PDA

View Full Version : US Airforce C17 4 engine failure.


sunbird123
23rd Sep 2010, 18:53
According to an Ares Blog.
A US Airforce C17 over Pakistan Lost all 4 engines and a sizeable amount of onboard electronics in a lightning strike. 2 engines restarted the aircraft landed safely. radome described as "fried".
Anyone know more about this incident?.

JW411
23rd Sep 2010, 19:29
I would imagine that the operating crew could tell you quite a lot but I seriously doubt that they will.

Can't say I would blame them.

atakacs
23rd Sep 2010, 20:59
Just wondering - is there any electric / electronic requirement to have the engine continue to operate ? I would think they shouldn't shutdown even in the case of a complete electric failure ?

Mr @ Spotty M
23rd Sep 2010, 21:06
My guess would be FADEC.

lomapaseo
23rd Sep 2010, 21:20
The FADECs are designed to run on their own power, regardless of what happens to the electrics in the plane.


Most of these kinds of reports later turn out to be temporary in nature and/or related to instruments.

fantom
23rd Sep 2010, 21:23
My guess would be FADEC.

No, not all four. Having been gifted the best strike in a 320 (DXB) the screens didn't even blink, never mind the FADECs.

EW73
24th Sep 2010, 03:19
FADEC systems have their own dedicated generator on each engine.

EW73

hey... 'fantom' did you have one of your ex Iraqi army tin hats on?

sunbird123
24th Sep 2010, 10:57
The reason i posted this was i find it very unusual, that a modern 4 engine fly by wire jet could lose all 4 engines following a lightning strike.

Green Guard
24th Sep 2010, 11:35
The reason i posted this was i find it very unusual, that a modern 4 engine fly by wire jet could lose all 4 engines following a lightning strike.

Unless the story above, came from someone in that cockpit, who was deafened by lightning strike for few minutes and believed to have lost all 4.....

Huck
24th Sep 2010, 14:52
When I was flying the Brasilia, we had a crew report a dual engine failure on short final.

Turns out the left engine erroneously autofeathered itself. The burst of thrust as the prop coursened yawed the nose to the right. The crew interpreted that as a right engine failure and feathered the right one......

EW73
24th Sep 2010, 23:54
Hey Huck...

"..yawed the nose to the right. The crew interpreted that as a right engine failure and feathered the right one......

Didn't they have any engine indications in the flight deck? :ugh:

nuf said

Teddy Robinson
25th Sep 2010, 01:02
The correct one ..... one hopes

Huck
25th Sep 2010, 01:08
Every airline has their 5%.....

protectthehornet
25th Sep 2010, 01:22
I know one guy who managed to lose both engines on a metroliner....going into KTVL at night...forgot to put on the anti ice on the prop spinners.

but on short final, switched the prop spinner heat on without putting on the ignition...ice melted, ran into engine, flamed out on short final but made the runway...took over half an hour to get to the gate though.

BarbiesBoyfriend
25th Sep 2010, 12:15
On the ERJ-145, I was told one could lose both in the event of a bad strike.
For this reason we were advised to start the APU if a strike looked likely.
The -145 had FADEC equipped engines.

Squawk7777
25th Sep 2010, 13:43
On the ERJ-145, I was told one could lose both in the event of a bad strike.
For this reason we were advised to start the APU if a strike looked likely.
The -145 had FADEC equipped engines.

I was told the same thing by a UK operator, however; it's more a CAA dictated procedure, because they are concerned about both tail engines being too close together. This came from a TRE.

I have not heard about a similar procedure from either Embraer or US operators. I had two lightning strikes in the E145, one on the approach to PHL, the other into MAN and never had any resulting engine/FADEC issue. Some damage though...

FADEC systems have their own dedicated generator on each engine.


Additionally, they are usually located to the center of the fuselage to prevent any interference from lightning strikes etc. The famous Michael Faraday had shown that electricity doesn't penetrate the center of a cage/frame/car, etc.

A37575
25th Sep 2010, 14:14
When I was flying the Brasilia, we had a crew report a dual engine failure on short final.

Turns out the left engine erroneously autofeathered itself. The burst of thrust as the prop coursened yawed the nose to the right. The crew interpreted that as a right engine failure and feathered the right one....

I can believe that. During a dual instruction session at Canberra in a RAAF HS 748 the pilot was conducting an instrument take off from brakes release.
He was briefed the instructor would give him a simulated engine failure at lift off by pulling back a throttle. As the 748 became airborne, the instructor quickly closed the left engine throttle. The pilot immediately detected a yaw and pushed hard on the wrong rudder (as it turned out).

The aircraft yawed very sharply but fortunately the instructor managed to take over and get the wings level.

What happened was that when the instructor closed the left throttle very quickly, the propeller momentarily coarsened,causing the aircraft to initially yaw in the opposite direction than expected by the pilot under the hood. Throughout the take off roll he had his concentration pinned on the compass heading and detected the swing on the compass heading and reacted to the swing quickly and correctly.

All this happened in less than two seconds and his corrective rudder was instantaneous. A fraction of a second later the aircraft then swung strongly in the direction of the simulated failed engine and was not exactly helped by rudder in the same direction no matter how momentary.

Pulling throttles quickly in a turbo-prop aircraft especially near the deck can lead to an unpleasant surprise and the recent fatal accident at Darwin proves that.

bpp
26th Sep 2010, 03:22
....and back to the C-17 please

bpp

balaton
26th Sep 2010, 11:44
Not neccessarily a electrical failure... The FADEC has total control over the engine, incliuding the shutdown sequence, Perhaps a spurious signal triggered by the strike. Although, all four simultaniously ????
(Military a/c have extra protection against electromagnetic interfrerence.)
b

Checkboard
26th Sep 2010, 12:08
Probably the second worst thing that could happen is a flameout. Single flameouts due to lightning strikes are fairly common on airplanes with aft mounted small jet engines, and dual-engine flameouts have occurred. The reason for this seems to be the lightning channel sweeping past the engine inlet and disturbing the airflow. An airplane travelling at 450 knots will move 380 feet in one-half second, and a lightning flash with several return strokes can last that long. If the first lightning attachment point is at the nose, the lightning channel can sweep along the entire length of an airplane even if shorter strikes and slower speeds are involved. The temperature of the lightning channel itself can get up around 30,000ºC, which is not exactly what the engine manufacturers had in mind when they designed the engines for the operating environment. If a strike sweeps along only one side, it may snuff out one engine as it goes by. If the lightning channel orientation is side to side rather then more or less fore and aft (which is less common but apparently happens), two engine (or conceivably more, if there are more) could flame out...
Severe Weather Flying, Second edition, Dennis W. Newton, page 84.
Highly recommended!

atakacs
26th Sep 2010, 12:39
If a strike sweeps along only one side, it may snuff out one engine as it goes by. If the lightning channel orientation is side to side rather then more or less fore and aft (which is less common but apparently happens), two engine (or conceivably more, if there are more) could flame out...

Is there any reported four engine flame out ever due to this scenario ?

lomapaseo
26th Sep 2010, 14:47
Is there any reported four engine flame out ever due to this scenario ?

Nothing confirmed. Four engine annomalies are almost always fuel managing problems and temporary in nature.

Lightning problems are again mostly temporary and have to do with disturbances in the inlet air resulting in a bang or engine surge. A flameout of even a single engine would be a very rare event.

Checkboard
26th Sep 2010, 16:03
Four engine annomalies are almost always fuel managing problems and temporary in nature.
If by "fuel managing problems" you mean the lack of the stuff - they are rarely temporary! :8

Short of running out of fuel (Air Canada Flight 143 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider), Air Transat Flight 236 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236)) most of the four engine failures I am aware of have been environmental (Meekatharra BAe 146 rollback (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1992/aair/pdf/aair199200286_001.pdf), BA Flight 9 volcanic ash incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9)) - hence the post about lightning as an environmental factor, rather than an electrical interference one.

Teddy Robinson
28th Sep 2010, 21:28
-- DA / 30Jun87 B767 departing LAX FAA # 19870630040879C. “BOTH ENGINES WERE SHUT DOWN DURING CLIMB. ... INADVERTENTLY SHUT OFF FUEL [CUTOFF].:D

protectthehornet
28th Sep 2010, 22:33
I seem to recall a mysterious ANG C130 hercules losing all 4 engines and crashing off the coast of Oregon. Even the Senator from oregon tried to get a full understanding of this crash to no avail.

pilcomex
26th Oct 2010, 11:55
What I know of that it entered in a severe hail storm closer to some of the highest mountains in the world and had multiple lightning strikes. Probably engines ate lot of ice and rest was done by lightning.... Thanks God they got a relight.

jimjim1
26th Oct 2010, 14:45
Checkboard mentioned

most of the four engine failures I am aware of have been environmental (Meekatharra BAe 146 rollback,

Report:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1992/aair/pdf/aair199200286_001.pdf


Hmmm.

Perhaps too pedantic for some however here goes.

I have just read the report (thanks for the links) and I disagree that the cause was environmental. Certainly under different environmental conditions the incident would not have occurred however the conclusions seem to be that the environmental conditions encountered were normal conditions that the aircraft should have been capable of operating in.

All the main recommendations are with respect to changes in operating procedures and indeed verification of Airworthiness Certification.

1. The Civil Aviation Authority minimise the risk of engine roll-back on BAe 146 Aircraft by ensuring that the aircraft can be operated throughout the certificated operational flight envelope, under all environmental conditions, with an adequate margin of safety above the threshold at which engine roll-back may occur.

No mention at all is made to the future avoidance of these particular environmental conditions.

Mostly a design and/or operations manual and/or certification failure it seems to me.

SandyYoung
27th Oct 2010, 10:57
PtH,

There was a lengthy account of this (or a very similar) event on the web. As I recall the means by which engines were synchronised involved shutting off fuel and that was done engine by engine until they were all out. Thereafter there was no means by which the crew could re-start and they ditched in the sea in darkness. I have a vague idea one or more survived.

A similar event is also mentioned but in this case the pilot disconnected the automatic sync. before all 4 were stopped and all was well.

Hope this helps.

Sandy.

Capot
27th Oct 2010, 18:43
In an incident less well-known than Speedbird 9's ash cloud confrontation, I seem to recall a BOAC/BA VC10 suffering a 4-engine flame-out while in the cruise somewhere in the region around Bangkok.

Early mid-'70s? The story that I heard was that it was the consequence of lack of communication between the 2 front seats and the F/E, but I'm sure that was just a calumny.

Recovered with a RAT-driven relight at 6000 ft? Something like that, perhaps.

Edit. Some research on my own posts reminds me it was 1974, and something to do with fuel starvation, as opposed to lack of fuel in the tanks, of which there was plenty.

JW411
27th Oct 2010, 19:14
They were trying to run all four engines off the fin tank (which was empty) or something like that.

Capot
27th Oct 2010, 19:40
I found a brief description of the VC10 incident here (http://www.vc10.net/History/incidents_and_accidents.html#G-ASGL%20Fuel%20starvation%20incident%201974), for those researching 4-engine failures.

I just love the laconic phrase "The crew responded by initiating a descent ........"

John Farley
27th Oct 2010, 19:54
I have no knowledge of the subject event but I have had engines stop following lightning strike.

Notice I say stop not flame out - which is a particular type of stopping. In my experience a more common type of stopping follows a surge caused by the temperature delta across the intake.

In the latter case the pilot may need to shut the engine down after the surge to prevent over temperature

JW411
28th Oct 2010, 15:02
I would imagine that I have been struck by lightning getting on for 20 times during my flying career (including a fire ball episode). My record was 6 times in a month operating DC-10s into and out of JFK.

On no occasion have I ever seen the slightest hint of a flicker on an engine instrument. However, it would have to be said that the most complex engine controls that I ever came across were the auto throttle systems on the DC-10 and the Short Belfast (which had the Smiths SEP-5 triplex auto-land system fitted as per the HS Trident). Both systems were excellent and did not respond to lightning strikes.

By the way, do any of you out there remember Flt Lt Ignatowski?

"Iggy" was (among other things) a famous captain on No.202 Squadron, based at RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland flying Handley Page Hastings meteorological aircraft.

In those days, there were no weather satellites or anything like that, so, apart from the weather ships which were based in the Atlantic, the only other way to find out what the weather was going to do in Europe tomorrow was to fly west into what was coming and take lots of readings.

So, why do I mention "Iggy"?

Well, it was considered that "Iggy" had been struck by lightning more than any other pilot on the planet.

That was why he was known throughout the RAF as the "Magnetic Pole".

Graybeard
29th Oct 2010, 15:48
About 15 years ago, Aviacsa in Yucatan had #3 engine uncontained failure on a BAe-146, which took out #4 as well. Losing both engines on the right shut off the fuel to the two on the left, so they landed deadstick at Campeche, a Gen Av field - at night.

GB

Capt Pit Bull
29th Oct 2010, 16:35
Losing both engines on the right shut off the fuel to the two on the left, so they landed deadstick at Campeche, a Gen Av field - at night.

diverging OT, but any idea how? There's a lot of redundancy in that fuel system; electric pumps, hydraulic pumps and finally good old fashioned gravity feed.

pb

safetypee
29th Oct 2010, 18:51
GB, CPB; The Aviacsa #4 engine failure was due to oil starvation (maintenance error).
Although the indications to the crew were of three engines inoperative (collateral damage), in fact only two stopped (#3 & 4).
The landing was made with without hydraulics – no flaps, airbrake, spoiler, and main brakes. The pitch trim was inoperative, several instrument failures, holes in the fuel tank, fuselage, and wing mainspar, and there was a small fire in the cabin!

The 146 has suffered multiple engine failure/shutdowns events. All, except one birdstike, were associated with high altitude icing (and subsequent crew action); all engines have been modified to provide enhanced anti-icing.

Bolli
29th Oct 2010, 20:16
Is it possible that the lightening strikes caused some kind of electrical control issue, (computer crash etc...) which caused something like fuel starvation or a similar problem?

Teddy Robinson
30th Oct 2010, 04:20
a link to the report please ? loosing 2 engines on one side of a 146/RJ does not "shut off fuel to the other side" :ugh:

Graybeard
30th Oct 2010, 12:54
TR, Safetypee seems to have access to a report. I had the perspective of being in the industry, and involved in Mexico, and somewhat involved with Aviacsa at the time. I have no report. It was said at the time that the Aviacsa engineer wanted to pull #3 for cracks, but the Lycoming engineer on site insisted in getting more hours on wing.

How #4 kills #3, as related by SafetyPee, except by shrapnel or fuel shutoff I don't know. Debris from #3 killing #4 makes sense. PSA had #4 aft section explode at 27K alt, and I'm sure it didn't kill #3 or the others. There was hot shrapnel in the cabin in that case, also at night, and they landed without further incident in KFAT.

Back to the C-17. I am skeptical of a machine built to govt specification being as robust as a civil machine. The single customer gets too detailed with the design, rather than a broad specification, and the manufacturer builds to the specification in the contract.

The KC-10A, a tankered DC-10, was for years, and may still be, the most reiliable plane in the USAF fleet. It has only a few mil radios, and boom electronics. The boom drive is even an autopilot computer from an MD-80.

GB

safetypee
30th Oct 2010, 13:15
TR, re 146 engine failure, IIRC there was only a sparse accident report published in Spanish.
The #4 engine suffered an uncontained failure of the main turbine which resulted in the extensive shrapnel damage; some of which either cut the adjacent engine fuel line and/or the electrical power to the fuel shutoff valve – and the #2 engine instrument cables on the other side of the fuselage!
The non-containment was due to the bearing package shearing the main power shaft and the turbine disc / blades exiting the engine off axis. This is not supposed to happen according to the certification requirements, and with previous instances or near incidents, the manufacturer was required to modify all engines – new single bearing to replace 4/5 bearing.

The damage to the adjacent #3 engine pylon was so severe that the three engine ferry was without the engine / pylon.

http://i56.tinypic.com/wir51s.jpg

indie cent
30th Oct 2010, 21:06
Back to the C-17. I am skeptical of a machine built to govt specification being as robust as a civil machine.


Greybeard, respectfully, are you suggesting that the spec of the C-17 is less robust than civil airliner?

I'll have what you're drinking pal!

Massey1Bravo
31st Oct 2010, 04:02
IIRC a TACA 737 Classic ended up as a glider many years ago after flying into some pretty bad CBs and both engines flamed out due to water ingestion, even with continuous ignition and EAI. Neither engines managed to restart and the plane landed in a ditch. Sullenberger stuff.

IPn8G7enbF4

IMO a 4 engine flame out from CBs is definitely possible.

Teddy Robinson
1st Nov 2010, 00:08
Thanks for the clarification, that makes more sense.

lomapaseo
1st Nov 2010, 02:30
I think it quite doubtful that all four engines flamed out. Perhaps a surge or two and after that some crew actions.

If there was a flameout problem then the airworthiness aspects will spill over into the commercial fleet

Graybeard
1st Nov 2010, 06:46
Greybeard, respectfully, are you suggesting that the spec of the C-17 is less robust than civil airliner?

It's partly spec, and partly experience. By the time the KC-10A were built, there were DC-10s with already a dozen years in service. Civil planes get up to ten times the flight hours per year compared to military. Specs are built up from experience, of course.

There were several lightning caused failures and subsequent improvements made to the DC-10 before the first KC-10A was built, for example.

GB

Graybeard
1st Nov 2010, 07:00
IIRC a TACA 737 Classic ended up as a glider many years ago after flying into some pretty bad CBs and both engines flamed out due to water ingestion, even with continuous ignition and EAI. Neither engines managed to restart and the plane landed in a ditch. Sullenberger stuff.


The 737-300 was new at the time of its dual flameout, and continuous ignition was not yet required on their CFM-56. The Salvadoran captain, with his left eye gone from a rebel/bandito attack, landed the 737 deadstick on a dike in New Orleans. Boeing flew it off the dike after shedding all possible extra weight.

I met the gentleman several years later when he was capt on TACA 767. He humbly admitted he did not understand the new weather radar, as he had not been adequately trained on it.

This Capt. had a good background in general aviation and deadstick landings. He owned a fleet of cropdusters, which he also used for towing banners.

GB

stuckgear
1st Nov 2010, 12:55
umm lifting,

have to agree on that, but then what could you expect from a captain with cheek scar from being shot at by guerrillas and a co-pilot with a 'tache like that ! :E

silverstrata
2nd Nov 2010, 01:37
JimJim:
Ba146 rollback
I have just read the report (thanks for the links) and I disagree that the cause was environmental. Certainly under different environmental conditions the incident would not have occurred however the conclusions seem to be that the environmental conditions encountered were normal conditions that the aircraft should have been capable of operating in.


The problem with the 146 is (was) both environmental and technical, in my opinion.

I had a similar 4-engine rollback in the 146, and it seemed to be coincident with engine ant-ice selection at cruise altitude. On turning off all the ant-ice, all 4 came back again.

The problem was compounded by the thrust management system, which tries to equalise all 4 engines.

WeeWinkyWilly
2nd Nov 2010, 02:17
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/432141-not-good-etops-erops-twin.html

The current A330 malaise

gardua
5th Nov 2010, 00:38
Working with 'Iggy' Ignatowski on 202Sqn in the early sixties as a Cpl rigger I can verify that lightning strikes were an almost daily occurance on the Met recon 'Bismuth' flights over the big pond - the siggies had to have spare trailing aerials as they were usually chopped off by the strikes. As each aircraft had to be degaussed and have a full compass swing before it's next mission, and the nearest 'magnetically pure' airfield was Lindholm in Yorkshire, that created quite some action - we only ever had five or six aircraft so you can figure there were usually one or two needing the treatment. Generally airframe damage was limited to some pepperpot holes in the nose and a number of static wicks burnt off the elevators and ailerons but only once did I hear an aircrew complain about a loud bang and smell of 'burning' or ionised air after the strike so the risk was acceptable with no injuries or lost aircraft reported.