Air Canada emergency landing at YYZ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland
Age: 78
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a bird strike.
From the CBC web site:
Don Enns, the regional manager of air investigations at the TSB, said that
a superficial examination has shown that there isn't any damage to the front of the engine, where the fans are located. "The failure appears to have happened in the turbine section," located at the back of the engine, said Enns.
Investigators have collected the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, which may yield more clues about what happened, said Enns.
It could be a few weeks before investigators are able to remove the engine, disassemble it and examine it thoroughly, he said.
This would seem to rule out ingestion of a bird.
Don Enns, the regional manager of air investigations at the TSB, said that
a superficial examination has shown that there isn't any damage to the front of the engine, where the fans are located. "The failure appears to have happened in the turbine section," located at the back of the engine, said Enns.
Investigators have collected the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, which may yield more clues about what happened, said Enns.
It could be a few weeks before investigators are able to remove the engine, disassemble it and examine it thoroughly, he said.
This would seem to rule out ingestion of a bird.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawker,
You must appreciate that a single-engine return to landing following a catastrophic failure, as happened here, is definitely an emergency situation. The fact that it is regarded as otherwise by the general public merely underlines the fact that these situations are invariably handled by well trained professionals leading to a satisfactory outcome.
You must appreciate that a single-engine return to landing following a catastrophic failure, as happened here, is definitely an emergency situation. The fact that it is regarded as otherwise by the general public merely underlines the fact that these situations are invariably handled by well trained professionals leading to a satisfactory outcome.
It doesn't seem like FOD according to some first report...
The source said the front of the engine (fan) seems to be intact and that the parts came from the rear of the engine.
Emergency landing in Toronto - Yahoo! News
The source said the front of the engine (fan) seems to be intact and that the parts came from the rear of the engine.
Emergency landing in Toronto - Yahoo! News
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smudger:
Sometime in a prior millenium, EFATO (assuming no fire warning) was treated in the Abnormal chapter of the Boeing manuals. Are you telling us it's now classified as an Emergency Procedure?
I seem to recall BA pressing on with a 747, transiting a continent and an ocean, hardly considering a broken donk to be an emergency situation.
Sometime in a prior millenium, EFATO (assuming no fire warning) was treated in the Abnormal chapter of the Boeing manuals. Are you telling us it's now classified as an Emergency Procedure?
I seem to recall BA pressing on with a 747, transiting a continent and an ocean, hardly considering a broken donk to be an emergency situation.
Last edited by barit1; 29th May 2012 at 21:08.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wishing to be dragged into the specifics of this event, I was merely pointing out that these situations are indeed emergencies... and can never be considered otherwise. As to the BA incident you describe.. I would never in a million years consider a transatlantic crossing on 3 engines on a four-engined aeroplane having had a fire warning, successfully extinguished or otherwise.. the only safest option on that occasion would have been to land at the nearest suitable airport.. to do otherwise was in my opinion madness. I do not work for BA so I cannot comment futher.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of at least two cases of crashes, one of which killed some high school girls on a senior trip in their hotel room, that were simply botched asymmetrical thrust engine-out training flights. So it's probably not so easy to maintain airspeed and pitch with asymmetrical thrust, making it by definition an emergency.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of at least two cases of crashes, one of which killed some high school girls on a senior trip in their hotel room, that were simply botched asymmetrical thrust engine-out training flights.
Even this was not an emergency until the crew turned it into one.
But you still haven't answered my question. Check your FCOM.
Smudger
At the risk of restarting another Hamsterwheel, the BA crew you are referring to did not have a "fire warning", they had a significant engine surge which led to the engine being shutdown.
UK CAA comments here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor2...on%20G-BNLG%22
As to the BA incident you describe.. I would never in a million years consider a transatlantic crossing on 3 engines on a four-engined aeroplane having had a fire warning, successfully extinguished or otherwise..
UK CAA comments here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor2...on%20G-BNLG%22
Last edited by wiggy; 30th May 2012 at 07:15.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tewksbury Mass USA
Age: 80
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some turbine history
Since the TSB has now identified turbine blades, there is some AD history - one created because of eight prior incidents.
AD 2009-25-14. Installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777-200LR, 777-300ER, and 777 Freighter series airplanes. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for General Electric Company (GE) GE90-110B1, GE90-113B, and GE90-115B series turbofan engines with stage 6 low pressure turbine (LPT) blades, part number (P/N) 1765M37P03 or P/N 1765M37P04, installed. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections for shroud interlock wear of the stage 6 LPT blades. This AD also requires replacing those blades with stage 6 LPT blades eligible for installation at the next engine shop visit as terminating action to the repetitive blade inspections. This AD results from eight reports of GE90-115B stage 6 LPT single-blade separation events. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of stage 6 LPT blades, which could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane
Bold added
AD source link > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...2009-25-14.pdf
AD 2009-25-14. Installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777-200LR, 777-300ER, and 777 Freighter series airplanes. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for General Electric Company (GE) GE90-110B1, GE90-113B, and GE90-115B series turbofan engines with stage 6 low pressure turbine (LPT) blades, part number (P/N) 1765M37P03 or P/N 1765M37P04, installed. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections for shroud interlock wear of the stage 6 LPT blades. This AD also requires replacing those blades with stage 6 LPT blades eligible for installation at the next engine shop visit as terminating action to the repetitive blade inspections. This AD results from eight reports of GE90-115B stage 6 LPT single-blade separation events. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of stage 6 LPT blades, which could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane
Bold added
AD source link > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...2009-25-14.pdf
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK>..if you have a two engine plane and you lose one engine, regulations in the USA require you to land at the nearest suitable airport.
IF you are in a 4 engine plane and lose one engine, you can fly anywhere you like for as long as you like...BUT common sense is one thing that can't be regulated. I opposed the BA 3 engine journey accross the pond...but it wasn't illegal.
It would seem to me that the place to look in this situation is: had the engine been over temped at any time, causing a weakness in the turbine section? had this set of turbine blades/disc been properly made?
we shall see...that the plane is intact, the passengers are ok are a tribute to the crew.
IF you are in a 4 engine plane and lose one engine, you can fly anywhere you like for as long as you like...BUT common sense is one thing that can't be regulated. I opposed the BA 3 engine journey accross the pond...but it wasn't illegal.
It would seem to me that the place to look in this situation is: had the engine been over temped at any time, causing a weakness in the turbine section? had this set of turbine blades/disc been properly made?
we shall see...that the plane is intact, the passengers are ok are a tribute to the crew.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to a preliminary Transport Canada report on the incident, the two-engine Boeing 777-333 was climbing though 1,000 feet after take-off from Pearson when the crew heard a loud bang. The cockpit instruments also showed a rapid rise in the temperature in the number two engine. As a result, the engine’s electronic controls shut down the engine, according to the report.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the 2 occasions I have had catastrophic failure of an engine I did not consider the aircraft to be in danger of crashing so I would call the procedure and subsequent landing abnormal. On occasions this abnormal condition has been turned into an emergency by crew (in)action.
As for the 3 engined BA guy, fantastic, he weighed up the various criteria for landing at the most suitable airport and made the correct decision.
The very fact that modern ETOPS regulations put twin engined aircraft many hours from a suitable landing (is it 5 hours for ANZ's 777?) demonstates my point. I do not think the regulatory authorities would agree to putting an aircraft in an emergency situation for 5 hours (abnormal yes) in the event of an engine failure. If it is deemed an emergency situation then the travelling public should be made aware of it and me for one will be only travelling on 4 engined aircraft in the future.
As for the 3 engined BA guy, fantastic, he weighed up the various criteria for landing at the most suitable airport and made the correct decision.
The very fact that modern ETOPS regulations put twin engined aircraft many hours from a suitable landing (is it 5 hours for ANZ's 777?) demonstates my point. I do not think the regulatory authorities would agree to putting an aircraft in an emergency situation for 5 hours (abnormal yes) in the event of an engine failure. If it is deemed an emergency situation then the travelling public should be made aware of it and me for one will be only travelling on 4 engined aircraft in the future.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't think anyone here cares semantically whether it was an 'Emergency landing' or an 'abnormal landing', h750. It certainly was not, as you posted in post #15
An interesting view from one who claims multi-engine time. I would have expected an experienced pilot to have viewed bits falling onto the ground, unknown damage to airframe and engine and degraded performance a little differently, but, there we go - 'Mr Cool' indeed.
a normal landing with one engine shut down
An interesting view from one who claims multi-engine time. I would have expected an experienced pilot to have viewed bits falling onto the ground, unknown damage to airframe and engine and degraded performance a little differently, but, there we go - 'Mr Cool' indeed.
...... I would have expected an experienced pilot to have viewed bits falling onto the ground, unknown damage to airframe and engine and degraded performance a little differently, but, there we go - 'Mr Cool' indeed.
But the pilot only is expected to know what his eyes and ears tell him inside the cockpit.
We heap all kinds of abuse on the news reporters for imagination, let's stick to the training sylabus that this incident falls under for the expected response
IF you are in a 4 engine plane and lose one engine, you can fly anywhere you like for as long as you like...
You have to meet the same performance requirements that any other transport aircraft meets - basically that the failure of a critical engine anywhere along the route (or a depressurisation) will not result in being unable to maintain terrain clearance, or not have sufficient fuel to continue to an adequate airport. Obviously the most limiting case (the take-off) no longer applies, as the aircraft is already airborne. The BA aircraft met those requirements.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
40 years ago, I rode an AA 727-100 STL-LAX. Well, not quite. We lost oil pressure on #3, and diverted to TUL where a 727-200 was fresh out of the shop. The only reason for swapping planes was that the 727 couldn't make terrain clearance over the Rockies, should a second donk fail.
I remember the CC bitching that the -200 should have required one more FA, but AA didn't staff for that.
I remember the CC bitching that the -200 should have required one more FA, but AA didn't staff for that.