Immediate return for landing

[bsevenfour]

Just want to get some feedback on the above issue under the following set of circumstances :

You take off at MTOW in your 777 or any other two engined ETOPS aircraft capable of fuel jettison. Shortly after take off you have an engine failure. Under the rules of two engined flight this is an emergancy and requires a landing at the nearest suitable airfield.

The question therefore is do you
A) In a mannered and disciplined fashion return for a landing at the earliest time and not waste time jettisoning fuel believing that an overwieght landing is a lot better than being in the air any longer with an engine inoperative.

or

B) Take the time to go and jettison fuel knowing that the other engine has been designed to run for 120-180mins so taking time for fuel jettison would not be a significant risk and would reduce the chances of an incident on landing.

Also in additon to this would your attitude change depending on what type of engine failure had occured e.g. a simple rundown vs. a surging engine.

[Capt Fathom]

Answer (A) is correct. :eek:

[411A]

Well, in my view, answer "B' would be the preferred choice, depending on the nature of the engine failure.

OTOH, I would not want to steam around for two hours either.

I would expect to follow the particular airlines' standard procedures, normally. barring any unusual circumstances.

Having said all this, nothing wrong with an overweight landing either, if called for for any reason whatsoever.

SR111 comes to mind.

[Right Way Up]

Quite a lot of variables in this situation. Runway length, weather being a few! For an unextinguishable engine fire the scenario is black and white, for an engine failure it really is down to the commanders discretion. A factor to consider are where can I dump fuel. If I have to fly 100 nm to dump fuel then no, if I can dump fuel in the locality of an airfield then why not. I think 411a has it right, there is no particular rush but also there is normally no problem landing overweight. Personally I do not like to fly away from an airfield, one possible reason for the engine failure could be poor maintenance, 411a will probably expand more, but I remember an L1011 (poss EAL), losing engine after engine on the way to the Bahamas, and only just landing at MIA after a cock-up with oil seals. Also a Queens flight 146 doing similar and landing with virtually no power.

[Dehavillanddriver]

As 411 and others have said - it depends.

If it was burning I'd come straight back

If it was a straight cut - ie the engine ran down - I'd dump

As for altitude, I'd stay above the 25 nm MSA (and within 25nm) given that the charts (in my country at least) have a 25 nm MSA published on the Jepps.

Is a straight cut an emergency or an urgency situation - would you call mayday or pan?

Unless it was burning (or had damaged the aircraft during its death) I reckon it is an urgency situation rather than an emergency - but there are many differing views on this point.

[VR-HDB]

If it was a straight cut - ie the engine ran down - I'd dump
Is a straight cut an emergency or an urgency situation - would you call mayday or pan?

At first I though it seemed a bit contradictory to call mayday, and then take the time to go out dumping fuel. But, the fuel dump is (primarily) done to ensure sufficient performance for a possible G/A (appch climb) - so perhaps the surrounding terrain clearance should also be considered.

So maybe the situation is considered to be critical enough for a mayday - but the crew still decides to dump fuel to increase performance.

[DBate]

Since we are looking at a scenario flying a two-engined aircraft, I would always decide on a mayday call.

Rember, you have only one engine left, so there's no redundancy.

Concerning 411As comment about SR111: Sad but true, even if the crew had immediately decided to do an overweight landing an prepared the approach, they would'nt have made it.

[6100]

In a two engine aircraft with one engine failed, there is only one reason not to come back and land asap (with appropriate checklists and approach preparation complete) and that is performance (landing performance or go around performance). Even then you can decide to waive those requirements if for instance you have a hugely long runway, cavok, and no obstacles.

I look at it this way. When you are responsible for passengers lives, be it one or 400, then you must always have a contingency plan. If you have already had one engine fail, then what is your contingency plan if you are away from the airfield dumping fuel and the other engine fails?

You are in a fair bit of trouble I would say.

It is not logical to apply the ETOPS theory. The only reason we fly for 3 hrs on one engine in the ETOPS case is because we have to. We would never overfly a suitable airfield on one engine just to get to the designated ETOPS alternate.

That's my two bobs worth anyway

[Doors to Automatic]

What would the position be at an airport with a relatively short runway (e.g. a 777 at Birmingham).

Would the procdedure be to land immediately so that time flying on one engine is minimised or divert to an airport with a longer runway which is safer for an overweight landing?

[oldebloke]

B74,your heading was an immediate return to landing?,and then you pose an 'engineout'as the concern!!As has been covered ,do the drills.checklists,and 'briefings'all in a pedantic manner,land on the longest if no fuel dump etc....How about a more expedient question in the case oh a PAX heart attack,or the second 'bottle' light' doesn't extinguish??

:ok:

[mutt]

oldebloke,

Landing performance is governed by three restrictions:

[list=1]
Approach Climb/landing climb.
Field Length Limit weight.
Certificated Landing weight.
[/list=1]

By regulation an airliner must be capable of meeting the approach climb and landing climb requirements 15 minutes after takeoff, with or without a fuel jettison system.

A quick check of a field length limit chart will give you the weight limitation for Nbr2.

In an emergency, the certificated landing weight can be exceeded, up to the limits of Nbr 1&2.

Therefore, once the crew has established that they can safely land on that runway, its their decision as to the urgency. For your example of PAX heart attack or fire light, the aircraft will be capable of landing after 15 minutes, based upon a MTOW departure.

Mutt.

[Dehavillanddriver]

I guess that the question is what constitutes an immediate return to land?

Do you mean a quick circuit to get the aircraft back onto the ground?

or do you mean something else.

let me preface the below by saying that each case is individual and I am talking in general terms here!

I brief that if we need an emergency return we will do a LH or RH circuit (as applicable) , nor a non emergency return we will go and climb up to the 25 nm msa, sort it out and then come back when we have our poo in a pile.

I reckon an emergency return is when the machine is burning, or has some sort of handling problem.

If it was a rundown or similar I'd climb up to the MSA do the checklists, brief the cabin crew and pax, brief the approach etc (not necessarily in that order for the pedants)

I reckon a major cause of stuff ups (in the sim at least) is people rushing and forgetting or not considering something that they would never normally dream of forgetting.

Taking the time to sort everything out, run all the appropriate checklists, speak to the required people, discuss amongst yourselves (Capt and F/O) the options, have we forgotten anything - any suggestions etc, is a very worthwhile thing to do in my opinion.

In my mind this is where I would make the distinction between a PAN and a MAYDAY.

The statistical probability of having a failure, followed by a totally unrelated failure of the other engine is incredibly remote - note the word unrelated...so much so that I reckon that the risk associated with taking the extra time to dump, do all the other things etc is outweighed by the risk of stuffing it up if you rush.

No matter what you decide on the day, the arm chair quarterbacks will come up with a reason why you did it incorrectly anyway - so why worry!

[oldebloke]

Mutt,sorry but you missed the point of an 'Immediate return to landing'...In the case presented one had an engine out-No requirement for an Immediate landing..I changed the scenario to develope thoughts on where one would 'abreviate' the checks to get on the ground ASAP......
On the 727 there was no concern-leave the bugs as they were,land O'weight with reduced flap( to meet the Climb gradient)..
Same for the 320,activate the 'approach page' to get the 'proper'speeds,land with flaps 3 (again to meet the Climb gradient)use longest runway..
These comply with an Immediate return to land..
Cheers(food for thought whilst in cruise or walking the dog):ok:

[DFC]

Yak, Yak, Yak............!!!

Anyone here ever flown a glider?

Stay withn gliding distance and who cares if you have power or not.

In the UK is it perfectly OK to dump fuel at 10,080+ft above egll and lower if you declare an emergency!!!!

So, having departed EGLL, why not orbit in the overhead where there is no traffic.

Anyone here been vectored through the egll overhead on a regular basisinbound to egll?

ATCO's avoiding red lines keep quiet!! :D

1 Eng out off egll. I start the dump ASAP........my requirement to save life always resides above the fish life in the waste lakes.

Regards,

DFC

PS,

One can only use ETOPS in circumstances where ETOPS is required. ...............Who in their right mind would hold close to a suitable landing place with 450 pax on one engine?

Unless wx dictated otherwise........which brings us to the departure alternate!

regards again,

DFC

[Vaap]

Aircraft in bound to Northolt regularly get vectored through the EGLL overhead, between 4000 and 5000 I think.

[Right Way Up]

And I am not sure I would want to orbit in such a small area whilst dumping fuel, might be bad for your health!