Boeing 777 emergency landing at Sea-Tac

[Blowchowski]

SEATAC - A Boeing 777 bound for Seoul, Korea, landed safely this afternoon at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport after losing power in one of its two engines.

By Christine Clarridge

Seattle Times staff reporter

PREV of NEXT


DEAN RUTZ

The engine of a Boeing 777 is inspected Wednesday after the aircraft's pilots made an emergency landing at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
Related

KING5 | Video of the landing
Map data ©2009 Tele Atlas - Terms of UseSee more mapped stories
A Boeing 777 bound for Seoul, Korea, landed safely this afternoon at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport after losing power in one of its two engines.

According to airport spokesman Perry Cooper, Asiana Airlines Flight 271 had departed as scheduled at around 2:25 p.m. The pilot reported to air traffic control, either during takeoff or immediately after, that an engine had somehow caught on fire, Cooper said.

Witnesses reported seeing flames coming from one of the engines.

The plane then circled the airport, dumping fuel over Puget Sound in preparation for an emergency landing. The plane then landed without incident.

There were no apparent injuries to the 179 passengers onboard nor was there obvious damage to the plane's engines, he said.

"We're not sure what happened or what caused it," Cooper said.

He said it's not unusual for a small amount of "flame out" to occur when a plane takes off.

FAA spokesman Mike Fergus said the plane is capable of flying with one engine.

The FAA will investigate the incident and provide a report to the National Transportation Safety Board, Fergus said.

It's not clear precisely how much fuel the aircraft dumped, or where, but those details could prove important, said Mike Sibley, an environmental engineer with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He said jet fuel dumped at high altitudes tends to atomize and get diluted.

Kathy Palmer, the duty officer for EPA's emergency response unit, planned to call the airline and then the FAA to decipher the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for the fuel release.

In the meantime, state oil spill officials have heard reports from Kitsap County to Richmond Beach of people being hit by falling drops of fuel. The captain of the ferry Wenatchee reported a strong fuel odor and a sheen on the surface of Puget Sound about a mile off Bainbridge Island, but the sheen was dissipating quickly.



Jet fuel is similar in consistency to lighter fluid and tends to disperse faster than oil when it hits water, said Larry Altose, spokesman for the Department of Ecology. Often, in cases such as these, there is little or nothing to corral.

[ve3id]

Am I missing something here?

FAA investigating and sending a report to the NTSB?

Are we talking parallel universe?

[lomapaseo]

Am I missing something here?

FAA investigating and sending a report to the NTSB?

Are we talking parallel universe?

Nothing out of the ordinary. The NTSB only has enough staff to investigate more serious incidents. Much of what happens on a daily basis are minor quirks like this one. So the FAA takes note of the event in their little black book and rings up the NTSB that the situation has been logged in case they want a follow up for their records.

[TacomaSailor]

Hello,

this is my first, and probably only, post on this great site. I am a retired computer jock who made a living as a consultant flying around the world for 25 years. During that time I flew on commercial flights about 15 times a month - I retired 10 years ago and am still trying to use my frequent flyer miles. The only thing I know about big airplanes is what I've picked up talking with pilots in adjacent seats on those long transcontinental flights and from reading material here.

I was at a high school baseball game exactly two statue miles south of the south end of the SeaTac airport when this incident occurred. The school is on a hill top and has an unobstructed view south toward Tacoma. Planes were taking off to the south at the time of the incident.

I heard two large explosions, about 2 seconds apart. I thought it was thunder at first since we had some last night. But the reports were very sharp with a cracking aspect.

I then turned and looked northward and saw the 777 come over the top of the school at about 1500'. It did not appear to be climbing or accelerating. The plane flew directly overhead and continued on southward. It was flying much slower than any jet I've seen taking off from SeaTac.

The port engine was emitting a long plume of yellowish flames that tapered to a fine point but with no smoke. The flame was clearly coming only from the exhaust of the engine and was about as long as the engine nacelle.

The interesting aspect of the flame that it was cycling on/off in about 2 or 3 second pulses. It would burst forth for several seconds and then be gone for a second or two. The cycle was very regular and continued for as long as I could see the plane which was well over a minute after it went overhead.

As the plane disappeared I could still see the flame cycling on/off against the dark clouds beyond the plane. I never saw the signs of burning hydrocarbon - no smoke/no smudge (in a previous life I was trained as a fire fighter in an oil refinery) and no sign of anything burning in the normal sense.

The flames did not look like a fire - they looked like an afterburner that I've seen in videos and sometimes see at McChord.

I have read several posts about engines surging (if that is the correct term?) on takeoff and the pulsing jet of exhaust was certainly surging in a regular pattern.

Does my description sound like something other than a fire?

[Oakape]

TacomaSailor

Did it look something like this?

2frjSvo9BBc

A good example of a engine surge due to a bird strike & damage to the engine. It stops as soon as the crew shut down the engine.

[TacomaSailor]

The flame pulse I saw was the same shape but seemed to last much longer - each pulse was maintained at full length for several seconds. The time between each pulse that I saw was also much longer than in the video - several, or more, seconds between flames.

After the initial two or three loud booms there seemed to be no sound associated with the pulsing flame. The 777 was directly overhead when it pulsed a flame. As the plane disappeared in the distance it was still pulsing flames.

Additionally, there was no smoke or apparent emission of unburned fuel.

[TheBeak]

The time between each pulse that I saw was also much longer than in the video - several, or more, seconds between flames.

Isn't that an engine stall then and not an engine surge?

[dixi188]

This looks like a standard engine failure on take off.

Engine surges due to a breakdown in airflow through the compressor.
The crew do the right thing. Fly the airplane until at a safe altitude and then deal with the engine problem.
After the engine is shut down fuel is dumped (in an approved dumping area) to reduce the weight and then return to land.
This is what we, as aircrew, are trained to do.
I don't see why the FAA or NTSB would be involved in the investigation.

Here in Europe the crew would file an Air Safety Report, and later maintenance would do the same when the cause was identified. These are sent to the regulatory authorities for their information and consideration as to weather follow up action is required.

Safe flying.

[TacomaSailor]

Lots of local pictures of the plane dumping fuel - low enough that many cell phones captured movies of it. My wife saw it and called me to report the plane was trailing smoke from the wingtips. I did tell her I thought it was a fuel dump. She wondered why it was so low and why it was directly over Puget Sound.

SLIDESHOW: Harrowing Boeing 777 Landing At Sea-Tac - Photos - KIRO Seattle (http://www.kirotv.com/slideshow/news/19326889/detail.html)

A ferry boat captain in Puget Sound reported feeling mist that spelled like kerosene. Several other boaters reported a fuel sheen on the water.

[TyroPicard]

Is there a minimum altitude for fuel jettison in the 777? ISTR 6,000 ft for the 747. Looks a lot lower than that in pic. 2 (link above).

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Many years ago we too encountered an emergency situation and dumped fuel overhead CYVR in anticipation of an emergency landing. I can't now remember what height it was when we terminated the fuel jettison, but it was during the final stages of the approach. Having reached the parking stand the aircraft was impounded and we (the crew) were arrested! When the authorities were satisfied that it was indeed an emergency... we were released from custody.

I believe different countries have different limits for fuel dumping. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's 6,000 ft in the UK.

TCF

[NigelOnDraft]

States/Airlines can make whatever rules they want about dumping fuel / altitudes, but in "emergency" (which EO is) crew will do as they see fit. You can see from the pics it has largely dispersed in a fuselage length behind the aircraft.

Description above seems classic stall/surge - visually/audibly dramatic, but probably not an "engine fire". However, "dramatic" or "harrowing" the press reports are, it seemed a fairly normal approach, landing and parking at the gate :ok:

NoD

[11Fan]

Job well done !!

[Huck]

Having reached the parking stand the aircraft was impounded and we (the crew) were arrested!

I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six, as they say....

[flap15]

Tacoma Sailor

A good post with the facts of what you saw and not what you think may have happened, which is alas what far to many do on this site. Thank you for your excelent witness statement.:ok:

[JW411]

There have been a few occasions in the past where we have been right up to MTOW on a limiting runway when I have said to the F/E "Can you remember where the dump valve switches are?"

When you are in deep sh*t, the minimum height for dumping does not come into it. A fuel spill is easier to clean up than a disaster. In any event, I seem to remember that at any height above 2,000 ft, very little fuel is likely to survive to hit the surface of the earth.

I never ever had to prove the point!

[TyroPicard]

JW411
I understand your point, but this crew were not in deep sh*t, it was just a routine engine problem. Found my old 747 QRH and confirmed 6,000 ft minimum - perhaps airline specific? Would still like to hear the answer to "is there a minimum?" from a current 777 pilot.

[PaperTiger]

Don't know about the 777 or if Korean or US "rules" would have applied, but the FAA only mandates a 2000ft minimum (non model-specific). They also suggest non-populated area where practical. Puget Sound is a body of water but not really non-populated; several residents on the islands therein report being "misted" but as always these reports have to be viewed for what they are worth.

SEA ATC says the plane was between 3 and 3.8 while dumping.

[orentavor]

haw can I get that vidio to my computer?:confused:

[11Fan]

orentavor,

First, welcome.

Next, you can go directly to youtube and download it from there. They have instructions on youtube to help you with that. There may be some differences depending on your Operating System. Nevertheless, here's the link.

YouTube - ThomsonFly.com Boeing 757 Birdhit+Goaround (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo7678gME0Y)

Regards,

11Fan

[Jetjock330]

There was an old story of a B747 that lost and engine on departure out of Heathrow and immediately began dumping. ATC then told the B747 that the "lady was in residence in Windsor" and that he shouldn't be dumping so low.

The captain replied along the lines of, "tell the little old lady that she can have it slowly as it is, or get the whole damn lot with the aeroplane", to which there were no further comments!

[Mmmayday38]

TyroPicard:

In answer to your query about min alt for 777 fuel dumping; I can only speak for a UK based employer who have had 777s for 13yrs. For the first 11 or so of these years there was indeed a min alt of 6000' required in the QRH. However, a couple of years ago (something like that) this was removed to come into line with the standard Boeing procedure for 777s.

On a personal view I think it would still be prudent to climb to these sort of levels if possible.

[TacomaSailor]

SEATTLE -- The Washington Ecology Department may fine Asiana Airlines for a plane's dumping fuel over Puget Sound before an emergency landing at Sea-Tac Airport.
Spokesman Curt Hart in Olympia said some of the jet fuel reached the water last Wednesday. A sheen was spotted between Vashon and Bainbridge islands.
Hart said the state action will depend on the investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board. He says the state does not want to discourage necessary emergency actions. Fuel usually evaporates in the air.
The Boeing 777 with 192 people on board landed safely. Sea-Tac spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt says preliminary indications are a compressor stall caused the engine problem.

courtesy of: State May Fine Airline For Dumping Fuel - Seattle News Story - KIRO Seattle (http://www.kirotv.com/news/19376736/detail.html)

[PaperTiger]

The Washington Ecology Department may fine Asiana Airlines for a plane's dumping fuel over Puget Sound before an emergency landing at Sea-Tac Airport.Under what statute ? If they complied with FAA rules and ATC advice, is that defenc(s)e enough ?

[lomapaseo]

Under what statute ? If they complied with FAA rules and ATC advice, is that defenc(s)e enough

I doubt that the FAA or ATC issue any specification in this regard, preferring to remain silent and let the captain exercise a reasonable decision.

This is quite a subjective road that they are pointing at and likely just posturing to satisfy the greenies

[Will Fraser]

Agree that a criminal statute may be lacking, but the bottom line is that a carrier fouled the sea. A "fine", or recovered costs to clean would be appropriate, no punishment certainly, but someone must pay. The insuror ultimately, one would think.

[kappa]

According to the Seattle Times The Washington Department of Ecology says Asiana Airlines is off the hook for spilling fuel from one of its jets over Puget Sound after the plane experienced engine problems and had to make an emergency landing at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport last week.

Local News | State won't fine airline for fuel dumped in emergency landing | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009184790_webairlinefuel06m.html)

[PaperTiger]

A "fine", or recovered costs to clean would be appropriate, no punishment certainly, but someone must pay.There wasn't enough to "clean".