Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA 777 Engine Failure At NRT  
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10367 posts, RR: 11
Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 38304 times:

Again one of the mighty engines bust. Luckily it didnt happen in mid-flight. Still scary.

Rated as a serious incident by Japan's Transportation Safety Board.

http://avherald.com/h?article=42f0df24&opt=0

115 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinelaxboeingman From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 532 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 38213 times:

That is never good, but I am glad that everyone is okay. That sucks. I wonder if there was a bird strike, or whether it was because of lack of or poor maintenance. Best of luck for everyone involved, including the aircraft.

laxboeingman



The real American classics: LAX and Boeing.
User currently offlinemusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 38002 times:

The only thing that I do not understand is, (assuming the info in the link is accurate), why would the plane be in the air for 50 minutes after engine failure? Isnt it best practice to land asap if an engines gone, due to potential bird strike, or whatever reasons?

The aircraft is likely to be above Maximum Landing Weight, but any landings below the MTOW has been tried and tested.

regards
musapapaya



Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlinelaxboeingman From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 532 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 37895 times:

Good point, I guess that they were worried about landing too heavy. Maybe the ATC made them wait because they had to get in the landing que, they did not have emergency status.


The real American classics: LAX and Boeing.
User currently offlineAirstairFear From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 37848 times:

Quoting musapapaya (Reply 2):
why would the plane be in the air for 50 minutes after engine failure?

Minor correction: The article says they landed 50 minutes after departure, not 50 minutes after the engine failure.



CAM-1: Aw #. We're gonna hit houses dude.
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10367 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 36910 times:

Quoting AirstairFear (Reply 4):
Minor correction: The article says they landed 50 minutes after departure, not 50 minutes after the engine failure.

Thats almost 45 minutes after the engine got bust. But it takes some time to dump all that fuel. If they´d been speedier, maybe the 777 would have lloked like LHs MD11 some days before - with a broken structure. Not even to talk about the passengers... Anyway, I guess the people on board were rightfully freightened. Any other serious problem arising would have doomed that plane.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15499 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 36764 times:

Quoting na (Reply 5):

All aircraft are able to land at their MTOW. Taking the extra time to dump fuel will simplify the effort needed to get the aircraft in the air again, as well as make the landing itself safer via lowered brake temps. Had the pilots determined that there was significant danger of losing the second engine or another major failure, they would have been able to go straight to the airport and land



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5641 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 36561 times:

Quoting na (Thread starter):
Again one of the mighty engines bust.

Again? What do you mean, again? The previous rollback incidents have all been ROLLS ROYCE power, whilst this one was PW. Inflight shutdowns happen, every airframe, every engine supplier. It's not as if this is an alarming trend.

Quoting na (Reply 5):
If they´d been speedier, maybe the 777 would have lloked like LHs MD11 some days before - with a broken structure. Not even to talk about the passengers...

I'm gonna go ahead and ask: is there ANY aircraft currently flying that you feel is correctly engineered? You seem to be of the opinion that they're all out to kill us, judging by your odd conclusions in the MD-11 crash thread coupled with a baseless implication that an overweight 777 would break wing spars during landing.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 36478 times:

The article says the plane had 270 pax on board. This is nigh completely impossible, even if you include crew.

Configuration of N219UA:

10 First
43 Business
198 Economy

=

251 Passengers

+ 10 FA's
+ 3 Pilots

=

264 Total. I suppose they could be counting infants and such, but even then I don't think 270 sounds like an accurate number.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 36470 times:

Quoting na (Reply 5):

Thats almost 45 minutes after the engine got bust. But it takes some time to dump all that fuel.

Question: in a twin, I thought an engine failure was an emergency, which means land immediately at the nearest suitable airfield. Not dump fuel and then land.

Am I correct?


User currently offlineRB211TriStar From United States of America, joined May 2007, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 35736 times:

Interesting. Don't hear about many Pratt's popping.

User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5262 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 35420 times:

Quoting na (Reply 5):
Thats almost 45 minutes after the engine got bust. But it takes some time to dump all that fuel. If they´d been speedier, maybe the 777 would have lloked like LHs MD11 some days before - with a broken structure. Not even to talk about the passengers... Anyway, I guess the people on board were rightfully freightened. Any other serious problem arising would have doomed that plane.

Why is an engine failure on a twin (an ETOPS rated twin at that) regarded as something dangerous by anyone who is a member of this site?? Twins are designed to fly on one engine, it is expected that at some time an engine will fail and the plane will have to fly for some amount of time (and potentially a significant amount of time). It isn't desirable of course but dangerous and "serious"?

I dunno, to me it's just an engine failure, and the systems and procedures designed and in place to handle such an event.... did.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 34994 times:

Not sure I agree that this is a 'serious incident,' even though Japan's investigative bureau classified it as such. I think it is just a rare one for an ETOPS twin (and fortunately so). Had the failure required an ETOPS 180-minute diversion, I would consider that much more serious. There was very little danger to pax here, and I think this classification could cause unnecessary concern, especially among the non-aviation media.

User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 34492 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Question: in a twin, I thought an engine failure was an emergency, which means land immediately at the nearest suitable airfield. Not dump fuel and then land.

Am I correct?

Like BMI727 mentions above, it's possible the crew wanted to lower the plane's weight to lessen brake temps on landing. I would think (and this is only a guess by a non-avation professional) that the flight crew has discretion to assess the situation and make an informed decision based on circumstances.

After all, the engine blew at FL11 and 6 minutes after takeoff, which suggests the T7 cruised within reasonable range of the nearest suitable airport while dumping fuel. If the "good" engine remains good with no other aircraft issues apparent, then I would like to think that the crew decided that an overweight landing would have been more dangerous than dumping and landing in a relatively short half-hour.

I once experienced a smoke-in-the-cabin emergency descent/landing from FL36 on a DL MD-88. That situation was different - there was reason to believe things may not have been under control so the flight crew got us down in 12 minutes flat (according to my postflight conversation with the FO) using full spoilers all the way down to short final.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5262 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 33997 times:

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 13):
Had the failure required an ETOPS 180-minute diversion, I would consider that much more serious. There was very little danger to pax here, and I think this classification could cause unnecessary concern, especially among the non-aviation media.

I would say that even if it were a 180min diversion that still wouldn't be that serious. I mean if it were "that serious" for an engine failure, why even allow ETOPS or twins for that matter? I mean an engine will fail at some time, its a known, calculable, fact. What makes it so safe is that they fail rarely AND the rate of two engines failing on the same aircraft in the same flight are vanishingly small.

As a question, what is that rate anyway? What do statistical tables show as the risk of both engines failing on the same flight?

Do I want to be on a flight that has only one engine? No. Would I be concerned? Yes, very (with thoughts of "why did that first engine fail? Could that happen to the one good engine?"). But the reality is the risk is very, very low of there being any real danger from one engine failing.

I do agree that it is the non-aviation folk that this is concerning to. People who know and understand things aviation know this is not a major issue (an issue yes, but not hugely bad).

Tugg

[Edited 2010-08-02 14:27:07]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6657 posts, RR: 78
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 33496 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 7):
Again? What do you mean, again? The previous rollback incidents have all been ROLLS ROYCE power, whilst this one was PW. Inflight shutdowns happen, every airframe, every engine supplier. It's not as if this is an alarming trend.

Well, of course it's regarded as alarming by those who have always tried to find negative aspects about the 777...

All those who don't feel safe on the 777 should take another plane or stay at home. I cannot wait to fly AKL-SFO on the mighty twin later this year.  


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 33108 times:

as the airframe is an ETOPS frame- in fact i think any engine failure should be investigated fully.

any failure can become serious but i think that the flight crew made the right decision - if there was an incident, know by the crew that could have spread, i.e. a fire, unruly passenger- that would be a time to land immidiatly, but one engine failure on an airframe disinged to fly on one engine is not serious, just noteworthy.



Boiler Up!
User currently offlineLH7879 From Germany, joined Dec 2009, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32778 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 12):
Why is an engine failure on a twin (an ETOPS rated twin at that) regarded as something dangerous by anyone who is a member of this site?? Twins are designed to fly on one engine, it is expected that at some time an engine will fail and the plane will have to fly for some amount of time (and potentially a significant amount of time). It isn't desirable of course but dangerous and "serious"?

I dunno, to me it's just an engine failure, and the systems and procedures designed and in place to handle such an event.... did.

Thank you!! I'm totally with you!


User currently offlinepeterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 189 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32139 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
in a twin, I thought an engine failure was an emergency, which means land immediately at the nearest suitable airfield. Not dump fuel and then land.

Am I correct?

Well to be quite frank, no you are not.

One Engine Off is a severe incident, but not an emergency- at least not until the crew declares it to be one.

I've flown around half my life with one engine- no emergency- the plane only had one!!

If only an engine packs up the crew will normaly dump fuel and land again. But I do know for fact -of a case that an engine was shut down on ToF and the crew decided to head on to destination!! that was a BKK-FRA flight on a 744.
Answer of the Capt. was that he still had more engines than most a/c that cross the Atlantic!!


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6122 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 29867 times:

I noticed that the pilots will always want to land where they came from in cases like this, or to the nearest big airport. Another factor is the presence of company maintenance, or at least decent maintenance. So, usually, the "closer airport" is not the one used. The few times a 777 had to land in the middle of nowhere, it really was a hassle for everybody involved.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 29720 times:

Quoting na (Thread starter):
Again one of the mighty engines bust. Luckily it didnt happen in mid-flight.

Why lucky? The only difference if it had happened mid-flight is how long it would have taken to reach landing. It would have been just as safe.

Quoting musapapaya (Reply 2):
The only thing that I do not understand is, (assuming the info in the link is accurate), why would the plane be in the air for 50 minutes after engine failure?

Fuel dump.

Quoting musapapaya (Reply 2):
Isnt it best practice to land asap if an engines gone, due to potential bird strike, or whatever reasons?

No. If the other engine is happy, it is safer to get below MLW.

Quoting musapapaya (Reply 2):
The aircraft is likely to be above Maximum Landing Weight, but any landings below the MTOW has been tried and tested.

Tried and tested, but not certified. Normal airline procedure does not guarantee that you will touch down with low enough sink rate to avoid potentially catastrophic damage to the aircraft, nor that you will be able to stop on the runway.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
All aircraft are able to land at their MTOW

They're all able to touch down without bending, if done properly. They're not all capable of stopping on the runway for all runways at all weights.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Question: in a twin, I thought an engine failure was an emergency, which means land immediately at the nearest suitable airfield. Not dump fuel and then land.

Am I correct?

No. Engine failure is not even technically considered a safety issue (since the airplane can do everything it needs to do to be safe on one engine).

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14):
As a question, what is that rate anyway? What do statistical tables show as the risk of both engines failing on the same flight?

Less than 1e-9 per flight hour.

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 16):
as the airframe is an ETOPS frame- in fact i think any engine failure should be investigated fully.

All engine failures on all frames, regardless of ETOPS or not, are investigated fully.

Tom.


User currently offlinebaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2026 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 29550 times:

What we have here is a lot of hype. Was this a serious incident? Yes...anytime an engine fails on a twin engine aircraft it is considered a serious incident. That said, the crews are trained for this, the airframes and engines are designed for this and the time spent to dump fuel is a safety measure only. While the aircraft could have landed at or near MTOW, it would have taken something far more serious to have created a situation in which the aircraft could not have stayed aloft enough time to do a safe fuel dump - that is clearly NOT the case here.

It sounds like one of those things that happens from time to time. Everyone did what they were suppose to do and passengers, crew and aircraft landed in one piece. Serious, yes...dangerous, possibly. Big news? No.

baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 28544 times:

Quoting Western727 (Reply 14):

Like BMI727 mentions above, it's possible the crew wanted to lower the plane's weight to lessen brake temps on landing. I would think (and this is only a guess by a non-avation professional) that the flight crew has discretion to assess the situation and make an informed decision based on circumstances.

My understanding is that the regulation for commercial twin-engine aircraft is that an engine failure is an emergency.

Are there any commercial pilots who fly twins who can comment?


User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 28401 times:

Quoting laxboeingman (Reply 3):
Maybe the ATC made them wait because they had to get in the landing que, they did not have emergency status.

A single-engine event is treated as an emergency as a matter of standard practice and the A/C in question will have priority when the pilots are ready for the approach and landing.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21419 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 28028 times:

I was on a 757 transcon with an engine shut down. It was non-eventful to the pax. I knew something was up when they kept turning off cabin electronics and cycling things around, trying to restart the engine. Ultimately they were unable to restart the engine and we landed in Vegas instead of LA because the rules required them to do so, even though the captain said he would have preferred to continue on to LAX as it would only taken about 10 minutes longer. DL had to fly another 757 in from SLC to send us to LA.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 474218 : Is a "serious" incident and actual classification?
26 andyinpit : What are missed approach procedures for a flight thats down to one engine? Would a missed approach/go-around be proformed the same way? Just a little
27 tdscanuck : That will depend on the regulator, but it certainly can be true. However, "emergency" and "land at nearest suitable airport" and "land immediately" a
28 Post contains images lightsaber : Others have already noted that it is better to land safely. The pilot has only 3 hours if there is a cargo hold fire... 180 minute ETOPS. Otherwise b
29 saab2000 : This is a legitimate question and a good one. Very often the single-engine missed approach is not the same as a normal ops missed approach, especiall
30 WNwatcher : Wasn't the ETOPS principal demonstrated when that Air Transat A330 ended up with fuel starvation due to a leak over the Atlantic and glided into the
31 tdscanuck : That was one of those cases that supported applying ETOPS-type rules to all aircraft, not just twins. The Achilles heel of engine redundancy is commo
32 WNwatcher : Very true! IIRC, didn't the A/C end up with something like 6 main tires blown and over heated brakes? All of that and the A/C was certainly below MTO
33 okie : That was the question Okie was going to ask as he scrolled down the replies but I was going to add "at above max landing weight" Okie
34 727forever : Not really. For a while operators were giving pilots the guidance to bring it on in and do they'll just do the overweight landing inspection. The FAA
35 zeke : The requirement is to land at the nearest suitable airport, that does not mean the closest. Various factors will determine suitability of an airport
36 BMI727 : Basically. Go around performance is the reason that one engine approaches are made at a higher speed, and therefore usually a lower flaps setting. As
37 EnviroTO : The unluckiest times to have engine failure is taking off and landing. You want it to occur safely on the ground first, or at a good altitude second.
38 YOWViewer : Couple of questions here..... pls bear with me as I am a newbie on this site: 1/ I understand that some aircraft are incapable of "dumping" fuel. As t
39 AirstairFear : Since Swissair 111 had to turn back out towards the water just to dump fuel instead of continuing straight towards the field, I would say that indica
40 fpetrutiu : Except they were way over their max landing weight, remember they just took off full of fuel. The aircraft needs to be below max landing weight unles
41 SEPilot : The rate is zero; it has never happened (except for common cause, such as running out of fuel, or the same cause happening to both engines, as in the
42 Post contains images na : 4 engines 4 longhaul may look oldfashioned to the lean mean beancouters out there. But I dont have to worry too much about 777 engines going bust, I´
43 mcdu : At UAL our policy: Eng. Failure = Emergency. You lose the engine and you go land. If you have time to dump some fuel that is great but you do not loi
44 strandedinbgm : I vaguely remember either a BA or VS 744 traveling from the west part of the US to the UK and they lost an engine and continued on to their destinati
45 bonusonus : I haven't read anything that indicated this was the case. They had some odors in the cabin that they thought to be associated with malfunctioning air
46 Post contains links LondonCity : It was a BA flight from LAX to LHR. Here's a news link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article518637.ece
47 747classic : Is that also true on the UAL 744 fleet ? In almost all airlines I know the procedure on a Quad or 3 holer is not to declare an emergency after a norm
48 mcdu : The 747 rules are different due to to 4 engines. If the engine fails after takeoff but below the MEA the aircraft should return to departure airport.
49 DC8FanJet : The differentiation to consider is that this was a serious incident, not a dangerous incident. The crew is very well trained in this procedure, and fr
50 Western727 : Then I wonder why the crew didn't land the aircraft immediately, being that close to the airport. Any ideas?
51 UAL747DEN : That is not even close to true. You need to check your facts, the aircraft can land at MTOW if needed.
52 tdscanuck : Yes. I believe they were unable to extend flaps so landed at a very high speed. They didn't *have* to turn back out towards water, they chose to beca
53 SEPilot : Especially if you stay within gliding distance of the airport while dumping fuel, which I presume they did.
54 dashman : Thank you for pointing out the obvious. In these types of situations the normal descent, approach, landing checklists, emergency checklists, and cabi
55 AirstairFear : (This is regarding Swissair 111 and fuel dumping just so nobody's confused) Safest for who, are you meaning people on the ground, or the aircraft? Two
56 BMI727 : No it doesn't. All aircraft are able to land all the way up to their max takeoff weight. It is something that you would rather avoid than not, but ha
57 tdscanuck : They had no idea that they had any reason to be in a hurry...otherwise they'd have immediately turned back, denied ATC's request, and attempted to la
58 MPDPilot : Actually on a lot of twins they are far less dramatic than when both engines are operating because everything is so much slower, you don't climb as q
59 saab2000 : What documentation can you provide to support this? Additionally, if the pilots came around and landed well over MLW they'd likely have a lot of expl
60 BMI727 : They would, but not because the plane can't do it, but because it would not have been necessary in this situation. They lost an engine, but apparentl
61 Aesma : Exactly. Same thing happened to the previous Gimli Glider incident. Except the 767 couldn't even extend the nose wheel correctly.
62 saab2000 : Yes, the airplane likely can do this at Max Gross. But it would be stupid and likely in conflict with established procedures. An overweight landing i
63 Viscount724 : That is incorrect. It is common to land above maximum landing weight when the situation requires. Following are just a few recent (this year and last
64 Tugger : Is there any difference between an "over weight" landing and landing at MTOW? I know the obvious difference but am not aware of the the procedural, i
65 sandroZRH : That is a very good question and a topic that is discussed way too rarely. As a matter of fact, a S/E go around is a very very rare event, but even s
66 spacecadet : Theoretically you could design a plane with the same MLW and MTOW, and maybe such planes actually exist (I'm guessing smaller planes like this exist)
67 MPDPilot : There really aren't any proceedural differences from a pilots perspective but there is the obvious difference in that in some airplanes and can be te
68 SEPilot : My 182 was the same.
69 mcdu : There is no explaining to do in landing overweight. We (UAL) have a procedure in our manual to follow in an overweight landing situation. You guys ar
70 acabgd : As a Swiss I'm still deeply saddened by this accident. I don't agree with your above statement. Many other airlines have a simple procedure in case o
71 Post contains images BA777ER236 : The 777 QRH (Quick reference handbook) contains generic performance figures for non-normal configurations and weights. It will take you through slope
72 Aesma : Isn't that because fuel had been converted to PAX/cargo in the first place ? I mean, on a 20min flight you shouldn't be at MTOW.
73 SandroZRH : It depends how close the max zero fuel weight is to the max takeoff weight (or landing weight for that matter), how much fuel you're planning to take
74 saab2000 : Sandro, I did this work for 5 years at ZRH on the DCS system SR used to operate before I started flying in ZRH. Interesting and fun stuff! Especially
75 413X3 : call me crazy, but flying around dumping fuel with one engine working because you think it's a risk to land overweight is unbelievable naive.
76 acabgd : I don't want to call you crazy, but I don't see any reason to your statement. Why would you think this is naive? The chance of two engines failing fo
77 413X3 : What if you get a bird strike flying that low and slow? There are so many what-ifs, it's best to just get on the ground safely ASAP. At least that's w
78 saab2000 : Do you fly heavy jets? Or any jets? If so, what do your company and A/C procedures say?
79 413X3 : do what ever you feel is the safest, are you PIC? Then you have the authority. So fire me for landing overweight on one engine.
80 peterjohns : And right he is. I work ATC every day and have to deal with this kind of problem more than once. One Engine out is not a very big problem for an airl
81 413X3 : Then it's quickly restarted, and if that is not possible, it diverts. You really think it continues on to its destination on one engine?
82 peterjohns : Yes , of course. It´s done frequently. Example- flight from FRA- ZRH. Engine has to be shut down due to mechanical problems before reaching ZRH. Fli
83 413X3 : the huge difference is you are at cruising altitude when that happens, not circling around at 5k feet, very heavy, on the power of only 1 engine
84 saab2000 : Why do you continually second guess people who work in the business? I fly commercial passenger jets for a living. Peterjohns works in ATC. These are
85 413X3 : I'm just saying when flying at such a low altitude, isn't safety just getting on the ground? How many things can go wrong when flying around with 1 go
86 SandroZRH : Not necessarily, thats what we've been trying to tell you, but you wouldnt listen. A vanishingly small amount. If you would understand the concept of
87 413X3 : well you already rolled the dice and lost when your 1% chance of an engine going out was successful, so why take even more chance? Does the checklist
88 WNwatcher : I believe that the emergency check list states "FLY THE AIRPLANE" as the number one thing, in bold and all caps. That would most likely mean that the
89 413X3 : I understand, follow checklists, try to restart engine, get things under control. But then land. Not circle around taking more chances for an hour
90 WNwatcher : What everyone is saying is that it is safer in this instance to lighten the A/C up instead of perform a heavy landing. Every incident is different. I
91 413X3 : Like I said, fire me for wasting money because I wanted to get on the ground and everyone out of danger quicker.
92 WNwatcher : Thats just it, you aren't getting everyone out of danger earlier if you end up damaging critical systems for control of the A/C on the ground by maki
93 413X3 : Sorry but I don't buy that I will so heavily damage anything if I am only 50k lbs or so overweight that it will cause any sort of accident on landing.
94 Post contains images BA777ER236 : In the 777 case, we could be talking close to 180,000lb! MTOW of the 236ER (RR) version is c.650,000lb and MLW is approx. 460,000lb. Now, to put this
95 SEPilot : Thanks for the excellent summary from the point of view of someone who has actually flown the thing. I am far more interested in your point of view t
96 747classic : Very good summary BA777ER236. Kinetic energy upon landing (metric) = 1/2 x Landing-mass (FAS)² You not only increase your landing weight far above ML
97 Post contains links BMI727 : You probably won't, but an overweight landing is still less safe than landing normally. The MLW is not set arbitrarily. And it all becomes heat. http
98 413X3 : I'm not disagreeing with what you said before at all. I just think that the safest place to be is on the ground, not circling hoping to dump enough f
99 Post contains images SandroZRH : So rather take the chance of all the things that can go wrong in an overweight landing? Makes sense. Gimme a break Hey! Just the fact I haven't flown
100 Aesma : Safety is balanced with cost anyway. If not, there would be ejection seats for all passengers, 4 engines even for short haul, etc. Now I have a questi
101 AirstairFear : In that case you descend to 10,000, open the outflow valve, help the patient into the emergency medical parachute, then dump him out of L1 and hope t
102 413X3 : Show me a tragic crash from landing overweight? I think some people are overestimating the amount of damage from an overweight landing.
103 PLANEMANGROY : Good thing it happened on the ground.
104 Post contains images SandroZRH : Yeah, glad you don't
105 acabgd : Show me a tragic crash where one engine failed, and then the plane crashed while circling to dump fuel.
106 BMI727 : Including the engineers charged with determining just what an overweight landing is? If there is no extra danger, then why bother with a max landing
107 acabgd : I'm not taking sides here, just quoting from the Boeing Aero Magazine:
108 XaraB : Some people claim that HGW (not even overweight) landings are indeed central in the later MD11 incidents/accidents. In any case, higher weight means
109 tdscanuck : The fact that an aircraft can takeoff at MTOW means that it's physically capable of touching down at MTOW. It's not a documentation issue, it's a phy
110 413X3 : And what did you say the chances of both engines failing on approach were before the BA 777? I'm just saying... I know you are an expert on the subje
111 BMI727 : They both failed from the same cause, which basically could not happen if they weren't at a cruising altitude. If the pilots have reason to believe t
112 tdscanuck : There's a very good reason I included the words "The chance of both going out ***from independent causes***". There's nothing you can do as far as en
113 SP90 : Would that mean departure as in push back from the gate? If that's the case it doesn't sound like they spent a lot of time in the air after the engin
114 SEPilot : And I didn't accuse you of being one. From your profile I gather you are indeed a professional pilot; however your age indicates you are relatively n
115 413X3 : I was speaking more on 50k or so on MLW not a few hundred.
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...
BA 777 Incident LHR-No Cause Yet? posted Sun Dec 28 2008 13:31:47 by Eastern747
Aeromexico 777 Incident @ MEX On Monday posted Wed Feb 27 2008 16:49:19 by David_mx
Am 777 Incident @ MEX? posted Thu Jan 24 2008 11:08:57 by AM001
Vietnam 777 Incident In Russia Today posted Tue Jul 12 2005 19:53:55 by Kevin
Delta 777 Incident Yesterday ATL-CDG posted Sat Aug 28 2004 18:58:11 by Joleb
777 Incident At CDG posted Mon May 14 2001 10:17:40 by Na
Emirates 777 Incident Update posted Wed Jan 31 2001 05:16:07 by KrisworldB777
AA 777 Incident At ORD On 4/25/00 posted Thu Oct 19 2000 19:52:28 by AA@DFW
United 777 Incident, London 11/05/99 posted Fri Nov 26 1999 20:23:10 by TWA717_200
Report On The Serious Incident To Airbus A319-111 posted Mon Aug 24 2009 11:34:48 by Christopherwoo