BigSky123
Topic Author
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:33 am

Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:14 am

My brother informed me just now that they were already about an hour and a half away from the Western coast of Europe bound for JFK when the Captain told them the right engine on their 767 went out and they need to turn around. They landed in Santiago de Compostela with fire trucks standing by and nearly 300 passengers were deboarded for a sleep over.

The interesting part is, my brother said he never even noticed any difference after only one engine was working.

What is the Standard Operating Procedure in case both engines are lost? Landing ASAP, obviously but how far will a plane like a 767 glide?

[Edited 2007-09-15 20:16:22]
 
scrubbsywg
Posts: 1095
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:35 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:16 am

brings back memories of the 'gimli glider', which took place only an hour and a half away from me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
 
by188b
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:46 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:20 am

Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
What is the Standard Operating Procedure in case both engines are lost? Landing ASAP, obviously but how far will a plane like a 767 glide?

Watched Air crash investigation re BA009 last night when all 4 engines failed at FL370, it said for every 1 kilometre the aircraft dropped, it could travel 15 kilometres forward when the 747 was gliding.
next flights : BD LHR-TXL J, FR SXF-STN Y, SN BRU-LHR Y, MA LHR-BUD Y, BA BUD-LHR J, BA LCY-SNN-JFK J, BA JFK-LHR J, BA
 
pilotboi
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:16 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:04 am

Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
how far will a plane like a 767 glide?

That depends on how well the pilot can maintain best glide speed (which differs for each aircraft). In the Gimli Glider incident, the pilot used 220 kts in his 767. With that, he got about a 12:1 ratio, meaning it could fly 12 miles forward and lose only 1 mile of altitude. Another way to look at it is that for every 1000 ft loss, it moved forward 2 nm. So an aircraft at say 40000 ft would only make it 80 nm, which is not very far when your out in the middle of the ocean. But we need to remember how unlikely this occurs. And if an aircraft only looses one engine then they will always be able to get to an airport because they must follow ETOPS rules, which states they must always be in range of an airport even if they lose an engine.
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:13 am

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 3):
And if an aircraft only looses one engine then they will always be able to get to an airport because they must follow ETOPS rules, which states they must always be in range of an airport even if they lose an engine.

Not quite. Its quite possible that they could lose the other engine en-route to a suitable diversion field. All that ETOPS stipulates is that the aircraft must not file or fly a flightplan that takes them more than the ETOPS certified single engine flying time, for the engine/airframe combination, away from a suitable diversion airport. It does not guarantee that they will be withing gliding range of any airport.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
BigSky123
Topic Author
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:33 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:44 am

i was the PAX on a flight in question today. With only one engine on, we landed safely in Compostela. All PAX accomodated in hotels now, awaiting for a spare plane picking us up tomorrow around 1pm.
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:58 am

Quoting BY188B (Reply 2):

Watched Air crash investigation re BA009 last night when all 4 engines failed at FL370, it said for every 1 kilometre the aircraft dropped, it could travel 15 kilometres forward when the 747 was gliding.

1:12 gliding ratio, that's not even half bad. I've been in gliders who did worse
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:03 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 4):
Not quite. Its quite possible that they could lose the other engine en-route to a suitable diversion field.

Technically? Yes.
Statistically? Not really.

There's never been a dual independent flameout in more than two decades and millions of hours of ETOPS operation... and the probability of such actually happening, is smaller than the likelihood that multiple other failures would doom/befall the aircraft well in advance.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:08 am

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 1):
brings back memories of the 'gimli glider', which took place only an hour and a half away from me.

Why? Aircraft have one engine go out quite a bit. Aircraft rarely ever have 2 or more engines go out.

Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
The interesting part is, my brother said he never even noticed any difference after only one engine was working.

Unless you are near the engine, you won't notice. I was at an exit row window seat when our DL 757 had to have an engine shut down due to a low oil pressure indicator, and all I could tell from a pax perspective was that my engine was a little bit louder (the other side was shut down).

Now, they did some other things like cycle the power and shut off the lights for a few seconds in order to reset some systems, but as far as flight goes, felt the same. And once we landed, they couldn't fix the engine so we had to get a new plane out of LAS and continue on to LAX.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 4):
Its quite possible that they could lose the other engine en-route to a suitable diversion field.

It isn't "quite possible" but "very improbable." Possible is one thing, "quite" is not the qualifier to use, as it implies a common event. It is very, very, very improbable that the other engine flames out on an ETOPS aircraft or on a 3 or 4 holer unless there is an underlying, non-engine related problem like no fuel, pilot error into a severe angle (stall), volcanic ash, etc.

These events are so rare, it is not accurate to call them "quite possible." It only worsens the fear some people have of flying when they hear or read people make statements like yours.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
pilotboi
Posts: 711
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:16 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:14 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 4):
Not quite. Its quite possible that they could lose the other engine en-route to a suitable diversion field.

I didn't really state my sentance clearly. I did mean one engine only. And I said nothing about losing a second engine. But yes, this is possible, and as ConcordeBoy said, this hasn't happened in a long time.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7681
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:27 am

Engine failures are not truly independent.

Your odds of flameout #1 are very low. The odds of the next flameout are at least 10 times higher IMO, but still very low.

When you're running on 1 engine, there is some reason why #1 failed. Did the same problem affect #2, probably not, but the possibility is always there.

For me, it would be scary. There are always unknowns in the case of a flameout. Somebody screwed up, probably. Did they make the same mistake on both engines, the possibility is always there.

I agree that ETOPS is a safe system, but not so sure I agree with the odds of a dual-flameout. Those odds are relatively high, once flameout #1 has already occurred. You are not in very good shape on 1 engine with a demonstrated failure already on your specific aircraft.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:33 am

I have been a passenger on a 767 that had to have the engine shutdown due to loss of oil. It was an intentional shutdown but not doing so could have destroyed the engine. The flight was enroute from Brazil to ATL when the engine was shut down over the northern Caribbean. The captain and dispatcher considered going to FLL but wet to NAS instead. We did tight circles over NAS. DL sent another aircraft down withn 3 hrs and took us onto ATL. It was noticeably quiet on my side of the aircraft after the engine was shut down but the plane still handled very well .

DL has no plane that can hold 300 passengers and crew on an international flight - even their 764s in domestic configuration. Flt. 161 usually operates with a 763 so the total passengers plus crew was probably more like 220 if it was completely full.
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:41 am

Dont want to sound negative but DL 763's dont hold anywhere near 300 pax, their ER version have around 215.

Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
What is the Standard Operating Procedure in case both engines are lost? Landing ASAP, obviously but how far will a plane like a 767 glide?

as concordeboy pointed out, dual engine failure is extremely rare, and incase this happens, the crew will obviously try to restart the engines in what is called a emergency engine restart procedure (I saw that on the BA flight) on air emergency. If you lose all your engines in the middle of the ocean, might as well start confessing all your sins, and start believing in God if you didnt already, lol.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:46 am

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 12):
If you lose all your engines in the middle of the ocean, might as well start confessing all your sins, and start believing in God if you didnt already, lol.

but it's never happened... and despite that evidence, the government requires airlines to carry life vests and life rafts - again despite them ever being successfully used.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:08 am

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13):
Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 12):
If you lose all your engines in the middle of the ocean, might as well start confessing all your sins, and start believing in God if you didnt already, lol.

but it's never happened... and despite that evidence, the government requires airlines to carry life vests and life rafts - again despite them ever being successfully used.

You're overlooking Air Transat's "Azores Glider", flight 236 on August 24, 2001, A330-200 from YYZ to LIS. Luckily for the 306 passengers and crew, it was within gliding range of the Azores.
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...nd_accidents/Ladkin-AirTransat.pdf

It was this aircraft:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kim Philipp Piskol
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Scott McGeachy


I'm also reminded of this DC-9-30 incident in 1970, unfortunately with 23 fatalities of the 63 aboard:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700502-0

[Edited 2007-09-15 23:25:23]
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:47 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
The odds of the next flameout are at least 10 times higher IMO,

Fortunately, opinions without any evidence are not going to cause crashes.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13):
but it's never happened...

Why should that stop people from overreacting?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
You're overlooking Air Transat's "Azores Glider", flight 236 on August 24, 2001, A330-200 from YYZ to LIS.

I'm pretty sure WT is saying it's never resulted in a crash, and thus "repenting" is kind of overdoing it. The odds of dying in a car wreck on the way to the airport are higher, so should we all repent our sins before each and every turn of the car keys? Of course not.

It's amazing how everyone is overreacting to this shutdown, while they generally don't have the same reaction to all the other shutdowns posted on a.net weekly, from engine fires to bird strikes to oil leaks.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:56 am

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13):
but it's never happened... and despite that evidence, the government requires airlines to carry life vests and life rafts - again despite them ever being successfully used.

isnt it funny how they keep on talking about "incase of a water landing", sad thing is the likeliness of ever surviving a water landing on a under-the wing engine aircraft is extremely slim, and even aircraft like a DC-9 with engines on the top dont stand a chance, but as you stated its never happened.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
You're overlooking Air Transat's "Azores Glider", flight 236 on August 24, 2001, A330-200 from YYZ to LIS. Luckily for the 306 passengers and crew, it was within gliding range of the Azores.

Well yes that is a case of engine failure but DUE TO FUEL EXHAUSTION, not because the engines just failed, and remember that flight was extremely lucky, if they had filed a flightplan on a more northern route, this would have been a horrible disaster.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
positiverate
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:59 am

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 1):
brings back memories of the 'gimli glider', which took place only an hour and a half away from me.

Other then the fact that the airplane is a 767 (although AC's was a -200), there is absolutely nothing similar about that incident to this one.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 7):
There's never been a dual independent flameout in more than two decades and millions of hours of ETOPS operation... and the probability of such actually happening, is smaller than the likelihood that multiple other failures would doom/befall the aircraft well in advance.

On that note, I believe (but am not sure) that the systems are independent of each other.
 
mcdu
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:46 am

I have to get this off my chest. Today I just happened to be returning from Europe to the states and we were just about 20 west when we heard the Delta 161 announce on 121.5 and "all stations, all stations" call. The crew was obviously busy and doing something that none of us ever have to hope to do. I can imagine the flurry of activity in coordinating the course reversal (last I heard them they were down to 21,500' and on a 100 degree heading) with Shanwick, contacting dispatch, advising the Flight Attendants and digging out the charts for familiarization for the alternate airport.

What concerned me afterward and has bothered me most of this evening was the conversations that ensued on 121.5 during this event. After the initial call by DL161 several other pilots starting asking him questions. One was about whether or not he had switched EICAS computers (he indicated it was a loss of oil pressure). There were several others that just stated "why are you diverting?" and the most incomprehensible question of all was "What kind of engines do you have? Pratts or GE's?" I almost fell out of my chair. These pilots were involved in a very complex maneuver to avoid other traffic and get an airplane that had now only one powerplant between them and the cool whitecaps of the Atlantic. I don't believe at this point it really matters who produced the engine, just that the engine is not working. You can argue who build the best over a pint at the pub but please for the sanity of it all never ask asinine questions in the middle of an emergency. Allow these pilots to do their jobs and offer assistance but do not add to the workload by this type of banter.

My apologies for the rant but it was very disheartening to hear what amounted to a group of lookieloos at m.85. I am glad the DL pilots were able to get the airplane on the ground safely and I am sure they will have a story to tell at the pub tonight.
 
twinotter
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:05 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
When you're running on 1 engine, there is some reason why #1 failed. Did the same problem affect #2, probably not, but the possibility is always there.

Definitely, Flighty, that is the first thing a pilot thinks. Recall Eastern 855 in 1983, an L-1011. The captain shut the tail engine down due to a low oil pressure indicator. As he was returning to Miami, engines 1 and 3 also indicated low oil pressure and flamed out. He descended without power, then restarted #2 long enough to for him to make the runway at MIA.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1984/AAR8404.htm
 
jbmitt
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:13 am

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 18):
There were several others that just stated "why are you diverting?" and the most incomprehensible question of all was "What kind of engines do you have? Pratts or GE's?" I almost fell out of my chair. These pilots were involved in a very complex maneuver to avoid other traffic and get an airplane that had now only one powerplant between them and the cool whitecaps of the Atlantic. I don't believe at this point it really matters who produced the engine, just that the engine is not working.

You are naive.. that is a very valid question in the instance of this Delta flight. Since you are apparently unaware, Delta operates 763ERs powered by both GE and Pratt & Whitney engines. If the radio conversation was between other experienced Delta pilots, there are different procedures for dealing with engine shutdowns depending on the type and manufacturer. Obviously, if you followed GE guidelines for a PW engine you could have a worse outcome, or none at all.
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:41 pm

Quoting Jbmitt (Reply 20):
You are naive.. that is a very valid question in the instance of this Delta flight. Since you are apparently unaware, Delta operates 763ERs powered by both GE and Pratt & Whitney engines. If the radio conversation was between other experienced Delta pilots, there are different procedures for dealing with engine shutdowns depending on the type and manufacturer. Obviously, if you followed GE guidelines for a PW engine you could have a worse outcome, or none at all.

There are minimal differences between the way the situation is handled between the two. There were a few PW "rollbacks" a little while ago, but it is policy not to relit a shutdown engine in flight unless absolutely necessary. I agree it was an unecessary comment... and the "why are you diverting" comments were totally out of order. Everyone is curious when something abnormal happens... let them take care of the situation unless you have some pertinant assistance to offer.
Chicks dig winglets.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2792
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:53 pm

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 16):
snt it funny how they keep on talking about "incase of a water landing", sad thing is the likeliness of ever surviving a water landing on a under-the wing engine aircraft is extremely slim, and even aircraft like a DC-9 with engines on the top dont stand a chance, but as you stated its never happened.

There have been many instances of airplanes landing on the water with few or no injuries... many more of airplanes crash-landing on water with deaths but many survivors, most of whom owe their lives to their life vests.

I shouldn't even need to point out specific cases; do some basic research yourself and you'll find at least several with even a cursory search.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
twinotter
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:22 pm

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 22):
There have been many instances of airplanes landing on the water with few or no injuries

There have? I'm thnking of airliners here, but the only one that comes to mind is Ethopian 961, a 767, in 1996. 123 of the 175 passengers and crew died.

Which planes are you thinking of that landed "on the water with few or no injuries"?
 
ScottB
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:18 pm

Quoting TwinOtter (Reply 19):
Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
When you're running on 1 engine, there is some reason why #1 failed. Did the same problem affect #2, probably not, but the possibility is always there.

Definitely, Flighty, that is the first thing a pilot thinks. Recall Eastern 855 in 1983, an L-1011. The captain shut the tail engine down due to a low oil pressure indicator. As he was returning to Miami, engines 1 and 3 also indicated low oil pressure and flamed out. He descended without power, then restarted #2 long enough to for him to make the runway at MIA.

Actually... the Eastern L-1011 you reference is actually an argument for why twins maintained under ETOPS rules are actually safer than tri-jets or quad-jets which are not maintained under ETOPS rules. One of the key rules of ETOPS maintenance is that a different set of mechanics must work on each engine (and if I recall correctly, the maintenance has to occur at different times as well). What happened to the Eastern L10 stemmed from the same mechanic making an identical error in the maintenance of all three engines; this would NEVER be permitted in an ETOPS maintenance regime.
 
BigSky123
Topic Author
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:33 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:23 pm

Delta told PAX this morning, there will be a substitute aircraft brought in around 1pm, with planned departure @ 2pm.
 
snaiks
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:01 pm

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:30 pm

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 18):
What concerned me afterward and has bothered me most of this evening was the conversations that ensued on 121.5 during this event. After the initial call by DL161 several other pilots starting asking him questions. One was about whether or not he had switched EICAS computers (he indicated it was a loss of oil pressure). There were several others that just stated "why are you diverting?" and the most incomprehensible question of all was "What kind of engines do you have? Pratts or GE's?" I almost fell out of my chair. These pilots were involved in a very complex maneuver to avoid other traffic and get an airplane that had now only one powerplant between them and the cool whitecaps of the Atlantic. I don't believe at this point it really matters who produced the engine, just that the engine is not working. You can argue who build the best over a pint at the pub but please for the sanity of it all never ask asinine questions in the middle of an emergency. Allow these pilots to do their jobs and offer assistance but do not add to the workload by this type of banter.

Actually it has a lot to do, sometimes when you are under stress, and see something "red" on the EICAS, you panic, start thinking of what is happening, check the procedures, getting the crew informed, and many others that happen when on an emergency, that you as a pilot can forget to check that maybe the eicas was malfunctioning because of a burnt fuse, or whatever, and those pilots asked to offer their help, not to gossip around of what was happening. If I was a pilot flying around the area and hear the emergency, I would offer any help to another pilot

Quoting Jbmitt (Reply 20):
You are naive.. that is a very valid question in the instance of this Delta flight. Since you are apparently unaware, Delta operates 763ERs powered by both GE and Pratt & Whitney engines. If the radio conversation was between other experienced Delta pilots, there are different procedures for dealing with engine shutdowns depending on the type and manufacturer. Obviously, if you followed GE guidelines for a PW engine you could have a worse outcome, or none at all.

agree with you
 
mcdu
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:47 pm

Quoting Snaiks (Reply 27):
Actually it has a lot to do, sometimes when you are under stress, and see something "red" on the EICAS, you panic, start thinking of what is happening, check the procedures, getting the crew informed, and many others that happen when on an emergency, that you as a pilot can forget to check that maybe the eicas was malfunctioning because of a burnt fuse,

Perhaps my observations were all lost in transition. The questions were of an inquisitive tone and not of an assisting tone. The crew informed that they had a loss of oil pressure.

Have you ever worked with a ORC or Flight Handbook? They are very good and they are built to help assess the condition of the engines before taking any action. I am guessing an experienced crew with 3 pilots on board did not just start shutting engines down without supporting parameters to justify the course of action. I have never met anyone that would PREFER to shutdown an good engine over the atlantic just for the sport of it. Also, I am also quite positive they were accomplishing their SOP's with ORC's which most definitely comply with either engine manufacturers procedures. The tone of the person posing the question about the manufacturer and the other folks was that of inquisitiveness versus someone concerned for the safety or assistance of the other crew.

Listening to the comments first hand I am still ashamed of the actions of the other crews. In an emergency, offer assistance but don't interfere. That is all that I would hope someone would for me in the same situation.
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:49 pm

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 7):

Technically? Yes.
Statistically? Not really.

There's never been a dual independent flameout in more than two decades and millions of hours of ETOPS operation... and the probability of such actually happening, is smaller than the likelihood that multiple other failures would doom/befall the aircraft well in advance.

Agreed. I made the reference only to highlight the point that aircraft flying under ETOPS rules are not necessarily always within range of a suitable diversion airport. They are merely within their certified single-engine flying time of a suitable diversion airport. Although the chances of twin independent engine failures is close to non-existent, it cannot be entirely discounted.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
BigSky123
Topic Author
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:33 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:12 pm

The Epilogue to this incident: the 767 (reg N173DZ) is still sitting in SCQ waiting for a replacement oil pump. The flight to JFK takes off at 2:30 pm, operated by the 767 that was supposed to do the LGW-JFK route (which was cancelled today) and the same crew. The passengers have become a big group of friends by now. The local media a.k.a. journal El Correo Gallego had a field day as well, publishing photos and details about the incident.

At the end of the day - all is well that ends well.

Regards
 
mcdu
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:36 pm

Quoting Jbmitt (Reply 20):
You are naive.. that is a very valid question in the instance of this Delta flight. Since you are apparently unaware, Delta operates 763ERs powered by both GE and Pratt & Whitney engines. If the radio conversation was between other experienced Delta pilots, there are different procedures for dealing with engine shutdowns depending on the type and manufacturer. Obviously, if you followed GE guidelines for a PW engine you could have a worse outcome, or none at all.

JB,

I don't feel I am naive at all, however your impolite implication is not lost on me. I am curious as to what types of differences are listed in the DL Flight Handbook regarding loss of oil psi on a GE versus a Pratt, as this was stated as the reason for the IFSD. Which is also supported by the post of the passengers brother indicating a replacement oil pump is needed. I would really like to know the difference in how to handle this in regards to manufacturer. Perhaps I have been fortunate to operate Pratts for quite sometime and have not suffered such a failure. However, when the engine is shutdown and I am going to be leaving the tracks for the alternate what other types of engine differences would be taken into consideration? How does an inoperative engine from GE differ from an inoperative engine from Pratt? A mass of metal attached that is not producing thrust is different in what regards?

Would very much appreciate an answer to these questions.
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:46 pm

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 18):
These pilots were involved in a very complex maneuver to avoid other traffic and get an airplane that had now only one powerplant between them and the cool whitecaps of the Atlantic. I don't believe at this point it really matters who produced the engine, just that the engine is not working.

we are required on 121.5 or ANY frequncy to help out the people in trouble unless a radio silence has been issued. You'd think we're up there for thousands of hours, we don't ask stupid questions, there is a logic process that only we can understand up there,, that's why we're up there. The type of engine can matter because some run on EPR some on N1 settings, and maybe something somewhere is connected to do with the situation.

It is not a complex maneuver at all, you lose the engine, you set max cont thrust, drift down level and speed and you turn around while informing people on the radio...one pilot can do this on his own. If it's a delta 767 crew, chances are they're older and much more experienced than us younger pilots....you make their work seem harder and harder with your choice of words...

im not bashing you, but we do know what we're doing and it's not like we're at the breaking point each time something happens...
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
mcdu
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:53 pm

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 32):
we are required on 121.5 or ANY frequncy to help out the people in trouble unless a radio silence has been issued. You'd think we're up there for thousands of hours, we don't ask stupid questions, t

I am not here to debate resumes but I have over 25+ years of airline flying and over 13 years of Atlantic crossing flying in ETOPS. The offering of assistance is truly something that has to be done. However, to continue asking an unanswered question over and over only complicates an event these pilots were dealing with. If you had been listening to this banter you too would have been ashamed.

I stand by my assessment of hearing the actual event. I also stand by this after many years and hours of flying airliners. The DL pilots said they were turning off the track, descending to 21,500. This was enough information for me to assess that it was engine related divert. If they had been going to 10K I would have presumed decompression, 27K I would think it was a pax or non engine related divert. However, an airliner on the tracks going to a mid to low 20's would generally indicate EO cruise altitude. The banter from the others did nothing to assist the DL161 and added to much the blocked radio transmissions.

So yes I do think Stupid questions were asked in this instance. If the airplane in the emergency does not answer your call the first two times you ask the question please presume they are too busy to let you know if they are flying pratts or ge's. Again at this point the manufacture does not matter.
 
twinotter
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:10 am

Quoting Amazonphil (Reply 23):
Why not confess sins,believe in God when all is well and live a much better life..i.e. peace with God and go to heaven to boot,when you die (whether it's from going down in the middle of the ocean or whatever)..guranntied!
I just don't get it

Why would an omniscient and omnipotent god care whether or not we believe in it?  Smile
 
747fan
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:31 am

Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
the 767 (reg N173DZ) is still sitting in SCQ waiting for a replacement oil pump

This plane was a GE CF6-80C2B4-powered 763ER, in case anyone was wanting to know. It is one of their newer 767's, delivered to Delta on 2/11/1998, according to airfleets.net.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Verwimp Filip



Quoting BigSky123 (Thread starter):
nearly 300 passengers were deboarded for a sleep over.

There is no way there were 300 passengers, as Delta's 767-300ER's have a capacity of 214 (36C, 178Y)
And there probably weren't even 200 people on the plane, given that September is generally low-demand to Europe and airlines average <80% load factors on TATL flights during this month.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7681
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:35 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 25):
One of the key rules of ETOPS maintenance is that a different set of mechanics must work on each engine (and if I recall correctly, the maintenance has to occur at different times as well).

Whoa. That is very interesting. It makes me feel better about the whole thing. Thanks ScottB.
 
baw716
Posts: 1460
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:08 am

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 18):
What concerned me afterward and has bothered me most of this evening was the conversations that ensued on 121.5 during this event. After the initial call by DL161 several other pilots starting asking him questions. One was about whether or not he had switched EICAS computers (he indicated it was a loss of oil pressure). There were several others that just stated "why are you diverting?" and the most incomprehensible question of all was "What kind of engines do you have? Pratts or GE's?" I almost fell out of my chair. These pilots were involved in a very complex maneuver to avoid other traffic and get an airplane that had now only one powerplant between them and the cool whitecaps of the Atlantic. I don't believe at this point it really matters who produced the engine, just that the engine is not working. You can argue who build the best over a pint at the pub but please for the sanity of it all never ask asinine questions in the middle of an emergency. Allow these pilots to do their jobs and offer assistance but do not add to the workload by this type of banter.

Mcdu---
I cannot believe what I am reading. The freq 121.5 is for emergency transmission only. While I understand pilots trying to assist, there is a point at which help becomes a hinderance and in this case, down right dangerous. Good pilots understand that 121.5 is used only to transmit information critical to the emergency and only information should be passed to the pilots in trouble to help them get on the ground, e.g. current METAR data for diversion airport, and/or to relay information to center if radio problems exist on the aircraft in trouble. ANY other discussion is inappropriate, IMO, and those pilots who were asking needless questions should be retrained on the proper use of 121.5. Your statement is completely and totally correct and I stand with you on this point.

baw716
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
avi8tir
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:19 am

I have a question about this. I was on DL 160 on the 13th, which arrived FCO on the 14th. Is there any way to find out if this same aircraft that lost an engine was used for my flight? Also, would the crew of 161 on the 15th have been the crew from my flight? I figure the crew would have overnighted on the 14h and returned to JFK on the 15th. I am interested because the crew and captian especially were very friendly! the caption even tried to steal my slice of Sbarro pizza!  Smile
*Long live the Widget*
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:25 am

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 22):
There have been many instances of airplanes landing on the water with few or no injuries...

  • "airplanes" you say?
    ...Hmm, perhaps.

  • 200ton+ jets carrying as many/more passengers?
    ...I'd like you to cite some examples please.


    Quoting TwinOtter (Reply 34):

    Why would an omniscient and omnipotent god care whether or not we believe in it?

    ...same reason he/it wouldn't.

    Quoting Flighty (Reply 36):
    Quoting ScottB (Reply 25):
    Whoa. That is very interesting. It makes me feel better about the whole thing.

    This being another great example of discomfort-due-to-ignorance being overcome with a little education.

    ...would you feel even better if we told you about the differences in fire-suppression capability that ETOPS twinjets are required to have, but trijets/quadjets are not?  Wink
  • Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    747fan
    Posts: 862
    Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:40 am

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:29 am

    Quoting Avi8tir (Reply 38):
    Is there any way to find out if this same aircraft that lost an engine was used for my flight?

    Most likely, no. The plane that operated DL160 likely would've flown back to either JFK or ATL a few hours later. N173DZ, the plane that "lost" the engine, most likely arrived in FCO the morning of the 15th from either JFK or ATL. It was very likely the same crew however (unless they flew back to CVG or ATL instead of JFK), since they would've overnighted the night of the 14th and flown the next day.
     
    positiverate
    Posts: 1543
    Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:40 am

    Quoting Jbmitt (Reply 20):
    If the radio conversation was between other experienced Delta pilots, there are different procedures for dealing with engine shutdowns depending on the type and manufacturer. Obviously, if you followed GE guidelines for a PW engine you could have a worse outcome, or none at all.

    I'm fairly confident that the pilots in the cockpit of DL160 knew what kinds of engines they had on their airplane and had the appropriate engine procedures out.
     
    Viscount724
    Posts: 18974
    Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:58 am

    Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 39):
    Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 22):
    There have been many instances of airplanes landing on the water with few or no injuries...

    200ton+ jets carrying as many/more passengers?

    ...I'd like you to cite some examples please.

    Not quite 200+ tons, but one example was the JL DC-8-62 that landed in San Francisco Bay about 2 miles short of the SFO runway in November 1968.
    http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19681122-0

    All aboard suvived the landing and evacuation into rafts without even any injuries. Luckily the water was only about 10 feet deep so the aircraft came to a stop sitting on the bottom with the water about level with the cabin floor. The aircraft suffered surprising little damage and was repaired by UA and returned to service.

    It was this aircraft, a few months before the incident and 14 years after:


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © John F. Ciesla
    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Johan Ljungdahl

     
    baw716
    Posts: 1460
    Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:36 am

    Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 22):
    There have been many instances of airplanes landing on the water with few or no injuries... many more of airplanes crash-landing on water with deaths but many survivors, most of whom owe their lives to their life vests.

    I shouldn't even need to point out specific cases; do some basic research yourself and you'll find at least several with even a cursory search.

    Spacecadet,
    As a pilot, I would rather land on a grass field than on water, especially with engines slug under the wings (90% of commercial aircraft these days). At terminal velocity (125mph)...generally less than standard landing speed, the wings would be ripped off on impact either way. The key is keeping the fuselage in one piece...I believe and I would ask the pilots on this forum to chime in here: The chances of keeping the fuselage in one piece is better landing on dirt than on water. Water at those speeds is like hitting concrete...or worse.

    At least on land, if the passengers have to escape through a broken airplane, they have a better chance on grass than water. In water, their chances of survival are poor at best.

    I think that most pilots on this forum would agree with me on that point....guys, what do you think?

    baw716
    David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
     
    mcdu
    Posts: 901
    Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:48 am

    Quoting BAW716 (Reply 43):
    At least on land, if the passengers have to escape through a broken airplane, they have a better chance on grass than water. In water, their chances of survival are poor at best.

    I think that most pilots on this forum would agree with me on that point....guys, what do you think?

    baw716

    You can count me in your corner on this one. Water is just as hard as pavement when hit at a bad angle. For how a 767 would react to a ditching one needs only to watch the video of the hijacked 767 that crashed in the water a few years ago. Not a pretty sight. Also once on the water if you were able to keep the airframe intact an evac on water is going to be a tremendous event. People don't mind jumping onto a slide and getting away from a burning hulk. But make them jump into a small raft in the deep blue sea and the airplane is going to look much better. Plus numerous people can't swim but many are more than happy to run from a crash.
     
    baw716
    Posts: 1460
    Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:15 am

    Quoting Mcdu (Reply 44):
    You can count me in your corner on this one. Water is just as hard as pavement when hit at a bad angle. For how a 767 would react to a ditching one needs only to watch the video of the hijacked 767 that crashed in the water a few years ago. Not a pretty sight. Also once on the water if you were able to keep the airframe intact an evac on water is going to be a tremendous event. People don't mind jumping onto a slide and getting away from a burning hulk. But make them jump into a small raft in the deep blue sea and the airplane is going to look much better. Plus numerous people can't swim but many are more than happy to run from a crash.

    Ah, you just reminded me of the ET 767-200 which ditched in the water in Brazil. As soon as the wingtip hit the water, the aircraft spun around and you could see it break up as it hit the water. The only people who survived, I believe, were in the very front of the aircraft. If they were in the tail, they were shark bait.

    Also, as I recall, the example of the aircraft that landed short in the water at SFO; the aircraft ditched in 10 feet of water. In actuality, it plowed into the mud, which was the reason the airframe remained intact. Had the water been 30-40 feet deeper, I think we would have seen a different result.

    It is also much easier to run away from a burning airplane than it is to swim away from one. I have yet to see anyone do it and survive. This is harsh stuff, but it is the truth, sad to say. Thanks for your support.

    baw716
    David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
     
    positiverate
    Posts: 1543
    Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:35 pm

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:18 am

    Quoting BAW716 (Reply 45):
    Ah, you just reminded me of the ET 767-200 which ditched in the water in Brazil.

    It ditched in Africa somewhere...
     
    earlynff
    Posts: 122
    Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:53 am

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:36 am

    Quoting BAW716 (Reply 45):
    Ah, you just reminded me of the ET 767-200 which ditched in the water in Brazil.

    that was east of african coast, NOT brazil
     
    Viscount724
    Posts: 18974
    Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:27 am

    Quoting EarlyNFF (Reply 47):
    Quoting BAW716 (Reply 45):
    Ah, you just reminded me of the ET 767-200 which ditched in the water in Brazil.

    that was east of African coast, NOT Brazil

    Video of that ditching after being hijacked and running out of fuel (50 survivors of 175 aboard):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GAg5Y5WK24

    Incident summary:
    http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19961123-0

    Here's one much earlier (1956) Pan Am mid-ocean ditching where everyone survived with only a few minor injuries:
    http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19561016-0
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,867172,00.html

    There were 2 other Stratocruiser ditchings with only a few fatalities, one PA (4 of 23 fatal) and one NW (5 of 38).
    http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19550326-0
    http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19560402-0
     
    Flighty
    Posts: 7681
    Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:30 am

    That 767 apparently was not an ideal ditch. It was dipped a wing -- clearly not a good plan. It hit at 200 knots according to wikipedia. Not a good ditch at all. There was fighting in the cockpit, apparently because the hijackers wanted to make it a suicide mission in the last moments by hitting the beach hotel.

    However, the pilots had already made it a suicide mission. They went to the Comoros without enough fuel to land there. Without considering their alternatives, the pilots actually planned to ditch in water. They told everyone to put their life jackets on. This was madness. They should not even have left Africa without sufficient fuel.

    These pilots still fly for Ethiopian today (they survived, although most others died in the 767). But in my opinion they could have handled the situation much better. The pilot is responsible for operation of the aircraft. Even if someone holds a knife to you, a pilot needs to do his job properly... not go out into the Indian Ocean without enough fuel!
     
    baw716
    Posts: 1460
    Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

    RE: Delta 161 Flying FCO-JFK Has Engine Flameout

    Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:16 pm

    Thank you all for the clarification. I had Brazil on the brain for some reason...I believe it was actually somewhere off the southeast coast of Africa, but I know that there are those of you who know much better than I.

    I humbly appreciate the correction.
    baw716
    David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, B727skyguy, Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], qf002, RJBingham, sierra3tango and 179 guests