View Full Version : Virgin Australia ATR suffered flameouts in both engines
HowardB
18th Dec 2018, 06:29
Reported in Flight today.
CurtainTwitcher
18th Dec 2018, 06:46
More info from Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB): Engine issues on descent involving ATR 72-600, VH-FVN, near Canberra Airport, Australian Capital Territory, on 13 December 2018 (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-081/).
Preemo
18th Dec 2018, 07:21
What is " manual engine ignition?"
DaveReidUK
18th Dec 2018, 08:04
But not simultaneously.
wiedehopf
18th Dec 2018, 09:27
What is " manual engine ignition?"
Most likely continuous ignition.
(https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2018/06/7-times-youll-use-continuous-ignition-in-a-jet-engine/)
AerocatS2A
18th Dec 2018, 09:27
What is " manual engine ignition?"
That’s where the igniters are turned on manually.
zerograv
18th Dec 2018, 11:58
Certainly all the ingredients are there for such event to happen.
Lets see ...
Decending = Low Power Setting (lets call it "little flame")
Airspeed - If no turbulence, guessing it at 220 kts or even a tad more. This is not helpfull for the "little flame".
Then the freaking flood of water comes in (Heavy Rain) ... et voilá ... puts out the "little flame", or we have "Flame Out".
The crew selected manual engine ignition for the remainder of the flight
Wise decision !!!
pattern_is_full
18th Dec 2018, 16:06
I thought engaging "continuous ignition" was always standard procedure when encountering heavy precip. Just in case. As in Wiedehopf's link.
what next
18th Dec 2018, 20:08
I thought engaging "continuous ignition" was always standard procedure when encountering heavy precip.
Maybe. But how can you tell that it is "heavy" precipitation other than watching your engines flame out?
I thought engaging "continuous ignition" was always standard procedure when encountering heavy precip. Just in case. As in Wiedehopf's link.
It is not a standard procedure on the ATR.
Matt48
18th Dec 2018, 21:42
That’s where the igniters are turned on manually.
Hi all,
I don't know why but it conjures up an image of the co pilot reaching out the right window with a BBQ gas lighter in hand , calling " Fire in the Hole", then handing the lighter to the skipper to do the same on his side. LOL.
Merry Christmas to all. :-)
tdracer
18th Dec 2018, 23:09
It's worth noting, continuous ignition won't prevent a flameout - however it improves the odds that the engine will quickly recover.
Centaurus
19th Dec 2018, 10:33
Certainly all the ingredients are there for such event to happen.
Lets see ...
Descending = Low Power Setting (lets call it "little flame")
Airspeed - If no turbulence, guessing it at 220 kts or even a tad more. This is not helpfull for the "little flame".
Then the freaking flood of water comes in (Heavy Rain) ... et voilá ... puts out the "little flame", or we have "Flame Out".
At least the ATR crew restored power to both engines. Not like the unfortunate crew and passengers of a DC9 that forced landed on a road after severe damage to both engines caused by heavy rain and hail in a thunderstorm.
The NTSB report criticised the captain for relying on his weather radar to navigate through a thunderstorm. Faulty engine handling was a contributory cause of the severe damage and eventual loss of both engines. See Final Report in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_242
Final Report: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_242)
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR7803.pdf
what next
19th Dec 2018, 11:27
At least the ATR crew restored power to both engines.
Just nitpicking, but according to the preliminary report linked in one of the early posts the engines restored power automatically by themselves. Only after the second engine went through a flame-out/automatic relight cycle did the crew turn on the continuous ignition. Which might not have prevented the flame-outs anyway.
lomapaseo
19th Dec 2018, 14:43
The SO242 engine mishandling was the increasing of engine power to regain altitude with both engines surging due to the ingestion of hail. Different events include different combinations of results.
pilot9250
20th Dec 2018, 00:06
Just nitpicking, but according to the preliminary report linked in one of the early posts the engines restored power automatically by themselves. Only after the second engine went through a flame-out/automatic relight cycle did the crew turn on the continuous ignition. Which might not have prevented the flame-outs anyway.
Just a question really but why is it that the automatics have authority to command a relight but do not have authority to command continous?
papiro58km
20th Dec 2018, 17:21
What would be so particular about this event that has not been flown over so many years of service? I suspect that this was not the first time this aircraft had descended in heavy rain.....
dudubrdx
20th Dec 2018, 21:13
Just a question really but why is it that the automatics have authority to command a relight but do not have authority to command continous?
Stopped flying ATRs years ago ( or was it 6 months ) but AFAIK the 500/600 series have an automatic continous relight. When the turbine drops below 30% n2 it automatically kicks in the relight.