were trying to retract it, burning fuel, or waiting for a landing slot I have no idea).

I note the aircraft noted in post#1 was back in service the next day.

[Evan]

Sometimes someone accidentally types a bunch of 8's into the flight plan. It's rare, but it happens.

[T.O.G.A.]

Bwa-HaHa!

That's funny-NOT!

Seriously, though, is it any safer to circle for an hour than it is to land over weight? Seems to me, that if one engine faile, so can the other.

[MCM]

That doesn't look like a "lot" of figure 8's to me. That looks like maybe 2.

There are any number of reasons to do an air return - engine failure is only one of them.

In most aircraft, if the runway is long enough, then yes, you can land overweight, however it depends on the urgency of the situation how quickly you need to get on the ground. It also takes time to secure the aircraft and get everything set up for a landing.

Rushing is a far bigger killer than other failures... fire is the only reason to be in a major hurry.

[Peter Kesternich]

I assume the important part is this:

(...)They weren't told, but they suspected they lost an engine. (...)

If it WASN'T an engine failure, then it would make a lot more sense burning off fuel to bring the weight down before landing. And apart from T.O.G.A.'s friends' suspicion there is nothing in this story that hints to an engine failure.

[guamainiac]

Evan, where do you come up with this stuff?

Sincere thanks, I broke a pulled a stitch but "humor the best medicine".

[T.O.G.A.]

I assume the important part is this:



If it WASN'T an engine failure, then it would make a lot more sense burning off fuel to bring the weight down before landing. And apart from T.O.G.A.'s friends' suspicion there is nothing in this story that hints to an engine failure.

Thanks Peter. That's all I really wanted to confirm. You see, I tried to tel them that it comes down to risk management. If it was a failed engine, it is riskier to tool around in the air for an hour and a half on one engine to avoid an overweight landing. But that doesn't make for a good story.

I just wanted to confirm that crews would try to land quickly if they lost an engine. I admit, my original post wasn't precise.

I was on two flights that required in flight engine shut downs and we were on the ground within 30 minutes. One was on a 757 on take off out of LGA and we turned around pretty quickly, the other was an MD80 and we landed at our destination.

[Highkeas]

..............I just wanted to confirm that crews would try to land quickly if they lost an engine...................

The Boeing 787 may be certified to fly up to 5-1/2 hours to the nearest airport should one of its two engines fail (ETOPS-330)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_02_4.html

[Curtis Malone]

I was on two flights that required in flight engine shut downs and we were on the ground within 30 minutes. One was on a 757 on take off out of LGA and we turned around pretty quickly, the other was an MD80 and we landed at our destination.

You must either be very lucky or very unlucky. Ostensibly you're just a passenger, yet you experienced two separate engine failure accidents. When you consider that the vast majority of pilots never experience even one in decades of flying, the veracity of your statements begins to look shaky.

[Gabriel]

In twins, in case of engine failure it's required that you land in the suitable airport that is closest in time, unless fr safety reasons you choose a different airport case in which you have to write a report to the FAA explaining your decision (or something like that).

In three and four holers (which are required to be flyable with two engines failed) after one engine fails you are required to land as soon as practical. While this is more lax than for twins and more ambiguous, the FAA might charge you with careless and reckless operation if you keep overfly a lot of suitable airports and keep flying a lot more than needed for what they thing are commercial reasons rather than safety ones. This is what the FAA did when the BA 747 that lost an engine taking off from LAX crossed all the continental USA and then all the Atlantic ocean as it continued to it's destination, London (but had to land short of that in Ireland due to low fuel).

So,
Never minds if the Superplane 878 is certified for ETOPS 600. If it's a twin and an engine fails, you land at the first suitable airport unless you have good safety reasons to explain why you did otherwise. And if it has more than 2 engines, well, I'd consider landing as soon as practical which is well closer than a continent + an ocean + 12 hours later, or for the matter 600 minutes later if it can be done sooner.

[T.O.G.A.]

You must either be very lucky or very unlucky. Ostensibly you're just a passenger, yet you experienced two separate engine failure accidents. When you consider that the vast majority of pilots never experience even one in decades of flying, the veracity of your statements begins to look shaky.

it's the odds. For eights years I worked for a major carrier as a line mechanic and non-reved every set of days off for two years. two legs going and two returning. Then I left aviation to be a field engineer for twelve years and I was flying all the time. I made a million miles on Aa and delta. 400k on us air. and God only know how many miles on other carriers in the us and abroad.
I really appreciate the good answers- even the smart aleck ones! Thank you

As for the veracity of my statement and being" just a passenger", I have changed at least twenty engines on everything from dc9s to L-1011s in flight engine failures are more common than you think you know!- Kid.