Pt From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 6 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2385 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.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 months 4 days ago) and read 1710 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.
Phil330 From Australia, joined May 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1697 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.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1655 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.
Pt From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (13 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1631 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.
Ratzz From Sweden, joined Sep 1999, 198 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (13 years 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1636 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.
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (13 years 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1605 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
Ratzz From Sweden, joined Sep 1999, 198 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (13 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 1574 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.
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (13 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 1572 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**.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (13 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1541 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!!!!
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1531 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?
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1540 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.
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (13 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1530 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.
Tedski From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (13 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1531 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.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (13 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1529 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...
Brigg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (13 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1507 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?
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 14 Reply 23, posted (13 years 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1510 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.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (13 years 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1500 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 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............