Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Maxjet Engine Fire JFK  
User currently offlineVAAengineer From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 90 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8459 times:

I was pushing back my VS10 on 02 NOV and Maxjet plane taxied into terminal 4 followed by many PA vehicles, ASIG agents( maxjet's ground handling agent ) said right engine caught on fire after take-off. Any Feedback?


God's Gift To Aviation
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSiren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 345 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8448 times:

Anyone know which plane this was, or if it occurred?

Flight Status

From Maxjet.com


Departure Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 Arrival Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007
Flight No. 0100 Status: On Time
Departure Arrival
Airport Terminal Scheduled Time Airport Terminal Scheduled Time
JFK 4 8:15 PM STN Main 7:15 AM


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8440 times:

I doubt it 'caught fire'.... if it did it would not be taxing back to the gate. My guess would be a compressor stall, which will make quite the show but really not be all that serious.


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineACVitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8348 times:

The MaxJet Website is just plain not telling the truth.

Flight Aware shows it departed at 12:10am and is around 4 hrs delayed on departure.

Needless to say something happened. Probably a compressor stall followed by mandatory inspection.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MXJ100

[Edited 2007-11-02 21:34:32]

User currently offlineWj From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8256 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 2):
My guess would be a compressor stall, which will make quite the show but really not be all that serious.

Compressor stall is nothing serious??? Except of course the loud thud and a possible engine change... I wasnt there so I dont know what Maxi Pad had, but it cant be positive.



146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21875 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8234 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 2):
I doubt it 'caught fire'.... if it did it would not be taxing back to the gate. My guess would be a compressor stall, which will make quite the show but really not be all that serious.

Doesn't a compressor stall burn the compressor blades? I was under the impression that after a compressor stall the engine needed a thorough inspection and possible replacement.

If the flight took off again four hours later it may just have been an abnormal reading that they decided to return to JFK over.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5947 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8161 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
Doesn't a compressor stall burn the compressor blades?

Not necessarily.
It depends on the engine. Pratt JT-8s are known for frequent compressor stalls, particularly on the old 727 series aircraft.
But if an IAE V2500 has a stall on an A320, the scarebus computers will typically auto-shutdown that engine.

But many times, a stall is a completely survivable event... for the engine, I mean.
Other times, yes, severe damage can be done. It's hard to predict.


User currently offlineNotdownnlocked From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7966 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 2):
I doubt it 'caught fire'.... if it did it would not be taxing back to the gate. My guess would be a compressor stall, which will make quite the show but really not be all that serious.

Per ETOPS/US FAA requirements, a compressor stall on an ETOPS equipped aircraft mandates an engine change prior to further ETOPS activities. As someone previously said 727's did have many but how many 727's flew ETOPS? I think none/zero. A compressor stall is the same as a statement that the engine is telling you something internal is wrong and any replacement of an engine accessory will not do the correct repair as there is internal damage. If an engine is not worn out a crosswind or other relative problem will cause a stall. ETOPS=stall it=change it.


User currently offlineVAAengineer From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 6):
Not necessarily.
It depends on the engine. Pratt JT-8s are known for frequent compressor stalls, particularly on the old 727 series aircraft.
But if an IAE V2500 has a stall on an A320, the scarebus computers will typically auto-shutdown that engine.

But many times, a stall is a completely survivable event... for the engine, I mean.
Other times, yes, severe damage can be done. It's hard to predict.

Not True on V2500. I changed many VSV actuators on those engines on AW aircraft but the engines DONT autoshutdown .



God's Gift To Aviation
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7595 times:

Quoting Wj (Reply 4):

Compressor stall is nothing serious???

In the grand scheme of things.. No it's not a big deal.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
I was under the impression that after a compressor stall the engine needed a thorough inspection and possible replacement.

Yes, you are correct. But even if the engine requires change.... if you have a good crew and a QEC ready to go, it's only a few hours.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineJlbmedia From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7439 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Notdownnlocked (Reply 7):
As someone previously said 727's did have many but how many 727's flew ETOPS?

Is this a trick question? Isn't ETOPS for Twin (2) engine aircraft. The 727 is a TRI-JET (3) engine plane, therefore a 727 would not qualify under the ETOPS rules.  scratchchin 



JLB54061
User currently offlineBtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 580 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7006 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VAAengineer (Thread starter):

Hey I was on VS 10 last night and remember seeing a load of vehicles with lights flashing. Also, it took us at least 45 minutes from gate departure to take-off - dunno if this had something to do with debris on the runway?



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5854 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6665 times:

Quoting Btblue (Reply 11):
Hey I was on VS 10 last night and remember seeing a load of vehicles with lights flashing. Also, it took us at least 45 minutes from gate departure to take-off - dunno if this had something to do with debris on the runway?

45 minutes at JFK? That just shows you were being expedited.  Wink


User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5249 times:

I thought Maxjet was NOT ETOPS...or did they get qualified?
Often the limiting factor is getting a fresh engine to the location needed.



A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1192 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3316 times:

I know for a fact that the P&W JT8D's are rather notorious for compressor stalls. I also know MaxJet's 762's have the JT9D- is compressor stalling also a JT9D problem? I know it was a problem with at least the early JT9D's that were originally on the 747. Anyways, I know its bad that I don't know this, but what usually causes compressor stalls? Do they often occur simply because the engine is worn out?
Sorry for all these questions!  Yeah sure

Quoting Btblue (Reply 11):
Also, it took us at least 45 minutes from gate departure to take-off - dunno if this had something to do with debris on the runway?

If it took "only" 45 minutes to taxi at JFK, you were lucky.  Wink Actually, I was tracking some flights on passur last night and saw they were actually using both 13R AND 13L for departures, which seems rather odd. So if it wasn't for that, it probably would've taken you well over an hour, if not nearly 2 hours. The reason the taxi times at JFK in the evening are so long is simply due to too many flights scheduled to depart at one time. The same problem also occurs at EWR and PHL, although its generally not as bad.


User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

Quoting 747fan (Reply 14):
f it took "only" 45 minutes to taxi at JFK, you were lucky. Wink Actually, I was tracking some flights on passur last night and saw they were actually using both 13R AND 13L for departures, which seems rather odd. So if it wasn't for that, it probably would've taken you well over an hour, if not nearly 2 hours. The reason the taxi times at JFK in the evening are so long is simply due to too many flights scheduled to depart at one time. The same problem also occurs at EWR and PHL, although its generally not as bad.

JFK does two in and one out, or one in and two out during the departure push. Another reason for delays. Hopefully the airspace redesign will allow for two runways in and two out at the same time during the entire operating day.



A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2662 times:

Quoting Btblue (Reply 11):
Hey I was on VS 10 last night and remember seeing a load of vehicles with lights flashing. Also, it took us at least 45 minutes from gate departure to take-off - dunno if this had something to do with debris on the runway?

If it only took you 45 minutes to get from the gate to "wheels up", you are quite fortunate. I fly out of JFK in the late evening (between 6pm-8:30pm) quite frequently and the gate-takeoff time is rarely less than 1.25 hours. Maybe you benefited from departure after 9pm. Consider yourself lucky.

Reggaebird


User currently offlineNotdownnlocked From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2542 times:

Quoting Jlbmedia (Reply 10):
Quoting Notdownnlocked (Reply 7):
As someone previously said 727's did have many but how many 727's flew ETOPS?

Is this a trick question? Isn't ETOPS for Twin (2) engine aircraft. The 727 is a TRI-JET (3) engine plane, therefore a 727 would not qualify under the ETOPS rules.

Not really a trick question but someone mentioned they worked 727's with compressor stalls. I have done this many times on MD-88's and 727's-change a part and send it on its way. Not the same with an ETOPS rated plane. That is the reason it is called ETOPS. Do you really want to fly with a tired motor that possibly will stall (the equivalent of backfire and lose thrust) on a twin engine plane if you are flying it across the ocean when it has already shown audible and visual characteristics of problems on the ground. Chances are that the pilots won't take it and the mechanics will not sign off a check and here in the USA the FAA has already answered the question for you. Can you guess what it is? On the other hand in the US how far can it possibly be to the next suitable airport even in an emergency while riding/flying 727/MD88? Not far.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Quoting Notdownnlocked (Reply 17):
Not the same with an ETOPS rated plane. That is the reason it is called ETOPS.

I believe what he was getting at is that ETOPS is an acronym, which according to ICAO is "Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards." A 727 has three engines. Therefore it is not a twin-engine plane, and ETOPS doesn't apply, just like it doesn't apply to Tristars, DC10s, MD11s, and any other tri or quad. Whether a plane has engines that tend towards compressor stalls doesn't affect how many engines it has (at least to start with!).

[Edited 2007-11-04 07:42:00]

User currently offlineBtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 580 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2189 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747fan (Reply 14):

Hmm well it was my first out of JFK and to be honest I assumed it would be a quick departure... looks like I was wrong but lucky only having to wait 45 minutes....



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Speedbird 116 Engine Fire At JFK Right Now! posted Fri Dec 30 2005 06:08:27 by Futterman
Iberia B747 Emergency Landing At JFK/Engine Fire posted Mon Aug 12 2002 02:57:08 by AirFranceJFK
American MD-80 Lands At STL With Engine Fire posted Fri Sep 28 2007 21:27:40 by KPDX
Belgian AF A310 Engine Fire @ EDI posted Sun Sep 9 2007 22:41:08 by Nighthawk
MAXjet Adds Saturday JFK-STN posted Mon Jun 18 2007 16:34:34 by ThirteenRight
Engine Fire At LHR posted Tue May 29 2007 19:04:41 by SeansasLCY
Engine Fire At MAN? posted Sun Apr 29 2007 12:00:17 by Ferengi80
Qantas Inflight Engine Fire: Returning To AKL posted Mon Feb 19 2007 09:58:01 by TG992
SQ 777 Emergency Landing In PEK: Engine Fire posted Wed Jan 24 2007 06:10:34 by Jimyvr
Breaking (12/26): Ted A320 (FLL-IAD) Engine Fire posted Tue Dec 26 2006 16:07:54 by 777fan