View Full Version : flybe, single engine into MAN

8th Jul 2006, 14:28
i've heard that flybe came into MAN on friday on one engine after an in flight shut down (oil leak i believe), anyone with anymore info on wat went wrong? (or right!!)

8th Jul 2006, 14:40
The aircraft came in from Norwich thats all i know

8th Jul 2006, 17:34
Is this another Q400 ??
Is this the labyrinth seal / oil leak problem again ?

If so, that's makes about half a dozen in-flight shutdowns in the past 18 months ...

8th Jul 2006, 18:23
yer it was one of there new dash 8's...

8th Jul 2006, 19:18
FlyBE Dash 8 shuts an engine down and diverts? Hardly news! :p :p :p

Shaggy Sheep Driver
8th Jul 2006, 20:12
FlyBE Dash 8 shuts an engine down and diverts? Hardly news! :p :p :p

Depends if it happens frequently. If it doesn't, it's a non event as you say. If it does (and I've no idea either way), it's news.


8th Jul 2006, 20:33
This appears to be a very regular problem.

There were allegedly some problems with the P&W 150 engines whereby oil fumes were entering the cabin due to a defect with oil seals (possibly vibration related?).

Is this being addressed ?

8th Jul 2006, 20:47
All Flybe aircraft have been modified to prevent the fumes in cabin incidents (strictly speaking the engines have been modded).

Crew room gossip is that the crew had a low oil pressure indication and shut the engine down, as required by the QRH. So doesn't appear to be any connection with other incidents.

9th Jul 2006, 01:15

Sky Wave
9th Jul 2006, 10:41
Hardly a drama!

9th Jul 2006, 11:08
Hardly a drama......but if you have two engines with the same amount of hours, and 2 seals retiring at the same time.....not so much of a 'non' event!

9th Jul 2006, 11:38
That worries me...we get a lot of dash traffic over my house in Yorkshire...

Chesty Morgan
9th Jul 2006, 14:05
The engine didn't suddenly cut out!

It was a controlled in flight shutdown due to a low oil pressure indication, as per the SOPs.

Windsheer. What makes you think both the engines had the same amount of hours? And what makes you think a seal "retired"? This was NOT the case.

Please check your facts before you start announcing things incorrectly.

Not a drama at all.

9th Jul 2006, 14:57
Wooahh chesty!

I was simply stating that IF both engines had the same hours and the seals failed due to fatigue, then there would be an issue.

I also think that stating there was 'no drama' is a little rash. Shutting down one of your kebabs in flight is not ideal is it? There was obviously no 'drama', and the crew handled it superbly....but shutting down an engine; to me IS an issue!:suspect:

9th Jul 2006, 16:31
Q: What makes you think both the engines had the same amount of hours?

A: yer it was one of there new dash 8's...:suspect:

9th Jul 2006, 16:33
Most companies that I have ever worked for had a policy of moving engines around within the fleet.

That way you never had a situation where one aircraft had four brand new engines and another which had four old engines.

Mind you, such a basic idea could just be beyond the comprehension of some of the posters on pprune who make ridiculous assumptions in the first place.

Chesty Morgan
9th Jul 2006, 16:56
OK Windsheer, I may have been a bit abrupt. It's very rare to have two engines on one airframe with the same hours for that reason. In fact it probably only happens when a new one comes out of the hangar.:ok:

Strepsils, Your point is? See above. See JW411. Oh...and it wasn't new.

9th Jul 2006, 20:04
this report is clearly floored. firstlty the engine didnt not just stop with out warning - it was shut down in a controlled way as per the QRH. And secondly, not a huge point but just to prove the report as crap it did not taxi, pax were of loaded (not sure were, but not on a normal stand) and bussed b4 the a/c was towed over to 65r.

9th Jul 2006, 21:54
I'm well aware engines are not usually matched pairs (or trios, quads, whatever), but based on info given on the thread (i.e. it was a new aircraft) windsheer's point was perfectly understandable. In fact it probably only happens when a new one comes out of the hangar
It may well not be a new aircraft, but windsheer wasn't to know that.

Even if it's not a new aircraft, the point that two engines of similar hours suffering the same fault could happen is perfectly valid. Also, the engines could have completely different hours and cycles, but what if both the seals are of similar age?

But to be honest, the reason I purposely posted a facetious reply is that I'm fed up with the constant replies on subjects like this saying "No drama, nothing happened, why make assumptions!!!"

It's a rumour site, that's why we're here. And it may not be a drama to you, but I bet it was to most of the pax. And, like it or not, it was an incident, hence peoples interest.

No one is having a cheap shot at the aircraft or airline, but it is a non-normal event and, in this case, it would appear as on of a number on this type. (I'm talking about the thread here, not the news reports as they tend to be competely innacurate as a matter of course.)

Relax, count to ten and take a breath before your next reply to such an event, you'll feel a lot better.;)

Sky Wave
9th Jul 2006, 22:26
But to be honest, the reason I purposely posted a facetious reply is that I'm fed up with the constant replies on subjects like this saying "No drama, nothing happened, why make assumptions!!!"

Conversely, why assume it is a drama? I'm fed up with ill-informed people making a mountain out of a mole hill every time the slightest incident occurs in aviation.

An in flight shut down is not a big event, it happens on a fairly regular basis. It may make the passengers feel uncomfortable, however so does turbulence and bad weather.

The chances of both engines failing on the same flight is extremely remote and to my knowledge has not happened in at least the last 30 years (excluding fuel issues and volcanic ash encounters).

This is just the media trying to make a story out of something which is not a big issue. Failures are expected to happen and that is why we have the redundancy of a second engine. There are procedures to deal with these failures which as far as we all know were perfectly executed in this case. It was not a drama.


10th Jul 2006, 12:17
No one (other than the media, which I already stated I tend to ignore)assumed a drama, just some pointing out, quite rightly in my opinion, that an engine shut down is not a non-event, no matter how common it is. It is an MOR event is is treated seriously by the CAA, your company and, I should hope, yourself.

It is only because crews treat them seriously that they are usually well handled without subsequent incident.

Flippant "no big deal" remarks mean nothing. I wonder how much of a non-event you'll think it is when it happens to you. Hopefully we'll never find out.

10th Jul 2006, 12:21
Shut down an engine when you only started with two? That would be a land ASAP then? So it is quite a big deal really then, isn't it?

10th Jul 2006, 12:40
I think we are getting muddled up with words!!

Shut down an engine in flight and your are declaring a pan, or even possibly a mayday (depending on conditions). So you have an 'issue'! If its well executed by the crew then there is no drama!! However, a single engine approach will usually require fire services in attendance, and is referred to on the ground as an 'emergency' landing.
If its handled well by the crew then again there will be no drama, but the fact that there was an 'emergency' landing still remains. So yes there was an issue, and yes the CAA will be wanting a report!!

There you go chaps, we shall continue our literature the same time next week.......;)

P.s. You can find more non-drama events here:
I am sure you will be surprised how many 'non-events' warrant a full report!

10th Jul 2006, 12:55
I was a passenger on this flight, having never experienced such an incident first hand it did feel like a bit of a drama. Saying that, the cabin crew remained calm and did well to put some other passengers at ease. Many were asking questions. I did not realise that G-JECI was a new aircraft, the port side engine looked a little worn and the air intake looked damaged as if debris had been sucked into it.

To fill me with even more confidence, my return flight to Norwich had pushed back from gate 21 only to return to the gate five minutes later. The captain addressed the passengers and said that there was a problem with the aircraft. I was sat in row 3 so I could hear the captain talk to one of the cabin crew over the internal phone system. It sounded like an avionics problem which was apparently fixed by powering down and resetting.

As you can probably tell by my lack of knowledge, I am not a pilot but I will soon be starting lessons to get a private pilots licence :)

Sky Wave
10th Jul 2006, 13:23

I completely agree that an IFSD in a two engine aircraft is not something to be sniffed at, and if it happened to me I'm certain it would increase the heart rate.

I think we are both having little snipes in areas we both feel passionately about.

I take your point that people shouldn't just brush aside these incidents. Any situation like this represents a reduction in safety and another hole lining up in the Swiss cheese, however these scenarios are planned for and there are procedures in place to prevent further holes lining up. We can rest assured that the AAIB will take these incidents seriously and will fully investigate and hopefully learn all possible lessons. The operator will also be keen to ensure that all lesson are learnt in the interested of passenger confidence.

My little snipe was against the media, who love to dramatise every incident because it helps sell papers and makes a fascinating read. They are portraying a drama and using the fact that fire engines met the aircraft to add effect to their story. Members of the public are unlikely to be aware that it is a completely standard procedure for emergency vehicles to meet arriving aircraft with any number of reported problems. The conclusion that the layman is likely to draw is that the aircraft concerned may have crash landed and that Flybe had a close call on this occasion.

I believe that this kind of reporting destroys public confidence in our industry which is why I’m keen to point out that it was not a drama.

Chesty Morgan
10th Jul 2006, 14:08
Strepsils, I've counted to ten!;) This situation has happened to me, twice. I'm not being flippant when I say it wasn't a drama, twice!

I agree with you however, that it wasn't a "non-event", it was, because something non-standard happened.

There is a big difference between a "drama" and an "event". And I'm just fed up with media portraying situations like this with over-dramatisations, as I'm sure you'll agree. I wasn't having a dig at you, or your opinion.

AdamB31, CI isn't a new airframe, it's been around for at least a year. To put your mind at ease: If the air intake was damaged, something which I doubt, the captain wouldn't have accepted it as fit for flight. If the damage occured while you were airborne the design of the engine is such that any FOD is diverted away from the first stage compressor via a bypass door in the bottom of the engine nacelle. The first stage compressor by the way is about 5 feet inside the nacelle.

To prove this point to you. A mate of mine in a Dash had a birdstrike last week, in MAN. The bird actually missed the prop altogether, what are the chances of that, and hit the lip of the intake. Half of it went outside the engine and bounced of the fuselage, the other half hit the inside of the engine below the compressor and went out of the bypass door. The engineering inspection showed that none of the bird had gone through the compressor and it was released for flight.

As far as your avionic problem. Yep the Dash can be a bit temperamental at times, it's just like a big computer, and all you need to do is effectively reboot/de-power it and 99.9% of the time it works fine!

10th Jul 2006, 14:15
As far as your avionic problem. Yep the Dash can be a bit temperamental at times, it's just like a big computer, and all you need to do is effectively reboot/de-power it and 99.9% of the time it works fine!

Are we talking about the dash or the airbus....;)

11th Jul 2006, 09:26
Yep, Chesty is talking about the dash - Q400 mind you rather than the similar looking 100/200 or 300. Despite popular public opinion - "its got propellors, how old is it?" - it is a modern aircraft crammed with computers which do pretty much everything except for moving the control surfaces whilst it is being hand flown. On start up these sometimes have little hissy fits due to voltage spikes when switching generators etc and need resetting, generally by pulling and resetting circuit breakers but in extreme cases by depowering the entire aircraft - which can be a little embarrassing on a dark night with a load of passengers on board!

11th Jul 2006, 10:14
Skywave & Chesty - Funnily enough, I agree with you both! That's why I said in both my replies that I was talking about the responses on this thread, not the media articles. We all know they're generally innacurate at best and fantasy at worst.

So we're in agreement then. I think:confused:


11th Jul 2006, 11:02
Ha ha excrab, I do apologise for not making my sarcasm more clearer.
I was infact pointing out that the Dash sounds very similar to the airbus, requiring the occasional power down to reset umpteen systems!!

Thanks for the reply though....:ok: