Engine Fire/Failure on finals

[supy]

Hi,
Can any one help me on this one.
If you experience an Engine Failure/Fire what are the actions. Do most airlines have a cut off Height. What happens if you are Visual or in IFR conditions? Do you continue to Land or carry out a Missed Approach?
Thanks

[411A]

Engine fire on final...
Silence bell,
Throttle closed,
Fuel off,
Fire handle pull,
If necessary, extinguish...press.
(Possible slight variation depending on type).


Continue approach, land the aeroplane.

These are basic steps, and only basic steps are necessary in this case.

[mustafagander]

If you're on fire, the only place to be is on the ground.

How you achieve that with maximum safety is why they call you Captain.

[dolly737]

No doubt, the best place with an engine-fire is on the ground. But HOW you get there is just as important.

Here’s just some additional food for thought: The approach might become a bit de-stabilized when shutting down the affected engine; and (on the 737) we have to retract flaps to 15 and add up to 20 kts. If you happen to be field-limited on your landing with a contaminated runway on a remote airport with wx right at minimums, you’re probably better off going around and get things organized first before attempting to land (positively extinguishing the fire and/or completing the shutdown procedures). This also gives the f/a’s more time to prepare the cabin for an orderly evacuation plus the rescue-services at the airport a chance to get things rolling before you come in. Also, on climb-gradient limited missed-approaches it may not be wise having to go-around because you’re becoming totally de-stabilized below DA – better to start your missed well above minimums.

One may even be able to relight the engine after a “plain” flameout. A fire on turbojet-engines usually is of the contained type, and can quite easily be extinguished by shutting off the fuel supply and engaging the extinguishers. I even heard the argument that inflight airflow can prevent the fire from creeping upwards into the wing…

Since there are many factors involved in the decision, it is a good idea to think about your options when preparing for the approach.

[FlapsOne]

If it's late in the approach the decision will almost always be to land, with the caveat of limiting field length as stated above. It's always something you should have in the back of your mind.

As far as drills go, do only what is essential and safe and does not detract from flyng the aircraft. Sometimes that might be nothing, other times it could be the whole drill, but it is almost impossible to legislate.

In essence - stop the bell and cancel the warning - that lets you fly with minimum distraction, then do the rest when you are on the ground under control.

Remember - a perfect set of drills is useless if you fail in the primary objective of landing the aircraft safely!

[m&v]

On the A320 one can cont' with the ECAM action until one reaches 400'AGL on final.(QRH preamble)Most firms 'cut off' cont' actions at 1000 agl to comply with the Cat2/3 limitations.
On the 727 one could get away with 'not doing too much'until on the ground-with a single loss.The loss of 2 engines by the FAF required one to select MCT,bug up 30kias,select Flaps 5 and call for the Standby Rudder pwr-otherwise one didn't reach the field.
So develope where you'd like to 'leave things alone'on final until landed(don't forget to call for the equipement)
Cheers:eek:

[the aviator]

He supy

just to add something procedure wise, (from emb145 procedures)

In IMC conditions (so during CAT II or CAT IIIa approaches) we have the procedure during engine failure above 1500' RA approach may be continued to CATI/II/III minima (this in case of a HUGS approach. Below 1500' RA perform immediate go-around unless visual contact has been established.

So in general:
In the event of an a/c malfunction occurring during IMC app below 1500 ft GND requiring action by the flight crew, the approach shall normally be discontinued. If a continuation of the app seems more favorable (e.g. engine fire) the decision lies with the commander and shall be based on common sense and good airmanship....

[Slasher]

Dolly737 the flap 15 requirement for SE landing is to satisfy min GA gradient requirements. So long as your satisfyed the runway is CLEAR and you HAVE been cleared to land, there is no reason to reconfigure from flap 40 to 15 (which in so doing will screw you up so late in the approach). Retain your landing flap, increase the operating engine power to maintain your desired speed and drop in some rudder. Its not a difficult exercise.

There is no hard and fast magic altitude that dictates a go around/landing decision due to engine power loss or fire. but certainley anything sudden below 500 ft AGL in IMC or VMC requires prompt decision-making. On every approach a good pilot knows his chances of 'getting in' or not. If theres ANY doubt (fluctuating vis/cloud at the minimum) a GA would be initiated in this instance ASAP to allow for altitude loss during flap retraction (theres no way youll climb at flap40!) and the subsequent SE GA.

We operate into many short runways where flap 40 dictates the limiting landing weight. Anything less than 40 and youll go through the fence.

[john_tullamarine]

A couple of comments following Slasher's post ...

(a) under conditions of hot/high/heavy, the bird might need a reduced flap setting to maintain a reasonable approach profile with the gear out, depending on what speed you have when the intial problems are sorted out. A lot depends on training also .. those who periodically get the "engine failure turning final in turbulent conditions" routine in the sim fare a lot better than those for whom it is all a new and exciting experience ....

(b) for those short runways of which you speak, the use of a lower flap setting and the appropriate speed need not necessarily mandate an overrun ... you aren't using the unfactored QRH landing data for scheduled ops, I hope ?

[Slasher]

Hi John.

No I was strictley talking 737-200/300. Other aircraft types may have diferent engine-out handling qualitys and SE gradient capabilitys (Im referencing AFM figures, not the min certification weights for app-climb and ldg-climb). The cut-off temp for what you mention in (a) is around 35C for flap 40 at structural MLW, which is an ambient rarely encountered (or higher) in the tropics. Only bangkok and a few others can reach 40+C, but then again these airfields are served by 10,000ft+ LDAs.

Ref (b), yes your dead correct, but self-awareness of pilot ability as you well know must come into play here. Yes A fully-factored flap 40 distance will scrape in as an unfactored flap 15 distance but with not much to spare. Given a 3,500 ft wet runway at Vref40+18 (146kts) at field-length MLW, moderate rain and a 20kt variable xwind, I doubt my ability to confidentley stop within the pavement distance given only 1 thrust reverser and the lack of drag at flap 15 as against 40, even if I plant the gear exactley where I want it. Im not even mentioning any possible risks like aquaplaning or low-level unreported light tailwinds. This is why I mentioned the consideration of retaining flap 40 for landing SE and in so doing giving away your GA capability (so long as the requirements I mentioned in my earlyer post are met).

Of course it all works out in the sim and I make it in ok after a late flap reconfig, and the ldg dist used retaining flap 40 is quite a lot less than flap 15. but a sim wont kill you. In real life however Im not game when the flap 15 distance numbers are so critical like that.

So in summary, given a short runway with a sudden engine failure/fire at say 250 ft AGL (GD and F40) in 737:

* Runway clear? YES
* Cleared to land? YES
* Will I make it in? YES
* ANY obvious risk of GA? NO
* Scared? Mmmm...NO
- Retain flap 40 and land. Note A/brake and bus inop items lost.
(In the same situation but given a long runway, youve got the added bonus of extra field length to sort out flap configuration changes if thats what you decide to do. I cant see though why youd want to make life dificult for yourself by changing flap so late in the approach).

* Runway clear? CANT SEE IT
* Cleared to land YES
* Will I make it in? DONT KNOW!
* ANY obvious risk of GA? YES
* Scared? HELL YEH!
- Immediatley initiate a GA even though the proc may bring you VERY close to the runway initialy. Follow MaP or pre-planned terrain-avoidence escape route. And yes grit your teeth and go around even for an engine FIRE warning too!

PS if your scared youll make mistakes. Its better to bug out and reduce the adrenalen a bit and sort out the problem first, rather than land an aircraft in a critical condition with quivering hands and a shaking right leg trying to stop the damn thing!

[john_tullamarine]

..Slash, mate ... I WAS thinking 200/300 .. thankfully, I have never had the experience in the aircraft.. but the number of times I have failed an engine turning base/short final in the sim and had the pilot

(a) not notice until it was too late

(b) notice but crash anyway (actually I freeze the sim before we crash .. I don't think that the crash has any positive training value)

etc .... are numerous.

There is no "right" answer and a lot depends on the particular circumstances of the day. Still, I have some doubts as to the ability of many pilots to handle this scenario well unless they have given it a lot of armchair thought and had a reasonable amount of practice in the sim to put the armchair quarterbacking into action.

Regarding the numbers, one should keep in mind that the US practice typically is to quote unfactored landing distance with a reliance on the operational FARs to require the operator/pilot to put in the fudge factor. I know that some operators permit the use of the QRH numbers without factoring but I think that this is an unnecessarily high risk approach to life unless the circumstances involve a higher risk abnormal or emergency situation ... just my opinion .. but, then again, I'm a devout coward.

[Slasher]

Im a devout coward too John believe me! Even if everything looks right Ill take note of any involuntary sphincter-muscle activity I might have. As a captain I cover my @ss, but my ever-cautious cr@p-shooter has covered ME many times in return! :D

Yes for each critical airfield we build in the flap 40 fudge factors (x 1.67 dry, and the x 1.15 of that 1.67 dist for wet). In the Dry months therefore we can increase payload and/or fuel carried. I then x-check them with the old (large-sheeted) 23.10 Landing Performance FLL graph. I then take the lower of the 2 weights should a diference exist.

The problem is that with the very short runways we operate into we cant use the flap 15 landing weight as a basis for commercial payload. If we did we could only carry about 4 or 5 bums down the back and a few slabs.

Our sim checks will include a sudden power loss or fire at low altitude and conducted at least once every 18 months. FAIL the exercise and youve blown the whole check. As a sim-checker myself once, I noted that pilot problems were exaserbated with low engine power settings (high and fast), so loss of thrust is not imediateley apparent. Thats why I emphasised till I was blue in the face the correct stable slot must be attained absolutley no later than 500 ft AGL, and the PNF keeps a good eye on the engine clocks as well.

Of course John your correct when you say there is no "right" answer and a lot depends on the particular circumstances of the day. I can easily mention scenarios where the QRH unfactored figure is all youve got to survive. Factor it and decide its too short and your a dead duck.

[john_tullamarine]

Peace, brother ... we are in heated agreement.

My approach has always been that one ought to look at the basic figures in an emergency situation, and then use the normal fudge factors as part of the assessment process in determining to which runway you ultimately recover the aircraft and so on ... in the event that there is only one option, then you juggle the risks as best you see fit and go for the lowest overall risk recovery option ... and cross your fingers ....

As for the failure during a higher energy approach, it never ceases to amaze me when I see the level of surprise and initial confusion when the pilot allows himself to be caught out .. and, of course, if he doesn't know exactly what gameplan he is running with ... then it all turns to custard right before his eyes ... a bit of a discussion over coffee and a few more runs and the message gets across.

[OzExpat]

Yes, okay, that's all fine and bewt when you can practice it in a sim. What about all us blokes who fly things like Kingairs, for whom a sim session is mooooost unlikely. How do we practice for that sort of emergency?

We don't. Because we can't. Thus, our own personal sphincter spasm activity is what we tend to have to rely on all the time. We ARE forced to consider field length and the liklihood of getting visual, but the reality is that none of us want to go down in a ball of flame because the fire got into the wing tanks, even after the extinguisher may have killed the engine fire.

Too many unknowns as far as I'm concerned. In any event, there are so few places around here that have credible fire or other emergency services that I'd probably end up taking a chance on getting visual and landing - without making any significant configuration change. Yes, there are, obviously, circumstances that'll alter cases but, if the approach is runway-aligned, I would probably elect to go for it.

That said, the only approach here that gets an aircraft below about 500 feet AGL is an ILS. Thus, the chances are that we're more likely to experience this critical situation only on the ILS. With any other type of approach, we're either already visual, or already in the missed approach when it happens.

So, okay, we're below 500 feet and still in IFR conditions. I've got a VERY serious problem but I know that the ILS will deliver me to the runway. Remembering that this is a major emergency situation, it will come down to whether or not I have the balls to flare and land on the runway in IMC. I suspect that, on the balance of probabilities, this would be the least of my troubles at the time.

But, as has already been pointed out, making the really big decisions is the reason why we're called "captain".

[Slasher]

Ozex youll find most 737 sims dont simulate (at least the ones Ive been in) an engine fire that ends up with the fire catchin the tanks or the engine burning itself off the wing and severin fuel and hyd lines and maybe takin the bloodey wing with it. ALL real possibilitys esp with an uncontrolable fire.

Unfortunatley 99.9 pc of engine fire/failure exercises conducted in the box mate are PROCEDURAL checks only. That is, a check of the pilot's standard for that emergency and that adherance to checklists etc have been carried out. Its all done relatively calmly. Real life could have complications such as ATC confusion, ATC freq congestion, a crew-member freezing up (it happens!), severe turbulance, secondary emergencys such as contaminated cabin air, and a panicky cabin about to riot if the pax can see flames under the wing.

An engine fire is a deadley serious affair (just ask any surviving ex-Viscount 700 driver) even in these sophisticated modern jet aircraft with more reliable engines. I believe it should be part of the overall training to be aware of the subsequences to uncontroled engine fires and yep, actualy simulate what COULD happen.

[Ignition Override]

Slasher-my US airline has only once trained me to have a simulated engine failure while configured for landing on final approach. This was in day, VFR conditions and was pre-briefed. I'm talking about 14 years flying planes with between 78 and 122 passengers. The other three years were as 757 FO. How about at Vref+ 5 knots at minimums on a Localizer approach? That would be very valuable training.


You see, either our Training Depts or the FAA simply won't allow them to teach a technique-even if it can save your lives (but maybe some unusual training events were not considered "instruction"...). Is this partly because the FAA can then require testing on anything which is taught? Maybe with our brand-new AQP programs, a large selection of maneuvers will finally be possible. Why would the FAA need much new documentation for any of this, or the Training Dept be concerned about a surprise briefing room/simulator visit from an Inspector, with consequent extra "checking" events??