Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United 767 Loses Both Engines Over Pacific  
User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 15
Posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1871 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.

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWhistler_CYOW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1451 times:

Damn... this is why I prefer 4 or even 3 engine planes over these 2 engined ones. If one engine goes out on a 767 you lose 50% power vs 25% on a 747.

BTW the Gimli 767 TV movie mentioned in that article is one of the cheesiest movies I've ever seen in my life  Smile

User currently offlineL-1011-500 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1434 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.

L-1011-500

User currently offlineJiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1389 times:

At least it proves that 767 still can fly with no engines... (did I sound too childish?)

BTW, where does the report from?

User currently offlineKing767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1350 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



User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1269 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.

User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1956 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

GRRR...duplicate thread.

This has already been discussed to death. Please do a search before posting a new topic!

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/408286/

User currently offlineYaki1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1215 times:

Where did the March 10 story come from? If possible post a link please.

User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1195 times:

This story came from MSNBC. I'll post a link as soon as I have 2 seconds...

I looked for a duplicate thread, but I couldn't find one. I really didn't look that in-depth. I'm sorry if this is a duplicate.

- Neil Harrison

User currently offlineJaseWGTN From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 810 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1175 times:

AKelly728:


Back off, this thread was interesting, as it had the whole article in it which wasn't in the other post. The other post was all speculation.

User currently offlineAmbasaid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1164 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!

User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4315 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1142 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.

--Bill

User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1956 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1134 times:

JaseWGTN:

You are correct, but the subject is the same.

The article should have been put into the other thread.

User currently offlineI Like To Fly From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1188 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1108 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  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

User currently offlineYaki1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1081 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.

User currently offlineKing767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1054 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

User currently offlinePenguinflies From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 961 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1040 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.



User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2518 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1013 times:

I got this from AVweb

Did anyone else notice that the reg# was N666UA?

not that I'm superstitious, but sometimes you gotta wonder about planes with the mark of the beast.

T.J.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineOlympicComet4b From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1005 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...