Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

2002 report on Garuda 737 double flameout in 62,000 ft CB

Wikiposts
Search
Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

2002 report on Garuda 737 double flameout in 62,000 ft CB

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th Oct 2011, 13:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,188
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 5 Posts
2002 report on Garuda 737 double flameout in 62,000 ft CB

Just found this 2002 accident report on the Garuda B737-300 that had a double flame-out on penetrating a super-cell of 62,000 feet. Adding to the crew woes the aircraft battery was defective resulting in the inability to start the APU. Total electrical failure followed and the 737 belly landed flaps up into a shallow river. One of the most interesting reports I have read. In particular where the engines flamed-out under heavy rain and hail conditions beyond the ability of the engines to recover. The stuff of nightmares.

http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...0GA%20Solo.pdf
Centaurus is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2011, 13:44
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Check out Southern Airways Flight 242 for similar bad experiences in thunderstorms.
Plectron is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2011, 14:17
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: upper hemisphere
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"It also suggested from CVR read-out analysis that the intensity of attenuation was heard as a GPWS warning “terrain – terrain”

That is some heavy weather indeed....
LeftHeadingNorth is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2011, 15:42
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Call-out was "the rain, the rain". Very sophisticated device, well ahead of the competition.
poorjohn is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2011, 15:55
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
poorjohn, very witty
Recommendations didn't seem to mention anything about maintenance - of the battery - or did I miss something?
Recollect being in Thailand with knackered APU battery which a certain Australian scrap merchant wouldn't pay to have replaced
Basil is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2011, 20:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hundred Acre Wood
Posts: 264
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That would be one hell of an updraught...
Doug E Style is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2011, 20:37
  #7 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by punka
It would appear
- oh I don't know.
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2011, 23:51
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The one I thought showed a crew on top of their game was TACA Flight 110. A 737 lost both engines descending through 16,500 feet as a result of encountering a level 4 TS. Dead sticked onto a levee bank, undamaged save for one cooked engine, which was changed, and the aircraft flown out from an adjacent road.

FTW88IA109
Brian Abraham is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2011, 03:04
  #9 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Air Europe had a double flame out on a B737-300, back in the mid eighties, in heavy rain somewhere south of Thessaloníki. Don Wright was the captain and he and his FO got them both going again, thank God!
parabellum is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2011, 10:10
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
unpowered landing on a grassy slope beside a levee
Checking proves you correct IGh. A stretch of grass some 6000X120 feet as indicated by the red dots.

Brian Abraham is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2011, 12:39
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,992
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Reading through the Garuda report it seems that the crew kept the engine power set at flight idle in the descent.

After the TACA incident guidelines were issued to increase power in heavy rain to avoid a flame-out. Maybe Garuda did not get the telex.
Groundloop is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2011, 00:32
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was working in Solo when this occured. You should have seen the crowds and "street sellers" in the areas around the aircraft. A sight to see !!

Wached many a Garuda depart in the the most horrific rainstorms. Always scared the what's it's out of me !
waco is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2016, 09:27
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A couple of interesting things to read in the report about hail.

"Another method to quantify the density of hail encountered is using the GPWS phenomena. It is recognized from the CVR and DFDR that the radio altimeter picks up high density precipitation as false terrain closure and triggers the GPWS to give terrain warning. It is known that GPWS could give false terrain warning when its radio altimeter signal is reflected by heavy precipitation. However, this method could only be used as an indication of the density of the rain/hail."

"It is known that the fuel flow is affected by the amount of hail/water ingested into the engine."

" The presence of water in the core engines will increase the fuel required to keep engine N1 (fan rotation) at certain throttle setting."

"At entering the turbulence, the recording indicates water ingestion by the engines as the fuel flow increased from 600 lbs/h to as high as 770 lbs/h, before it went down to 510 lbs/h at the end of the recording."

"The engine model showed that the estimated 150 lbs/h fuel hike indicates that a 3.5% water/air ratio existed in the core of the engine, which is equivalent to over 5 g/m3 hail content in the atmosphere. The standard for the highest rain could not result in a 3.5% of water/air ratio. Therefore, hail must have been present in the air at the time."

I don't know why fuel flow is affected by water/hail ingestion. Anybody?
JammedStab is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2016, 08:55
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,251
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Is fuel flow related to the mass of 'air' flowing past? Like the MAF sensor on a car. Surely wet air has more mass than dry air. Engine suddenly thinks it is 10,000 feet lower.
blue up is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2016, 16:10
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dorset UK
Age: 70
Posts: 1,895
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 12 Posts
Re. the fuel flow increasing.
IIRC the early CFM 56s have a hydro-mechanical MEC that is basically an N2 governor that is trying to maintain the selected N2 rpm. If the HP compressor is deluged with water or ice that tends to slow it down, the MEC will increase fuel to try and maintain the rpm.
dixi188 is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2016, 15:36
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: N . Daarset
Age: 71
Posts: 314
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
That reminds me …
after the levee landing ; in heavy rain we had to use 55% N1 or so on 737-300s . That was basically approach power ; and to fit in the LHR approach sequence became challenging . So …when one or the other of us started singing Don Mclean’s American Pie …
‘‘’ Bye, bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
And them good ole boys were drinking whiskey and rye
Singin' this'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die ‘’’

You knew it was time for gear and full speedbrake , fully close one throttle , [ ' risk it for a biscuit '] the other at 55% N1 and sideslip her down .
A long descent like this , we might bring idle one to 55% and idle the 55%er , sideslipping in the opposite direction


Took a redesign of the engine nose cowl / spinner shape , and other bits to cure the rain prob , and the CFM56 lost it’s ‘’C**ppy French Motor ‘’ sobriquet . Excellent engine since .

Rgds condor
condor17 is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2016, 16:42
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,651
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by IGh
Above comment regarding Taca / 24May88 B737-3TO N75356:
"Dead sticked onto a levee bank ... flown out from an adjacent road...."
Maybe the landing wasn't so exact (landing on a narrow levee),

photo Taca Int’l B737-300 , _AW&ST_ May30’88, pg123: shows aircraft on flat field, within fifty feet of the raised levee. Regarding the landing surface , note the difference between the NTSB’s rpt and the story & photo in _AW&ST_: magazine story states “… unpowered landing on a grassy slope beside a levee …” // Reportedly, after repairs and tow to the levee, TBC pilot Dale R flew that AOG, his takeoff run made atop the levee-road. [Second-hand rumor about DR.]
Aircraft was 2 weeks old when this happened. Still flying in 2016 as N697SW with Southwest. Seems to have ranged as far apart as San Jose CA and Orlando, via many places along the way, only today.
WHBM is online now  
Old 27th Jul 2016, 15:15
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
62,000 feet !!
It's a wonder the donks didn't die of hypoxia at that level.
Be lucky
David
The AvgasDinosaur is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2016, 17:54
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Siliconia
Age: 63
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't know why fuel flow is affected by water/hail ingestion. Anybody?
The control system seems to be accommodating a shift in efficiency (N1/FF) of about -20%, I suggest that the engine model water content of 3.5% is too far off. I think this change is probably due to openning the VBV [report section 1.18.2 - last sub-paragraph].
noughtsnones is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.