SWISS LX40 [ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automatic Fadec shut down and N-1 ferry permit.
I start with the end: Never and Never.
Tdracer is the expert and he has spoken.
The PW on the Do328 jet would cut the fuel at 108% if the two other overspeed protection system had failed controlling the overspeed condition.ONLY to introduce fuel as the engine got under control , something that posed majore controleproblems as the engine cycled from 108% idle and 108% over a ca 30 sec time.
All fun and games in the sim.
No FADEC is certified to shut down in the air. periode.
Had a Yank in the sim once that wanted to simulate a ferry flight with one engine.
Why ever do You want to do that? Was my question! Shure it can be done He say! OK ! Go for it.
First he showed me how the Dornier was an expensive lawn mower, then he fed in power gently over 600m runway accelerated to v1( not that consept was valid anymore.and climbed away at V2 with a grin on his face.
Having used ca 2500 meters runway.
We then proceeded with two engines and he did a roll.
(Something that HAS been done with a 328 by Air Engedina on a ferry flight, observed by an offduty Swiss CAA Guy , OOPS!)
With that out of his system we vent for coffee and we decided to Get With The Program.
Twin Singel engine Ferry,, Dream On!1
Tdracer is the expert and he has spoken.
The PW on the Do328 jet would cut the fuel at 108% if the two other overspeed protection system had failed controlling the overspeed condition.ONLY to introduce fuel as the engine got under control , something that posed majore controleproblems as the engine cycled from 108% idle and 108% over a ca 30 sec time.
All fun and games in the sim.
No FADEC is certified to shut down in the air. periode.
Had a Yank in the sim once that wanted to simulate a ferry flight with one engine.
Why ever do You want to do that? Was my question! Shure it can be done He say! OK ! Go for it.
First he showed me how the Dornier was an expensive lawn mower, then he fed in power gently over 600m runway accelerated to v1( not that consept was valid anymore.and climbed away at V2 with a grin on his face.
Having used ca 2500 meters runway.
We then proceeded with two engines and he did a roll.
(Something that HAS been done with a 328 by Air Engedina on a ferry flight, observed by an offduty Swiss CAA Guy , OOPS!)
With that out of his system we vent for coffee and we decided to Get With The Program.
Twin Singel engine Ferry,, Dream On!1
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Gordomac:
From a Persistent Passenger who has learn what seems a lot from this and other threads:
How high over LCA does this example event occur;
How long will it take to get from there to grouind level;
How does that time compare with time to anywhere with better facilities?
Just to repeat the Saturday morning teaser ; You are overhead LCA. Engine quits (no, NOT "automatic", engines DO quit). Into the hold, complete drills, mayday 'n' all that ; Company calls you and asks you to proceed to some place down the road where they have a spare engine & anyway, LCA have an engineers strike in progress and Dispatch show 12o kt tailwind to "preferred" alternate.
How high over LCA does this example event occur;
How long will it take to get from there to grouind level;
How does that time compare with time to anywhere with better facilities?
Would any aircraft engineers like to comment about the challenges of a non hangar engine change in extreme conditions?
Aircraft engineers often have to work in miserable weather conditions out on the ramp: Is this sort of engine change seen as great fun and a challenge to be enjoyed, or an even more miserable than normal challenge?
Aircraft engineers often have to work in miserable weather conditions out on the ramp: Is this sort of engine change seen as great fun and a challenge to be enjoyed, or an even more miserable than normal challenge?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dairyground - normal distance to descend from cruise altitude to destination is 120-140 nm.
Emergency, max effort, from max certified altitude, is probably closer to 70 nm.
The time for a normal descent is 25-30 minutes. You can usually estimate your time of arrival based on when the first descent starts assuming normal airspace constraints and arrival flow.
An emergency, max effort, would be closer to 8-10 minutes. Slightly quicker for lower cruise altitudes. If time is critical it doesn't matter if you're over a runway if you're too high. It takes time, and distance, to reduce the altitude.
So being right over an alternate doesn't help much. It's actually easiest if it's 120-140 nm ahead of you when you make the decision to divert and you're ready for the descent. From there you'd just do a normal descent.
Emergency, max effort, from max certified altitude, is probably closer to 70 nm.
The time for a normal descent is 25-30 minutes. You can usually estimate your time of arrival based on when the first descent starts assuming normal airspace constraints and arrival flow.
An emergency, max effort, would be closer to 8-10 minutes. Slightly quicker for lower cruise altitudes. If time is critical it doesn't matter if you're over a runway if you're too high. It takes time, and distance, to reduce the altitude.
So being right over an alternate doesn't help much. It's actually easiest if it's 120-140 nm ahead of you when you make the decision to divert and you're ready for the descent. From there you'd just do a normal descent.
Last edited by misd-agin; 4th Feb 2017 at 13:02. Reason: Added 2nd and 3rd paragraph.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep, you can follow the Antonov's progress here:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...82007/#c5d120d
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...82007/#c5d120d
Quote from WingNut60:
"Somehow I just can not reconcile the paradoxical logic (presumably based on in-depth risk analysis) that says it is safe to operate a twin engine aircraft for up to 3 hours on one engine (ETOPS 180) but then says, in the case of an engine failure you had better land at the first suitable airport, at peril of losing your profession, if you elect to fly a little further to a "more suitable" location ..... ie support services, etc.
The inference, for me, is that the argument for ETOPS is not really as well founded as it should be."
Fair discussion point. Many of us were sceptical during the evolution of ETOPS provisions in the 1980s and '90s. I guess we've been waiting for something like a diversion to Nassarsuak** in marginal conditions, and keeping our fingers crossed.
Maybe the difference between the situations before and after the engine failure is that, without permitting flight up to (say) 3 hours at single-engine speed from the nearest suitable aerodrome, the flight would have to be cancelled, re-routed, or operated with more than two engines.
On any given flight with these turbofans the first engine failure has proved to be, as argued then, an extremely low probability. Once it has taken place, the probability of a second failure is comparable: i.e., extremely low, in the 3 hours allowed. But it would almost certainly be catastrophic. Therefore, anything that can be done to mitigate that risk should be done.
The choice of aerodrome, if there is choice, may involve judgment. But the criterion of maximising the safety and welfare of the passengers and crew must take priority over any others, including operational considerations and aircraft recovery. None of that overrides the commander’s discretion, of course.
As they say: just my tuppence' worth.
** (Although I'm not sure Nassarsuak is necessary in the ETOPS 180 case.)
"Somehow I just can not reconcile the paradoxical logic (presumably based on in-depth risk analysis) that says it is safe to operate a twin engine aircraft for up to 3 hours on one engine (ETOPS 180) but then says, in the case of an engine failure you had better land at the first suitable airport, at peril of losing your profession, if you elect to fly a little further to a "more suitable" location ..... ie support services, etc.
The inference, for me, is that the argument for ETOPS is not really as well founded as it should be."
Fair discussion point. Many of us were sceptical during the evolution of ETOPS provisions in the 1980s and '90s. I guess we've been waiting for something like a diversion to Nassarsuak** in marginal conditions, and keeping our fingers crossed.
Maybe the difference between the situations before and after the engine failure is that, without permitting flight up to (say) 3 hours at single-engine speed from the nearest suitable aerodrome, the flight would have to be cancelled, re-routed, or operated with more than two engines.
On any given flight with these turbofans the first engine failure has proved to be, as argued then, an extremely low probability. Once it has taken place, the probability of a second failure is comparable: i.e., extremely low, in the 3 hours allowed. But it would almost certainly be catastrophic. Therefore, anything that can be done to mitigate that risk should be done.
The choice of aerodrome, if there is choice, may involve judgment. But the criterion of maximising the safety and welfare of the passengers and crew must take priority over any others, including operational considerations and aircraft recovery. None of that overrides the commander’s discretion, of course.
As they say: just my tuppence' worth.
** (Although I'm not sure Nassarsuak is necessary in the ETOPS 180 case.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South of BBB VOR
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pictures and info (in German) from a passenger aboard LX40:
Mit SWISS in die USA - via Iqaluit (YFB) wegen Sicherheitslandung nach Triebwerksausfall
Mit SWISS in die USA - via Iqaluit (YFB) wegen Sicherheitslandung nach Triebwerksausfall
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is this sort of engine change seen as great fun and a challenge to be enjoyed, or an even more miserable than normal challenge?"
minus 30C, vinds gusting 25 Kts, so chilling factor around -40C , you call this a " great fun" challenge ?
Super cold metal = another challenge is to unscrew fastened bolts torqued at or near standard temp I would say.
minus 30C, vinds gusting 25 Kts, so chilling factor around -40C , you call this a " great fun" challenge ?
Super cold metal = another challenge is to unscrew fastened bolts torqued at or near standard temp I would say.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The triple uses pylon mounted bootstrap hoists as most other engines do. Only issue with these larger bypass engines is that the propulsor and fan sections have to be separated to ship them. This then gives the engineers a bit more work to do in reassembly.
With regards to the environmental conditions, any airline worth their salt will have a portable engine change tent that will be packed up along with all the other engine change gear. A few heaters and lights rigged up and it will be no worse than changing an engine in a cold hangar in the winter. Well, as long as they keep the doors firmly shut that is.
With regards to the environmental conditions, any airline worth their salt will have a portable engine change tent that will be packed up along with all the other engine change gear. A few heaters and lights rigged up and it will be no worse than changing an engine in a cold hangar in the winter. Well, as long as they keep the doors firmly shut that is.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Age: 57
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All depends on how big the plane carrying the spare is doesn't it.. and this case there isn't a need to split the engine. Tents are normally rented when required.
Reason for shutdown is fully known ... just not reported in blick.ch .....yet.
Reason for shutdown is fully known ... just not reported in blick.ch .....yet.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so I'm afraid. Granted, not a 777 but a twin jet nonetheless:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19980319-1
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The pilot-in-command's decision to attempt takeoff with the right engine inoperative, resulting in his failure to maintain directional control or attain adequate airspeed during the takeoff attempt. Factors included a fractured right engine starter-generator drive shaft, resulting in an inability to perform a normal engine start on the ground."
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19980319-1
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The pilot-in-command's decision to attempt takeoff with the right engine inoperative, resulting in his failure to maintain directional control or attain adequate airspeed during the takeoff attempt. Factors included a fractured right engine starter-generator drive shaft, resulting in an inability to perform a normal engine start on the ground."
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arguments regarding seletion of an alternate during EDTO/ETOPS can be settled by reading FAA AC 120-42B. It may use the old terminology but it is still in effect. It explains in plain English with examples what are, and are not, acceptable reasons to select a more distant airport for diversion. EASA does not have an equivelant document but a broad reading of all their regs delivers the same message.
Hint: You need to be monitoring all suitable airports on your route, not just the ones the dispatcher plucked to make up a flight plan showing the aircraft could legally dispatch.
Hint: You need to be monitoring all suitable airports on your route, not just the ones the dispatcher plucked to make up a flight plan showing the aircraft could legally dispatch.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: france
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arguments regarding seletion of an alternate during EDTO/ETOPS can be settled by reading FAA AC 120-42B. It may use the old terminology but it is still in effect. It explains in plain English with examples what are, and are not, acceptable reasons to select a more distant airport for diversion. EASA does not have an equivelant document but a broad reading of all their regs delivers the same message.
http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fil...AMC%2020-6.pdf
re engine-out ferries.
Even on triples and quads it is not a simple matter. Some airlines will not allow their own crews to ferry out a 747 with 3 engines but will call in a team from Boeing to do the job. Insurance plays a big part in deciding.
IIRC China Airline had a problem with an engine in Manila (747). They elected to ferry the airplane out and it ended up in the mud.
I believe the ferry was required to to an engine damaged by a pod-strike but I am unable to confirm this. This was in the early 90s or late 80s. the runway excursion was due to asymmetric thrust.
Anil
Even on triples and quads it is not a simple matter. Some airlines will not allow their own crews to ferry out a 747 with 3 engines but will call in a team from Boeing to do the job. Insurance plays a big part in deciding.
IIRC China Airline had a problem with an engine in Manila (747). They elected to ferry the airplane out and it ended up in the mud.
I believe the ferry was required to to an engine damaged by a pod-strike but I am unable to confirm this. This was in the early 90s or late 80s. the runway excursion was due to asymmetric thrust.
Anil
Could only find this reference online but I'm too cheap to pay for a subscription!!
CAL 747 Leaves Runway, Shuts Down Manila | AWIN content from Aviation Week
I'd imagine the incident 2 days previously necessitated the ferry which ended up of the paved surface.
Anil
edit.. found a pic
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-fil...118030556.html
CAL 747 Leaves Runway, Shuts Down Manila | AWIN content from Aviation Week
I'd imagine the incident 2 days previously necessitated the ferry which ended up of the paved surface.
Anil
edit.. found a pic
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-fil...118030556.html
Last edited by Anilv; 5th Feb 2017 at 09:22.