PDA

View Full Version : Emergency landing today of Air Canada's B787 in CYUL...


Jet Jockey A4
25th Mar 2017, 21:26
Article is in French from a local newspaper... There are 3 videos attached to the story.

The flight had just taken off from Montreal for Shanghai when they had to shutdown an engine. It was decided to dump fuel before landing back in Montreal.

Unknown if the shutdown was right after takeoff or sometime after. But there is talk that they went north of Montreal and possibly dumped fuel for 30 minutes prior to returning for the landing.


Atterrissage d'urgence à Montréal, aucun blessé | Louis-Samuel Perron, Audrey Ruel-Manseau | Faits divers (http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-affaires-criminelles/faits-divers/201703/25/01-5082256-atterrissage-durgence-a-montreal-aucun-blesse.php)

parkfell
25th Mar 2017, 21:31
The OEI procedure works well....the diagnosis ?

DaveReidUK
25th Mar 2017, 22:14
Unknown if the shutdown was right after takeoff or sometime after.

From the article you linked:

"l'avion a rapidement dû faire demi-tour peu de temps après le décollage" (forced to turn back shortly after takeoff).

Jet Jockey A4
25th Mar 2017, 22:26
Yes I can read French but later in the video one of the passengers says they were dumping fuel after being in flight for 30 minutes.

So it was not a matter of taking off, having an engine shutdown immediately after takeoff and then returning for a landing right away.

They decided to either continue a climb fly to a dumping site for X amount of time then return to CYUL or they were already half an hour out when the problem occurred and then decided to dump fuel on their way back to CYUL.

One comment from a passenger claims that they felt something was wrong on the takeoff roll.

So my question is if this happened on the takeoff or minutes after and you decided to shutdown the engine, would you land ASAP overweight or fly on one engine to the fuel dump site, dump some fuel maybe for 15 or 30 minutes then return for a landing?

What does the B787 checklist calls for?

Jet Jockey A4
25th Mar 2017, 22:42
Well another article just came out locally with some additional info with the flight Radar 24 from the flight.

Apparently as I suspected they went north of Montreal over the Laurantians mountains and dumped fuel for a while... This article claims they were airborne for an hour.

Un avion d'Air Canada atterrit d'urgence à Montréal | TVA Nouvelles (http://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2017/03/25/un-avion-dair-canada-atterrit-durgence-a-montreal)

BanditGirl
25th Mar 2017, 23:20
What does the B787 checklist call for:
Choose one:



Overweight Landing

Condition: A landing at greater than maximum landing weight is needed.

One engine is inoperative:

Tuning and control panel GPWS FLAP OVRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVRD

Note: Use flaps 20 and VREF 20 for landing and flaps 5 for go-around. This provides greater climb capability.

Ie with one engine out dont mess about with climb performance just land with flap 20.
Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport

Jet Jockey A4
26th Mar 2017, 00:13
@ BanditGirl...

So do you dump fuel for perhaps 30 minutes or land ASAP even if overweight?

Airbubba
26th Mar 2017, 00:40
Here's the FlightRadar24 plot:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ac17/#cd9f666

Looks like AC17 was airborne at 1752Z and landed at 1857Z.

The fun begins shortly after AC17 is cleared for takeoff at about 21:55 into this clip of tower audio:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cyul/CYUL-Twr2-Mar-25-2017-1730Z.mp3

AC17 was cleared for takeoff on 06R. The tower told them that they had 'three flameouts [sic] on the right engine' (I realize that the controller might not be very fluent in English). AC17 called Pan-Pan-Pan and asked for vectors to stay close to the airport.

They then said they were going straight out with a turn at 11 DME IUL, maybe one of those special engine-out procedures that the company teaches but ATC knows nothing about. They later took a heading of 270 and a climb to 5000 feet. Requested vectors to dump area, SOB's 224 with crew of 13, fuel 78.7 with plans to dump to 40 (I assume tonnes, AC wrote the book on fuel quantity unit conversions in ETOPS twins ;)). Looks like they dumped at 7000 feet and came back to land on 06L.

Another day at the office. :ok:

Longtimer
26th Mar 2017, 00:54
Indeed, Just another day in the office for a well Trained Canadian crew!

wiggy
26th Mar 2017, 05:56
As far as dashing back and landing overweight -

I can't comment on the 787 checklist BanditGirl provided but FWIW on another Boeing ETOPS twin the checklist is worded similarly and you wouldn't be expected to land overweight simply for a straight forward engine failure. Given no further complications you'd head off to dump fuel in a suitable area near the airport, then return and land.

BanditGirl
26th Mar 2017, 06:51
JJ A4
Our company had an incident on a twin whereupon a engine surged shortly after take off, and was shut down that particular type had no Jettison system thus they just landed overweight. However when they looked into the other ( good !) engine they were horrified to see the fan damage ( birds) , all concerned were amazed the one remaining engine continued to run without indication of a fault, but for how long ???
Should a crew decide to hold to Jettison on a single engine with a line in the checklist that states land at nearest suitable airfield and that engine subsequently fails, I am pretty sure the manufactures lawyers in the subsequent aftermath singing they could have landed 40 mins before the remaining engine failed and our overweight landing checklist allows it.
Every Jet Transporter I have ever flown has been able to land overweight hence the existence of the Overweight Landing Checklist. As far as landing distance is concerned if you just took off on it and was able to stop at V1 3/4 down the runway for an RTO you sure can stop landing at the threashold.
For those of you who say yes but it's ETOPS I have got 180 mins before I need to land, I would say yeah but the other bugger did not last three hours did it !!!
My company policy and my strong view having seen those Fan pictures is land overweight minimise the time available for the other engine to fail, you would never end up in a legal scenario just landing overweight, however if you join the two engine hush club in a twin ??
For what it is worth I have landed a heavy twin just 5 Tonnes short of MTOW with an immediate return to land scenario. Overweight checklist completed of course.

ImageGear
26th Mar 2017, 07:14
Why, why, why, dump 40 Tonnes of fuel over a beautiful area of wilderness, where lake fishing, hunting, golf and skiing in the Mont Tremblant area brings a lot of pleasure for people and is a major source of income for the region. They were at relatively low altitude for the dump so I expect people are waking up to this stuff lying all over the greenery and floating on the lakes. If they could fly for so long why not go dump it in the St Lawrence north of Quebec City, oops, sorry the Whales are there too.

(Everyone in Montreal gets out of town and comes to their cabin up here, one of my family was in a cabin right under the dump area and I have friends in cabins nearby.)

Of course anyone who buys their local veggies from the Slough, Maidenhead, Ascot area are eating the carcinogens too so obviously it is not harmful, not?.

Am I a "Nimby" ? yes when "operations" require pilots to do idiotic things.:=

DaveReidUK
26th Mar 2017, 07:19
They decided to either continue a climb fly to a dumping site for X amount of time then return to CYUL or they were already half an hour out when the problem occurred and then decided to dump fuel on their way back to CYUL.

The former, as I said in my post.

arketip
26th Mar 2017, 07:29
The tower told them that they had 'three flameouts [sic] on the right engine' (I realize that the controller might not be very fluent in English)

Or was it "flames out of the engine?

Sailvi767
26th Mar 2017, 08:07
Why, why, why, dump 40 Tonnes of fuel over a beautiful area of wilderness, where lake fishing, hunting, golf and skiing in the Mont Tremblant area brings a lot of pleasure for people and is a major source of income for the region. They were at relatively low altitude for the dump so I expect people are waking up to this stuff lying all over the greenery and floating on the lakes. If they could fly for so long why not go dump it in the St Lawrence north of Quebec City, oops, sorry the Whales are there too.

(Everyone in Montreal gets out of town and comes to their cabin up here, one of my family was in a cabin right under the dump area and I have friends in cabins nearby.)

Of course anyone who buys their local veggies from the Slough, Maidenhead, Ascot area are eating the carcinogens too so obviously it is not harmful, not?.

Am I a "Nimby" ? yes when "operations" require pilots to do idiotic things.:=



No one on the ground would have detected the fuel dumped from 7000 feet. Navy aircraft in days gone by often dumped in the pattern at 600 feet and it was vaporized before reaching the ground.

clunckdriver
26th Mar 2017, 11:18
Well, that should reduce the mosquito population!

G-CPTN
26th Mar 2017, 11:29
No one on the ground would have detected the fuel dumped from 7000 feet. Navy aircraft in days gone by often dumped in the pattern at 600 feet and it was vaporized before reaching the ground.

Then why is it that one can (sometimes) detect the odour of aviation fuel when there is an airliner flying nearby?

JNPS
26th Mar 2017, 11:41
See Boeing AERO QTR_3 07 for the manufacturers perspective. Food for thought.

DaveReidUK
26th Mar 2017, 11:57
Overweight landing? fuel jettison? - What to consider (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/AERO_Q307_article3.pdf)

BanditGirl
26th Mar 2017, 11:58
Jnps
Thanks very much fot the ref, I must say I had read that AERO before but a long time ago,
I guess the statment below will only fuel th debate from both sides.

Obviously, landing at weights above the maximum design landing weight reduces the normal performance margins. An overweight landing with an engine inoperative or a system failure may be less desirable than landing below maximum landing weight. Yet, delaying the landing with a malfunctioning system or engine failure in order to reduce weight or jettison fuel may expose the airplane to additional system deterioration that can make the situation worse. The pilot in command is in the best position to assess all relevant factors and determine the best course of action.

Thus it's the skippers decision, I would suggest that zero redundancy in the power department is exposing the aircraft to a further threat that needs to be mitigated TEM !!!

I just can't forget the pictures of the remaining engine fan blades mentioned in my earlier post

601
26th Mar 2017, 12:59
manufactures lawyers

How about we get a hotline to a "flight crew lawyer" on the flight deck so we can have a conversation about which procedure we should apply in a given situation which allow the flight crew to enjoy the said experience.

This questioning of what a flight crew did or did not do or should have or shouldn't have or weather they should have had soy milk instead of low fat with their weaties at breakfast is getting ridiculous.

BanditGirl
26th Mar 2017, 13:05
601
I completely agree
Alas it's what the world has evolved into

Airbubba
26th Mar 2017, 13:44
Or was it "flames out of the engine?

That sure could have been what he meant to say. Check out the tower audio at the link above starting at about 23:00 into the clip. He says a phrase that sounds to me like 'three flameouts' several times. I also like the emphatically negative reply to 'AC 17 are you OK?' :ok: It's a busy time of life that in recent decades I've only experienced in the sim (so far ;)).

Air Canada in the past was known for not dumping on their 767's and had the fuel jettison system disabled or not installed on their entire '76 fleet. They also disabled the fuel jettison on some DC-9 10's and 30's as I recall.

For those of you who say yes but it's ETOPS I have got 180 mins before I need to land, I would say yeah but the other bugger did not last three hours did it !!!


Yep, that 180 minutes is strictly for dispatch in my view. If you lose an engine in an ETOPS twin you are still required to proceed to the nearest suitable airport in point of time for landing under FAA rules. And often that airport is not one of your designated ETOPS alternates. I've sure had a check airman on an overwater line check try to tell me otherwise, that we had to go to an ETOPS alternate 'since that is what our POI (now OI) wants us to do'. Mitigating circumstance, the LCA was a Marine :).

How about we get a hotline to a "flight crew lawyer" on the flight deck so we can have a conversation about which procedure we should apply in a given situation which allow the flight crew to enjoy the said experience.

This questioning of what a flight crew did or did not do or should have or shouldn't have or weather they should have had soy milk instead of low fat with their weaties at breakfast is getting ridiculous.

You broke the code. These days you are expected to get on the sat phone and convene a meeting with your company's Subject Matter Experts to discuss any technical issues that arise while airborne. You really have to be careful since anything they say is advisory and if it's wrong the feds come after your ticket, not theirs. At least that's my paranoid view in this new CYA world of captain's authority modified by a committee meeting.

lomapaseo
26th Mar 2017, 14:07
I just can't forget the pictures of the remaining engine fan blades mentioned in my earlier post

Best to deal with facts at the time when choosing what checklist to follow.

BanditGirl
26th Mar 2017, 14:20
I agree lomapaseo.
The facts are one engine on a twin= no redundancy,
Checklist land at nearest suitable airfield

RAT 5
26th Mar 2017, 14:41
The pilot in command is in the best position to assess all relevant factors and determine the best course of action.

I suggest much of that decision will depend on what training has been given to commanders.

Checklist land at nearest suitable airfield

There has always been the debate about land at nearest and/or ASAP.

180 minutes is strictly for dispatch in my view. If you lose an engine in an ETOPS twin you are still required to proceed to the nearest suitable airport in point of time for landing under FAA rules. And often that airport is not one of your designated ETOPS alternates.

There are times on overwater flights where the nearest suitable is also a 2-3hr ETOPS Alt'n. I don't know all the current twins so I wonder at the difference between MTOW & MLW? Suppose you are 3hrs out from departure; and then entering a 2.30hr circle to an ETOPS Alt'n and a problem occurs: You divert one engine out to the ETOPS Alt'n (huge commercial pressure to return, I know); you arrive at Alt'n >MLW. Surely no-one is going to dump fuel to delay the landing? If not then, they why anytime? I just propose the question for discussion, and also wonder what flight time is required to take the very large twins from MTOW to MLW.

BanditGirl
26th Mar 2017, 14:52
Rat 5
787-9 MTOW circa 252 Tonnes, MLW circa 192 Tonnes thus approx fuel flow 5T/hr therefore you could fly for approx 12 hrs.

BanditGirl
26th Mar 2017, 15:03
Another feature of the 787 is that the OPT onboard performance tool incorporates a return to land calculation within the take off calculation. A field is available to input icing conditions expected yes or no this is purely for the return to land calculation for the OEI missed approach, this due to the fact an allowance is made for stab icing during the return to land manoeuvre if yes is inserted. Thus you could be in a position where payload is limited at take off due to return to land performance. However as a driver always nice to know you have return to land performance.

RAT 5
26th Mar 2017, 17:28
BG: thank you. Therefore the scenario of an ETOPS diversion to an overweight landing, one engine or not, is very real. I suppose there is the chance that during an ETOPS diversion the time could be used to dump at a point en-route so as to arrive at landing on MLW.

BanditGirl
26th Mar 2017, 17:58
Rat 5
Yes your scenario is a possibility and Jettison en-route would be the thing to do .

I am not criticising this particular crew as All is well that ends well, and no doubt a good job was done.

I was answering JJ A4 query that the option to land overweight is an option with an engine faliure on a twin.

As previously mentioned my company has this policy, I must say a lot of us have recently converted to the twin from decades of flying the quad where the threats involved are not as significant, and I believe the company correctly is trying to re set our brains from Quad to twin.

An example of that mindset change would be to declare a Mayday with an engine failure on take off with the Quad, and downgrade to a Pan if appropriate once secure, however to maintain Mayday status with the twin.

This is my operators Philosophy of which I am very happy with.

Others no doubt will have different Philosophies.

lederhosen
26th Mar 2017, 18:48
My Boeing checklist has you shut down the engine and gives you the option to try and restart it. A decision then not to continue from homebase on an ultra long haul sector with a suspect engine is quite likely. In this case if both engines were running and before returning for a precautionary landing it would make reasonable sense to dump fuel. We do not know the details. All will be revealed in due course.

Rockhound
27th Mar 2017, 00:37
AC17 was cleared for takeoff on 06R. The tower told them that they had 'three flameouts [sic] on the right engine' (I realize that the controller might not be very fluent in English).

I can assure Airbubba that the Montreal, Quebec, controllers all speak English completely fluently.

AJW709
27th Mar 2017, 00:58
Video of landing + comms with ARFF.
https://youtu.be/z19Y2ujXO7g

Sam Asama
27th Mar 2017, 01:11
Rockhound....

Do you want to rephrase that? Perhaps what you mean is: "Controllers in Quebec meet Nav Canada standards for English language proficiency."

Rockhound
27th Mar 2017, 01:21
Sam,
My intention was merely to disabuse Airbubba of the notion that Montreal FIR controllers may be deficient in English language skills.

Commander Taco
27th Mar 2017, 03:24
Air Canada in the past was known for not dumping on their 767's and had the fuel jettison system disabled or not installed on their entire '76 fleet. They also disabled the fuel jettison on some DC-9 10's and 30's as I recall.

Airbubba you are unusually well informed but, alas, not 100% accurate. The fuel dumping system on the 767's was not deactivated on all the fins, just a small number of them (if memory serves). I believe quite a few of the inherited fins from the merger had the dump systems disabled. It wasn't a situation I was pleased about but sometime around 2004 or so they began to reactivate the 767 fuel dump system.

I didn't fly the DC9-10 (a bit before my time) and although I flew the DC9-15 I can't remember whether that variant had a dump system or not, but I can definitely confirm that all the DC9-32's had a serviceable fuel dump system.

Dr Jay
27th Mar 2017, 14:12
No one on the ground would have detected the fuel dumped from 7000 feet. Navy aircraft in days gone by often dumped in the pattern at 600 feet and it was vaporized before reaching the ground.



This may be a dumb question, but if the fuel vaporizes so quickly, why have designated dump areas at all ?

Herod
27th Mar 2017, 17:06
It's vaporised, but not dispersed. It will still kill fish, plants etc if it lands on them.

The AvgasDinosaur
27th Mar 2017, 17:29
I'd rather have A1 drizzle than 200+ tonnes of B.787 or similar large aerial device drop on my home area !

FlightDetent
27th Mar 2017, 17:59
This may be a dumb question, but if the fuel vaporizes so quickly, why have designated dump areas at all ? My understanding is those are (if) in place for ATC purposes.

Jetstream67
27th Mar 2017, 18:25
Dr Jay

Helps ATC help you to avoid flying through the vapour of someone else's fuel dump . .

ExXB
28th Mar 2017, 08:47
From NAVCAN:

The tower at Montréal (CYUL), QC, advised the terminal that an Air Canada Boeing 787-8 (C-GHPU/ACA017), from CYUL to Shanghai (ZSPD), China, had flames visible from the right engine on takeoff. The aircraft declared "PAN PAN" at 1753Z. The aircraft was vectored to Mirabel (CYMX), QC, to dump fuel between the Mirabel VOR and 15 NM to the North East between approximately 1820Z and 1840Z. ARFF services were deployed. The aircraft landed runway 06L at 1857Z and was towed off the runway at 1919Z. Runway 06L was not available between 1857Z and 1920Z, including runway inspection. GMFIR, MACCO, JRCC Trenton, NOC and TSB advised. Impact: minimal delays to several arrivals due to one runway operation, and one arrival, an Air Canada Boeing 777-300 (ACA871), from Paris (LFPG), France to CYUL, on descent, conducted a 360 at OMBRE at FL210.

alph2z
28th Mar 2017, 13:51
The pilot said "... going straight out (at) 11 DME IUL right turn heading 100 feet (at) 2900 feet". To understand the context better I added "(at)". Also, pilot said "heading 100 feet" !

BTW, by coincidence, on straight out of 06R/L, 11 DME IUL is very close to IAF to 24R/L, I believe.

EDIT: cleared up my explanation.

... The fun begins shortly after AC17 is cleared for takeoff at about 21:55 into this clip of tower audio:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/cyul/CYUL-Twr2-Mar-25-2017-1730Z.mp3

AC17 was cleared for takeoff on 06R. The tower told them that they had 'three flameouts [sic] on the right engine' (I realize that the controller might not be very fluent in English). AC17 called Pan-Pan-Pan and asked for vectors to stay close to the airport.

They then said they were going straight out with a turn at 11 DME IUL, maybe one of those special engine-out procedures that the company teaches but ATC knows nothing about....

Machinbird
28th Mar 2017, 14:02
Has anyone done actual inflight tests to determine the level of hazard? We used to regularly get our F-4 windscreens dampened with fuel while doing crossunders while the lead aircraft was dumping. Never a sneeze or cough from the J-79s that powered us.
I do remember an issue with the early A-4 Skyhawks swallowing too much fuel during certain malfunctions while inflight refueling from a drogue. (Putting a kink in the probe fixed that.)

I suspect that people are being a bit overly concerned about the dumping process. Swissair 111 would have had far better chances if they had put the nose down toward Halifax and just turned on the dumps.

alph2z
28th Mar 2017, 17:37
I can assure Airbubba that the Montreal, Quebec, controllers all speak English completely fluently.

I wouldn't say "all", "completely", and "fluently"; especially in the same sentence.

He said later, after plane reply, "... I see 3 Flameout/(s)/(ed) (of engine tail)..." and then later says in the same sentence "I saw 3 Flameouts...".

"(of engine tail)" added by me. He should have said "3 Flames out of engine tail"; or better.

His mind automatically translated "Je vois/J'ai vu 3 flames sortir ..." to "I see/saw 3 flame outs ..."; i.e. he did a word for word translation instead of a complete sentence translation. EDIT: this sentence added.

I flew around, and landed at CYUL, CYMX, CYHU, CYOW, many times and I'm "completely" bilingual.

I hate the use of non-english even though I'm bilingual, especially for foreign pilots who don't understand french. It's harder to keep track of those around you.

EDIT: added last sentence.

Glassos
7th Apr 2017, 16:54
Land asap, or dump fuel??

My 2 cents worth.

It depends on circumstance. If the remaining engine is operating normally, I would definitely dump fuel before landing. A Vref20/flaps 20 landing at or close to MTOW will be of the order of 175-180 kts. Not a good situation with only one reverser working.

But, if there is a compelling reason to land sooner - fire - I would land ASAP!

FlightDetent
8th Apr 2017, 11:03
What is the tire speed limit?

Jet Jockey A4
8th Apr 2017, 14:01
I flew around, and landed at CYUL, CYMX, CYHU, CYOW, many times and I'm "completely" bilingual.

I hate the use of non-english even though I'm bilingual, especially for foreign pilots who don't understand french. It's harder to keep track of those around you.


Totally off subject... You obviously have not flown anywhere else in the world because if you would have flown in South America, in Europe, in Russia or in Asia to name a few places, you would know that local languages are heard all the time in communications with ATC...

Now back to the subject on hand please.