767 Double Engine Failure.
767 Double Engine Failure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I hope it wasn't at night time, coz it's a real bugger in the sim when it happens. You can't see a bloody thing in the F/O's seat. Bit of a fumble in the dark to try and find the engine start switches and the APU starter.
But then again, that might just be the sim. Hope to god I never have to do it for real...
But then again, that might just be the sim. Hope to god I never have to do it for real...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FAA INCIDENT DATA SYSTEM REPORT
General Information
Data Source: FAA INCIDENT DATA SYSTEM
Report Number: 2001030400330 C
Local Date: 03/04/2001
Local Time: 15:30
City: KONA
State: HI
Airport Name:
Airport Id:
Event Type: INCIDENT - AIR CARRIER
Mid Air Collision:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aircraft Information
Aircraft Damage:
Phase of Flight:
Aircraft Make/Model: BOEING B-767-XXX
Airframe Hours:
Operator Code: UALA
Operator:
Owner Name: UNITED AIR LINES INC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Narrative
(-23) ON MARCH 4, 2001 AT 1530 LOCAL TIME, UNITED AIRLINES (UALA)
BOEING 767-322, N666UA, FLIGHT 42, (OGG-LAX), EXPERIENCED A POWER LOSS
IN BOTH ENGINES WHILE CLIMBING THROUGH 24,000 FT. THE FLIGHT CREW WAS
ABLE TO RESTART BOTH ENGINES AND THE AIRCRAFT WAS DIVERTED TO KONA
INT'L AIRPORT, KEAHOLE, HAWAII. THE AIRCRAFT LANDED IN AN OVERWEIGHT
CONDITION AND ENCOUNTERED A BRAKE FIRE ON ROLLOUT. THERE WERE TWO
FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS, TEN FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, AND 238 PASSENGERS ON
BOARD. NO INJURIES REPORTED. INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT THE CREW DID A
PRECAUTIONARY SHUT DOWN OF ONE ENGINE, AND DUE TO FUEL MIS-MANAGEMENT,
THE SECOND ENGINE SHUT DOWN DUE TO FUEL STARVATION.
General Information
Data Source: FAA INCIDENT DATA SYSTEM
Report Number: 2001030400330 C
Local Date: 03/04/2001
Local Time: 15:30
City: KONA
State: HI
Airport Name:
Airport Id:
Event Type: INCIDENT - AIR CARRIER
Mid Air Collision:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aircraft Information
Aircraft Damage:
Phase of Flight:
Aircraft Make/Model: BOEING B-767-XXX
Airframe Hours:
Operator Code: UALA
Operator:
Owner Name: UNITED AIR LINES INC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Narrative
(-23) ON MARCH 4, 2001 AT 1530 LOCAL TIME, UNITED AIRLINES (UALA)
BOEING 767-322, N666UA, FLIGHT 42, (OGG-LAX), EXPERIENCED A POWER LOSS
IN BOTH ENGINES WHILE CLIMBING THROUGH 24,000 FT. THE FLIGHT CREW WAS
ABLE TO RESTART BOTH ENGINES AND THE AIRCRAFT WAS DIVERTED TO KONA
INT'L AIRPORT, KEAHOLE, HAWAII. THE AIRCRAFT LANDED IN AN OVERWEIGHT
CONDITION AND ENCOUNTERED A BRAKE FIRE ON ROLLOUT. THERE WERE TWO
FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS, TEN FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, AND 238 PASSENGERS ON
BOARD. NO INJURIES REPORTED. INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT THE CREW DID A
PRECAUTIONARY SHUT DOWN OF ONE ENGINE, AND DUE TO FUEL MIS-MANAGEMENT,
THE SECOND ENGINE SHUT DOWN DUE TO FUEL STARVATION.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A couple more references:
http://airsafe.com/events/airlines/united.htm
http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/hon/...05-100302.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Before anyone gets too excited about this incident, it should be noted that further investigation suggests that this was a fuel management problem which resulted in both engines rolling back. It does NOT appear that this was a wildly improbable event of both engines failing at the same time.
The NTSB released the following report on 14 March: http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010314.htm
[This message has been edited by McD (edited 02 July 2001).]
The NTSB released the following report on 14 March: http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010314.htm
[This message has been edited by McD (edited 02 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is more than a little worrying as I thought that even with fuel mismanagement (this early in flight could not have been empty tank could it?) then the engines would still be gravity fed from wing tanks aided by engine driven low pressure pumps even with tank booster pumps off or failed. I know there is a note in QRH saying that degraded performance at high altitude is possible with both pumps in one tank failed (OFF) but it is not required to open crossfeed until such degradation occurs. Somehow I have never thought of FL240 as high altitude. I know its not low but not that high either. Obviously rethink required.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah but I seem to recall a Flight Engineer who managed his fuel imbalance by feeding all four engines off one tank. All four stopped when he forgot to monitor the situation and ran the tank empty. Even Flighty's can screw up you know...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
More NTSB "newspeak".
What do they require, abrupt stoppage to call it an engine failure? Both engines below generator cut-in speed for 30 seconds?
Any mention of RAT deployment???
If fuel mis-management was responsible that early in the flight, something is terribly wrong - and it was. Both engines couldn't have failed that close together due to mechanical failure.
Try water in the fuel tanks. But then, there is a cockpit accounting problem that needs addressing.
This whole thing reeks of more FAA & NTSB cover-up. Nothing new in that department.
Sounds like damned good airmanship in the recovery, however.
What do they require, abrupt stoppage to call it an engine failure? Both engines below generator cut-in speed for 30 seconds?
Any mention of RAT deployment???
If fuel mis-management was responsible that early in the flight, something is terribly wrong - and it was. Both engines couldn't have failed that close together due to mechanical failure.
Try water in the fuel tanks. But then, there is a cockpit accounting problem that needs addressing.
This whole thing reeks of more FAA & NTSB cover-up. Nothing new in that department.
Sounds like damned good airmanship in the recovery, however.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mileshigh "Well think about it Tunturi - If they shut the firewall valve to the wrong engine, all the considerations you mention are irrelevant!"
Yes you are absolutely right BUT that is not FUEL mismanagement. Incidentally, anyone remember an Eastern B757 crew who shut down BOTH engines simultaneously using Fuel Control Switches instead of switching of the EEC switches as per the QRH drill that was in hand? Restarted ok and as a result EEC switches moved from behind fuel control switches to overhead panel. The switch designs are not even remotely similar.
Yes you are absolutely right BUT that is not FUEL mismanagement. Incidentally, anyone remember an Eastern B757 crew who shut down BOTH engines simultaneously using Fuel Control Switches instead of switching of the EEC switches as per the QRH drill that was in hand? Restarted ok and as a result EEC switches moved from behind fuel control switches to overhead panel. The switch designs are not even remotely similar.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Haulin' Trash - But I seem to recall in the Whisky Echo incident that that they simply never got far enough down the check list to cut the fuel? Saw it happen from West Drayton, and taxied past the carcass that same evening ... Sobering experience.
------------------
Feline
(I Sit, I Watch, I Smile)
------------------
Feline
(I Sit, I Watch, I Smile)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tunturi:
I belive the incident you are refering to was actually a Delta B-767, the shut down both engines (Accidently) by moving the fuel control levers to "Cut-Off".
The joke at the time was something about Delta's highly efficient Noise Abatment Procedure.
If Eastern had a similar one, I don't remember it.
(Yes EAL had one incident where they shut down one engine on a L-1011 due to loss of oil pressure/quantity, then the same happened to the remaining 2 engines. They re-started the first one and limped back to MIA.
The reason was a wrong oil seal, or the seal installed the wrong way...)
UA had a 747 incident years ago: They lost 3 of the 4 mills and glided into Japan or somewhere. Forgot the exact reason, but fuel managment was probably a player.
(The captain was not in the cockpit at the time.)
------------------
Men, this is no drill...
I belive the incident you are refering to was actually a Delta B-767, the shut down both engines (Accidently) by moving the fuel control levers to "Cut-Off".
The joke at the time was something about Delta's highly efficient Noise Abatment Procedure.
If Eastern had a similar one, I don't remember it.
(Yes EAL had one incident where they shut down one engine on a L-1011 due to loss of oil pressure/quantity, then the same happened to the remaining 2 engines. They re-started the first one and limped back to MIA.
The reason was a wrong oil seal, or the seal installed the wrong way...)
UA had a 747 incident years ago: They lost 3 of the 4 mills and glided into Japan or somewhere. Forgot the exact reason, but fuel managment was probably a player.
(The captain was not in the cockpit at the time.)
------------------
Men, this is no drill...
Guest
Posts: n/a
All interested parties;
The dual engine failure referred to was the result of a botched crossfeed operation that left all pumps off and both crossfeeds closed. Both engines rolled back to a sub idle condition before suction feed commenced. The RAT deployed as advertised and the plane diverted.
The plane in question was extensively test flown and performed as predicted. When the manual says suction feed isn't guaranteed at high altitudes or high fuel flows, you had best believe it!
Contributing to the problem was something called "fuel weathering". Apparently "new" fuel contains a good deal of entrained air that makes suction feed less reliable.
A good refresher for all of us. Suction feed isn't a right, it's a privilege ;-)
GreenArc
The dual engine failure referred to was the result of a botched crossfeed operation that left all pumps off and both crossfeeds closed. Both engines rolled back to a sub idle condition before suction feed commenced. The RAT deployed as advertised and the plane diverted.
The plane in question was extensively test flown and performed as predicted. When the manual says suction feed isn't guaranteed at high altitudes or high fuel flows, you had best believe it!
Contributing to the problem was something called "fuel weathering". Apparently "new" fuel contains a good deal of entrained air that makes suction feed less reliable.
A good refresher for all of us. Suction feed isn't a right, it's a privilege ;-)
GreenArc