Engine fire forces landing at Sydney Airport
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this is all very interesting.
No doubt the media has got it wrong in this case. Reports of "emergency landings", discharging of engine fire extinguishers to put out the fire" and "engine fire" etc.
The aircraft returned to land with both engines operating. No doubt about that, and it has been reported by the media. They have to be right! Right???
But hang on, they also reported that "the fire was extinguished with the aircrafts on board fire extinguishing system that allowed the aircraft to return to land with the engine operational. Well for any one with a bit of DHC8 knowledge, they will tell you that to discharge either of the fire bottles, they must first be armed by pulling the Fuel Off handles. Yes folks, that shuts off the fuel and isolates the hydraulics for that side prior to the bottles being discharged. So based on that misinformation alone we can all conclude it was no engine fire as both engines were operating on landing!
Oh, but the smoke must have been from some form of fire, right? Well, NO. If I had to take a guess, I would say it was one of the oil seals that had failed and leaked into the exhaust or final turbine stages.
The result, - one would expect a white trail of smoke and no abnormal indications to the crew at that stage of flight.
Full marks to ATC for the timely notification of the smoke to the crew
Full marks to the Flight Crew for a professional decision in returning for what one would assume to be a normal landing
Any thing else is just pure speculation and sensationalism.
No doubt the media has got it wrong in this case. Reports of "emergency landings", discharging of engine fire extinguishers to put out the fire" and "engine fire" etc.
The aircraft returned to land with both engines operating. No doubt about that, and it has been reported by the media. They have to be right! Right???
But hang on, they also reported that "the fire was extinguished with the aircrafts on board fire extinguishing system that allowed the aircraft to return to land with the engine operational. Well for any one with a bit of DHC8 knowledge, they will tell you that to discharge either of the fire bottles, they must first be armed by pulling the Fuel Off handles. Yes folks, that shuts off the fuel and isolates the hydraulics for that side prior to the bottles being discharged. So based on that misinformation alone we can all conclude it was no engine fire as both engines were operating on landing!
Oh, but the smoke must have been from some form of fire, right? Well, NO. If I had to take a guess, I would say it was one of the oil seals that had failed and leaked into the exhaust or final turbine stages.
The result, - one would expect a white trail of smoke and no abnormal indications to the crew at that stage of flight.
Full marks to ATC for the timely notification of the smoke to the crew
Full marks to the Flight Crew for a professional decision in returning for what one would assume to be a normal landing
Any thing else is just pure speculation and sensationalism.
Plainmaker, agreed. However, if the media is going to report things like this they should make a reasonable attempt to get at least the basic factual information correct.
It is at times like this, when I see how flawed they are in relation to aviation topics, I wonder what else they get wrong??
It is at times like this, when I see how flawed they are in relation to aviation topics, I wonder what else they get wrong??
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a small hydraulic leak. maybe a couple of tablespoons!
Engine lost about 7 quarts of oil.
