Emergency landing today of Air Canada's B787 in CYUL...
Thread Starter
Emergency landing today of Air Canada's B787 in CYUL...
Article is in French from a local newspaper... There are 3 videos attached to the story.
The flight had just taken off from Montreal for Shanghai when they had to shutdown an engine. It was decided to dump fuel before landing back in Montreal.
Unknown if the shutdown was right after takeoff or sometime after. But there is talk that they went north of Montreal and possibly dumped fuel for 30 minutes prior to returning for the landing.
Atterrissage d'urgence à Montréal, aucun blessé | Louis-Samuel Perron, Audrey Ruel-Manseau | Faits divers
The flight had just taken off from Montreal for Shanghai when they had to shutdown an engine. It was decided to dump fuel before landing back in Montreal.
Unknown if the shutdown was right after takeoff or sometime after. But there is talk that they went north of Montreal and possibly dumped fuel for 30 minutes prior to returning for the landing.
Atterrissage d'urgence à Montréal, aucun blessé | Louis-Samuel Perron, Audrey Ruel-Manseau | Faits divers
Thread Starter
Yes I can read French but later in the video one of the passengers says they were dumping fuel after being in flight for 30 minutes.
So it was not a matter of taking off, having an engine shutdown immediately after takeoff and then returning for a landing right away.
They decided to either continue a climb fly to a dumping site for X amount of time then return to CYUL or they were already half an hour out when the problem occurred and then decided to dump fuel on their way back to CYUL.
One comment from a passenger claims that they felt something was wrong on the takeoff roll.
So my question is if this happened on the takeoff or minutes after and you decided to shutdown the engine, would you land ASAP overweight or fly on one engine to the fuel dump site, dump some fuel maybe for 15 or 30 minutes then return for a landing?
What does the B787 checklist calls for?
So it was not a matter of taking off, having an engine shutdown immediately after takeoff and then returning for a landing right away.
They decided to either continue a climb fly to a dumping site for X amount of time then return to CYUL or they were already half an hour out when the problem occurred and then decided to dump fuel on their way back to CYUL.
One comment from a passenger claims that they felt something was wrong on the takeoff roll.
So my question is if this happened on the takeoff or minutes after and you decided to shutdown the engine, would you land ASAP overweight or fly on one engine to the fuel dump site, dump some fuel maybe for 15 or 30 minutes then return for a landing?
What does the B787 checklist calls for?
Thread Starter
Well another article just came out locally with some additional info with the flight Radar 24 from the flight.
Apparently as I suspected they went north of Montreal over the Laurantians mountains and dumped fuel for a while... This article claims they were airborne for an hour.
Un avion d'Air Canada atterrit d'urgence à Montréal | TVA Nouvelles
Apparently as I suspected they went north of Montreal over the Laurantians mountains and dumped fuel for a while... This article claims they were airborne for an hour.
Un avion d'Air Canada atterrit d'urgence à Montréal | TVA Nouvelles
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does the B787 checklist call for:
Choose one:
Overweight Landing
Condition: A landing at greater than maximum landing weight is needed.
One engine is inoperative:
Tuning and control panel GPWS FLAP OVRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVRD
Note: Use flaps 20 and VREF 20 for landing and flaps 5 for go-around. This provides greater climb capability.
Ie with one engine out dont mess about with climb performance just land with flap 20.
Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport
Choose one:
Overweight Landing
Condition: A landing at greater than maximum landing weight is needed.
One engine is inoperative:
Tuning and control panel GPWS FLAP OVRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVRD
Note: Use flaps 20 and VREF 20 for landing and flaps 5 for go-around. This provides greater climb capability.
Ie with one engine out dont mess about with climb performance just land with flap 20.
Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here's the FlightRadar24 plot:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f.../ac17/#cd9f666
Looks like AC17 was airborne at 1752Z and landed at 1857Z.
The fun begins shortly after AC17 is cleared for takeoff at about 21:55 into this clip of tower audio:
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cy...2017-1730Z.mp3
AC17 was cleared for takeoff on 06R. The tower told them that they had 'three flameouts [sic] on the right engine' (I realize that the controller might not be very fluent in English). AC17 called Pan-Pan-Pan and asked for vectors to stay close to the airport.
They then said they were going straight out with a turn at 11 DME IUL, maybe one of those special engine-out procedures that the company teaches but ATC knows nothing about. They later took a heading of 270 and a climb to 5000 feet. Requested vectors to dump area, SOB's 224 with crew of 13, fuel 78.7 with plans to dump to 40 (I assume tonnes, AC wrote the book on fuel quantity unit conversions in ETOPS twins ). Looks like they dumped at 7000 feet and came back to land on 06L.
Another day at the office.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f.../ac17/#cd9f666
Looks like AC17 was airborne at 1752Z and landed at 1857Z.
The fun begins shortly after AC17 is cleared for takeoff at about 21:55 into this clip of tower audio:
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cy...2017-1730Z.mp3
AC17 was cleared for takeoff on 06R. The tower told them that they had 'three flameouts [sic] on the right engine' (I realize that the controller might not be very fluent in English). AC17 called Pan-Pan-Pan and asked for vectors to stay close to the airport.
They then said they were going straight out with a turn at 11 DME IUL, maybe one of those special engine-out procedures that the company teaches but ATC knows nothing about. They later took a heading of 270 and a climb to 5000 feet. Requested vectors to dump area, SOB's 224 with crew of 13, fuel 78.7 with plans to dump to 40 (I assume tonnes, AC wrote the book on fuel quantity unit conversions in ETOPS twins ). Looks like they dumped at 7000 feet and came back to land on 06L.
Another day at the office.
As far as dashing back and landing overweight -
I can't comment on the 787 checklist BanditGirl provided but FWIW on another Boeing ETOPS twin the checklist is worded similarly and you wouldn't be expected to land overweight simply for a straight forward engine failure. Given no further complications you'd head off to dump fuel in a suitable area near the airport, then return and land.
I can't comment on the 787 checklist BanditGirl provided but FWIW on another Boeing ETOPS twin the checklist is worded similarly and you wouldn't be expected to land overweight simply for a straight forward engine failure. Given no further complications you'd head off to dump fuel in a suitable area near the airport, then return and land.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JJ A4
Our company had an incident on a twin whereupon a engine surged shortly after take off, and was shut down that particular type had no Jettison system thus they just landed overweight. However when they looked into the other ( good !) engine they were horrified to see the fan damage ( birds) , all concerned were amazed the one remaining engine continued to run without indication of a fault, but for how long ???
Should a crew decide to hold to Jettison on a single engine with a line in the checklist that states land at nearest suitable airfield and that engine subsequently fails, I am pretty sure the manufactures lawyers in the subsequent aftermath singing they could have landed 40 mins before the remaining engine failed and our overweight landing checklist allows it.
Every Jet Transporter I have ever flown has been able to land overweight hence the existence of the Overweight Landing Checklist. As far as landing distance is concerned if you just took off on it and was able to stop at V1 3/4 down the runway for an RTO you sure can stop landing at the threashold.
For those of you who say yes but it's ETOPS I have got 180 mins before I need to land, I would say yeah but the other bugger did not last three hours did it !!!
My company policy and my strong view having seen those Fan pictures is land overweight minimise the time available for the other engine to fail, you would never end up in a legal scenario just landing overweight, however if you join the two engine hush club in a twin ??
For what it is worth I have landed a heavy twin just 5 Tonnes short of MTOW with an immediate return to land scenario. Overweight checklist completed of course.
Our company had an incident on a twin whereupon a engine surged shortly after take off, and was shut down that particular type had no Jettison system thus they just landed overweight. However when they looked into the other ( good !) engine they were horrified to see the fan damage ( birds) , all concerned were amazed the one remaining engine continued to run without indication of a fault, but for how long ???
Should a crew decide to hold to Jettison on a single engine with a line in the checklist that states land at nearest suitable airfield and that engine subsequently fails, I am pretty sure the manufactures lawyers in the subsequent aftermath singing they could have landed 40 mins before the remaining engine failed and our overweight landing checklist allows it.
Every Jet Transporter I have ever flown has been able to land overweight hence the existence of the Overweight Landing Checklist. As far as landing distance is concerned if you just took off on it and was able to stop at V1 3/4 down the runway for an RTO you sure can stop landing at the threashold.
For those of you who say yes but it's ETOPS I have got 180 mins before I need to land, I would say yeah but the other bugger did not last three hours did it !!!
My company policy and my strong view having seen those Fan pictures is land overweight minimise the time available for the other engine to fail, you would never end up in a legal scenario just landing overweight, however if you join the two engine hush club in a twin ??
For what it is worth I have landed a heavy twin just 5 Tonnes short of MTOW with an immediate return to land scenario. Overweight checklist completed of course.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why, why, why, dump 40 Tonnes of fuel over a beautiful area of wilderness, where lake fishing, hunting, golf and skiing in the Mont Tremblant area brings a lot of pleasure for people and is a major source of income for the region. They were at relatively low altitude for the dump so I expect people are waking up to this stuff lying all over the greenery and floating on the lakes. If they could fly for so long why not go dump it in the St Lawrence north of Quebec City, oops, sorry the Whales are there too.
(Everyone in Montreal gets out of town and comes to their cabin up here, one of my family was in a cabin right under the dump area and I have friends in cabins nearby.)
Of course anyone who buys their local veggies from the Slough, Maidenhead, Ascot area are eating the carcinogens too so obviously it is not harmful, not?.
Am I a "Nimby" ? yes when "operations" require pilots to do idiotic things.
(Everyone in Montreal gets out of town and comes to their cabin up here, one of my family was in a cabin right under the dump area and I have friends in cabins nearby.)
Of course anyone who buys their local veggies from the Slough, Maidenhead, Ascot area are eating the carcinogens too so obviously it is not harmful, not?.
Am I a "Nimby" ? yes when "operations" require pilots to do idiotic things.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why, why, why, dump 40 Tonnes of fuel over a beautiful area of wilderness, where lake fishing, hunting, golf and skiing in the Mont Tremblant area brings a lot of pleasure for people and is a major source of income for the region. They were at relatively low altitude for the dump so I expect people are waking up to this stuff lying all over the greenery and floating on the lakes. If they could fly for so long why not go dump it in the St Lawrence north of Quebec City, oops, sorry the Whales are there too.
(Everyone in Montreal gets out of town and comes to their cabin up here, one of my family was in a cabin right under the dump area and I have friends in cabins nearby.)
Of course anyone who buys their local veggies from the Slough, Maidenhead, Ascot area are eating the carcinogens too so obviously it is not harmful, not?.
Am I a "Nimby" ? yes when "operations" require pilots to do idiotic things.
(Everyone in Montreal gets out of town and comes to their cabin up here, one of my family was in a cabin right under the dump area and I have friends in cabins nearby.)
Of course anyone who buys their local veggies from the Slough, Maidenhead, Ascot area are eating the carcinogens too so obviously it is not harmful, not?.
Am I a "Nimby" ? yes when "operations" require pilots to do idiotic things.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Then why is it that one can (sometimes) detect the odour of aviation fuel when there is an airliner flying nearby?
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jnps
Thanks very much fot the ref, I must say I had read that AERO before but a long time ago,
I guess the statment below will only fuel th debate from both sides.
Obviously, landing at weights above the maximum design landing weight reduces the normal performance margins. An overweight landing with an engine inoperative or a system failure may be less desirable than landing below maximum landing weight. Yet, delaying the landing with a malfunctioning system or engine failure in order to reduce weight or jettison fuel may expose the airplane to additional system deterioration that can make the situation worse. The pilot in command is in the best position to assess all relevant factors and determine the best course of action.
Thus it's the skippers decision, I would suggest that zero redundancy in the power department is exposing the aircraft to a further threat that needs to be mitigated TEM !!!
I just can't forget the pictures of the remaining engine fan blades mentioned in my earlier post
Thanks very much fot the ref, I must say I had read that AERO before but a long time ago,
I guess the statment below will only fuel th debate from both sides.
Obviously, landing at weights above the maximum design landing weight reduces the normal performance margins. An overweight landing with an engine inoperative or a system failure may be less desirable than landing below maximum landing weight. Yet, delaying the landing with a malfunctioning system or engine failure in order to reduce weight or jettison fuel may expose the airplane to additional system deterioration that can make the situation worse. The pilot in command is in the best position to assess all relevant factors and determine the best course of action.
Thus it's the skippers decision, I would suggest that zero redundancy in the power department is exposing the aircraft to a further threat that needs to be mitigated TEM !!!
I just can't forget the pictures of the remaining engine fan blades mentioned in my earlier post