Onur Air Engine Failure Manchester
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onur Air Engine Failure Manchester
Onur Air MD-80 has just had an engine failure on take off from Manchester
is presently holding while burning fuel off and runway 23L closed due debris
Ian
is presently holding while burning fuel off and runway 23L closed due debris
Ian
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears AAIB have been called and r/w 23L has been kept sterile until they can have a look at the debris on runway so are operating single runway at present
Ian
Ian
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hetfield buzz off....
An engine failure is a precautionary landing, not an emergency landing!!!
Holding On SE is perfectly acceptable, best to make the turns with the working engine low. One can fly holdings to burn off fuel / make time / perform al QRH actions / Prepare the approach. And in the meanwhile you are in a obstacle protected environment close to the airport. So if soemthing happens which would make it an emergency you're not miles away.
An engine failure is a precautionary landing, not an emergency landing!!!
Holding On SE is perfectly acceptable, best to make the turns with the working engine low. One can fly holdings to burn off fuel / make time / perform al QRH actions / Prepare the approach. And in the meanwhile you are in a obstacle protected environment close to the airport. So if soemthing happens which would make it an emergency you're not miles away.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry gents, I actually agree with hetfield (although don't tell anyone I've agreed with an Aussie!)
Just had a catastrophic engine failure (debris on runway), down to 1 engine, you are most definately in an emergency situation!
I think its unlikely that MAN's runway isn't long enough for a medium twin to re-land a MTOW. The only reason it wouldn't be long enough, is if he also had severe hydraulic problems.
Our SOP is to land a twin ASAP at the nearest suitable airfield and only dump if necessary for landing performance reasons ie either approach climb gradient requirements (not a prob at MAN) or if you're likely to go off the end (again unlikely at MAN).
So in short, while I don't know the full circumstances (there may have been good reason) here, I think it would be sheer folly to hold.
Just had a catastrophic engine failure (debris on runway), down to 1 engine, you are most definately in an emergency situation!
I think its unlikely that MAN's runway isn't long enough for a medium twin to re-land a MTOW. The only reason it wouldn't be long enough, is if he also had severe hydraulic problems.
Our SOP is to land a twin ASAP at the nearest suitable airfield and only dump if necessary for landing performance reasons ie either approach climb gradient requirements (not a prob at MAN) or if you're likely to go off the end (again unlikely at MAN).
So in short, while I don't know the full circumstances (there may have been good reason) here, I think it would be sheer folly to hold.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thomson b757 had debris on the runway, heard nobody complaining when that happened. He didn't do the visual for 06. Was no rush either.
The engine wasn't on fire. Its unlikely the wing was damaged since the airplane has the engines tailmounted. So where is the full blown emergency?
The guys landed safely, so they mad the right decision. Rushing into an approach can lead to disaster as well.
The engine wasn't on fire. Its unlikely the wing was damaged since the airplane has the engines tailmounted. So where is the full blown emergency?
The guys landed safely, so they mad the right decision. Rushing into an approach can lead to disaster as well.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing wrong with taking up the hold single engine. I know where I am, I know my MSA, very safe place to secure the engine that has failed, NITS, and prepare for the subsequent landing.
Different story if i've fired 2 bottles and fire light still on.
Different story if i've fired 2 bottles and fire light still on.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, nothing wrong with taking up the hold to complete checklists, brief, NITS etc!
However, the original post stated he was holding to burn off fuel......for what exactly??
That to me seems like an uneccessary reason to hold SE.
And to those who say that an engine failure that leaves cogs all over the RW isn't an emergency situation (or being SE for that matter) must be on another planet or very inexperienced!
However, the original post stated he was holding to burn off fuel......for what exactly??
That to me seems like an uneccessary reason to hold SE.
And to those who say that an engine failure that leaves cogs all over the RW isn't an emergency situation (or being SE for that matter) must be on another planet or very inexperienced!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sounds a totally different kettle of fish from the Thomson
1 The Thomson engine did not leave debris on runway as it ingested a bird or 2 as I believe they were incinerated
2 The Onur MD-80 had an engine failure on rotation in that something major failed leaving debris on runway, I don`t know wether the small grass fire at side of runway was caused by something hot landing on grass from plane or something totally different
The aircraft was over weight for a landing and made a few large orbits to west/north of airfield at a low altitude 3000/4000 feet
He was asked if he wanted 7000 but declined as he stated he would rather stay low to burn more fuel quickly
Ian
1 The Thomson engine did not leave debris on runway as it ingested a bird or 2 as I believe they were incinerated
2 The Onur MD-80 had an engine failure on rotation in that something major failed leaving debris on runway, I don`t know wether the small grass fire at side of runway was caused by something hot landing on grass from plane or something totally different
The aircraft was over weight for a landing and made a few large orbits to west/north of airfield at a low altitude 3000/4000 feet
He was asked if he wanted 7000 but declined as he stated he would rather stay low to burn more fuel quickly
Ian
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you would take up the hold then with an engine burning???? To complete NITS etc... Cause thatīs defenitely an emergency.
As you may recall from the thomson flight, It took minutes for them to hear there was debris on the runway. Those werent only bird remains if you listen to the video.
Their plan was already made, the airplane was flying fine!
Why would they or the onur crew suddenly reckon they need to make an overweight emergency landing. Which can be dangerous as well.
I agree with you that debris on the runway might be an emergency, but the symptoms in the aircraft will tell you this. Not the controller who after 3 minutes says they found debris.
These guys did what they thougt was the safest action at that time. And from what I see i donīt think they did a n-1 sightseeing tour just for fun.
As you may recall from the thomson flight, It took minutes for them to hear there was debris on the runway. Those werent only bird remains if you listen to the video.
Their plan was already made, the airplane was flying fine!
Why would they or the onur crew suddenly reckon they need to make an overweight emergency landing. Which can be dangerous as well.
I agree with you that debris on the runway might be an emergency, but the symptoms in the aircraft will tell you this. Not the controller who after 3 minutes says they found debris.
These guys did what they thougt was the safest action at that time. And from what I see i donīt think they did a n-1 sightseeing tour just for fun.
Last edited by flash2002; 11th Jun 2007 at 12:06. Reason: editorial
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: planet igloo
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is clear that a few on here have NO concept of operating a large twin engine turbofan aircraft.
No one on here are operating the aircraft nor involved with its operation, therefore I would suggest to the armchair experts, please keep your ill informed opinions to yourselves
Oblaaspop, it would appear you are suggesting the crew should rush their return purely on the basis of a post on here. You may be interested to learn that many many airline SOP's actually allow a crew discretion in this situation, and that it is viewed as more of a risk to rush or feel pressured to commence an approach before it is deemed appropriate by the commander.
No one on here are operating the aircraft nor involved with its operation, therefore I would suggest to the armchair experts, please keep your ill informed opinions to yourselves
Oblaaspop, it would appear you are suggesting the crew should rush their return purely on the basis of a post on here. You may be interested to learn that many many airline SOP's actually allow a crew discretion in this situation, and that it is viewed as more of a risk to rush or feel pressured to commence an approach before it is deemed appropriate by the commander.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757 Man. If you actually bothered to read my second post, you will note that I am in agreement of holding to complete checks, briefs, securing etc ie I would never advocate rushing.
You are indeed correct, I have no working knowlege of MD-80 aircraft, however I would be surprised if a 'light twin' like that couldn't make a landing at or close to MTOW (all modern Airbus' and most Boeing A/C can and those that can't have fuel dumping systems installed for that very reason).
Quote: ""It is clear that a few on here have NO concept of operating a large twin engine turbofan aircraft.""
On the contrary, the fuel alone in the A330 I operate weighs more than your B757 (I won't even mention the A340-500 I also fly)!
All I will suggest is that next time you're in the sim, once you've finished all your checks and other good stuff, that you suggest taking up the hold for an hour or so to burn fuel (despite the fact there is a 10,000' runway available) for no good reason (and I'm not refering to today's incident, as there may well have been other reasons), and just see what the trainer says in the de-brief!
Remember, the ECAM/EICAS/ and QRH all say LAND ASAP for good reason (but then I guess you'll now suggest that the manufacturers don't know what they are talking about?)
You are indeed correct, I have no working knowlege of MD-80 aircraft, however I would be surprised if a 'light twin' like that couldn't make a landing at or close to MTOW (all modern Airbus' and most Boeing A/C can and those that can't have fuel dumping systems installed for that very reason).
Quote: ""It is clear that a few on here have NO concept of operating a large twin engine turbofan aircraft.""
On the contrary, the fuel alone in the A330 I operate weighs more than your B757 (I won't even mention the A340-500 I also fly)!
All I will suggest is that next time you're in the sim, once you've finished all your checks and other good stuff, that you suggest taking up the hold for an hour or so to burn fuel (despite the fact there is a 10,000' runway available) for no good reason (and I'm not refering to today's incident, as there may well have been other reasons), and just see what the trainer says in the de-brief!
Remember, the ECAM/EICAS/ and QRH all say LAND ASAP for good reason (but then I guess you'll now suggest that the manufacturers don't know what they are talking about?)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oblaaspop I wouldnīt know for your aircraft, but the 737 just states plan to land at the nearest suitable airport. NOT land asap. This is in the engine fire/severe damage/separation checklist.
This doesnīt mean we should fly around in the holding for an hour. But it does mean we have/can make time.
It also doesnīt mean we should not use our brain!
You must agree that making an overweight landing can have a risk as well.
One day it might be best to land asap, the other day it might not be. Just stay flexible!
For the situation you describe I wouldnīt see a problem in making an overweight landing at MCT. But then again we donīt know anything about the md80. And maybe they did their checks while burning off fuel.
Maybe he still landed overweight but just wanted too burn off as much as possible.
This doesnīt mean we should fly around in the holding for an hour. But it does mean we have/can make time.
It also doesnīt mean we should not use our brain!
You must agree that making an overweight landing can have a risk as well.
One day it might be best to land asap, the other day it might not be. Just stay flexible!
For the situation you describe I wouldnīt see a problem in making an overweight landing at MCT. But then again we donīt know anything about the md80. And maybe they did their checks while burning off fuel.
Maybe he still landed overweight but just wanted too burn off as much as possible.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: north
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great tangent guys. Just to encourage more curvature.... Hatfield insinuated that it was wrong to hold after an engine failure. I insinuated that he wasnt what he claimed to be based on that statement.
If no geater emergency exists (read that again ) It is common proceedure and philosophy to request a hold or delaying vectors to complete checks as mentioned here. Based on that fact alone hetfields claims to be an Airline Capt (profile) would be dubious as he presented an inference that a twin needs to be on the ground asap ...a la light aircraft or to be generous non perf A certified aircraft.
There we have it. No mention of specifics of this case MLW?SEVERE DAMAGE ETC ETC. just the fundamental lack of knowledge of the philosphy of handling an EFATO. THIS CHAP HELD FOR WHATEVER HE NEEDED and probably as mentioned above in keeping with his sop and the conditions at the time. No ones dead he followed his training (something you might get one day hatfield).WELL DONE THAT CREW
OOBS . Just had a similar conversation recently. I fly two types as well, some with dump some not. And one of the two types has two sub varients. Further to that Each airframe in each type has a different equipment fit .Now I'm holding on one with fuel dump in the sim dumping fuel. Well done says mister checker. Next day I'm getting my ldg wgt down on a non dump same type ( in fact same everything but dump) aircraft with the same problem and the checker says ...oh why didnt you land straight away. Same Aircraft same wgt same efato, same reaction, two ( of an infinite amount) different critiques.
You do the math
Bottom line you do not rush a return unless its fallin to bits and that should be included as a buggeration factor in your brief.
Therefore Mr Hatfield is a spotter. I rest my case
If no geater emergency exists (read that again ) It is common proceedure and philosophy to request a hold or delaying vectors to complete checks as mentioned here. Based on that fact alone hetfields claims to be an Airline Capt (profile) would be dubious as he presented an inference that a twin needs to be on the ground asap ...a la light aircraft or to be generous non perf A certified aircraft.
There we have it. No mention of specifics of this case MLW?SEVERE DAMAGE ETC ETC. just the fundamental lack of knowledge of the philosphy of handling an EFATO. THIS CHAP HELD FOR WHATEVER HE NEEDED and probably as mentioned above in keeping with his sop and the conditions at the time. No ones dead he followed his training (something you might get one day hatfield).WELL DONE THAT CREW
OOBS . Just had a similar conversation recently. I fly two types as well, some with dump some not. And one of the two types has two sub varients. Further to that Each airframe in each type has a different equipment fit .Now I'm holding on one with fuel dump in the sim dumping fuel. Well done says mister checker. Next day I'm getting my ldg wgt down on a non dump same type ( in fact same everything but dump) aircraft with the same problem and the checker says ...oh why didnt you land straight away. Same Aircraft same wgt same efato, same reaction, two ( of an infinite amount) different critiques.
You do the math
Bottom line you do not rush a return unless its fallin to bits and that should be included as a buggeration factor in your brief.
Therefore Mr Hatfield is a spotter. I rest my case
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree with taking the holding to evaluate the situation, checklists, ECAM , RWY performance and so on.
However, an overweight landing is acceptable at least on the Airbus as long as you land within a certain rate(300-500fpm). Anyway, they landed the aircraft perfectly safe and they were there to evaluate the time and options they had
However, an overweight landing is acceptable at least on the Airbus as long as you land within a certain rate(300-500fpm). Anyway, they landed the aircraft perfectly safe and they were there to evaluate the time and options they had