Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO  
User currently offlinePt From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (16 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4676 times:

Yesterday, thursday, a Delta Airlines B767-300 bound for JFK with 180 passengers on board returned to STO after 30 minutes flight after an engine caught fire. The landing was made with one engine and without fuel dumping resulting in a rather heavy touch down with the result that one of the landing gears caught fire. The other tires were so hot after the landing so with the risk for explosion, passengers were not allowed to evacuate until after another 30 minutes.

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5089 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (16 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4043 times:

Why didn't they dump the fuel I wonder???

Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (16 years 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4001 times:

Not famliar with the 767 per se, so others who are can chime in if any of this is in error..

1/ The 767 might not even have a fuel dump system installed. The Hollywood hype is that all airliners dump fuel in emergencies, which is sorta tough to do if there's no system installed. I know that the 707, 727, and 747 have them, but the 737s don't. The 737-3/-4/-500 share many design similarities between the 757 and 767 (all from the 1980s). With the 737s, we can return to an airport and land well above max landing weigh in case of an emergency. You'll have to inspect the aircraft in great detail, but hey, it's busted anyway, hence your return.

2/ Even though a fuel dump system (if installed) vents overboard near each wingtip, a burning engine theoretically makes a lovely potential ignition source for that fuel being dumped.

3/ When fuel dumping actually occurs, it's usually over less populated areas, and at higher altitudes. This helps the fuel disperse better, and minimizes adverse effects for folks on the ground who've just washed their cars. (g). If the engine failure in your scenario happened near the airport, and/or at a low altitude, there may have been no time, given that fire indications dictate getting the aircraft on the ground ASAP.

Just MHO...

User currently offlinePhil330 From Australia, joined May 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (16 years 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3988 times:

Another everyday occurance which has been exaggerated and hit the headlines in light of the Egyptair crash again I see.

The 767 does have fuel jettison capability, unlike the 757, but this would be the last thing on the minds of the pilots in the event of an engine fire, and making an overweight landing is not viewed as serious.

The 767 non-normal procedures checklist states that in the event of engine fire/failure consideration may be given to making an overweight landing.

Again, however, these things happen much more regularly than you'd think, for the press this is just another 'have a go at Boeing' day.

A320/330 pilot.

User currently offlineJumboTim From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (16 years 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3970 times:

Phil - I completely agree. This is exactly what the media love!

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (16 years 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3946 times:

Hi, this isn't the first time a 767 came in for an emergency landing because of an engine fire? I remember a couple of years ago an American Airlines 767 in Germany had to return because of an engine fire. Was this Delta 767-300 powered by a GE or P&W engine? I know that GE engines are noted for unexpected engine fires. I remember last year an American Airlines A300 coming into San Juan Puerto Rico with one of it's GE engines on fire. Pratt & Whitney I think are the best for their reliability.

User currently offlinePt From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (16 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3922 times:

Have no idea what type of motors Delta's 767's are equipped with. As a comment to media hyping these types of incidents: You are absolutely correct, where do you think i got this information from? Stockholm local TV news of course.

User currently offlineRatzz From Sweden, joined Sep 1999, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (16 years 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3927 times:

First of all,let me shed some light on this matter:
-The right engine caught fire just after "V2-rotate" from rwy 19.Since the urban areas in the rwy direction tend to "crawl"up onto the airport,the flightcrew made a procedural left turn into the downwind leg of rwy 19.
Max altitude during this "go around"did not exceed 1000ft.
Fueldump at that altitude and with urban areas below was out of the question.
The right engine was shut down after fire extinguishers were armed.
They entered short final for rwy 19 at approx.600ft on the outer marker,since only flying on one engine,the approach/aligment with the rwy took a little while longer than usual,as well as the fact that the speed was higher than normal,touchdown made after more than half the rwy,hence the brake overheating when u can´t reverse one engine only for safety reasons.
I saw the whole thing from "front row" so to speak,since I was working that day.

User currently offlinePhil330 From Australia, joined May 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (16 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

If the procedures followed by the crew were anything close to what Ratzz described above then they pretty much broke every rule in the book.

And use of one thrust reverser is acceptable on landing.

I sincerely hope that these events were not the case, they'll get their hands slapped for that sort of mickey-mouse approach.

A320/330 pilot.

User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (16 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3896 times:

Hello from Florida! What happened to the passengers? I don't suppose they were all going to jump back on that plane, like it was gong anywhere anyways! Did another airline step in (because STO is Stockholm, yes, otherwise I can slap a 'dunce' cap on my head right now), like SAS or Air France (being DL partner in crime ) to transport them to another city so they can get to the States, or did they get to spend another lovely Scandinavian day (more like night) in Stocholm?
Also, is the astill "AOG" or has it been moved?


« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (16 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

LH423 wrote:
Also, is the astill "AOG" or has it been moved?

Spoke with a friend there and he said the aircraft was getting the engine changed right there in STO. (While 3- and 4-engined aircraft can ferry with an engine inop and no pax, twins are a no-no).

Just a guess, but passengers were probably protected on DL flights from London or Frankfurt, or on SAS to JFK.

User currently offlineJb From Sweden, joined Aug 1999, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (16 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3887 times:

The passengers didn't get any physical injuries.

User currently offlineRatzz From Sweden, joined Sep 1999, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (16 years 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3865 times:

Well,mabe they broke every rule there is,but that´s what I saw,and the F.D had to put out flames from the main gears due to severe overheating as the a/c finally came to a stop on a remote parking area normally used for heavy freighters here at ARN.
Cause of the engine fire still remains open,one theory is a busted fuel line(heard that theory whilst talking to one line maintenance engineer on SAS that same day).
Anyway,that had to be the strangest approach/landing I´ve seen here at ARN.
SAS line/base maintenance changed the engine a few days later,and the a/c was then ferry flown back to the US.
No passengers were injured and all was either rebooked or refined.

User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1027 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (16 years 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3863 times:

Delta has CF6-80A's on it's 767-200's. It has CF6-80A's on it's 767-300's. It has originally had PW4000's on its 767-300ER's. However, it has since ordered 767-300ER's & 767-400ER's with CF6-80C's.
Regarding the landing gear fire, that is normal for a heavy landing, especially when reverse thrust can't be used.
For TEDSKI, who said GE engines are noted for unexpected engine fires, you are wrong. That is just flat out bullsh**.

User currently offlineATA757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (16 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3848 times:

I'm glad I wasn't on there, sounds scary!

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (16 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3832 times:

I have to answer to what Navion had to say that it is Bulls** about GE engines? Whose engine downed the United DC-10 at Sioux City? I heard that the GE engine left the factory with a flaw in it, the inspectors didn't check it properly which got worse over time causing this disaster. Also the Air Force is having problems with the GE engines in the F-16!!!!

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (16 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3822 times:

Personally, I don't think it can be said (or inferred) that *all* GE engines are bad, any more than one can say that *all* Pratts, or Rolls Royce engines are bad. No matter who makes them, they're all machines, and some are blessed with less troubles than others.

I can't help but wonder if what started this was the comment that GE's were more prone to engine fires. I was around National DC-10s back in the 1970s (CF6-equipped) and never noticed anything adverse. The Rolls RB-211 flying on the Delta's L-1011's around that same time were another story. During many (not all) engine starts, pooled fuel within the rear of the engine would light off, often into a 15-20 foot flame plume. Made quite an unsettling sight for the pax, not to mention impressing ramp folks not to drive behind one that was pushing back. Guessing that there must have been a service mod somewhere along the line, as I've not seen a 211 do that in years.

Is there a chance that one of you guys got the two engine types confused?

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (16 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3831 times:

I apologize, maybe this shouldn't be taken this far. I recall in the early 70's when the DC-10 was new, an article in TIME magazine or Newsweek there was an incident where a National DC-10 suffered a massive in flight engine failure where debris from the engine struck the fuselage and sucked a passenger out. Because of this incident, GE had to modify it's CF6-50 engine.

User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1027 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (16 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3821 times:

Tedski, you are so wrong and uninformed on these engines it is amazing. First of all, the F-16 engine problems have in fact been more prevalent with the PW F100's. The Air Force has lost quite a few aircraft due to the afterburner augmentors breaking. Also, the Air Force had a problem with the PW F100's on their F15E's at RAF Lakenheath. They were having unprecedented failures and it truly strained mission readiness. That is one reason the GE F110 is being re-looked at for in service use on the F15E's. I'm not sure what the military engines would have to do with the civil engines (even if they were having problems, which they are not, especially when compared to all military engines).
Second, the United DC10 engine that exploded was due to faulty parts which were improperly manufactured and not GE's doing. Besides, you said GE engines caught fire. That is not what happened on the Sioux City DC10. I reiterate what I said before, your statement has no support in fact or logic.

User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1027 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (16 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

TEDSKI, I apologize if it appears I came down on you too hard. That was not my intention, but after reading my posts, they look a little hard edged. No hard feelings I hope.

User currently offlineTedski From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (16 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3822 times:

As a publications manager in the Air Force (ANG), I receive every week new publications and magazines dealing with these engines!!! So I know what I am talking about!!! I get the Safety Magazine for my unit and this week's issue listed alot of mishaps involving the F-16, the majority were with the GE F110 engine, the Air Force didn't go with the F110 for the F-15E in favor of a new reliable F100-229 engine. I was in Lakenheath two yrs. ago and I talked with the mechanics who preferred the F100 over the F110. My Public Affairs officer was with an F-16 unit and he said the F110 had more headaches than the F100.

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (16 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3820 times:

Just an aside...

Around roughly the same time frame as the National DC-10 that had the guy sucked out over New Mexico, Overseas National Airways (ONA) lost a DC-10 at JFK. They ingested quite a few birds and the engine (#3, I think) failed bigtime, catching fire. They aborted, and all 125 or so pax (all ONA employees) evacuated before fire consumed the whole plane. A buddy of mine worked for them at the time, and he shot color photos that are startling.

I don't recall what exactly GE did to strengthen the engine casings against such more commonly expectable occurences (birdstrikes, FOD, etc.) but it would appear the record of CF6 engines in more recent years has improved, yet the memory lingers on.

Don't think anything would have contained UA232's disk failure, or the similar one Delta had on that MD88 at Pensacola. Blades are one thing, but when bigger pieces come apart, about the only thing one can hope for is that they arc off such that they don't hit anyone.

There was a special on TLC a couple of years ago, and they mentioned that the metalurgical flaw in the fan disk on the UA232 engine had a flaw about the size of a grain of sand, and the crack emanated from there, years later. Kinda hard to spot...

User currently offlineBrigg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (16 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3798 times:

Thanks for your cool, unopinionated comments on engine failure. I'm not familiar with FOD, and don't really know exactly what failed to cause the passenger to be sucked out in the sioux city incident. It sounds like a turbine blade ripped off and flew through the fuselage. Where did the blade end up? In the pasenger?

Thanks in advance,

User currently offlineIlyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (16 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3801 times:

That is what FOD stands for. I've read in an airliner book published by a pilot and mechanic that the GE CF6 is indeed more sensitive to FOD than PW or RR engines. RR engines, in fact, were noted to be the hardiest, quoted as able to withstand significant foreign object damage and keep on flying.

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (16 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3791 times:

Sorry 'bout that,, FOD is foreign object damage, i.e. anything that can get sucked into the engine that can damage it. FOD is often used in the biz as both a noun and a verb, ex. "there's FOD on the ramp area" or "the engine got FODed".

Re: UA232, nobody got sucjked out of that one. That National DC-10 back in the 70s at 33,000 and a blade (or2, or, etc.) cut loose from the number 3 engine (on the wing) , broke all 3 window panes in one cabin window, and sucked the poor occupant through the window. Don't know where the blade itself ended up, probably imbedded in the ceiling/cabin somewhere. In the Delta MD88 deal at PNS, the aft fuselage was pretty riddled with schrapnel, and two passengers were killed.

In the UA 232 deal, a major chunk of the number 2 engine (in the tail) fan disk cut loose, and compromised all 3 of the DC10's hydraulic systems as a consequence. As far as I know, the fuselage stayed intact and never depressurized, and they limped into SUX and made their landing, such as it was. A remarkable piece of flying, and a miracle that there were even survivoirs.

25 Post contains images Boeing747_600 : Not to be pedantic , but ... (Oh well, to hell with not being pedantic ), the 3-letter code for Stockholm Arlanda International Airport is ARN, not ST
26 Jim : Sorry for bringing up a thread this old, but I just saw it. Did anyone get the reg# or Ship #? And I LOVE being PEDANTIC. Its SOOO COOOOOL!!!! Especia
27 HZ-AKF : The airport code for Sioux City is SUX? Not to sound like a little kid or anything............
28 DL1011 : Jim, it was a/c 183.
29 Spaceman Spiff : In real life airports of the world all have four letter identifiers according to ICAO standards, like KSFO, KLAX, EINN, CYQX, BIKF etc. The first lett
30 F-WWKH : Oh, the three letter IATA codes are also still valid. They run parallel to ICAOs. (Or vice versa).
31 LH423 : Stockholm has two airports. Stockholm-Bromma (STO) and Stockholm-Arlanda (ARN). American also flies to Stockhom, but flys out of Arlanda, whereas Delt
32 HZ-AKF : Why the hell does Delta fly to Bromma airport? I thought ARN was the main international airport...
33 DL1011 : Delta flys JFK-ARN as flight 46 and ARN-JFK as flight 47.
34 Jim : Thanks for the info re ship # Jim
35 Ratzz : To end this destination discussion and get it right for the first time: Stockholm/Bromma is a domestic/international city airport with one!!!rwy.It´s
36 Cheezyjet : So if the Delta 767 did land at Stockholm/Bromma, then it's no wonder the landing gear caught fire, if the biggest thing that usually lands there is a
37 Post contains images Ratzz : The DL 767 made it´s scheduled dep.from ARN ontime,on takeoff roll(rotation) the right engine failed wich caused the flightcrew to make the manouvers
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...
Delta Flight Makes Emergency Landing In Greensboro posted Thu Jan 27 2005 22:35:32 by UALGSO
Delta 727 Makes Emergency Landing In Dallas posted Tue Aug 7 2001 18:38:05 by Hustler
UA Makes Emergency Landing In Denver posted Thu Nov 30 2006 06:43:01 by FL370
Qatar Plane Makes Emergency Landing In New Delhi posted Wed Apr 5 2006 21:17:28 by Schipholjfk
AA Makes Emergency Landing In Abilene posted Fri Dec 16 2005 16:16:24 by Sleekjet
United Jet Makes Emergency Landing In Pueblo posted Thu Jun 23 2005 16:42:56 by BNAflyer78
Air India Plane Makes Emergency Landing In Romania posted Thu Jun 2 2005 20:46:25 by Egghead
AA Makes Emergency Landing In Ord posted Wed Nov 3 2004 14:22:20 by Jetjeanes
AS 737 Makes Emergency Landing In Eugene posted Thu Nov 27 2003 13:50:43 by Qxcsa
NW 757 Makes Emergency Landing In ALB posted Thu Aug 28 2003 01:32:26 by Jetjack74