Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
djm18
Topic Author
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:19 pm

UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:01 pm

This happened this morning on the flight to ewr, plane landed safely. There is a video which i will post shortly.
 
djm18
Topic Author
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:22 pm

Here is a video from the incident...

https://www.crhoy.com/nacionales/pasaje ... -el-video/
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:30 pm

Compressor stall?
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3000
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:52 pm

What I also find odd is why the gear is still down and locked.
 
Redwood839
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:26 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:56 pm

Bird strike. It's not odd that the gear was kept down, you're meant to keep flying the airplane and maintain a proper airspeed.

Way too much hype over this. Plane returned back without an issue. Local news coverage is saying people were screaming they were going to die. Also using rotated pictures to make it seem like the plane was going down.
 
CanesFan
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:31 pm

Redwood839 wrote:
It's not odd that the gear was kept down, you're meant to keep flying the airplane and maintain a proper airspeed.

First item on any multi engine retractable gear airplane after an engine failure on takeoff is to retract the gear after positive rate is established. SJO is a nasty place for an engine failure.
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2517
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:16 pm

CanesFan wrote:
Redwood839 wrote:
It's not odd that the gear was kept down, you're meant to keep flying the airplane and maintain a proper airspeed.

First item on any multi engine retractable gear airplane after an engine failure on takeoff is to retract the gear after positive rate is established. SJO is a nasty place for an engine failure.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read first and foremost is fly the plane and don't change any configurations until you have stabilized flight.
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:26 pm

I think topics like this should be banned here.
Breathless reporting of a non-event, just to get clicks on someone’s own video or website.

Just ridiculous the sensationalism around something that probably happens around the world weekly.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:44 pm

BlatantEcho wrote:
I think topics like this should be banned here.
Breathless reporting of a non-event, just to get clicks on someone’s own video or website.

Just ridiculous the sensationalism around something that probably happens around the world weekly.

A "non-event"??? Engine coughing and shooting flames and smoke on take-off is NOT a non-event.
It's not a tragic (or almost tragic) event either, but it's still worth discussin (especially if it was a bird strike).

If you don't like these kind of threads, feel free to not read it and not participate; it'll be for the benefit of all of us.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21894
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:55 pm

BlatantEcho wrote:
I think topics like this should be banned here.
Breathless reporting of a non-event, just to get clicks on someone’s own video or website.

Just ridiculous the sensationalism around something that probably happens around the world weekly.


You could just close the thread and read another. An engine failure on takeoff is an event. It is even reportable to the NTSB/FAA.

Perhaps the term "non-event" should be banned here. :stirthepot:
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:58 pm

DocLightning wrote:
BlatantEcho wrote:
I think topics like this should be banned here.
Breathless reporting of a non-event, just to get clicks on someone’s own video or website.

Just ridiculous the sensationalism around something that probably happens around the world weekly.


You could just close the thread and read another. An engine failure on takeoff is an event. It is even reportable to the NTSB/FAA.

Perhaps the term "non-event" should be banned here. :stirthepot:

How about we call it a common event.
 
djm18
Topic Author
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm

Agreed, this is thankfully not an "event" but it can be an important learning moment. What I like about these posts is when informed and experienced members provide perspective so that we all learn more about aviation. And so this "event" just presents an opportunity for informed discussion. I for one read this forum to learn from aviation experts: pilots, mechanics, engineers or AVgeeks. And I truly wish the threads could have two tracks, especially the long ones, where the superfluous comments (like this one ;-) do not encumber thread.
Last edited by djm18 on Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:12 pm

CanesFan wrote:
Redwood839 wrote:
It's not odd that the gear was kept down, you're meant to keep flying the airplane and maintain a proper airspeed.

First item on any multi engine retractable gear airplane after an engine failure on takeoff is to retract the gear after positive rate is established. SJO is a nasty place for an engine failure.



Especially with a 737 with that runway then you have moutains surrounding the airport.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7528
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:27 pm

How about we say, "something happened." :duck:
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
User avatar
kczombie
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:12 pm

I'm pretty sure the event was, "an engine failure on take off from SJO."

Event: noun
* Something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, especially one of some importance.
* The outcome, issue, or result of anything.
* Something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time.

Yep, looks like an event alright. Now, sensationalist news and / or yellow journalism is a different item entirely.
 
CanesFan
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:27 pm

tjwgrr wrote:
CanesFan wrote:
Redwood839 wrote:
It's not odd that the gear was kept down, you're meant to keep flying the airplane and maintain a proper airspeed.

First item on any multi engine retractable gear airplane after an engine failure on takeoff is to retract the gear after positive rate is established. SJO is a nasty place for an engine failure.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read first and foremost is fly the plane and don't change any configurations until you have stabilized flight.


Well obviously you aren’t going to achieve much of a positive rate of climb if you are in a 90 degree bank. On a 73 you retract the gear as soon as a positive rate is achieved or you will not meet your single engine climb gradient as per the aircraft’s certification.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:22 am

Looks like they were departing from runway 25 - nowhere near as terrain critical as a runway 07 departure - the terrain actually slopes down after departure so even if you maintained a constant altitude you'd be gaining height above the terrain for a while.

During an engine surge/stall/limit exceedence the engine is still producing thrust until shutdown. That said I'm not sure why the gear wasn't raised earlier as they seemed to have a positive rate of climb.

Glad it all ended well, that's the main thing.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:37 am

DL757NYC wrote:
CanesFan wrote:
Redwood839 wrote:
It's not odd that the gear was kept down, you're meant to keep flying the airplane and maintain a proper airspeed.

First item on any multi engine retractable gear airplane after an engine failure on takeoff is to retract the gear after positive rate is established. SJO is a nasty place for an engine failure.



Especially with a 737 with that runway then you have moutains surrounding the airport.


Silly statement. Especially the 737?

Engine out on any twin engine would be ‘just as harrowing’. The 737, like all other modern airliners, are designed to get off the ground with one engine out after V1.
Whatever
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:39 am

Yes the gear should be up, but if that’s our takeaway from this they did a bang up job.

Iv gone my entire career without an engine failure on takeoff. I train for it every 9 months and do a great job. How will I perform when it actually surprises me and happens? That remains to be seen and hopefully will stay that way.

Also keep in mind that compressor stalls are extremely violent and loud. They can be very disorienting. People I know have described it as the sound of someone pounding on the side of the aircraft with a sledge hammer.

So we’ll done to the crew. I ask we don’t crucify the crew and treat this video as what it is......a really rare view of a violent event and that’s cool for aviation fans especially since it had a good outcome.
 
ual763
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:58 am

Unbelievable! Two highly competent pilots make a SAFE landing after a compressor stall (which isn’t necessarily calm, to put it lightly) and the first reaction of the internet armchair pilots on here is “Oh my God, he forgot to put the gear up”.

Here’s a thought, if you weren’t there on the flight deck, you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever to speak out on why you *think* the gear should be up and I suggest you wait until a final report until crucifying the two highly trained professionals who did a pretty darn good job.
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:01 am

ual763 wrote:
Unbelievable! Two highly competent pilots make a SAFE landing after a compressor stall (which isn’t necessarily calm, to put it lightly) and the first reaction of the internet armchair pilots on here is “Oh my God, he forgot to put the gear up”.

Here’s a thought, if you weren’t there on the flight deck, you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever to speak out on why you *think* the gear should be up and I suggest you wait until a final report until crucifying the two highly trained professionals who did a pretty darn good job.

Dude, calm down. I don't think he was "crucifying" them at all. It was just a simple observation.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8564
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:11 am

The crew may very well have suspected there was damage to the landing gear


They didn’t have the benefit of external video to assess the type of damage they experienced, probably just thrust fluctuations


It can be very difficult to pinpoint issues from limited information and loud sounds can be very deceiving



If you do have landing gear damage the last thing you want to do is attempt retraction, better stuck down than jammed up


Reserving judgment
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:40 am

WayexTDI wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
mcdu wrote:

Just thinking of the DL AMS thread where you were defending the co-pilot and saying he wasn’t that drunk. Would you want to be on this plane in the video with and FO that was slightly over the alcohol limit?


Agreed. I was thinking the exact same thing.

How about both of you point out the post were I said the DL pilot at AMS wasn't that drunk? I just double-check, and I never said that.

How about you two try to correctly quote what participants say???


Just my opinion. It sure seemed like you were incredibly sympathetic to the drunk pilot. Just a poor victim of circumstance.
 
SJOtoLIR
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:48 am

San Jose is my hometown and I’ve been following carefully all the news on local media in Spanish language which is my natural language.
They haven’t released any technical explanation yet about why the left engine caught fire after the take off procedure.
Some passengers talked on local TV news about the profesionalism followed by the crew once the emergency was declared on board.
The message from the cabin desk happened five minutes after the take off. They flew over the Pacific Ocean dumping fuel. The plane landed safely no more than 30 minutes later after the incident.
Only some passengers received light medical attention for panic.

Greetings from Costa Rica.
"Goin' up to the spirit in the sky"
 
SJOtoLIR
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:48 am

San Jose is my hometown and I’ve been following carefully all the news on local media in Spanish language which is my natural language.
They haven’t released any technical explanation yet about why the left engine caught fire after the take off procedure.
Some passengers talked on local TV news about the profesionalism followed by the crew once the emergency was declared on board.
The message from the cabin desk happened five minutes after the take off. They flew over the Pacific Ocean dumping fuel. The plane landed safely no more than 30 minutes later after the incident.
Only some passengers received light medical attention for panic.

Greetings from Costa Rica.
"Goin' up to the spirit in the sky"
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:57 am

Love the armchair pilots who get so riled up. It inspired me to fire up the 'ole popcorn maker.

The aircraft landed without incident. There were no injuries and the aircraft will have an engine swap and inspection before it is ferried back to base.

Compressor stalls aren't fun (they were a hoot on the 727) but pilots train for this scenario. By all means though run around your living room screaming if it makes you feel better.
 
FTMCPIUS
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:10 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:06 am

SJOtoLIR wrote:
San Jose is my hometown and I’ve been following carefully all the news on local media in Spanish language which is my natural language.
They haven’t released any technical explanation yet about why the left engine caught fire after the take off procedure.
Some passengers talked on local TV news about the profesionalism followed by the crew once the emergency was declared on board.
The message from the cabin desk happened five minutes after the take off. They flew over the Pacific Ocean dumping fuel. The plane landed safely no more than 30 minutes later after the incident.
Only some passengers received light medical attention for panic.

Greetings from Costa Rica.

737s can dump fuel?
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:04 am

FTMCPIUS wrote:
SJOtoLIR wrote:
San Jose is my hometown and I’ve been following carefully all the news on local media in Spanish language which is my natural language.
They haven’t released any technical explanation yet about why the left engine caught fire after the take off procedure.
Some passengers talked on local TV news about the profesionalism followed by the crew once the emergency was declared on board.
The message from the cabin desk happened five minutes after the take off. They flew over the Pacific Ocean dumping fuel. The plane landed safely no more than 30 minutes later after the incident.
Only some passengers received light medical attention for panic.

Greetings from Costa Rica.

737s can dump fuel?


No. No 737s that I know of can dump fuel.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:51 am

B737900ER wrote:
How about we call it a common event.


It's not a particularly common event either. Plenty of commercial pilots go their entire careers without an engine failure or uncommanded shutdown of any kind.

Planes are built for it, pilots train for it but hope it never happens, and generally it doesn't. It's not a non-event and it's not a common event.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:19 am

WayexTDI wrote:
A "non-event"??? Engine coughing and shooting flames and smoke on take-off is NOT a non-event.
It's not a tragic (or almost tragic) event either, but it's still worth discussin (especially if it was a bird strike).


You're really quite the drama queen, aren't you?

Yes, non-event. The airplane is climbing, it's late in the takeoff, not a critical V1 cut, and you can see in the video that the aircraft continues in a nice, stable climb.

What's the first thing one does in this event, in the cockpit? Sit on one's hands. Analyze. Fly the airplane. Identify, verify, and follow the stabilizing actions which are typically to do very little at first. it's a turbojet airplane. Unlike a light piston twin, there's very little to do. Ultimately shut it down and secure with the checklist. Return and land. Exactly as trained, exactly per procedure. Not a lot of excitement.

Almost tragic? Such drama.

Shooting flames and smoke? A couple of flashes, possibly a compressor stall, possibly something else. That's it. Pop. Set max thrust. Maintain speed. Follow the engine-out procedure briefed prior to engine-start. Call for and compete the checklist. Notify ATC. Get weather, start APU as needed. Dump fuel if necessary, if appropriate to the aircraft. Set up the approach, if not set up prior to engine start. Fly, land. Routine stuff.
 
FTMCPIUS
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:10 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:38 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
FTMCPIUS wrote:
SJOtoLIR wrote:
San Jose is my hometown and I’ve been following carefully all the news on local media in Spanish language which is my natural language.
They haven’t released any technical explanation yet about why the left engine caught fire after the take off procedure.
Some passengers talked on local TV news about the profesionalism followed by the crew once the emergency was declared on board.
The message from the cabin desk happened five minutes after the take off. They flew over the Pacific Ocean dumping fuel. The plane landed safely no more than 30 minutes later after the incident.
Only some passengers received light medical attention for panic.

Greetings from Costa Rica.

737s can dump fuel?


No. No 737s that I know of can dump fuel.

I know that, I was trying to put SJOtoLIR on the spot.

Thx
 
SJOtoLIR
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:18 pm

February 01st 2019
UA 1079 [SJO-EWR]
Boeing 737-824
N27205

"Goin' up to the spirit in the sky"
 
jayunited
Posts: 3028
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:50 pm

tjwgrr wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read first and foremost is fly the plane and don't change any configurations until you have stabilized flight.


After reading all of the comments posted so far on this thread I think most people who are questioning why the pilot didn't retract the gear the moment the engine failed, failed to read your comment which is absolutely correct their first responsibility is to fly the aircraft. The video link provided runs on a loop but the entire actual recording minus the loop last about 15-20 seconds. I think its absurd that people immediately jump to conclusions from a 15-20 second video, and feel its appropriate to question why in those 15-20 seconds after the engine failed the pilot didn't retract the gear.

Another person who I think made an extremely valid point is CriticalPoint, I think people should read that response because that response really puts this entire event into perspective for those of us who are not pilots and it drives home your point that first and foremost after any type of event the pilots job is to fly the airplane. We've all seen major incidents and/or accidents occur because pilots made a knee jerk decision before processing the situation. Remember TransAsia engine failure on take off and the pilot mistakenly reduced the throttle on the wrong engine? He thought he was reducing power on the malfunctioning engine but because he didn't properly assess the situation he cut the power to the one remaining working engine.
I think both you and CriticalPoint have made valid points and the other arm chair pilots who just want to zero in on the gear being down need to realize these pilots did their job.
 
djm18
Topic Author
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:28 am

BA777FO wrote:
Looks like they were departing from runway 25 - nowhere near as terrain critical as a runway 07 departure - the terrain actually slopes down after departure so even if you maintained a constant altitude you'd be gaining height above the terrain for a while.


Actually the departure was in fact from runway 07. My wife landed in a Sansa flight from Nosara that was cleared to land as this plane left the runway. And I landed from Miami a little later also on runway 07.

It seems that recently they have changed the departure flight profile from this runway, before flights to the north leaving on runway 07 would turn to the right and do a 270 degree turn, to gain altitude I presume, flying over the airport and then over the two volcanoes (barva and poas) which are just to the north of the airport (see below). But in recent months I have noticed flights going to the US which take off on runway 07 make a left turn and fly through a gap between the volcanoes. I live in SJO and fly to the US about once or twice per month.

As some basic details for reference...

SJO airport is at 3,000 ft - One runway 07/25 of 3,012 meters or 9,888 ft

Volcan Poas is at 9,000 ft and 15 miles from the airport on a heading of about 350 degrees

Volcan Barva is at 9,500 ft and 12 miles from the airport on a heading of 040 degree

Here is the data from Flightaware...

https://es.flightaware.com/live/flight/ ... /MROC/KEWR
 
SJOtoLIR
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:39 am

djm18 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
It seems that recently they have changed the departure flight profile from this runway, before flights to the north leaving on runway 07 would turn to the right and do a 270 degree turn, to gain altitude I presume, flying over the airport and then over the two volcanoes (barva and poas) which are just to the north of the airport (see below). But in recent months I have noticed flights going to the US which take off on runway 07 make a left turn and fly through a gap between the volcanoes.

I've also realized about the new left turn when departing from runway 07 at SJO.
The existence of the small Tobias Bolaños International Airport in Pavas, San Jose reperesents an issue due to the proximity to SJO.
Reading the local newspapers on February 02nd, the local authorities concerning to civil aviation -Direccion General de Aviacion Civil, in Spanish- states two possible hypothesis about that incident:
1. Bird strike.
2. Engine failure due to over-heating.

Regards.
"Goin' up to the spirit in the sky"
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:53 am

SJOtoLIR wrote:
djm18 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
It seems that recently they have changed the departure flight profile from this runway, before flights to the north leaving on runway 07 would turn to the right and do a 270 degree turn, to gain altitude I presume, flying over the airport and then over the two volcanoes (barva and poas) which are just to the north of the airport (see below). But in recent months I have noticed flights going to the US which take off on runway 07 make a left turn and fly through a gap between the volcanoes.

I've also realized about the new left turn when departing from runway 07 at SJO.
The existence of the small Tobias Bolaños International Airport in Pavas, San Jose reperesents an issue due to the proximity to SJO.
Reading the local newspapers on February 02nd, the local authorities concerning to civil aviation -Direccion General de Aviacion Civil, in Spanish- states two possible hypothesis about that incident:
1. Bird strike.
2. Engine failure due to over-heating.

Regards.

Both hypothesis are incorrect
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:56 am

spacecadet wrote:
B737900ER wrote:
How about we call it a common event.


It's not a particularly common event either. Plenty of commercial pilots go their entire careers without an engine failure or uncommanded shutdown of any kind.

Planes are built for it, pilots train for it but hope it never happens, and generally it doesn't. It's not a non-event and it's not a common event.

While not occurring every day, compressor stalls aren’t all that rare either. You can liken them to bird strikes. Not expected, but not surprised when it happens.
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sun Feb 03, 2019 6:23 am

SJOtoLIR wrote:
2. Engine failure due to over-heating.


Really?

As in, the turbojet engine just overheated, steam coming out of the radiator, pilot had to pull over and put a bit of water in, let it cool, before he moved on?

Overheating? Really?

It's not a piston engine.
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:08 am

747Whale wrote:
SJOtoLIR wrote:
2. Engine failure due to over-heating.


Really?

As in, the turbojet engine just overheated, steam coming out of the radiator, pilot had to pull over and put a bit of water in, let it cool, before he moved on?

Overheating? Really?

It's not a piston engine.


SJOtoLIR was only quoting something read elsewhere. After reading a few of your posts on various threads, you need to calm down and tone down the condescension.
The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut.
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:51 am

djm18 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
As some basic details for reference...

SJO airport is at 3,000 ft - One runway 07/25 of 3,012 meters or 9,888 ft

Volcan Poas is at 9,000 ft and 15 miles from the airport on a heading of about 350 degrees

Volcan Barva is at 9,500 ft and 12 miles from the airport on a heading of 040 degree


More relevant details for reference:

When departing crews will use one of two kinds of departure. One is a published departure procedure, called a SID or DP (standard instrument departure, or departure procedure). It's a published series of turns and altitudes used to leave an airport. It will include minimum climb gradients that must be maintained to fly the departure and assure terrain and obstacle clearance. These are assigned by air traffic control.

The other departure used is one calculated in the event of an engine failure. These are usually known only to the crew, rather than air traffic control, and the crew will brief them prior to engine start, and will tell air traffic control what they're doing, at the time of the engine failure.

In the event of an engine failure on takeoff, the crew will not fly the assigned departure procedure, but will instead use their calculated and briefed engine-out procedure. These used to be company-specific procedures that would come out with the paper Jeppesen charts, but were pink and were called the "pink page procedures." These days they are typically derived in other ways, when the takeoff performance is calculated, and come up on the same program used to calculate performance, depending on the operator.

For runway 07, I show a climb straight ahead. At 4.0 miles from the TIO (el coco) VOR (radio station), a right turn is made to fly the 248 degree radial southwest to 15 miles, where the aircraft enters a hold at TOMAS intersection. The minimum altitude to accelerate and clean up (retract flaps, etc) is 4,024 feet above sea level, which is 1,000 above field elevation. At this point the aircraft reduces or stops climb and accelerates on remaining engine(s), the continues the climb to the minimum safe altitude. The published minimum safe altitude for that sector is 9,400', and the published hold at TOMA1 is 8,000. TOMA1 is on the instrument approach (ILS, or instrument landing system) to runway 07.

The initial climb after takeoff will be made at a speed of V2 to V2+10 knots; this is the speed at which the aircraft climbs just after the nose is raised, and the speed which is maintained until the minimum acceleration altitude. This speed is held for several reasons, primarily for obstacle clearance. It's about angle and altitude, and provides the steepest initial climb when configured for takeoff. At the minimum acceleration altitude (typically 1,500-3,000 for most normal departures, and 1,000 for emergencies...but can vary depending on operator and the departure (and aircraft), the aircraft is accelerated to a climb speed, flaps and slats retracted and a faster, shallower climb begins. In many cases, the angle of climb may be shallower, but the rate will be greater, and a higher safety speed is flown.

The normal minimum climb gradient out of MROC (San Jose) is 1,000 to 1,500 feet/minute at 200 knots. It can be higher for some departure procedures, but the idea behind flying the engine-out procedure is that a path is provided with better terrain clearance to accommodate the performance with an engine-out.

The specific terrain features in the area aren't something that the crew necessarily briefs, though noting the high points on the departure procedure chart, relevant area charts, and a review of the approach back to the airport is done. The crew is primarily concerned with the departure procedure to be flown, the emergency procedure for engine-out, and the relevant altitudes (accleration, engine-out acceleration, and the transition altitude where the altimeter change takes place. The crew also discusses and briefs the minimum safe altitude (MSA), which is a generic emergency safe altitude shown on the approach charts. In the case of MROC, the MSA is 9,400' to the southwest, 9,700' to the northwest, and 12,500' to the east (north through south, east of the airport). That's based on a 25 mile radius around the TIO (el coco) VOR navigation radio station.

Note that these procedures presume instrument conditions and flying specific altitudes and courses; in visual conditions there's a bit more leeway and option, though the crew will typically fly the instrument procedures regardless of wether conditions.

Regarding "overheating engines," there are two ways in which they can overheat; one is oil temperature. When an engine begins barking (flashes, bangs, compressor stalls), oil temperature isn't usually the problem; oil temperature stems from other issues that are more long-term in nature, in most cases. The other, more relevant issue with temperature in a turbine engine is the operating temperature which is referred to in one of several ways; TiT (turrbine inlet temperature, iTT, (interturbine temperature), EGT (exhaust gas temperature); these terms refer to the place in the engine where the operating temperature is sampled, but all do essentially the same thing: provide an indication of how close the heat produced in the power section of the engine is to operating limits. Engine temperature is continuously monitored and controlled by the crew, and isn't like a car. If it gets hot the time to deal with it is measured in seconds.

If the engine is barking and flashing, typically associated with a "compressor stall," temperatures will be varying rapidly and an "overheat" isn't the immediate concern. In virtually all aircraft, the immediate action item for a compressor stall is to retard the throttle to idle. A compressor stall means that the airflow through the engine has been disrupted; it could be to physical damage or a number of other problems, depending on the engine. Normally air enters the engine at a high speed, and is slowed raising pressure, before vented into an area where it's mixed with fuel, burned, and used to provide some thrust while turning blades that help run the engine (compressor and fan). So long as air keeps moving through the engine, no problem. If there's something happening which causes the airflow to stagnate, it can stop moving front to back, and change direction, called an airflow reversal, or compressor stall. In that case, there's a noise (from a low hooting sound to a bang), and typically a flash, which is flame; it can come out the front or back. A compressor stall may be minor, or it can cause engine damage; it can be caused by damage, preventing smooth airflow through the engine, or by something passing through the engine (bird, etc).

By retarding the thrust lever to idle, the pressure in the engine is reduced, hopefully airflow is restored, and the problem alleviated. Thrust is reduced, fuel flow is reduced, and the immediate problem is brought under control. At that point, the crew will typically follow one or more additional memory items such as turning on ignition to the engine (to prevent a "flame out" or loss of engine), and then will call for a quick-reference checklist. In a turbine engine, handling an engine fire, failure, severe vibration or other problem, is usually only a few steps and not a lot of drama. It's something that's constantly rehearsed, briefed for every takeoff, and becomes largely a non-event as procedure is flown. As routine, the crew will make a formal declaration of emergency, notify air traffic control of their intentions, and then fly the procedure as briefed.

If something unusual is occurring that requires more immediate action (eg, the airplane is on fire), an expedited return to land and evacuate will be made. In the video, despite only a few seconds are shown from a distance, there appears to be no fire. The engine barks and flashes momentarily, most likely a compressor stall of unknown origin, and then goes out, probably as the thrust lever is retarded to idle. This is not the same as being on fire, and unless a fire indication is received in the cockpit, will be treated as an engine problem, rather than a fire. (engines each have fire detection capability, which is what the crew is looking for to determine if on fire. We neither see the flashes nor particularly care: we're looking at the cockpit indications).

It looks dramatic on video. In reality, the crew sees a temperature spike, or a loss of power or rollback, or varying indications, and the crewmember noting it will call it out "loss on #1." The pilot flying will maintain thrust lever position initially; nothing happens fast, usually until acceleration altitude. Depending on procedure, a confirmation will be made on the offending engine, and the thrust lever retarded (as the crew agrees...nobody reaches and moves anything on their own). Immediate action items are done, one or two steps in most aircraft, and then the checklist procedure run. In a case like this, it will be most often to shut down the engine and secure the various items on the engine. This may include activating emergency shutoffs and handles, possibly discharging fire bottles into the engine compartment, etc. This takes very little time. The engine is secured, and the pre-briefed emergency departure profile is flown. Air traffic control is notified and the crew will state their intentions, or if busy dealing with the problem, will notify ATC of their immediate plans and advise ATC that the crew will get back to them. ATC knows that the crew may be busy.

Most of the time, a situation such as this is quickly handled, secured, and the remainder of the flight is simply setting up for a return to land, and flying the approach. It's typically very straight forward. It's for this reason, because it's something for which crews continuously train, it's a second-nature near-routine procedure. While an emergency is declared, it really does become a non-event, insofar that it's an event that the crew has already planned for, briefed, and flies as briefed, and it's something that's built into the departure planning of every takeoff and climb.

BlueberryWheats wrote:
SJOtoLIR was only quoting something read elsewhere. After reading a few of your posts on various threads, you need to calm down and tone down the condescension.


I don't care what he or she was quoting. Much in the same way as the melodrama previously here about flames shooting from engines and dire emergencies...it just ain't so.

As for what I need to do...I will say whatever I intend to say in whatever way I intend to say it, without the slightest concern for you or what you think.

Put words in your own mouth, not mine, and I'll speak for myself, thanks. I'm quite calm. It is, after all, an internet board.

If you don't like what I have to say, you're welcome to not read it. I'm certainly not going to change it.
 
djm18
Topic Author
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:20 pm

747 Whale - Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response, it is truly great to have people like you on this forum.
 
SJOtoLIR
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:49 am

The 738 involved into the SJO incident is in service again:
Registration: N27205.

Image
"Goin' up to the spirit in the sky"
 
SJOtoLIR
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:06 pm

Image
"Goin' up to the spirit in the sky"
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:39 pm

BlatantEcho wrote:
I think topics like this should be banned here.
Breathless reporting of a non-event, just to get clicks on someone’s own video or website.

Just ridiculous the sensationalism around something that probably happens around the world weekly.


Engine failures are not common events. They’re extremely reliable.

An engine failure on departure out of that airport would have gotten that crews attention, and quick. It’s mountainous, there’s airspace restrictions.

It was such an event. They forgot about the gear. Yes. They did. You retract it for better performance. Which you’d want departing that place.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15343
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:14 pm

Seems to me the pilots did the correct procedure for such an incident, they didn't know in the first few seconds what happened, there could have been damage to the fuselage (recall the WN incident last year) wing, horizontal or vertical stabilizer, knew they were going to be landing very soon had enough altitude and control very quickly so kept the gear down.
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:33 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Seems to me the pilots did the correct procedure for such an incident, they didn't know in the first few seconds what happened, there could have been damage to the fuselage (recall the WN incident last year) wing, horizontal or vertical stabilizer, knew they were going to be landing very soon had enough altitude and control very quickly so kept the gear down.


I doubt it. They’re humans and as such may have just forgotten to retract it. For a period of time anyways I’m sure they got to it.

I can’t think of a time on a single engine where you would not want to retract the gear. The gain in performance would be appreciable.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
jbmitt
Posts: 662
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:45 pm

sixtyseven wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
Seems to me the pilots did the correct procedure for such an incident, they didn't know in the first few seconds what happened, there could have been damage to the fuselage (recall the WN incident last year) wing, horizontal or vertical stabilizer, knew they were going to be landing very soon had enough altitude and control very quickly so kept the gear down.


I doubt it. They’re humans and as such may have just forgotten to retract it. For a period of time anyways I’m sure they got to it.

I can’t think of a time on a single engine where you would not want to retract the gear. The gain in performance would be appreciable.


There is something to be said about the ‘devil that you know.’ They should follow their QRH and checklists, and I don’t claim to know the UA procedures. In an emergency you want to be careful with configuration changes as you may not like how the plane flies afterwards.

In the UA 232 crash with multiple hydraulic systems failures, there was a debate about extending the gear as they weren’t sure if they would maintain what little control they did have.

I’d imagine that the crew has practiced engine out procedures on take-off in the sim and knew what procedures to follow. Until I have the same training as them on the same aircraft, I won’t second guess their decision making. They got the passengers, crew and aircraft on the ground safely.
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

Re: UA engine failure on take off from SJO

Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:05 pm

jbmitt wrote:
sixtyseven wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
Seems to me the pilots did the correct procedure for such an incident, they didn't know in the first few seconds what happened, there could have been damage to the fuselage (recall the WN incident last year) wing, horizontal or vertical stabilizer, knew they were going to be landing very soon had enough altitude and control very quickly so kept the gear down.


I doubt it. They’re humans and as such may have just forgotten to retract it. For a period of time anyways I’m sure they got to it.

I can’t think of a time on a single engine where you would not want to retract the gear. The gain in performance would be appreciable.


There is something to be said about the ‘devil that you know.’ They should follow their QRH and checklists, and I don’t claim to know the UA procedures. In an emergency you want to be careful with configuration changes as you may not like how the plane flies afterwards.

In the UA 232 crash with multiple hydraulic systems failures, there was a debate about extending the gear as they weren’t sure if they would maintain what little control they did have.

I’d imagine that the crew has practiced engine out procedures on take-off in the sim and knew what procedures to follow. Until I have the same training as them on the same aircraft, I won’t second guess their decision making. They got the passengers, crew and aircraft on the ground safely.


Hey I’m not throwing them under the bus. But I’m also not going to blow the scenario out of proportion either. They had an engine failure. They got back ok. I don’t think there is a need to liken this to UAL232 where they lost an engine and all hydraulics.

When the stress of a situation hits. You can miss things. It’s all a part of being one of these human being things.

You retract the landing gear after taking off with an engine out. Unless you forget for a time. I’m sure they got to it. But the fact they didn’t end up in the hills means it wasn’t a game changer.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos