Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Questions
Reload this Page >

Question about 737-200 engine failure at wheels up

Wikiposts
Search
Questions If you are a professional pilot or your work involves professional aviation please use this forum for questions. Enthusiasts, please use the 'Spectators Balcony' forum.

Question about 737-200 engine failure at wheels up

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 30th Aug 2007, 10:06
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 65
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question about 737-200 engine failure at wheels up

Hi, I'm not a pilot but I have a question for you guys

If you had an engine failure at wheels up, what reason would make you decide to NOT climb, make a series of short duration steep turns to come back to the runway and then land? This happened at Deadhorse Alaska. IT's flatter than Kansas and about 20 feet above sea level, no tall buildings, no trees and no other aircraft around at the time. Weather was bright and sunny, 50 F, light breeze. The planes altitude was between 200 - 400 feet agl during the whole incident. ( according to an email from the company.) The mounting for the engine nose cone broke and went through the engine.
Thanks
G
GreginAlaska is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2007, 10:19
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From your description I would suspect some FOD and loss of power with symptoms of vibration. The pilot may have only a need to throttle back to clear the symptoms and return on a single engine with the other either shutdown or at idle.

No fire, no other symptoms?
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2007, 11:03
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 65
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The people on the plane said it did shudder a bit and they saw some flames shoot out of the engine. The pilots shut it down.

Thanks for the reply.

Oh ya, it had several compressor stalls...it was making quite the bangs according to the people I talked to.
GreginAlaska is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2007, 10:50
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 65
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ended up being caused by the engine nose cone coming off and going through the engine...the bolts that hold it on had been over torqued and they broke.
GreginAlaska is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2007, 12:08
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The only reason an Aircraft Commander would do this is if he deemed it more dangerous to stay airborne than to land. In my view the criteria covered are things like fires that won't go out or smoke in the cockpit. It sounds in this case that the Commander didn't really spend much time on diagnosis and made a snap decision to land. I wasn't there to get the full flavour of what was happening but if they survived without further damage then it was an ok decision to be discussed at length after the event. Better than digging out the CVR and FDR.
CREAMER is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2007, 12:46
  #6 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think it would be a possible solution to do a low level circuit on one engine only if you have a fire warning continuing with backup visual reports of airframe fire. A low level circuit on one ongine is a very hazardous manouevre itself and incredibly difficult. If you turn into the dead engine, it would be very easy to overbank and drop with all the many things that will be going on- you could be in the ground in seconds. Turn away from the dead engine and turning is very, very difficult. Unless you have an active fire indication, I would be more inclined to fly a proper circuit. But then again, I wasn't there, and I hesitate to question the actions of the one who was. He used his judgement on the information he had on the day.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 04:37
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 65
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting replies people. The flight took 12 minutes to come around and land again...all the while the flight attendants were screaming "heads down, grab ankles". I'm betting 12 minutes seems like a LONG time when you're in an airliner that is no more than 400 feet off the ground.

They did turn into the dead engine (it was the right engine and they turned right, I'm assuming that is "into the dead engine"? ) People onboard told me they made a series of short duration, steep banks to get turned around...I guess it was rather scary.
GreginAlaska is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 23:38
  #8 (permalink)  
ABX
AustralianMade
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting one there Greg.

Maybe Rainboe or others can tell me, if the aircraft was light (well below MTOW) would that have influenced the captain's decision to do a low level circuit rather than try for some altitude? For example, he knew he was light, but with a possible fire, so he considered that he had a good chance of completing a low level circuit?

Cheers.

Ps. Not trying to second guess the captain who obviously made a successful decision on the day.
ABX is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 12:23
  #9 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you're heavy in a twin and you lose one engine early, it is quite critical, and you must get the flaps up and accelerate as quickly as possible. But rather than do a dangerous procedure like a low level circuit on one engine, I think you should rely on the fire resistance of the aeroplane and climb away and retract flap as soon as possible. You must climb to 1000' to do so, then not retract flap in a turn, so you are likely to end up flying a reasonable distance before turning downwind. Sometimes you may have to accelerate, then turn, then retract flap. It's very difficult in a twin, even more critical in a heavy 4 engine jet with 2 out on one side.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 12:48
  #10 (permalink)  
ABX
AustralianMade
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank God (& Boeing) for the rudder authority of the 747 then eh Rainboe?
ABX is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 13:05
  #11 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Classic 747 was a bit of a struggle, the 747-400 much better. But even then you would have to have the rudder hard against the stop and about 5 degrees bank into the live engines to hold it. Not for beginners!
Rainboe 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.