Emergency landing today of Air Canada's B787 in CYUL...
manufactures lawyers
This questioning of what a flight crew did or did not do or should have or shouldn't have or weather they should have had soy milk instead of low fat with their weaties at breakfast is getting ridiculous.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
That sure could have been what he meant to say. Check out the tower audio at the link above starting at about 23:00 into the clip. He says a phrase that sounds to me like 'three flameouts' several times. I also like the emphatically negative reply to 'AC 17 are you OK?' 
It's a busy time of life that in recent decades I've only experienced in the sim (so far 
).
Air Canada in the past was known for not dumping on their 767's and had the fuel jettison system disabled or not installed on their entire '76 fleet. They also disabled the fuel jettison on some DC-9 10's and 30's as I recall.
Yep, that 180 minutes is strictly for dispatch in my view. If you lose an engine in an ETOPS twin you are still required to proceed to the nearest suitable airport in point of time for landing under FAA rules. And often that airport is not one of your designated ETOPS alternates. I've sure had a check airman on an overwater line check try to tell me otherwise, that we had to go to an ETOPS alternate 'since that is what our POI (now OI) wants us to do'. Mitigating circumstance, the LCA was a Marine 
.
You broke the code. These days you are expected to get on the sat phone and convene a meeting with your company's Subject Matter Experts to discuss any technical issues that arise while airborne. You really have to be careful since anything they say is advisory and if it's wrong the feds come after your ticket, not theirs. At least that's my paranoid view in this new CYA world of captain's authority modified by a committee meeting.
It's a busy time of life that in recent decades I've only experienced in the sim (so far ).Air Canada in the past was known for not dumping on their 767's and had the fuel jettison system disabled or not installed on their entire '76 fleet. They also disabled the fuel jettison on some DC-9 10's and 30's as I recall.
.How about we get a hotline to a "flight crew lawyer" on the flight deck so we can have a conversation about which procedure we should apply in a given situation which allow the flight crew to enjoy the said experience.
This questioning of what a flight crew did or did not do or should have or shouldn't have or weather they should have had soy milk instead of low fat with their weaties at breakfast is getting ridiculous.
This questioning of what a flight crew did or did not do or should have or shouldn't have or weather they should have had soy milk instead of low fat with their weaties at breakfast is getting ridiculous.
I just can't forget the pictures of the remaining engine fan blades mentioned in my earlier post
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot in command is in the best position to assess all relevant factors and determine the best course of action.
I suggest much of that decision will depend on what training has been given to commanders.
Checklist land at nearest suitable airfield
There has always been the debate about land at nearest and/or ASAP.
180 minutes is strictly for dispatch in my view. If you lose an engine in an ETOPS twin you are still required to proceed to the nearest suitable airport in point of time for landing under FAA rules. And often that airport is not one of your designated ETOPS alternates.
There are times on overwater flights where the nearest suitable is also a 2-3hr ETOPS Alt'n. I don't know all the current twins so I wonder at the difference between MTOW & MLW? Suppose you are 3hrs out from departure; and then entering a 2.30hr circle to an ETOPS Alt'n and a problem occurs: You divert one engine out to the ETOPS Alt'n (huge commercial pressure to return, I know); you arrive at Alt'n >MLW. Surely no-one is going to dump fuel to delay the landing? If not then, they why anytime? I just propose the question for discussion, and also wonder what flight time is required to take the very large twins from MTOW to MLW.
I suggest much of that decision will depend on what training has been given to commanders.
Checklist land at nearest suitable airfield
There has always been the debate about land at nearest and/or ASAP.
180 minutes is strictly for dispatch in my view. If you lose an engine in an ETOPS twin you are still required to proceed to the nearest suitable airport in point of time for landing under FAA rules. And often that airport is not one of your designated ETOPS alternates.
There are times on overwater flights where the nearest suitable is also a 2-3hr ETOPS Alt'n. I don't know all the current twins so I wonder at the difference between MTOW & MLW? Suppose you are 3hrs out from departure; and then entering a 2.30hr circle to an ETOPS Alt'n and a problem occurs: You divert one engine out to the ETOPS Alt'n (huge commercial pressure to return, I know); you arrive at Alt'n >MLW. Surely no-one is going to dump fuel to delay the landing? If not then, they why anytime? I just propose the question for discussion, and also wonder what flight time is required to take the very large twins from MTOW to MLW.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another feature of the 787 is that the OPT onboard performance tool incorporates a return to land calculation within the take off calculation. A field is available to input icing conditions expected yes or no this is purely for the return to land calculation for the OEI missed approach, this due to the fact an allowance is made for stab icing during the return to land manoeuvre if yes is inserted. Thus you could be in a position where payload is limited at take off due to return to land performance. However as a driver always nice to know you have return to land performance.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BG: thank you. Therefore the scenario of an ETOPS diversion to an overweight landing, one engine or not, is very real. I suppose there is the chance that during an ETOPS diversion the time could be used to dump at a point en-route so as to arrive at landing on MLW.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat 5
Yes your scenario is a possibility and Jettison en-route would be the thing to do .
I am not criticising this particular crew as All is well that ends well, and no doubt a good job was done.
I was answering JJ A4 query that the option to land overweight is an option with an engine faliure on a twin.
As previously mentioned my company has this policy, I must say a lot of us have recently converted to the twin from decades of flying the quad where the threats involved are not as significant, and I believe the company correctly is trying to re set our brains from Quad to twin.
An example of that mindset change would be to declare a Mayday with an engine failure on take off with the Quad, and downgrade to a Pan if appropriate once secure, however to maintain Mayday status with the twin.
This is my operators Philosophy of which I am very happy with.
Others no doubt will have different Philosophies.
Yes your scenario is a possibility and Jettison en-route would be the thing to do .
I am not criticising this particular crew as All is well that ends well, and no doubt a good job was done.
I was answering JJ A4 query that the option to land overweight is an option with an engine faliure on a twin.
As previously mentioned my company has this policy, I must say a lot of us have recently converted to the twin from decades of flying the quad where the threats involved are not as significant, and I believe the company correctly is trying to re set our brains from Quad to twin.
An example of that mindset change would be to declare a Mayday with an engine failure on take off with the Quad, and downgrade to a Pan if appropriate once secure, however to maintain Mayday status with the twin.
This is my operators Philosophy of which I am very happy with.
Others no doubt will have different Philosophies.
Last edited by BanditGirl; 26th Mar 2017 at 18:13.
My Boeing checklist has you shut down the engine and gives you the option to try and restart it. A decision then not to continue from homebase on an ultra long haul sector with a suspect engine is quite likely. In this case if both engines were running and before returning for a precautionary landing it would make reasonable sense to dump fuel. We do not know the details. All will be revealed in due course.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
English language skills at Montreal ATC
I can assure Airbubba that the Montreal, Quebec, controllers all speak English completely fluently.
Air Canada in the past was known for not dumping on their 767's and had the fuel jettison system disabled or not installed on their entire '76 fleet. They also disabled the fuel jettison on some DC-9 10's and 30's as I recall.
I didn't fly the DC9-10 (a bit before my time) and although I flew the DC9-15 I can't remember whether that variant had a dump system or not, but I can definitely confirm that all the DC9-32's had a serviceable fuel dump system.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be a dumb question, but if the fuel vaporizes so quickly, why have designated dump areas at all ?
Only half a speed-brake
This may be a dumb question, but if the fuel vaporizes so quickly, why have designated dump areas at all ?