PT
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:09 am

Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Fri Nov 26, 1999 5:41 pm

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.
 
User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 4934
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sat Nov 27, 1999 12:53 am

Why didn't they dump the fuel I wonder???
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sat Nov 27, 1999 4:36 am

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...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
phil330
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 1:33 pm

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sat Nov 27, 1999 5:09 am

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.

Phil
A320/330 pilot.
 
Guest

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sat Nov 27, 1999 5:22 am

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

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sat Nov 27, 1999 7:42 am

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
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:09 am

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sat Nov 27, 1999 6:18 pm

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
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 1999 6:58 pm

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sat Nov 27, 1999 9:09 pm

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.

 
phil330
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 1:33 pm

Strange Procedure

Sat Nov 27, 1999 10:26 pm

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.

Phil
A320/330 pilot.
 
LH423
Posts: 5868
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sun Nov 28, 1999 1:21 am

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?

LH423
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sun Nov 28, 1999 1:51 am

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.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
jb
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 1999 7:02 pm

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Sun Nov 28, 1999 2:15 am

The passengers didn't get any physical injuries.
 
Ratzz
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 1999 6:58 pm

RE: Strange Procedure

Tue Nov 30, 1999 8:59 am

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
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Delta Uses PW & GE

Tue Nov 30, 1999 9:28 am

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**.
 
ATA757
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:34 am

Huh!

Tue Nov 30, 1999 12:26 pm

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

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Wed Dec 01, 1999 5:16 am

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
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

Engines

Wed Dec 01, 1999 8:38 am

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?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Guest

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Wed Dec 01, 1999 8:52 am

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
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Tedski

Wed Dec 01, 1999 8:52 am

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.
 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Tedski

Wed Dec 01, 1999 9:04 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Wed Dec 01, 1999 9:15 am

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
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

Uncontained Engine Failures

Wed Dec 01, 1999 1:43 pm

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...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Guest

OPNLguy--what's Fod?

Thu Dec 02, 1999 5:23 am

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,
Brigg
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

Foreign Object Damage

Thu Dec 02, 1999 5:55 am

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
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: OPNLguy--what's Fod?

Thu Dec 02, 1999 6:35 am

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.

ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Boeing747_600
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 1999 4:01 am

RE: Sto?

Thu Dec 02, 1999 9:19 am

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 STO.
 
jim
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 8:12 am

Wow! Wish I 'd Seen This Sooner!

Mon Dec 06, 1999 1:44 pm

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!!!!

Especially after I looked it up! ;-)

Jim
 
Guest

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Mon Dec 06, 1999 1:47 pm

The airport code for Sioux City is SUX?

Not to sound like a little kid or anything............
 
dl1011
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:42 am

RE: Wow! Wish I 'd Seen This Sooner!

Mon Dec 06, 1999 3:36 pm

Jim, it was a/c 183.
 
Guest

STO

Mon Dec 06, 1999 4:48 pm

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 letter standing for the region of the world that it is in. Also, since nobody said this yet to the Delta flight crew:

GOOD JOB Boys!!!

Let us not forget that they had a serious problem and got everybody back to Earth safe and sound. The pilots will spend the next several months going over every detail to see if they followed all of the procedures correctly or not. It is not fun. Everybody walked away and that is something we should all be happy about. Yeah, the flight crew did it right. That should be the main point of this thread not which engines are better. Personally I'd rather be behind a hand-propped C-85 in a J-3 Cub and that isn't nearly as reliable as any modern jet.
 
F-WWKH
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 1999 8:23 pm

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Tue Dec 07, 1999 12:49 am

Oh, the three letter IATA codes are also still valid. They run parallel to ICAOs. (Or vice versa).
 
LH423
Posts: 5868
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

Boeing747_600

Tue Dec 07, 1999 10:00 am

Stockholm has two airports. Stockholm-Bromma (STO) and Stockholm-Arlanda (ARN). American also flies to Stockhom, but flys out of Arlanda, whereas Delta flys out of Bromma.

LH423
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 
Guest

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Tue Dec 07, 1999 10:09 am

Why the hell does Delta fly to Bromma airport?
I thought ARN was the main international airport...
 
dl1011
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:42 am

RE: Delta 767 Makes Emergency Landing In STO

Tue Dec 07, 1999 10:27 am

Delta flys JFK-ARN as flight 46 and ARN-JFK as flight 47.
 
jim
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 8:12 am

DL1011

Tue Dec 07, 1999 2:42 pm

Thanks for the info re ship #

Jim
 
Ratzz
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 1999 6:58 pm

Hey Guys.....

Thu Dec 09, 1999 7:28 am

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 located right in the northwestern suburbs of Stockholm,Sweden.
Stockholm/Arlanda is the major&biggest domestic/international airport in Sweden,located some 40 km.north of Stockholm.
Both DL&AA flies out of ARN,AA with flightnr.81 and DL with flightnr.47.Both airlines operate 767-300´s.
The major difference between Bromma and Arlanda is the location and the amount of traffic.
Bromma houses flightschools,privateers,buisness,some commuter and international flights operated by various smaller airlines.
Biggest aircraft allowed at Bromma is the BAe 146 due to noise regulations and rwy length.
Arlanda houses the heavier traffic,domestic/international with roughly some nearly 16 million passengers/year.
International airlines at ARN(but to mention a few):TG,LH,AA,DL,SU,KL,BA,AY,FI,SR,AF etc.etc.
 
Guest

RE: Hey Guys.....

Thu Dec 09, 1999 7:40 am

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 146! Respect to the crew for pulling that off!
 
Ratzz
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 1999 6:58 pm

RE: Hey Guys.....hold It!

Fri Dec 10, 1999 5:51 am

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 I described earlier in this subject.
If it had landed at Bromma,I wouldn´t have been able to witness the entire drama "ringside"so to speak...
Read the first reply I made for full details......
Last,but not least:All credit to the flightcrew that handled the incident perfectly... 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AsiaTravel, ba319-131, Baidu [Spider], Bambel, Bing [Bot], bombayduck, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], ikolkyo, jpetekyxmd80, legacyins, mafaky, PacificBeach88, Qantas16, qf002, reidar76, Tokushima, Yahoo [Bot] and 210 guests