ORD B767 engine loss

[marek22]

Just got the message from friend of mine who lives on extended CL of rwy 14L ORD, three miles from threshold (Elk Grove). Yesterday, Sunday, 10/24, they observed UA B767 loosing an engine with loud bang and fire just over their house. Crew landed back safely after fuel dump over the lake.

Nothing in local/CNN news! (?)
Has any body heard about? Any details?

[411A]

Lets see...on the CL, preparing to land. (If this story is factual...?)
Then, engine problem.

So, the concerned acft (a twin no less) goes off to dump fuel, only to return later for landing.

Were they not at/below max landing weight in the first place?

Reminds me of the UAL DC8 that ran out of fuel at PDX trying to solve a landing gear problem....ie; brains disengaged.

Good grief.:uhoh: :uhoh:

[Mark McG]

The link below is reporting a compressor stall after a bird strike on departure from ORD enroute to GRU.

http://cbs2chicago.com/illinois/IL--EmergencyLanding-in/resources_news_html

[Turn It Off]

I'm a little confused,

I would guess that said aircraft was on climb-out at the time of the said bang, therefore heavy and needing a dump ( couldn't resist that! ), not final approach??

TIO

[marek22]

Aircraft was departing 14L and flying over town located on extended CL.

I'm pretty sure MarkMcG's link is the one I was looking for.

...Shortly after United Airlines Flight 835 to Sao Paulo, Brazil, took off, the pilot reported ``a compressor stall, something that caused flames to shoot out from the engine,''
The pilot shut down the engine and flew the Boeing 767 over nearby Lake Michigan and dumped fuel before returning to O'Hare, .... feathers were found in the engine ...

this was the case

[HotDog]

Reminds me of the UAL DC8 that ran out of fuel at PDX trying to solve a landing gear problem....ie; brains disengaged
Got a bit ahead of ourselves there 411, must make sure brain is engaged!:ok:

[Frosty Hoar]

Once upon a time, after many years service an L1011 engineer passes away and arrives at the gates of heaven,where he is welcomed by st peter and asked whether or not he had any requests.

"Only one, please make sure that I dont encounter any overbearing ill informed tristar pilots in here, Ive had enough after 30 years on the line"

"No problem" says st peter, "most of those guys are in pergatory anway" So our man checks in and heads down to the bar for a cold beer.

He is shocked to see one of the most obnoxious characters he had the misfortune to serve under standing at the bar. He immediately runs back to the pearly gates to accost St Peter, who replies matter of factly

"dont worry old chap thats just GOD pretending to be 411a"

:cool:

[411A]

Yes, and he didn't get any beer either.:p

Now then, back to topic.
Here we have UAL departing (which was not all that clear from the originating post), engine goes bang, so he dumps and returns.

Question:

How long would most chaps feel was reasonable steaming around on one engine, dumping fuel to landing weight, in a twin?

A very interesting incident happened with SV many years ago wherein a B737 departed (tankering fuel) and had an engine failure.
This guy flew around for two hours before returning for landing, trying to burn off to landing weight (fuel dumping not possible with this model).
The 737 fleet manager was not amused.

Not having flown twin engined transport jets (very lucky), this single engine climb/cruise/dump scenario did not present itself.

[Oilhead]

767-300 departing for GRU - close to MTOG - well above MLW

Compressor stall (believed to be bird ingestion) at rotation

Fuel Dump - Return -

The End

[ironbutt57]

Guess that's a predicament any twin engine transport pilot can find himself in...what has actually happened, do I return and land over weight, or do I dump fuel..is it urgent I return and land ASAP...some scenarios are blatantly obvious..some are very blurry...keeping in mind the adage "better to be adjudged by twelve, than carried by six" as in Boeing's disclaimer in the preamble to their QRH "While every attempt is made to establish necessary non-normal checklists it is not possible to develope checklists for all concievable situations" etc...etc...concluding with..."the Captain must assess the situation and use sound judgement to determine the safest course of action." Same could apply to SOP's....at some point judgement must enter the foray..and it appears in his best judgement, this captain's course of action resulted in a happy outcome..

[TheOddOne]

A couple of years ago we had a similar incident where a departing 767 had an engine let go at about 50'. Sheet of flame and loads of honeycomb cowling bits all over the upwind end of the runway.

The a/c did a tight circuit to land immediately, though well overweight, hardly giving time for the team to pick up the bits.

As with another thread recently (the 727 still on fire scenario) trying to get down to max landing weight is relatively unimportant under these circumstances. Getting safely back on the ground asap is top of the list. The few remaining bits of FOD are pretty low down on the list, too, under these conditions, where normally we'd clean back to pristine.

The OddOne

[ManaAdaSystem]

You could find yourself very close to max tire speed doing an overweight, single engine landing on the 76.

[LightTwin Driver]

Just got the message from friend of mine who lives on extended CL of rwy 14L ORD, three miles from threshold (Elk Grove). Yesterday, Sunday, 10/24, they observed UA B767 loosing an engine with loud bang


Did they ever find it ?

[boxmover]

ManaAdaSystem

I am not a 767 pilot so please treat this as a request for education not as an atack.

On the aircraft I fly the lift off speed for a normal departure is higher than the recmended touchdown speed at the same wt with flaps for a single eng ldg. How is it on the 767?

Is it an issue of V2 = 1.2Vs but Vref = 1.3Vs + wind?

[763 jock]

From the 767-300ER QRH. Vref 20 at 180000KGS, which is around max T/O, is 173 knots. Our tires are 225 mph so not a factor unless you opt for a tailwind as well! Also from the Boeing FCTM, "Landing distance is normally less than take off distance for flaps 25 or 30 landings at all gross weights." Also "Analysis has determined that, when landing at high gross weights at speeds associated with non-normal procedures requiring flaps set at 20 or less, maximum effort stops may exceed brake energy limits. The gross weights where this condition can occur are well above maximum landing weights. For these non-normal landings, maximize use of the available runway for stopping." For an engine out landing at 150000kgs the QRH gives an unfactored landing distance of 3465' on a dry runway, standard day with no wind or slope. Brakes on the 757/767 are superb. You really need to abuse them for the temperatures to go up.

[Sir George Cayley]

Any news on the bird?

:D

Sir George Cayley

[411A]

About what I expected, 763jock...thanks!

[ManaAdaSystem]

Thanks for the numbers, 763. Now throw in a bit of wind correction and you'll find yourself not far from 195 knots.
Not to say this was the case in this incident.
Just one of many factors to consider in a situation like this.

[Willit Run]

And at what weight does the plane have to be at for a single engine go-around. Certainly not max take -off! I think dumping fuel was a wise choice.

[Boeing737]

Hi, i have two questions and the second question is derived from the first.
Anyhow firstly i read the link to the brief overview of the incident and i noticed the following two lines:

"The incident was similar to one involving an American Airlines plane at O'Hare on Sept. 16. That plane also made an emergency landing after the pilots were unable to avoid a flock of birds, six of which were sucked into the fan blades, causing an engine to catch fire."

In this instance 6 birds were sucked into the engine :oh: surely there was a massive chance that the birds could have been ingested by the engines resulting in a simultaneous engine failure no?

and secondly whats the procedure for a simultaneous engine failure, shortly after take off, i know in lights it straight ahead landing, whats the procedures in an airliner?
thanks guys

[Scimitar]

Good old 411A!

An incorrect assumption on the very first line of his post. Will he ever learn? Think man - think before you jump in with both feet. Maybe, just maybe, someone, somewhere will take some note of what you have to say. Not me though, I've had enough.

[411A]

Oh, I dunno, Scimitar.
The post read three miles from the threshold, on the CL...so it could well have been a landing aircraft as well as one departing.

I have an opinion, either way....:}

[cribble]

(My copy of my company's) Performance Manual for the B767-300 covers Willit Run's worry about single engine approach and landing climb: in short, Willit, generally not a problem. Nor are there any particular handling traps landing overweight on one (It says here....!)

The captain on the day had to make the call: consider incurring a (IMVHO) miniscule added risk by taking time to dump fuel from the centre tank (leaving about 36 tonne undumpable) verses the possibly (who knows how big a...) risk of problems at the end of the rollout, following an overweight landing.

All the B767s I fly are 180 ETOPS qualified, and this influences how I view problems like this one. Results may vary:D

[rubik101]

I guess as it wasn't an ETOPS flight it won't show up in the statistics as an increase in the rate of failures for twins! Strange it only counts when on an actual ETOPS flight.
Incidentally, years ago I was told, if you can take off from the runway, you can land on it, regardless of weight. With few exceptions, i.e. contamination-ice-flapless, this is true for all aircraft.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

<<
I guess as it wasn't an ETOPS flight it won't show up in the statistics as an increase in the rate of failures for twins! Strange it only counts when on an actual ETOPS flight.
>>

I may be wrong, but I thought all IFSDs on twins were taken into account when analysing ETOPS safety.

Iompaseo would know, I'm sure.......

[763 jock]

Not sure, but I don't think it would be relevant to include the shutdown rates on say BAC1-11's and 737-100/200 series in the figures. Also, if this was a birdstrike event, it may be that this type of event is not part of the "reliability criteria". Not the fault of the engine type/design and very unlikely to occur at cruise altitude when actually beyond the 1 hour engine out distance.

[Oilhead]

If I recall correctly under FAA rules (been a while since I flew ETOPS) it doesn't matter whether it is an ETOPS flight or not to count as a ding on one's IFSD rate. I do not believe aircraft type matters either - i.e. a 747-400 with the same engine type as 767-300 for the same operator would be monitored for that airlines IFSD rate.

[Airbubba]

>>The captain on the day had to make the call: consider incurring a (IMVHO) miniscule added risk by taking time to dump fuel from the centre tank (leaving about 36 tonne undumpable) verses the possibly (who knows how big a...) risk of problems at the end of the rollout, following an overweight landing.<<

And some airlines make the decision for you. Air Canada has disabled fuel dump on their 767's to reduce maintenance costs.

[weasil]

"The incident was similar to one involving an American Airlines plane at O'Hare on Sept. 16. That plane also made an emergency landing after the pilots were unable to avoid a flock of birds, six of which were sucked into the fan blades, causing an engine to catch fire."

In this instance 6 birds were sucked into the engine surely there was a massive chance that the birds could have been ingested by the engines resulting in a simultaneous engine failure no?


The captain on this flight was my friend's Dad. He showed me the pictures the next day of the engine, what a mess it made of the fan blades!

[Yaw String]

On B.767, at 145 tonnes (MLW) the gear can accept 600 feet/min and at 186880(MTOW) 360 feet/min sink rate without structural damage-or so they say!!!
If I suck up a ****ehawk on departure I am certainly not going to hang around below cloudbase,with all the other ****ehawks, dumping fuel, when there is a suitable runway to land back on!
No reference to in the event at ORD as I do not know enough details but just a comment on fuel dumping or not!
Landed back at JFK once at 165 tonnes, using full length to decelerate, with only 1 or 2 on brake temp guage.
767 landed back in Rome recently, at 186 tonnes, using just over half of 4000 metre runway. Admittedly you could have enjoyed a fine barbeque on the gear after..if you had the courage! Interesting topic with no clear cut answer for all circumstances.

[Turn It Off]

Hey all,

I don't drive quite like you guys so just got a couple of questions.

Firstly, I noticed that there have been a few birdstrikes at ORD and just wondered what your views are on the 'bird scaring' procedures in force by the aerodrome authority, not only in ord but around the world. The UK would be of interest to myself.

Secondly, imagaine a scenario. You are lined up, ready to go and ATC say " xxx123, essential aerodrome information, I have just seen 3 gulls appear to settle on the runway centreline. Would you like them cleared or to depart anyway?"

Is it a matter of how many birds? Is it a matter of how big they are?

I have said this to pilots and the response has been varied, including one pilot responding with " Traffic in sight !! " I would prefer personally to have them cleared for you, but in the interest of expedition ( which is ALWAYS second to safety) will continue to ask pilots for their opinion on the matter. As mentioned earlier in the thread all SOPS and operating manuals state that ultimately situations are the pilots responsibility.

Ta

TIO