trouble on takeoff

[Boeing737]

Hi, ive always wondered what the procedure is on a simultaneous engine failure on takeoff (all out engine failure), in light aircraft its landing straight ahead, what about airliners?
and secondly what are peoples views on runways within proximity of a metropolitan area?is it not totally dangerous?looking at the likes of london city and the historic kai tac, if you suffered an all engines out failure on take off, you chances of survival are surely alleviated with a built up area directly on your departing path should you decide to force land straight ahead.thanks :8

[The Greaser]

We try not to think about simultaneous engine failures on takeoff!!

[flash8]

depending on altitude a 180 and head back!

[fast cruiser]

Boeing 737

IF you lost both engines in a twin at let say 400' on take off it is R.I.P in most occasions, unless you have plenty of runway or appropriate surface to carry out a forced landing and luck is on your side. sorry for being a bit blunt

cheers

fc

[Boeing737]

jeez, didnt expect to hear that.but what do you guys think about nucleated areas at the ends of a runway?surely there would be far greater chance of avoiding the R.I.P scenario if there was open area to at least attempt a forced landing!

maybe i should be specific, lets suppose hypothetically an altitude of under 500 feet. :8

[Notso Fantastic]

Since you mentioned those places, how many crashes into local built up areas do you know of at Kai Tak and London City? Not a lot......in fact zero. Simultaneous engine failures in a twin are exceedingly rare. You do not have many options. It would be nice to have plowed fields around airports for the incredibly rare events should they occur, but the trouble is when you build an airfield out in the wild blue yonder,
1- people don't want to travel so far to a local airport for a short twin type journey, and
2- once the airport is working, people want to live nearby, so they build houses, and schools, and Tescos, and Income Revenue offices, and before you know it
3- there is a local noise group complaining about noise and safety in the event of twins going off the runway.......

[Spitoon]

You seem to be talking about types used for mass public transport - commuter turbo-props and larger. You might like to ask yourself when the last multiple engine failure on departure in such an aircraft occurred.

Edited to say that Notso got there first!

[Notso Fantastic]

E's quick that Notso is- you gotta get up early to beat 'im!

It has happened. I'm thinking BAC 1-11 at Milan in the 60s, Scandinavian MD-90 (whichever- the long one) total engine failure due ice about 8 yrs ago(?), a 737 or two in the States. Incredibly rare. In fact, I would say more people would be killed on the roads and railway if you sited an airport far out of town because of the hazard of total engine failure after take off in twins causing some very rare fatalities! It's all a question of balancing cost and benefit- sometimes the apparent benefit has a cost of its own!

[Farrell]

<<surely there would be far greater chance of avoiding the R.I.P scenario if there was open area to at least attempt a forced landing!

maybe i should be specific, lets suppose hypothetically an altitude of under 500 feet.>>

.....it's like having a back-up, back-up, back-up system.......where would you think that the line should be drawn? safe to 500 feet?....or 501 feet?....... it could go on forever!

It's a bit like living, which I did, for a year in Tokyo city centre, in an old 20 storey apartment building, knowing that if (immprobable and all as it might seem) the next earthquake is over 6.8 on the richter scale that you and probably everybody else is going to be buried deep beneath the rubble, left to die a torturous death from thirst and starvation......

....after three months losing sleep over this, I realised that it was just one of those things in life that is out of my control, and started thinking about other, more rivetting things - like a nineteen year old Japanese student-girl named Ayako! :E

[OzExpat]

Ah yes, Japanese girls... very partial to them, I am! :ok: But, to keep this thread somewhere on topic, the username Boeing737 reminded me, for some reason of that Air Florida event at Washington some years back. Went into the river on take-off due excess icing.

Well, to put that in the context of this particular topic, there are some things that you try not to think about too much. You do the best you can to ensure that the aeroplane is properly prepared for the flight. Just as long as you've done that to the best of your ability, you've given yourself - and your pax - the best possible chance of reaching the intended destination. That's as much as you can do.

Not being fatalistic here, simply realistic.

[flyboy007]

Roll inverted and pull!!

[Flip Flop Flyer]

MD-81, I belive it was, from Scandinavian. Had arrived in very soggy weather late at night in ARN, with cold fuel from a long flight, and left to spend the night out in the open (nothing wrong with that). Next morning a visual check of the wing upper surfaces failed to reveal the clear ice having formed there.

Climbing out of ARN, and in IMC, first one then the second engine failed owing to ice ingestion at around 2000 feet. Attempts to restart were unsuccessfull, partially owing to a system (and I sit to be corrected) called something like "Automatic Thrust Restoration" which the crew were not aware of. Broke out of the clouds and were extremely lucky, given the terrain surrounding ARN, to find a relatively clear area right off the nose. Flew through the top of some trees and landed in a field where it broke in 3 parts. One serious injury, couple of minor, no fatalities. The skipper later resigned, reasoning that should a similar incident happen to him he'd probably short circuit and kill all aboard.

[Notso Fantastic]

One cold frosty morning at LHR, with rapid decisions needed about de-icing a 737, I decided the only way to check was to get up to the wing and see for myself. Apart from being a bit frosty all around, things seemed normal. I pulled a ladder over and climbed up and looked down on the leading edge. It was all absolutely clear- the top surface was perfectly visible and dry. Just before I climbed down, I gave it a brush with my hand, and that shocked me- it was solid, clear, invisible (from 12 inches away!) ice- you couldn't see it from that close and I had no idea how thick it was. You can't rely on an initial 'blow over' they do in the morning- if the conditions are right then you will be so easily into a potentially fatal situation.
FFF- I find it difficult to believe pilots were unaware of this Automatic Thrust Restoration System. The terrain around ARN is probably the best in Europe for such an event- flat, hardly built up, lots of open areas. I can imagine the pilots nerve was broken- very traumatic, but people kept flying bombers during the war after the most horrifying of damage.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Notso - me too, but that's what our aerodynamics instructor (a DC-9 skipper with SAS) told us bright faces. His story was that ATR was an option which SAS didn't take, but McD still installed as it was cheaper, production wise, than not to. Therefore crews were never briefed on the operation of the system. The story may be flawed, and I'm more than happy to be reliably informed otherwise.

By the way, the terrain around Stockholm may seem flat and unbuilt from an altitude, but down on the ground it's rather undulating with quite sizable chunks of cumulu granite sticking up. That is, if you don't end up in the archipelago which has a charming combination of wet patches surrounded by CG. I personally wouldn't want to be paxing in an off-site landing there. Netherlands, on the other hand :ok:

[Notso Fantastic]

Nah! All those dykes about- you never know where you'll end up in Amsterdam! And Holland is too built up with too much water everywhere (it's at an elevation of minus 10 feet- Global warming, bye bye Holland or get building!)

[16 blades]

737,

To answer your question as phrased, the 'Procedure' in the event of a total power loss after take-off is to separate your body into its component parts and spread yourself over as wide an area as possible.................

But seriously, Perf A (which all commercial pax-carrying aircraft must comply with, I believe) states that, statistically, the highest probability of an aircraft not being able to cope with a SINGLE EFATO must be no greater than 1:1 000 000. A double engine failure (for a twin) is discounted because it is so statistically unlikely. That's not to say it doesn't happen - but I believe documented cases of total power loss on take-off incidents are still in single digits. (please correct me if untrue). And some of those can be put down to human error (taking off in precipitation with engine anti-icing off, for example).

It's also discounted because there's generally f*^k-all you can do about it, except lower the nose, hold wings level and crash straight ahead, hoping that you haven't pi$$ed the Almighty off of late.

16B

[lomapaseo]

a SINGLE EFATO must be no greater than 1:1 000 000.

What the heck is this? :confused:

[banana head]

'EFATO' = Engine Failure After Take-Off.

[Boeing737]

interesting points.Incidently i dont actually remeber that incident in washington with the -200 that crashed into the river, but i have nevertheless read about it as i have several air disaster books at home.I suppose id mention that the -200 involved in this incident didnt suffer any engine failure, the problem was that inadequate thrust had been applied to lift off, because false readings from the N1 compressor were been relayed to the cockpit due to ice forming in the engines.

.i have to agree, more often than not, it was down to human error.De - icers no switched on, fuel starvation etc.All in all it seems to be that the inconvenience of locating an airport peripherally outside nucleated zones makes sense.cheers :8

[seat 0A]

Well, I guess somebody from pompey should know a thing or two about natural disasters :p

I keep a boat nearby, just in case:bored:

[Old Smokey]

I started learning to fly 40 years ago in single engined aircraft. The procedures and disciplines were well spelled out for total loss of engines (i.e. One) upon takeoff. In the successive 40 years with an increasing number of engines to handle, the procedures and techniques for loss of all engines on takeoff has not changed one jot.

[ea306]

Boeing 737 said: "the problem was that inadequate thrust had been applied to lift off, because false readings from the N1 compressor were been relayed to the cockpit due to ice forming in the engines."

The first part of this statement is absolutely correct sir. The problem was because engine anti-ice was not selected and the N1 was not crossed check against the primary thrust setting instruments: EPR. I believe it was a 200 series. Such a shame but a valuable lesson for the rest of us.

The EPR indicated take-off thrust because of the P2 sensor being iced up which gave a false EPR indication. An indication which grossly exagerated the actual EPR. The N1 indications were actually correct. They just did not take note of them. This would of told them that something was terribly amiss.

This is why many companys that operate the old 200 series with the JT8D TurboFan engines cross check the N1 indication when take-off EPR is set as a SOP. The Air Florida crew were not used to operating in adverse weather conditions as is evident from the accident investigation that followed.

Again, an expensive lesson we are all beneficiaries of today.

[A-3TWENTY]

Put your ID card in the mouth and bite....

[alexban]

...eject.! of course I hope I'll be home ,ejecting the tape from the vcr..if such a failure hapens

[FakePilot]

ea306,

Actually the FO did note incorrect engine readings and stated something like "nah, that's not right" two or three times. However either he should have been more forceful or the Captain should've listened.

Of course, anti-icing would've helped to. The one on the aircraft, not the engines of the plane in front.

All my understanding of this is from the report, so....

[northwing]

It doesn't matter whether an airliner has 2, 3 or 4 engines, the climb rate at max weight with one failed is 3% or less. That is 150 ft in the first mile, or some scared drivers on the M25 if it's Heathrow. With a second engine failure the aircraft will descend - rapidly. The only option would be to try to land straight ahead and aim the fuselage between trees or buildings. Designers keep the engines separate for this reason. All the examples quoted above are not engine failures as such - they are cases of low thrust due to some other cause such as icing.

The BAC 111 example is a good one. It was some German charter airline I think. The 111 had a water injection system to boost takeoff thrust, fed from a demineralised water tank in the tail. The airline kept the water in big plastic drums on a rack marked, "Zehr puren wasser, nur fur das BAC 111" or some such krautese. They had a 707 in earlier in the day and needed to drain some fuel out of it for some reason. Not having a suitable container they used one of the empty plastic water drums. They then put it back on the rack with the full ones! Of course this meant that the fuel got put into the 111's water tank where it floated on top of the water until just after lift-off. Once fuel started flowing where water was supposed to both engines quit. The BAC 111 took some stick in the German press about this as one tank fed both engines. However, if you put the wrong fuel in any aircraft all the engines will stop. It's been done.