Jet Engine Scare
 

From the West Australian Sat 14th July 2007

JET ENGINE SCARE

"Emergency services in Newman were mobilised yesterday in case a jet carrying 93 people would crash-land after a part of its engine blew up in mid-air. A bearing in one engine blew up just 30minutes into the Nation Jet flight from Newman to Perth about 2pm. Firefighters were backed up by mining emergency response teams as the Boeing 717 returned to Newman aerodrome to make an emergency landing. The plane circled to burn up fuel before landing safely. No one was hurt."

You guys / gals at NJ are really taking the work to rule strategy seriously.

From what I hear sounds like they did a good job. Keep up the good work guys

they certainly did. it should also be noted that the crew advised they did not require emergency services. they were dispatched only as a precautionary measure and at no stage was there a concern that the aircraft would crash land.

They just didn't want the company to be billed for "calling" the emergency services out. That's what it amounts to these days.

Crap
 

What a load of crap Fanelli,

I know the crew, they are extremely professional and I can assure you that being "billed" for emergency services would not have been a factor for these guys.

It might be how it is in yankee land with your outfit but not with this captain.


:mad:

OK gotta ask the question (NOT ****stirring, trust me!), although not stated I assume the engine was shut down.

The pro's and con's of hanging in the air on one engine to burn off fuel (on an engine that MAY have been overhauled at the same time :E) rather than getting the beast back on the ground in the shortest time (allowing for all required/suitable drills etc.)

Maybe no absolute rights or wrongs but interested in any thoughts.

Assuming all systems are operating normally, save the failed engine, why does a single engine approach require emergency services?

galdian

Armchair answer here because I haven't been to Newman for a while and I don't have access to performance data but in general:

• There's not much point landing overweight and possibly not having sufficient LDA for the weight.
• Even if both engines were overhauled at the same time, it doesn't follow that because one engine has failed the other will.
• In the absence of contrary indications it is not unreasonable to expect the other engine will continue to operate normally to the adequate (60 mins @ SE TAS).
• In the absence of contrary indications, I don't know of any operator that expects a Transport Category aircraft to land overweight, simply because one engine has failed or been shut down.

In a twin, there are only two things stopping you from crashing. When one of them stops, there's only one left...
That flight TERMINATED early! :}

Quote Capt Claret....Assuming all systems are operating normally, save the failed engine, why does a single engine approach require emergency services?

....because the crew may have felt that the outcome was unknown!!...for this type of equipment etc...if the services are availble why would you not use them...:confused:..

and fanelli...I know Ive said some dangerous stuff..:{but that statement beats all my stuff hands down(combined)...

F/O Bloggs...its not that way at all....these services are provided by airports,that have them,and you would be a fool not to use them.....fees paid by airlines pay for these services.....and you lose by not using them....it does not "cost" you more if you use the service..it is a flat fee...hope that clears it up.....not sure where fanelli is coming from

But the aircraft is certified for single engine ops its a normal abnormal condition.

Quote..But the aircraft is certified for single engine ops its a normal abnormal condition


..very true and nobody here would argue that.....

from what Ive read this engine was not shut down as a precautionary measure..it was shut down because it had to be,due to the fact it was coming apart...which now puts it in an"abnormal abnormal condition"........because when one comes apart.....you may know the engine has gone,but what of other damage due to debris damage

....most two engine aircraft are designed to T/O and land with all engines running:p...a little sarcastic for sure........but my point relates to the use of emergency euipment,its use,why and when we should use it......

for me....my company(and I agree)that anytime an engine is shutdown,whether it be "us" shutting it down to "save it" or it shuts down by itself(and there is a big difference)....we a required to have and request emergency vehicles availble.......I know some will disagree...... but its no money out of my pocket and no skin off my nose......

...unless you have climbed out the window,inspected,and know the true extent of the damage...you are dealing with unknowns...it would be my preference to have services avaible just in case the situation turns to custard......dont really think thats asking a lot ...PB

My 2 cents...
 

Capt Claret -
For me, if I didn't know what the cause of the failure was (ie. could be fuel starvation, mechanical problems, bird strike etc) I would probably land overweight so long as by doing so isn't going to put myself, the occupants or the aircraft at a greater risk. But on the most part LDA is not an overriding concern for turboprops whereas for most jets it is. Why float around on one engine if you don't know why the other engine failed? Thats my thinking anyway.
The Reg's will always back a pilot in an emergency too. Following a situation such as this, they can break reg's if it is in aid of the safe conduct of the flight. That being said, if staying on one engine is safer in this aircraft, then the crew did the right thing.

The operative word in my post (#7) was require, maybe I should have made it bold. I have no problem either way, it's the crew's call.

The only time I've had emergency services on standby in a multi was after an unscheduled auto-feather in a DH8 ex Broome.

Having called them out for various reasons, we circled Broome airfield for what seemed an eternity (about 30+ mins as I recall) before they were in position, whereas we could have landed fairly soon after the event.

In hind sight, I believe that in that instance I would have been better off not asking for them as I had no reason to believe that the landing would be anything other than normal. If placed in a similar position tomorrow, I wouldn't be asking for, or waiting for emergency services.

I have had the emergency services turn out for me on two occassions.

1) Townsville - unexplained vibration after TO in a C402 - 6 POB.

Me: XXX request immediate return to RWY YY due vibration
Tower: Do you wish to declare an emergency?
Me: Negative
Tower: Well I'm going to get the appliances out to meet you anyway

Landed uneventfully with an escort of fire appliances - lights ablaze ! I guess it can get really boring being an airport firey!

2) Enroute VFR in a C210 (2 POB) YBTL - YRED. Diverted to Gladstone after total electrical failure. I rang Briefing on my mobile phone to ask if they could arrange for someone on the ground to take a look at my nosewheel to confirm it was down before landing. Went through the usual "Do you wish to declare an emergency" / "No - not at this time" routine.

Imagine my surprise when I arrived over the top of YGLA to see flashing lights everywhere! Fire brigade, ambulance, police !!!!!

Imagine my embarassment when I pulled the power back to slow down prior to pumping the wheels down - and my electrical power was miraculously restored (loose wire on the alternator - power reduction moved the engine slightly - wire made a connection - alternator functioned again). Wheels went down normally - three greens lit up!

Interestingly, the emergency services could not access the tarmac cause nobody had a key to the gates. They had had an exercise only a few weeks earlier that had gone really well - someone had unlocked the gates in preparation for the exercise.

The fire brigade guys assurred me that had I crashed they would have knocked the gates over with the fire truck !!!!

Dr:cool:

an interesting debate. the facts for this one are :

1. the crew were asked on CTAF if emergency services were required, to which they advised negative.

2. the services were activated not from newman but from njs operations who called them as this is one of their procedures.

3. fully agree with bloggs, to suggest some bill is generated as the result of calling the services out is crap. in newman, the BHP service, and volunteer fire and ambulance services responded, and the police. No-one gets a bill.

Well that's interesting...

Can any 717 drivers help with these few questions?

1. What is the engine-inop landing flap setting for the 717?

2. What would be the ref speed + wind additives for the above, at near max landing weight?

3. Any systems degraded with an engine out? (flight controls, anti-skid etc) This may be an issue on a 30m wide, 2000m runway, elev 1700'.

4. Was the runway wet? Windy?

A combination of some of these might make EMS's on standby a good descision?

I am not saying what is right or wrong, but I would not like to be the one sitting in front of the enquiry if things didn't go to plan, and then trying to answer the question as to why were EMS's not requested/required when they were available?

Food for thought.

Maybe about 12 minutes after off blocks .... :ugh:
OOOhhhh, sounds sooo dramatic!! :rolleyes:
If joining upwind and flying a circuit equals "circled to burn up fuel", then I s'pose that is correct. :{:ugh:
At last some correct reporting.... :D:suspect:
As with most newspaper articles, don't believe everything you read...
I'd hate to see what people on pprune would write after having read a full report, with all the information they contain, as opposed to a newspaper snippet which gives very little facts... :eek:

Hi Capt Clarret,

You posed a hypothesis that can't occur and ALL pilots need to know it.

Under airline systems of maintenance, the same critical system on two engines may not be maintained concurrently.

This means that you can't change a fuel control unit on two engines at once.

The reason for this is that it eliminates the possibility of duplication of errors, as where an error is made the separation between the original task on system 1 and the duplication of that task on subsequent systems, will highlight the original error.

Airlines normally schedule AD's for multiple systems, even when the systems are non-essential or multiply redundant, across multiple shifts because of this.

Your original hypothesis that it is unlikely for two engines to fail is therefore correct, unless the cause of the failure is fuel, which is the only thing common to both engines.

arkmark

I didn't know that, thanks.

As a matter of interest, when the aircraft is built is there any similar procedure WRT engines that may have been manufactured and fitted concurrently, or is it only for subsequent maintenance?

...QUOTE....before they were in position, whereas we could have landed fairly soon after the event.

Capt C... mate....wasnt trying to split hairs or mix words...I,m in agreement with you....but as the captain,which I presume you are....you call the shots....did someone make you wait for the euipment to be in place?? or did you do it out of professional courtesy???...I,m sure in a dire straights emergency you would have landed regardless of their positions???........seems a little strange(maybe) I,m reading it wrong)...but for emergency euipment to be in place taking 30 mins seems like a "dads army "job

Pakeha quote: "seems a little strange(maybe) I,m reading it wrong)...but for emergency euipment to be in place taking 30 mins seems like a "dads army "job"


This pretty normal as the emergency services in Newman are mostly volunteers. So by the time you mobilize to site can take 30 mins.

Most towns in WA don't have full time emergency services and all volunteer based.

The way certain individuals landed that baby ( i have no idea who the Captain on the day was ) I would certainly advise certain pilots AGAINST landing overweight. :ouch:

Basil, cant remeber exactly But I would think there would be a definite increase in Vref, NWN is'nt exactly a long runway either.
No one could ever give me a straight answer in NJS wether a straight cut justified an overweight landing, you know the story, thats why we pay you the big bucks blah blah blah :zzz:

WA-CEET....no disrespect meant at all....NOT familiar with the airport.....nice to know there are at least volunteers availible for such events......have now figured out the post...thanks..PB

It will be an interesting logistics exercise to get the aircraft airworthy again.
Newman is 1100 km by road from Perth. The time required to truck a replacement engine and find a suitable crane to do the job (the hire rates just doubled.....) not to mention engineers.
The 146 for all it's faults wpuld have been ferried out at first light the next morning and a servicable engine fitted within 3 hours of arrival in Perth.

replacement engine arrived today. engine stands and gear to arrive tomorrow ex ADL on a 146 freighter. Engine change slated for thursday, testing friday and a/c flown back to PER on the weekend.

= BRV.:E:}

pakeha-boy
No one made me wait but having called them out one would look silly landing before they got there unless there was some urgency. There was no urgency to land.

There was no emergency response team based at the airfield back then ('95 or '96, don’t know about now), so, one assumes the town firies and ambos had to be called in.


Basil
Flap 25.

Vref ~ 141 KIAS at MLW (149 KIAS Vref @ MBR, both approximate as info from not for operational use document), plus 5 KIAS for Vapp usually. Wind additives are:

• Half the steady state wind > 20 Kts or,
• All of the gust component
• Max additive 20 KIAS
• When both steady state wind additive and gust additive are considered, only the greater of the two is added.

If the failed engine didn’t take any systems out, hydraulic fluid leak for example, there would be no degradation of any system save the failed engine and its reverser. Hydraulic pump/transfer pump redundancy would maintain hydraulic pressure as long as fluid wasn’t lost.

Don’t know.


Note: I know no more of this incident save what is on this thread.

the runway was not wet. there was minimal wind

Capt Claret, having had an engine "let-go", part of the procedure is to fire a bottle into the affected engine (after cross-checking instruments we knew the engine was damaged let alone the 'bang'). The firing of a bottle ensures any damage to fuel lines etc decreases the chance of further problems that may develop!

Any pan call at a controlled airport usually constitutes local services on standby( ready alert). Well done to the crew, PM me if you like.

aulglarse

Sorry I'm confused. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Why do you want me to PM you?

...I think he "WANTS'' you;).........know what I mean

Yeah I'm confused now as well...

How did you work that one out? All firing a bottle will do is put an existing fire out. Ten seconds after you have fired it, the extingluishant is gone and/or useless (which is why you generally have two of them).

Also, AFAIK no transport-category, twin-engined aircraft is "certified" to fly around on one donk... it has to meet a certification requirement that it can do so in an emergency, which is what an engine failure is in a twin. That's why the procedure for dealing with an engine failure is an emergency procedure, not an abnormal procedure. Anyone who does not make full use of whatever emergency services are on offer when experiencing and emergency, needs their head read.

Or maybe the old "real men don't need the emergency services" thought process is making a comeback... :rolleyes:

Twaddle. It may be an emergency if the other one then fails, but if one is just shutdown or otherwise stops, that doesn't necessarily mean the subsequent landing will be any less-safe than normal, and therefore may not require full emergency services.

Which section of the AFM or MOM is OEI in a twin discussed?

Which checklist do you use when operating OEI in a twin?

Not bloody abnormal or normal that is for sure and certain.:sad:

The QRH doesn't say "land as soon as possible" for an in-flight shutdown. If landing overweight is so high on the agenda, what's going to happen on an ETOPS run with an engine failure over the ocean? Ditch?? :rolleyes:

A classic example of you get what you pay for

You choose to fly with these clowns don't expect champagne on arrival

My only concern is for the cabin cleaners imagine all the seat cover changes :eek: but then again why change them, the pax that pornstar fly wouldn't even notice the smell or the stains be just like home oh my

Fixit,
The captain of this flight has forgotten more about aviation that you'll ever know, you moron.

mr fixit seems confused, the a/c in question actually operates as part of the qflink fleet...