ORD B767 engine loss
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: Somerset
Good old 411A!
An incorrect assumption on the very first line of his post. Will he ever learn? Think man - think before you jump in with both feet. Maybe, just maybe, someone, somewhere will take some note of what you have to say. Not me though, I've had enough.
An incorrect assumption on the very first line of his post. Will he ever learn? Think man - think before you jump in with both feet. Maybe, just maybe, someone, somewhere will take some note of what you have to say. Not me though, I've had enough.
Joined: Jun 1997
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: auckland, new zealand
(My copy of my company's) Performance Manual for the B767-300 covers Willit Run's worry about single engine approach and landing climb: in short, Willit, generally not a problem. Nor are there any particular handling traps landing overweight on one (It says here....!)
The captain on the day had to make the call: consider incurring a (IMVHO) miniscule added risk by taking time to dump fuel from the centre tank (leaving about 36 tonne undumpable) verses the possibly (who knows how big a...) risk of problems at the end of the rollout, following an overweight landing.
All the B767s I fly are 180 ETOPS qualified, and this influences how I view problems like this one. Results may vary
The captain on the day had to make the call: consider incurring a (IMVHO) miniscule added risk by taking time to dump fuel from the centre tank (leaving about 36 tonne undumpable) verses the possibly (who knows how big a...) risk of problems at the end of the rollout, following an overweight landing.
All the B767s I fly are 180 ETOPS qualified, and this influences how I view problems like this one. Results may vary
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
From: Thailand
ETOPS?
I guess as it wasn't an ETOPS flight it won't show up in the statistics as an increase in the rate of failures for twins! Strange it only counts when on an actual ETOPS flight.
Incidentally, years ago I was told, if you can take off from the runway, you can land on it, regardless of weight. With few exceptions, i.e. contamination-ice-flapless, this is true for all aircraft.
Incidentally, years ago I was told, if you can take off from the runway, you can land on it, regardless of weight. With few exceptions, i.e. contamination-ice-flapless, this is true for all aircraft.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
From: London
<<
I guess as it wasn't an ETOPS flight it won't show up in the statistics as an increase in the rate of failures for twins! Strange it only counts when on an actual ETOPS flight.
>>
I may be wrong, but I thought all IFSDs on twins were taken into account when analysing ETOPS safety.
Iompaseo would know, I'm sure.......
I guess as it wasn't an ETOPS flight it won't show up in the statistics as an increase in the rate of failures for twins! Strange it only counts when on an actual ETOPS flight.
>>
I may be wrong, but I thought all IFSDs on twins were taken into account when analysing ETOPS safety.
Iompaseo would know, I'm sure.......
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 615
Likes: 8
From: Middle England
Not sure, but I don't think it would be relevant to include the shutdown rates on say BAC1-11's and 737-100/200 series in the figures. Also, if this was a birdstrike event, it may be that this type of event is not part of the "reliability criteria". Not the fault of the engine type/design and very unlikely to occur at cruise altitude when actually beyond the 1 hour engine out distance.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: USA
ETOPS IFSD rate
If I recall correctly under FAA rules (been a while since I flew ETOPS) it doesn't matter whether it is an ETOPS flight or not to count as a ding on one's IFSD rate. I do not believe aircraft type matters either - i.e. a 747-400 with the same engine type as 767-300 for the same operator would be monitored for that airlines IFSD rate.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 1
From: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
>>The captain on the day had to make the call: consider incurring a (IMVHO) miniscule added risk by taking time to dump fuel from the centre tank (leaving about 36 tonne undumpable) verses the possibly (who knows how big a...) risk of problems at the end of the rollout, following an overweight landing.<<
And some airlines make the decision for you. Air Canada has disabled fuel dump on their 767's to reduce maintenance costs.
And some airlines make the decision for you. Air Canada has disabled fuel dump on their 767's to reduce maintenance costs.
Moderator
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL
"The incident was similar to one involving an American Airlines plane at O'Hare on Sept. 16. That plane also made an emergency landing after the pilots were unable to avoid a flock of birds, six of which were sucked into the fan blades, causing an engine to catch fire."
In this instance 6 birds were sucked into the engine surely there was a massive chance that the birds could have been ingested by the engines resulting in a simultaneous engine failure no?
The captain on this flight was my friend's Dad. He showed me the pictures the next day of the engine, what a mess it made of the fan blades!
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
From: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
On B.767, at 145 tonnes (MLW) the gear can accept 600 feet/min and at 186880(MTOW) 360 feet/min sink rate without structural damage-or so they say!!!
If I suck up a !!!!ehawk on departure I am certainly not going to hang around below cloudbase,with all the other !!!!ehawks, dumping fuel, when there is a suitable runway to land back on!
No reference to in the event at ORD as I do not know enough details but just a comment on fuel dumping or not!
Landed back at JFK once at 165 tonnes, using full length to decelerate, with only 1 or 2 on brake temp guage.
767 landed back in Rome recently, at 186 tonnes, using just over half of 4000 metre runway. Admittedly you could have enjoyed a fine barbeque on the gear after..if you had the courage! Interesting topic with no clear cut answer for all circumstances.
If I suck up a !!!!ehawk on departure I am certainly not going to hang around below cloudbase,with all the other !!!!ehawks, dumping fuel, when there is a suitable runway to land back on!
No reference to in the event at ORD as I do not know enough details but just a comment on fuel dumping or not!
Landed back at JFK once at 165 tonnes, using full length to decelerate, with only 1 or 2 on brake temp guage.
767 landed back in Rome recently, at 186 tonnes, using just over half of 4000 metre runway. Admittedly you could have enjoyed a fine barbeque on the gear after..if you had the courage! Interesting topic with no clear cut answer for all circumstances.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
From: Wales
Question from a Non driver!
Hey all,
I don't drive quite like you guys so just got a couple of questions.
Firstly, I noticed that there have been a few birdstrikes at ORD and just wondered what your views are on the 'bird scaring' procedures in force by the aerodrome authority, not only in ord but around the world. The UK would be of interest to myself.
Secondly, imagaine a scenario. You are lined up, ready to go and ATC say " xxx123, essential aerodrome information, I have just seen 3 gulls appear to settle on the runway centreline. Would you like them cleared or to depart anyway?"
Is it a matter of how many birds? Is it a matter of how big they are?
I have said this to pilots and the response has been varied, including one pilot responding with " Traffic in sight !! " I would prefer personally to have them cleared for you, but in the interest of expedition ( which is ALWAYS second to safety) will continue to ask pilots for their opinion on the matter. As mentioned earlier in the thread all SOPS and operating manuals state that ultimately situations are the pilots responsibility.
Ta
TIO
I don't drive quite like you guys so just got a couple of questions.
Firstly, I noticed that there have been a few birdstrikes at ORD and just wondered what your views are on the 'bird scaring' procedures in force by the aerodrome authority, not only in ord but around the world. The UK would be of interest to myself.
Secondly, imagaine a scenario. You are lined up, ready to go and ATC say " xxx123, essential aerodrome information, I have just seen 3 gulls appear to settle on the runway centreline. Would you like them cleared or to depart anyway?"
Is it a matter of how many birds? Is it a matter of how big they are?
I have said this to pilots and the response has been varied, including one pilot responding with " Traffic in sight !! " I would prefer personally to have them cleared for you, but in the interest of expedition ( which is ALWAYS second to safety) will continue to ask pilots for their opinion on the matter. As mentioned earlier in the thread all SOPS and operating manuals state that ultimately situations are the pilots responsibility.
Ta
TIO
