Pilot1113 From United States, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 16 Posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1620 times:
By,
JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE, March 10 - A United Airlines 767-300 carrying 238 passengers lost power in both engines on a flight from Maui to Los Angeles last Sunday, but the pilots were able to restart the engines and land the big jet safely on the island of Hawaii, an airline spokesman confirmed yesterday.
The jet was flying at between 27,000 and 29,000 feet, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating.
Both engines were out for only a short time, a board spokesman said. Investigators are analyzing the jet's flight data recorder.
It is very rare for a twin-engine commercial jetliner to experience a dual engine failure, aviation experts say. And it is usually the result of either fuel starvation or pilot error, they say.
The Boeing Co., manufacturer of the widebody jet, said it has received only four other reports of a 767 having lost power in both engines since the plane entered service in September 1982. During that time, the 767 has logged nearly 9 million flights.
"This is an extremely rare event," said Boeing's 767 spokeswoman Debbie Heathers.
The last occurred in 1987, when the pilot accidentally shut off both engines. Boeing subsequently moved the 767 engine control switches and placed guards over them.
Boeing and United, along with engine-maker Pratt & Whitney, are assisting in the investigation of what happened on United Flight 42.
United is not releasing details because of the NTSB investigation, said spokesman Joe Hopkins in Chicago.
But the Seattle Post-Intelligencer pieced together this account based on interviews and a sketchy report by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Flight 42, carrying 238 passengers and a crew of 12, left the Kahului airport on Maui about 1 p.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles.
About 70 miles past Hawaii over the Pacific, one of the engines was shut down, possibly because it overheated. The second engine then quit.
The crew was able to restart both engines and the plane diverted to Keahole-Kona Airport on Hawaii, where it landed safely. No one was injured. The jet had minor wheel and brake damage from making an overweight landing because it carried so much fuel.
Hopkins said passengers were put on another flight and the 767 was ferried to San Francisco for testing before being returned to service.
Aviation safety expert and author John Nance of Tacoma said pilot error cannot be ruled out as the cause of the second engine shutdown.
"It's always possible there was a mechanical problem," he said. "But other than turning off the engine start switch or pulling the fire control handle, having an engine just quit would be so extremely rare an occurrence as to be almost unheard of. To have an engine on the 767 suddenly stop running with no actions by the crew just doesn't happen."
That view was echoed by Todd Curtis of Seattle, a former Boeing accident data analysis expert who manages the airsafe.com Web site.
"It's almost always either fuel exhaustion or inadvertent action by the crew," he said. "But restarting an engine is fairly routine as long as you have altitude."
Such was not the case with a Delta 767 that departed Los Angeles on June 30, 1987, with 205 passengers. The captain mistakenly moved the fuel control knobs to the off position. The plane, at 2,000 feet, dropped to only 500 feet above the ocean before the engines were restarted.
A year earlier, a United 767 pilot accidentally shut off both engines as the jet climbed through 3,000 feet out of San Francisco.
Boeing was already working on modifying the engine switch design, but that change had not been implemented on the Delta 767.
Two other dual-engine shutdowns occurred not long after the 767 entered service.
One involved an Air Canada 767 that ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet while en route from Ottawa to Edmonton in July 1983. The pilot glided the jet about 100 miles to a safe landing at a closed-down airport at Gimli in Manitoba. The so-called Gimli Glider incident became the basis for a television movie.
Lori Gunter, a Boeing safety spokeswoman, said there was one other case of a dual-engine shutdown on a 767 before Gimli, but she did not know the date. It was apparently a mechanical problem.
Nance, the aviation expert, said a 767 can glide in unpowered flight a distance that is equal to about 3.5 times its altitude. That means United Flight 42 could have glided more than 100 miles had the pilots not been able to restart the engines.
But an unpowered, or "dead stick," landing is tricky and dangerous. The plane lands much faster than normal and engine thrust reversers can't be used to slow the plane after touchdown.
And there is no room for error.
The engines on a commercial jetliner provide electrical and hydraulic power to the airplane. The hydraulic system is necessary to move flight control surfaces. Electrical power is needed for flight deck instruments.
The 767 has several backup systems in the event both engines quit.
A ram air turbine automatically deploys from the belly of the jet.
But it kicks in only after the engines have spooled down to a level where they can no longer produce electrical or hydraulic power. Until the jet's airspeed drops significantly, engine blades windmill from the rush or air, which produces some power.
There is also an auxiliary power unit in the tail that runs on batteries and can provide power.
"You are never going to be in a situation where you don't have the ability to fly the airplane," Nance said.
"With the backup systems, you should have minimum instrumentation and hydraulics even if you can't restart the engines."
But the pilots of an Ethiopian Airlines 767-200 were not so lucky after their hijacked jet ran out of fuel on a flight from Ethiopia to Kenya in November 1996.
The aircraft ditched in waters off the Comoros Islands. Ten of the 12 crew and 117 of the 160 passengers died, including the three hijackers.
L-1011-500 From United States, joined Nov 2000, 368 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1183 times:
I know that people are gonna use this to thrash ETOPS, but statistically, there is a greater chance of an engine going out in the first place on a three or for engine jet.
It's true. ETOPS is safe. This is the only real incident that involves a twinjet engine failure on a 767 that was not pilot error.
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1099 times:
<<<"This is the only real incident that involves a twinjet engine failure on a 767 that was not pilot error.">>>
L1011-500, the cause has not yet been determined. It could have well been pilot error. Anyway, ETOPS is perfectly safe. Did you read what that expert said about flying distance with no power? It's over 100nm!
-Tom
Greeneyes53787 From United States, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 22 hours ago) and read 1018 times:
Flying on a 707 over the Atlantic a voice from the cockpit over the speaker system said, "one of our engines quit working so we are going to be a little late getting in to London." About 20-minutes later the same voice announced that another engine quit on them so they should expect even greater delays.
Later a third powerplant flamed out too at which time a passenger, sipping on his coffee, declared that if they lose the last one they'll be up there all day...
Greeneyes
Ps-if I were in a 4-engined craft that had to be ditched at sea I'd want it to be a VC-10 or the similar Rushian bird... The aircraft might not come apart with the engines away from the ocean on impact. And emptying the wings of fuel, a dangerous idea if one is hoping to get the engines started on the way down, could give floatation for a while. But a 767 would come apart.
Ambasaid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 913 times:
King767
To say that ETOPS is perfectly safe because the aircraft can glide 100nms is pretty unrealistic, especially as in the 180 minutes situation, the aircraft can be over 1300 nms from an airport!
Wjcandee From United States, joined Jun 2000, 3631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 891 times:
Just out of curiosity, if it can fly 3.5 times its altitude, and it was flying at 29,000 feet, wouldn't that mean that it could have glided 20 miles, not 100? (29,000/5280)*3.5 is about 20, not 100.
I Like To Fly From United States, joined Feb 2001, 1188 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 857 times:
Wjcandee:
I suck at math, but I am getting 101.5 when I work it out. Might want to double check your math. But like I said, don't get on me if I am wrong. Here it is:
29,000*3.5 = 101500
That's 101.5 nm if I am understanding the math correctly. This is a temporary response until someone who know what they are talking about responds, lol
Yaki1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 830 times:
Wow, pretty scary! As a point of interest to this whole ETOPS discussion, I remember a 3 engine shutdown many years ago, think it was an Eastern L1011. If I'm not mistaken one mechanic did the chip detectors on all three engines and didn't replace the O-rings, does this ring a bell with anyone? I believe the FAR mandating mechanic off duty time was a result.
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 16 hours ago) and read 803 times:
Pleae reread my post, I never said that because it can glide about 100nm that it's perfectly safe. I only used that as a factual example. Anyway, flying itself is not perfectly safe.
-Tom
Penguinflies From United States, joined Apr 2000, 915 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 789 times:
don't worry i suck at math...but the figure that worked in the equation is feet.
Say 29,000 ft * 3.5 =101500 ft
101500ft/5280ft= 19.22 miles
So in fact..both answers are correct.
It's scary to think that this can happen (I only fly TWA's 767 STL-HNL {cause it's a really cheap student flight}). The odds are that someone or something hit a switch. Its sounds like the plot line to the book Airframe but instead of a slats problem inflight, it was a dual engine shutdown. At least the pilots were able to get the situation under control...That's why i think they are paid to be there.
OlympicComet4b From United States, joined Oct 2000, 64 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 754 times:
Yaki1
I remember it very well, I had just taken the same flight MIA to NAS the day before. It was one of the few times my entire family flew on the same flight. We specifically chose EA because it was an L1011 which had a terrific (almost flawless) safety record, and we thought it safer than the Bahamsair 737-100's at the time. What a SHOCK when we heard about the incident the very next day!!
The crew was able to start engine #3 I believe just before reaching MIA which gave them just enough control to make a perfect landing. But all the PAX's were in full water-ditching gear, life jackets, no shoes, etc..Big story at the time...
Toda,Reisinger From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 719 times:
There seems to be something bizarre with 767's engines. Boeing (with PW I thik) had to modify some aspects of its design in the early 90s after the Lauda Air tragedy in Thailand in 1991: the plane crashed after the reverser of one of its engine set off DURING FLIGHT.
9V-SPJ From India, joined Dec 2000, 610 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 699 times:
More PW engine problems. By the way, the Gimli incident was due to fuel starvation. Canada was just changing its units of measure and the people who were refueling the aircraft made a mistake in the calculations. The aircraft's fuel indicators weren't working and the minimum requirements for takeoff are that the fuel tanks must be dipsticked ( dipping a stick into the tank and measuring the quantity of fuel in the tanks)
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 4973 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 669 times:
Pinguinflies wrote:
don't worry i suck at math...but the figure that worked in the equation is feet.
Say 29,000 ft * 3.5 =101500 ft
101500ft/5280ft= 19.22 miles
---------------------------------------------
No Sir, it is a little more complicated than that.
It is in fact not feet at all.
When using the rule of thumb factor 3.5, then it is the flight level (FL) multiplied by 3.5 which gives the approximate glide distance in statute miles.
In this case: FL 29 * 3.5 = approximately 100 miles.
Still not very comforting on an ETOPS 180 plane, slightly more comforting on an ETOPS 18 plane
But this incident must be a human error. Why else could they just start both engines right away?
It would be so much easier if you Americans would go metric, in this case:
Altitude 8,800 metres multiplied by the lift to drag ratio (20:1 on an avarage windmilling jet airliner) = 176,000 metres or 176 km.
BTW, the Canadian 767 deadstick landed because the crew had calculated fuel load in kilograms and loaded the same number of pounds. GO METRIC! If you can't do it right away, then at least start doing it inch by inch.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
RIX From United States, joined Aug 2000, 1592 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 644 times:
But this incident must be a human error. Why else could they just start both engines right away? - agree. It's not an ETOPS problem - at least until we get confirmation that the engines failed because of DIFFERENT (INDEPENDENT) MECHANIC PROBLEMS.
It would be so much easier if you Americans would go metric - absolutely! There are two things I can't used to since I'm here - idiots driving cars (or is it in NY only?) and "inch-mile-foot-pound-..." madness - especially things like "3/8 or 11/16 of an inch" (hey, guys, there is such a great thing as millimeter ).
" If you can't do it right away, then at least start doing it inch by inch." - exactly! And, hopefully, there will be meters of those inches... At least, my child studies metric system in school too. So, once the only problem here will be idiots driving cars... - everything else is really great in this country.
BlueJet From United States, joined Jan 2001, 397 posts, RR: 4 Reply 25, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 627 times:
Uh-ohhh Im flying on a 763 in two days!
But I doubt that'll happen.
26 ILUV767: Ok...the 767 is a fine aircraft and this is the first time that United has had any problems with it. Next thing, the aircraft in quesiton has not had
27 Deltawolf: You're more likly to get hit by a bolt of lightning the to die in an plane crash. also maybe the pilots wanted some publicity and did that for a show.
28 Pilot1113: http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/boeing10.shtml That's the link that some of you asked for. Also, I sincerely appoligize for not doing a more i
29 Pilot1113: >>also maybe the pilots wanted some publicity and did >>that for a show I really take offense to that remark. The pilots that I know and talk to put t
30 Cedarjet: A United 767 lost both engines at the top of descent into Denver in 1982. Both engines had overheated, possibly due to rain ingestion. They descended
31 Yaki1: Read this continuation http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_maint.jsp?view=story&id=news/rual420314a.xml Now I'm reminded of another 3 engine
32 Early Air: Would'nt the aircraft have crashed into the ocean instantly? Was their a big drop? Rgds, Early Air