Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

EINN emergency ongoing

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

EINN emergency ongoing

Old 19th Aug 2016, 21:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dublin
Age: 55
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EINN emergency ongoing

Possible wheel well fire, flypast could not confirm gear down, coming in to land now. Airport Detail: EINN | LiveATC.net

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-open...to-gear-issue/
Mech1111 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 21:34
  #2 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dublin
Age: 55
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landed safely
Mech1111 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 05:48
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,282
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This one's more impressive than that!

VIDEO ANA Dreamliner flight #NH959 engine explosion during takeoff at Tokyo | AIRLIVE.net
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 06:39
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,784
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Not at all impressive Captain, I thought they always happened at V1.
megan is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 10:20
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
VIDEO ANA Dreamliner flight #NH959 engine explosion during takeoff at Tokyo | AIRLIVE.net

I assume they just fired the engine bottles, but then they seemed to taxi away before the fire trucks had made an external visual inspection of the engine. The flight deck warning might have gone out, but wouldn't you want 'eyes on the fire' before next decision?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 10:44
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rat, that wasn't an engine fire and certainly not an "explosion" so in all probability no fire warnings and no bottles. It was an ornery engine "failure", ie surge or stall where the fire that's meant to stay inside the engine momentarily escapes to places it shouldn't oughta be. Indications on the flight deck are one or more banging noises or woompfs and as the aircraft yaws off the centreline the rapidly changing ratio of tarmac to grass in the windscreen is a big attention getter. If you had the spare capacity you'd see a major rise in EGT and excursions in N1 and N2 or EPR plus a powerful and all-pervading impression that things just aren't going quite as they should. A slow speed asymmetric reject like that is the more difficult one to control in yaw and can cause biiig deviations from the centreline as there is no aerodynamic help from the rudder (plus, as said above, it's meant to happen at V1 not on the piano keys and can take people by surprise). Procedure is to stop on the grey stuff, not the green and preferably still facing the original direction of travel, shut down the engine and extract the seat cushion from whence it is clenched while wondering briefly if any of this was your fault. An external check for further signs of fire or severe damage leading to leaks/debris being spread around certainly might be a good idea but if there's a fire you'll soon know about it - the aeroplane, cabin crew or the radio will tell you. Then taxi back on the other engine, tell some mild fibs to the pax and return to hotel for tea and medals.

Last edited by Wageslave; 20th Aug 2016 at 11:26.
Wageslave is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 17:03
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Idle curiosity-driven quick question - having watched the video of the ANA 787, is deploying reverse thrust on the engine in 'distress' standard procedure?
rab-k is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2016, 17:42
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Idle curiosity-driven quick question - having watched the video of the ANA 787, is deploying reverse thrust on the engine in 'distress' standard procedure?
not sure about "in distress"

For this specific incident, I doubt the engine was in distress at the time of landing.

being an advanced engine design It could have been retarded to a lower power setting and would still be useable at reduced thrust or simply shutdown by the pilot.

The pilot has choices but would typically react according to his training/SOPs
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2016, 02:38
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
is deploying reverse thrust on the engine in 'distress' standard procedure?
I have no idea about Airbii but on the four Boeing types I've flown, yes. On an RTO (ANA 787 above) there's not time to discuss or fathom which engine you may or may not distress further by selecting reverse. Just get the reversers deployed, stop and then sort out the rest. On landing, if you've shut the engine down then, on the types I've flown, the thrust lever(s) won't move to reverse anyway, so you'll only end up with reverse on the good ones. If you haven't shut on down but, for instance, just pulled it back to idle then there will be plenty of time for discussion about the implications of using reverse on that engine versus runway length, contaminated runway (slippery), crosswind etc etc.

I elected to make a fly-past for a gear inspection
I suppose a lot of this is predicated on your aircraft type. If I get an EICAS indication that something is wrong with the gear then I'd run the QRH and that's it. What is going to change by doing a flypast? If the tower tells you your gear is in the same position as the EICAS/gear position indicator suggests then what have you learnt and would you change anything regarding the QRH? I wouldn't. Likewise, if ATC says your gear looks down when the indications in the cockpit are otherwise, would you bet on their observations? I wouldn't. ATC are never going to say your gear IS down, they are only going to tell you it looks like it's down and you can get that info from the gauges. It may have been a good idea years ago without EICAS/ECAM etc and it may have its place with, as an example, a retractable piston with simple gear indications but I agree with your 2 year F/O SFI (irrelevant) that it is not warranted on a modern airliner.

I'm not going to second-guess the runway length discussion and landing on the numbers may well have been sensible and justified. However, as I'm sure you considered; just because it can be used for takeoff it does not mean it necessarily has the PCN for landing.

Last edited by Pontius; 21st Aug 2016 at 03:36. Reason: He's a 2 year F/O, not 3
Pontius is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2016, 02:52
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,282
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontius
just because it can be used for takeoff it does not mean it necessarily has the PCN for landing.
stretching the friendship there, Pontius...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2016, 03:21
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
stretching the friendship there, Pontius...
Yeah, you're right, I shouldn't have used PCN. Maybe I should have mentioned the weight bearing differences twixt landing and taking off.

Having said all that, I'm a tad confused by what RAT 5 has written. If he wanted to 'dip under' the GP once over the end of the runway, in order that he could plonk it on the numbers of the displaced threshold then I can understand his thinking and am convinced of the logic in making use of the runway length, versus putting it down in the TDZ of the displaced threshold runway. But he does mention, "The full length was available for takeoff, so the runway would sustain our landing". That, to me suggests landing before the displaced threshold, about which I do not agree, hence my suggestion of bearing capabilities (even if I did use the incorrect verbiage)

......and there's me saying I wasn't going to get into this

Last edited by Pontius; 21st Aug 2016 at 03:32.
Pontius is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2016, 07:30
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aren't displaced thresholds there due to obstacles in the approach path, not because of runway weight restrictions?

Also, I seem to recall that the Singapore B777 engine fire was ignited after reverse thrust was used on the engine in question. Things are often not clear cut & a 'one size fits all' approach can often lead to problems. That being said, often with an engine fire it is better to use reverse on the engine with the fire if it is still operating. Just get the thing stopped & the people out. If it makes the fire worse it may not matter - the people are getting out of the thing.

But what ever you do, there will the 20/20 hindsight brigade there to critique your performance, from the safety of their armchair. It won't all be bad - there will be some robust discussion that most will learn from. But there will always be some who can't get out of the way of their ego long enough to to think logically & rationally & consider other points of view. Those you just have to do your best to ignore.
Oakape is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2016, 08:39
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aren't displaced thresholds there due to obstacles in the approach path
Almost exclusively. However, the bit before the displaced threshold can be of a lesser load bearing capability than the declared LDA and shouldn't be used for landing. I'm not talking about light aircraft etc but the big stuff. It may well be possible to avoid the obstacles on, for instance, a visual approach and plonk it down at the beginning of the tarmac but you'd look mighty silly when the wheels sink into the ground and you come to a rapid halt in your own furrows. There are, of course, various regulations talking about ILS glideslopes and not descending below them (as per RAT 5's thoughts) but I'm not getting into the pedantic stuff. Put simply, I don't think (unless in an emergency that requires you to do so) you should land before a displaced threshold, whether you believe it's there for obstacle clearance reasons or not.
Pontius is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2016, 09:45
  #14 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regarding the ANA. I imagine there was a significant "BANG" associated with the failure. On Airbus - both reversers are selected. Analyse using all available resources - even open the DV window and look. If damage suspected or obvious, discharge one agent.

This will have dealt with the immediate threat (outside). The next threat comes from inside - you have 200 people sitting there grabbing the arm rests thinking WTF? In these days of social media, filled with videos from inside aircraft of burning wings and of evacs as people gather their belongings - it won't take much for someone to pull an over-wing exit in panic. Your next priority - once the engine is secure - is to reassure the cabin and then get a report from the Cabin Manager as to the "mood" in the cabin.

I never understand the desire to vacate the runway so quickly. The runway is now closed as it will require inspection before any further ops are allowed. Additionally, just because you've discharged an agent doesn't mean to say that you haven't got a hydraulic or fuel leak as a result of collateral damage.

Get it inspected, talk to the fire crews and only when totally happy it's ok to move, taxi with them following in case the situation deteriorates.

Just my tuppence worth.

A4
A4 is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2016, 15:51
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"The full length was available for takeoff, so the runway would sustain our landing".

Brain fart guys. Not sure what I was thinking and totally agree with you. What I was meaning to say was landing on the numbers, not before. I might have been thinking along the lines that as the full length was available for takeoff there must been no obstacles over that piece of tarmac for 'dipping under'. I worded it badly.
RAT 5 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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.