Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-17 Lightning Strike Loss Of All 4 Enignes  
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Posted (3 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12659 times:

AW&ST ARES is reporting that a USAF C-17 with 176 refugees onboard lost all engine and most of their electronics after a lightning strike over Pakistan.

The crew were able to restart two engines and make a safe landing.

"An Air Force official confirms the incident occurred, but said details cannot be provided until a safety investigation is complete. "

from "Harrowing C-17 Ride Over Pakistan"

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

I have seen some nasty damage lightning can do to aircraft, but this one mike take the cake.


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (3 years 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 12405 times:

It will be interesting to read the safety investigation report on this incident. I wonder if the AC electrical system was fried, taking out all of the fuel pumps, until the DC electrical system could be restored (by swapping the APU battery with the airplane battery). That was a technique we had in the KC-135 in the event of total electrical failure.

Our main fuel tank pumps were AC and/or DC driven.

Does anyone know if the F-118 engines (PW-2040) have a mechanical drive driven engine mounted fuel pump, or is it electrical driven? The J-57 engine (JT-3C) had a mechanical drive fuel pump. Our fuel pumps in the fuel tanks were electrical, but we also had hydraulic driven pumps in the body tanks (but electrically controlled).


User currently offlineevil8er2006 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12125 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Does anyone know if the F-118 engines (PW-2040) have a mechanical drive driven engine mounted fuel pump, or is it electrical driven? The J-57 engine (JT-3C) had a mechanical drive fuel pump. Our fuel pumps in the fuel tanks were electrical, but we also had hydraulic driven pumps in the body tanks (but electrically controlled).

The C-17 has two AC-powered fuel boost pumps for each engine that supply it pressurized fuel under normal conditions. However, the engines also have a mechanical pump mounted to the accessory gearbox that can suction-feed fuel to the engine. The engine can still produce max power using suction-feed up to 10,000 ft.


User currently offlineDonnieCS From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12009 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
I wonder if the AC electrical system was fried, taking out all of the fuel pumps, until the DC electrical system could be restored (by swapping the APU battery with the airplane battery).

I know nothing about the C-17 but most aircraft have quite a bit of DC powered avionics so that everything is split between AC and DC in the event of an issue. Also it is very unlikely to lose an just an entire "AC system" maybe a major bus and some other components or something as there are so many components and separate systems. If it gets to that point you're usually going to lose everything as this C-17 did. Since most (all that I have ever heard of) only run one type of generator and then produce both AC and DC power through converters or transformer rectifiers.

I'd guess with the lose of engines, they were flying on DC battery power until they could get the APU cranked. I'd guess that they would of had at the least the pilots DU/PFD, 1 FMS, and some radios until they got that APU cranked or windmill started the engines.



Charlie - Gulfstream flight mechanic
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12000 times:

Bumpy ride through a thunderstorm, with a sudden loss of engine noise and cabin lighting? lol I bet those refugees.... many of which probably had never even been on an airplane... were scared shitless.

User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 12 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11913 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
It will be interesting to read the safety investigation report on this incident.

Yes I guess everybody is diving on this. Redundancy is designed into the systems to prevent something like this ever happening. Luckely the crew was able to restart 2 engines and land. Big question why the other two could not be restarted.


User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (3 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11877 times:

The c-17 is powered by a variant of the PW-2000 engine. This engine is FADAC controlled. If not properly bonded (the B757 maintenance manual for the same engine gives precise instructions for this, I assume that the T.O.´s for the C-17 do the same), lightning can damage electronic components inside the FADEC. While the FADEC has two independent channels (read complete computer circuit boards), either of which can control the engine, they both can be fried. Unlike with a mechanical engine like the JT8D, thne engine will be dead if the computer is gone.

Jan


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 11694 times:

I'm hearing rumors that the tail number is 08-8201...was the newest in the fleet at the time of the incident.

User currently offlineevil8er2006 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11393 times:

Quoting DonnieCS (Reply 3):
I'd guess with the lose of engines, they were flying on DC battery power until they could get the APU cranked. I'd guess that they would of had at the least the pilots DU/PFD, 1 FMS, and some radios until they got that APU cranked or windmill started the engines.

In the event you lose all four engines and their associated generators, the aircraft will be operating on battery power. The C-17 cannot start the APU in flight. So this leaves the pilots with their standby instruments (standby ADI, altimeter, airspeed indicator, and the compass), a backup control unit for the UHF/VHF radios, no HUDs, no MFDs, no BDHIs (RMI w/ DME), and no way of controlling the mission computer (FMS). Losing all four generators will lead to the flight controls being in backup (mechanical) mode. As for getting the engines back, the critical action items involve placing the ignition switch into override mode to get both sets of igniters in each engine firing to allow an immediate airstart and deploying the ram air turbine to provide you with hydraulic power for one of the hydraulic systems. In any case, you have a handful of jet at this point.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 11267 times:

So if the FADEC on the engines was damaged or destroyed how did they get two of them working again?

User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2323 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10925 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 4):
Bumpy ride through a thunderstorm, with a sudden loss of engine noise and cabin lighting? lol I bet those refugees.... many of which probably had never even been on an airplane... were scared shitless.

I've flown an airplane lots of times - if I had a bumpy ride with a sudden loss of engine noise and cabin lighting, I'd be scared shitless too!



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 10640 times:

The RAT also provides some electrical power. The primary purpose of the RAT is to generate hydraulic power for the primary flight controls, and send hydraulic power to the RAT emergency generator which is hydraulically driven by the system. Not sure on the C-17, but the C-5s RAT runs system 2. So, if the RAT was working properly, it would have been deployed automatically once 3 of the 4 generators were offline and provided power to the essential components needed to attempt a recovery of the aircraft. The function of the battery on planes are extremely limited. As far as I'm aware, its limited to starting the APU on the C-17. The C-5s battery (which I am familiar with) is only there to provide power to start the APUs.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
So if the FADEC on the engines was damaged or destroyed how did they get two of them working again?

There is a mechanical back up to operate the inboard engines...I'm curious if those are the two that they got working again or not.


User currently offlineevil8er2006 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 10583 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 11):
The RAT also provides some electrical power. The primary purpose of the RAT is to generate hydraulic power for the primary flight controls, and send hydraulic power to the RAT emergency generator which is hydraulically driven by the system.

The RAT on the C-17 only provides hydraulic power; it provides no electrical power whatsoever. The batteries provide all electrical power when there is no electrical power coming from the engines, APU, or ground power cart. The RAT provides hydraulic power to the #4 hydraulic system, which runs some of the flight controls and the stab trim. The RAT does not extend on its own with the loss of all electrical power/generators. You have to hit the RAT extend switchlight which releases the electric uplock and allows the spring-loaded RAT to deploy.

On the subject of the aircraft's batteries, they do more than just provide power to start the APU. The provide power to the systems I mentioned above in an earlier post. They also provide power for other stuff such as single-point refueling, but I doubt you care about that when you have a four engine flameout situation.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 10519 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
So if the FADEC on the engines was damaged or destroyed how did they get two of them working again?

There is a mechanical back up to operate the inboard engines...I'm curious if those are the two that they got working again or not.

I should mention I'm no expert on the C-17 systems since I never worked on the jet...

Quoting evil8er2006 (Reply 12):
The RAT on the C-17 only provides hydraulic power; it provides no electrical power whatsoever. The batteries provide all electrical power when there is no electrical power coming from the engines, APU, or ground power cart. The RAT provides hydraulic power to the #4 hydraulic system, which runs some of the flight controls and the stab trim. The RAT does not extend on its own with the loss of all electrical power/generators. You have to hit the RAT extend switchlight which releases the electric uplock and allows the spring-loaded RAT to deploy.

On the subject of the aircraft's batteries, they do more than just provide power to start the APU. The provide power to the systems I mentioned above in an earlier post. They also provide power for other stuff such as single-point refueling, but I doubt you care about that when you have a four engine flameout situation.

I have to say, I was pretty much totally wrong here...I have to slap myself in the face for my post. On the up side, my FCC friend stationed at KDOV told me two things. The APU can be started in flight for one, although usually doing this involves replacing an inlet door when it hits the deck. Also, the RAT does in fact autodeploy when no hydraulic power is being produced in flight. How it works, I would have to read the T.O. to understand it...and I don't exactly have one in front of me. So I'll be a good boy and drop out of the discussion, lol


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (3 years 12 months 9 hours ago) and read 10316 times:

So, if the APU can be run inflight, I assume they started it? Also, the battery does not power the DC Buss?

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (3 years 12 months 5 hours ago) and read 10208 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):

Does anyone know if the F-118 engines (PW-2040) have a mechanical drive driven engine mounted fuel pump, or is it electrical driven?

The LP and HP engine fuel pumps are not electrically driven.

Quoting evil8er2006 (Reply 2):

Thanks for your contribution, I have reviewed the C-17 manuals, what you have posted is 100% in correlation with the C-17 manuals.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 6):
This engine is FADAC controlled.

Actually 2xEEC, not as advanced as a FADEC, but self powered above 10% N1.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
So if the FADEC on the engines was damaged or destroyed how did they get two of them working again?

The have a checklist for 4 engine restart, it involved an inflight restart using forward speed to accelerate the engines to start. No APU is used as part of the checklist.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
So, if the APU can be run inflight, I assume they started it?

Not according to the C-17 manual, on ground only, and may not be enough at hot and high airports.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Also, the battery does not power the DC Buss?

According to the C-17 manual, batteries power the BATT DIR BUSS and the BATTERY BUS, the 4 DC BUSS (DC BUS 1 etc) are power off the TR1 etc.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (3 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 10167 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 6):
This engine is FADAC controlled.

Actually 2xEEC, not as advanced as a FADEC, but self powered above 10% N1.

They are operating digitally and are full authority. There is no mechanical backup as on the CFM56-3 (EEC and MEC).
All engine functions (fuel control, stall management and efficiency control e.g. turbine case cooling), are handled by the two EEC channels (actually two similar computer circuit boards), of which there is always one in control and the other one a hot standby.
There is, except for the fuel cutoff switch and high pressure shutoff valve, no means of interference by the pilot. The pilot requests a certain thrust through the thrust levers, the thrust lever movement gets converted into an electrical signal by the thrust lever angle resolvers (two, one for each channel). The EEC channel in command receives this signal and controls all engine functions to deliver the required thrust (in form of an EPR, while obeying engine limitations).

Both EEC channels receive their power from a small alternator mounted on the engine gearbox, which delivers enough power to run all functions when N2 is at least 8%.
For ground testing purposes it is possible to power the EECs via a ground test power switch (at least on the B757, I assume that the C-17 is similar).

Jan


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9894 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
Zeke
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 16):
MD11Engineer

Thanks to both of you.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-17 Lightning Strike Loss Of All 4 Enignes
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
10 Greatest Military Piston Engines Of All Time posted Sat Mar 3 2007 02:12:05 by Dougloid
B-52 Stratofortess: Greatest Bomber Of All Time? posted Mon Jan 29 2007 18:29:41 by JakeOrion
The Mother Of All Bombs posted Wed Mar 12 2003 01:07:59 by Woodreau
C-17 "The Spirit Of The Wright Brothers"? posted Wed Oct 17 2001 14:59:22 by Globemaster
Trio Of C-17 Over PHL (1/22) posted Thu Jan 22 2009 17:05:27 by FedExFlyerPHL
Nato May Buy $700 Millon Worth Of C-17's posted Fri May 9 2008 12:33:11 by MedAv
Why No Variable Lenghts Of C-17 Of C-5 posted Thu Nov 8 2007 10:50:59 by Seefivein
UK House Of Commons Recommends C-17 Buy posted Thu Jul 5 2007 05:53:30 by N328KF
Video Of C-17 Compressor Stall posted Fri Feb 2 2007 22:31:06 by KevinSmith
"The Spirit Of Ronald Reagan" C-17 Pics Part 2 posted Sat Jan 14 2006 14:57:30 by Echster

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format