QF108
Topic Author
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:29 pm

PAL one engine return to LAX

Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:28 pm

Can’t see this posted anywhere but PAL 113 returned to LAX with one engine after takeoff.
Video of the damaged engine in this link
https://abc7.com/flames-emit-from-plane ... x/5711724/
Blessed are the Cheesemakers !
 
User avatar
SilverwingSpttr
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 3:07 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:34 pm

I heard a series of very loud bangs. Even more impressive is I was on the north side of the airport and she departed 25R. Glad everyone is ok. One of the more unusual sounds I've heard in my years around airplanes.
_____
@SilverwingSpotter on IG, Flickr, YouTube, and Twitter
A306, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A346, A388, B712, B732, B733, B734, B73G, B738, B739, B744, B752, B753, B762, B763, B764, B772, B77L, B788, C172, C208, DC-3, DC-10, MD-11, MD-81, MD-82
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14950
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:43 pm

Good thing there are 2 engines.

“Classic compressor stall” was the initial analysis. Obviously you need a new engine, but what kind of damage can one expect inside the engine? Does GE repair that or part it out?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4086
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:30 pm

For you tri and quad engine fans, it was a one-engine inoperative (OEI) return.
 
TMccrury
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:24 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:40 am

I watched the ABC News report on this tonight and it was quite interesting. It was an engine fire and everyone was scared. Extremely sensationalist.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14950
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:48 am

TMccrury wrote:
I watched the ABC News report on this tonight and it was quite interesting. It was an engine fire and everyone was scared. Extremely sensationalist.

Glad you wouldn’t have been frightened by loud explosions, fire blasting out of the engine like a hot air balloon, emergency landing and tarmac evac. I probably would have been a bit scared.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
TheGov
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:44 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:51 am

TMccrury wrote:
I watched the ABC News report on this tonight and it was quite interesting. It was an engine fire and everyone was scared. Extremely sensationalist.


ABC is always sensationalist when it comes to aircraft issues. There's not a mole hill they can't make a mountain out of.
Always a pallbearer, never a corpse.
 
carlokiii
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:03 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:00 am

Some more videos on this Twitter thread: @ABC

Excerpts from the Official Statement of Philippine Airlines:
We confirm that our Philippine Airlines Flight PR113, which took off from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) at 11:45 am local time (equivalent to 3:45am /MNL time /Nov22) for a flight to Manila, landed safely at LAX after experiencing a technical problem in one of its engines shortly after take-off.
...
The flight involved a Boeing 777 aircraft with registry number RP-C7775. The flight crew elected to turn back to the airport and make a precautionary emergency landing. The aircraft landed at 12 noon local time.

source
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14133
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:16 am

“PAL one engine return to LAX”

Mechanics have inspected the aircraft and found the missing engine attached to the other wing.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
carlokiii
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:03 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:55 am

For a 15-hr fuel tonnage and presumably full passengers and baggage, taking-off at 11:45 then landing back by 12nn could have taken a toll on the landing gears. Quite a quick turnback.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14950
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:03 am

carlokiii wrote:
Some more videos on this Twitter thread: @ABC

Excerpts from the Official Statement of Philippine Airlines:
We confirm that our Philippine Airlines Flight PR113, which took off from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) at 11:45 am local time (equivalent to 3:45am /MNL time /Nov22) for a flight to Manila, landed safely at LAX after experiencing a technical problem in one of its engines shortly after take-off.
...
The flight involved a Boeing 777 aircraft with registry number RP-C7775. The flight crew elected to turn back to the airport and make a precautionary emergency landing. The aircraft landed at 12 noon local time.

source

Unbelievably understated statement.

The pilots elected to turn back?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:19 am

TheGov wrote:
TMccrury wrote:
I watched the ABC News report on this tonight and it was quite interesting. It was an engine fire and everyone was scared. Extremely sensationalist.


ABC is always sensationalist when it comes to aircraft issues. There's not a mole hill they can't make a mountain out of.



Although CNN takes the cake with that self proclaimed aviation expert who would probably be babbling on about some jibberish while referring to a graphic of a C130
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
77H
Posts: 1513
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:36 am

zeke wrote:
“PAL one engine return to LAX”

Mechanics have inspected the aircraft and found the missing engine attached to the other wing.


Classic :lol:

77H
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14408
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:42 am

Any idea what caused the engine shut down known yet?
 
A388
Posts: 7918
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 3:48 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:39 pm

zeke wrote:
“PAL one engine return to LAX”

Mechanics have inspected the aircraft and found the missing engine attached to the other wing.


HAHAHAHA :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

A388
 
DALMD80
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:08 pm

CNN blowing it up. It's not that big of a deal! A 77W has PLENTY of power on 1 engine. Although I'm not sure why the engine wasn't shut down. I saw a video of it approaching the airport and the engine was not shut down.
2 wrongs don't make a right, but 2 Wrights made an airplane, and look at the miracles we have today!
 
SWADawg
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:13 pm

The Pilots actually called Mayday Mayday Mayday?? That was not a Mayday situation. Emergency yes, Mayday, no.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4583
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:20 pm

SWADawg wrote:
The Pilots actually called Mayday Mayday Mayday?? That was not a Mayday situation. Emergency yes, Mayday, no.

THIS is your criticism? A one engined aeroplane loaded with a transpacific fuel quantity and several hundred people on board, trailing a plume of smoke whilst on fire and making a loud banging noise as a running GE90 continues to disintegrate and you're the guy thinking, "Well a Mayday's not for me at all, best not cause a fuss."

There is quite the historical litany of the dead who perished simply because the FD refused to state categorically "MAYDAY". Avianca B707 into JFK springs to mind, there are many more.
 
MaksFly
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:50 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:36 pm

skipness1E wrote:
SWADawg wrote:
The Pilots actually called Mayday Mayday Mayday?? That was not a Mayday situation. Emergency yes, Mayday, no.

THIS is your criticism? A one engined aeroplane loaded with a transpacific fuel quantity and several hundred people on board, trailing a plume of smoke whilst on fire and making a loud banging noise as a running GE90 continues to disintegrate and you're the guy thinking, "Well a Mayday's not for me at all, best not cause a fuss."

There is quite the historical litany of the dead who perished simply because the FD refused to state categorically "MAYDAY". Avianca B707 into JFK springs to mind, there are many more.


This +1000
 
[email protected]
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 7:58 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:50 pm

SWADawg wrote:
The Pilots actually called Mayday Mayday Mayday?? That was not a Mayday situation. Emergency yes, Mayday, no.


I am an airline pilot and have flown both twins (A320) and quads(A380) ....in a jet twin ..if you lose an engine it’s an automatic MAYDAY x3 call. So what in your opinion should be a Mayday call? Flying a heavy twin on a long transpac flight filled to brim with Jet A1 ....losing 50% of your power at departure and coming for an overweight landing IS a mayday situation. Thankfully that’s what we practice every 6 months in The SIM and the actions are almost reflex in nature. It’s a regulatory requirement to demonstrate an engine failure after V1 and come back to land with no autopilot followed by a manual go around and then 2nd approach as a non precision app and successful landing. There are a lot of exercises in the sim but the v1 cut is a mandatory skills demonstration.
Last edited by [email protected] on Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5831
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:51 pm

PIC exercising authority to declare an emergency? Well done, no questions asked.

Note, though, that the engine was not “on fire.”
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
SWADawg
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LA

Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:59 pm

[email protected] wrote:
SWADawg wrote:
The Pilots actually called Mayday Mayday Mayday?? That was not a Mayday situation. Emergency yes, Mayday, no.


I am an airline pilot and have flown both twins (A320) and quads(A380) ....in a jet twin ..if you lose an engine it’s an automatic MAYDAY x3 call. So what in your opinion should be a Mayday call? Flying a heavy twin on a long transpac flight filled to brim with Jet A1 ....losing 50% of your power at departure and coming for an overweight landing IS a mayday situation. Thankfully that’s what we practice every 6 months in The SIM and the actions are almost reflex in nature. It’s a regulatory requirement to demonstrate an engine failure after V1 and come back to land with no autopilot followed by a manual go around and then 2nd approach as a non precision app and successful landing. There are a lot of exercises in the sim but the v1 cut is a mandatory skills demonstration.

I’m an airline pilot as well. Compressor stalls happen from time to time. You declare an emergency work the QRH, dump fuel (if necessary) and make a normal single engine approach. And no, it’s most certainly not an automatic Mayday at least in the states.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:06 pm

I'm sure all the posters in this thread saying "it's no big deal" would be perfectly happy to be on a fully-loaded 777 with one engine out and sputtering flames at low altitude. Give me a break...
 
SWADawg
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:11 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
I'm sure all the posters in this thread saying "it's no big deal" would be perfectly happy to be on a fully-loaded 777 with one engine out and sputtering flames at low altitude. Give me a break...

I’m certainly not saying its no big deal, just that a Mayday was probably not necessary in that particular situation. They weren’t heading straight into mountainous terrain and they had plenty of power available on the operating engine. It’s just being a bit oversensationalized by the news outlets that’s all. The compressor stall is much scarier for the passengers in the back due to the bangs and fire than it is to a trained competent crew that trains routinely for these types of scenarios.
My posts are my opinion only and do not reflect the views of Southwest Airlines
 
[email protected]
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 7:58 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LA

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:14 pm

SWADawg wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
SWADawg wrote:
The Pilots actually called Mayday Mayday Mayday?? That was not a Mayday situation. Emergency yes, Mayday, no.


I am an airline pilot and have flown both twins (A320) and quads(A380) ....in a jet twin ..if you lose an engine it’s an automatic MAYDAY x3 call. So what in your opinion should be a Mayday call? Flying a heavy twin on a long transpac flight filled to brim with Jet A1 ....losing 50% of your power at departure and coming for an overweight landing IS a mayday situation. Thankfully that’s what we practice every 6 months in The SIM and the actions are almost reflex in nature. It’s a regulatory requirement to demonstrate an engine failure after V1 and come back to land with no autopilot followed by a manual go around and then 2nd approach as a non precision app and successful landing. There are a lot of exercises in the sim but the v1 cut is a mandatory skills demonstration.

I’m an airline pilot as well. Compressor stalls happen from time to time. You declare an emergency work the QRH, dump fuel (if necessary) and make a normal single engine approach. And no, it’s most certainly not an automatic Mayday at least in the states.


It’s also PAL co policy to call mayday when you lose an engine on a twin ...compressor stall or not. I was once trained by their Sim instructors donkey years back. As it is in my airline as well...and the 2 earlier ones I have flown for. End of the day it is the PIC’s call. The crew did a good job that it was uneventful in the end. All credits to them.
 
carlokiii
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:03 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:21 pm

A little distraction from the “Mayday” pedantry...

Here are some terrific photos from the PR 77W engine failure during takeoff at LAX.

Great photography from Yochai Mossi.

Image

Image
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:37 pm

SWADawg wrote:
The Pilots actually called Mayday Mayday Mayday?? That was not a Mayday situation. Emergency yes, Mayday, no.


ICAO phraseology is MAYDAY it demands radio silence and priority in other countries. EMERGENCY is a USA phrase only. You may get understanding in English speaking countries but other countries like China you will get nothing by saying emergency.

You will hear pilots from other countries and US pilots that have been flying international for along time use MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:39 pm

DALMD80 wrote:
CNN blowing it up. It's not that big of a deal! A 77W has PLENTY of power on 1 engine. Although I'm not sure why the engine wasn't shut down. I saw a video of it approaching the airport and the engine was not shut down.


It was clearly a compressor stall. If the pilot can pull the power back on the stalling engine and it continues to run normal then an engine shut down is not required, the engine will be degraded. If the pilot pulls the throttle to idle and the engine is still stalling a shut down will be required.

If the engine was still running then it means the pilots did a nice job stabilizing the situation.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1575
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:00 pm

ikramerica wrote:
carlokiii wrote:
Some more videos on this Twitter thread: @ABC

Excerpts from the Official Statement of Philippine Airlines:
We confirm that our Philippine Airlines Flight PR113, which took off from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) at 11:45 am local time (equivalent to 3:45am /MNL time /Nov22) for a flight to Manila, landed safely at LAX after experiencing a technical problem in one of its engines shortly after take-off.
...
The flight involved a Boeing 777 aircraft with registry number RP-C7775. The flight crew elected to turn back to the airport and make a precautionary emergency landing. The aircraft landed at 12 noon local time.

source

Unbelievably understated statement.

The pilots elected to turn back?


They decided that they didn't want to die attempting a 15 hour flight with one engine on fire.
 
na
Posts: 9720
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:16 pm

Well, thats the downside of the twinjet fashion: one engine fails, and you are in the middle of a total emergency situation. Imagine this halfway towards Manila. As long as they are around I will favour quads.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6608
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:50 pm

carlokiii wrote:
Here are some terrific photos from the PR 77W engine failure during takeoff at LAX.

Good catch. Gives a new, bigger twist on the Spark Vark classic! :hot: Will certainly be a contender with the LAX tower in the background. Now, I'm wondering how the passengers are faring. :scratchchin:
Last edited by Devilfish on Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Jefford717
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:36 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:57 pm

So it seems like the flight lasted 30 minutes and it doesn’t appear that fuel dump was performed at all based on the videos I’ve seen all over the internet. With 15 hours of fuel onboard and with landing weight close to MTOW, I’m assuming would be very dangerous (I’m aware that margins are incorporated in the design)
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:59 pm

Jefford717 wrote:
So it seems like the flight lasted 30 minutes and it doesn’t appear that fuel dump was performed at all based on the videos I’ve seen all over the internet. With 15 hours of fuel onboard and with landing weight close to MTOW, I’m assuming would be very dangerous (I’m aware that margins are incorporated in the design)


There is nothing dangerous about an overweight landing.
 
Jefford717
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:36 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:07 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
Jefford717 wrote:
So it seems like the flight lasted 30 minutes and it doesn’t appear that fuel dump was performed at all based on the videos I’ve seen all over the internet. With 15 hours of fuel onboard and with landing weight close to MTOW, I’m assuming would be very dangerous (I’m aware that margins are incorporated in the design)


There is nothing dangerous about an overweight landing.


Really? Then why do manufacturers even publish Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) figures for all the aircraft they make? Why put a fuel dump system to begin with if they can land at any weight?
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:09 pm

Jefford717 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Jefford717 wrote:
So it seems like the flight lasted 30 minutes and it doesn’t appear that fuel dump was performed at all based on the videos I’ve seen all over the internet. With 15 hours of fuel onboard and with landing weight close to MTOW, I’m assuming would be very dangerous (I’m aware that margins are incorporated in the design)


There is nothing dangerous about an overweight landing.


Really? Then why do manufacturers even publish Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) figures for all the aircraft they make? Why put a fuel dump system to begin with if they can land at any weight?


Because it requires an inspection after landing. The plane performs fine. If it was dangerous then it wouldn’t be allowed.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4086
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:14 pm

Part 25 planes are certified to land at MTOGW, but at a lower sink rate (6fps vs. 9fps, IIRC). As to stopping, if it can abort the take-off at MTOGW at V1 far down the runway, stopping after a touchdown in the touchdown is easy, as it requires less energy absorption. If the airframe cannot met the 6fps at MTOGW, then fuel dump system must be installed.

Not dangerous, but requires good technique.

GF
 
Sancho99504
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:44 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:21 pm

Jefford717 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Jefford717 wrote:
So it seems like the flight lasted 30 minutes and it doesn’t appear that fuel dump was performed at all based on the videos I’ve seen all over the internet. With 15 hours of fuel onboard and with landing weight close to MTOW, I’m assuming would be very dangerous (I’m aware that margins are incorporated in the design)


There is nothing dangerous about an overweight landing.


Really? Then why do manufacturers even publish Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) figures for all the aircraft they make? Why put a fuel dump system to begin with if they can land at any weight?



My guess would be that the MLW is what the manufacturer considers the maximum weight for repetitive landings for longevity reasons.

The fuel dump system is there for situations that require you to be back on the ground, but not right away?
kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:41 pm

Jefford717 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Jefford717 wrote:
So it seems like the flight lasted 30 minutes and it doesn’t appear that fuel dump was performed at all based on the videos I’ve seen all over the internet. With 15 hours of fuel onboard and with landing weight close to MTOW, I’m assuming would be very dangerous (I’m aware that margins are incorporated in the design)


There is nothing dangerous about an overweight landing.


Really? Then why do manufacturers even publish Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) figures for all the aircraft they make? Why put a fuel dump system to begin with if they can land at any weight?



No buddy, it's not dangerous. You can't do it repeatedly because of wear and tear on the frame/structure, but as a once off and an inspection, you are good to go. Not dangerous in the least.
Whatever
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:43 pm

One of the reassuring things about flying is that I know there have to be multiple failures to cause a crash (i.e. "swiss cheese"). Generally there are multiple redundancies keeping the aircraft flying.

However, an engine-out situation at very low altitude on a heavy 777 would make me nervous, because a bunch of those redundancies are now gone. A single pilot error, or another mechanical failure, could be enough to cause a more catastrophic failure. I'm not a nervous flyer by any means, but you bet I'd be sweating bullets the whole time if I was in this situation.
 
Chemist
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:50 pm

SWADawg wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
I'm sure all the posters in this thread saying "it's no big deal" would be perfectly happy to be on a fully-loaded 777 with one engine out and sputtering flames at low altitude. Give me a break...

I’m certainly not saying its no big deal, just that a Mayday was probably not necessary in that particular situation. They weren’t heading straight into mountainous terrain and they had plenty of power available on the operating engine. It’s just being a bit oversensationalized by the news outlets that’s all. The compressor stall is much scarier for the passengers in the back due to the bangs and fire than it is to a trained competent crew that trains routinely for these types of scenarios.


There was also an explosion sound so loud they heard it at the other side of the airport. In my book that's a Mayday. Better to be safe than try to be conservative in this type of incident. Priority handling is appropriate.

I can't imagine why you would not want to call a Mayday.
 
greekcs
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:50 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:56 pm

Photos of the landing gear?
 
AIRMET
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:26 pm

greekcs wrote:
Photos of the landing gear?


ABC News provide video footage of the aircraft back on the ground. Here one can catch a glimpse of the landing gear between 01:22 and 01:28: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/jet ... t-67215595.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2371
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:27 pm

Chemist wrote:
There was also an explosion sound so loud they heard it at the other side of the airport. In my book that's a Mayday. Better to be safe than try to be conservative in this type of incident. Priority handling is appropriate.

I can't imagine why you would not want to call a Mayday.



You should write them a letter.
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
arfbool
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:02 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:54 pm

Anyone with a pro tip on a replacement engine incoming flight?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 4086
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:55 pm

Not an explosion, just a compressor stall. Attention getting, yes; an explosion, no. The whole argument over MAYDAY vs. Emergency is pointless—they are exactly the same thing. In the US, declaring an emergency was the US fashion and tradition for Mayday. I’d guess most US pilots consider a radio cal of “MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY” rather melodramatic and out of a movie.
 
787SIN
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:00 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:57 pm

Some here almost suggest a compressor stall is a non-event. Yes a minor recoverable one maybe so as it is unlikely to do much damage internally of the engine, but this one was slightly more than just a stall, wouldn't be surprised if the compressor is seriously affected with at minimum blade curl on various stages (most likely latter HPC stages) and worse broken off blade material that has caused damage throughout the gas path. PAL is most likely looking a multimillion-dollar engine repair bill unless it is in a PBH agreement.

Additionally, how does anyone know the status of the aircraft to determine if it was an emergency or not? The flight crew are the only ones and they elected to do so and the aircraft was safely returned to the ground. Afterall who actually knows the status of all systems on their aircraft, perhaps they may have had other systems inoperative that compounded the issue of an engine that was failing on them. How about generators on MEL perhaps or similar?
Last edited by 787SIN on Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
cat3appr50
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:01 am

Based on the planned route (and assumed close to full passenger capacity) and winds aloft, and associated calculated block fuel (with normal reserves, contingency, and alternate fuel), and the return to landing KLAX Rwy 25R from around 5,000’ during initial climb, looks like the landing weight would have been around 730,000-740,000 lbs., quite significantly above maximum landing weight of around 554,000 lbs (looks like no fuel jettison at all, and no holding). Quick calculation of the estimated Vref30 and Vref20 speeds yields in the neighborhood of +/- 180 Kn. IAS (Flightradar24 notes around 203 Kn GS, and Flightaware notes around 205 Kn GS, on landing). Good job by the flight crew getting this (very overweight on landing) aircraft on the ground safely.
 
Tankdiver
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:07 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:49 am

A friend of my working at LAX took this photo..I believed it blew all 12 tires.

Image76714005_1576107719206566_6359094772770013184_n by Jimmy Vu, on Flickr
 
Chemist
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:56 am

787SIN wrote:
Some here almost suggest a compressor stall is a non-event. Yes a minor recoverable one maybe so as it is unlikely to do much damage internally of the engine, but this one was slightly more than just a stall, wouldn't be surprised if the compressor is seriously affected with at minimum blade curl on various stages (most likely latter HPC stages) and worse broken off blade material that has caused damage throughout the gas path. PAL is most likely looking a multimillion-dollar engine repair bill unless it is in a PBH agreement.

Additionally, how does anyone know the status of the aircraft to determine if it was an emergency or not? The flight crew are the only ones and they elected to do so and the aircraft was safely returned to the ground. Afterall who actually knows the status of all systems on their aircraft, perhaps they may have had other systems inoperative that compounded the issue of an engine that was failing on them. How about generators on MEL perhaps or similar?


Many aircraft have been lost because the crew didn't think they had a situation as bad as it was. Better to declare the emergency than regret not doing so later.
 
juliuswong
Moderator
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: PAL one engine return to LAX

Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:49 am

Tankdiver wrote:
A friend of my working at LAX took this photo..I believed it blew all 12 tires.

Image76714005_1576107719206566_6359094772770013184_n by Jimmy Vu, on Flickr

Wow, this bird is out for good for some time.
- Life is a journey, travel it well -

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