PAL777 engine fire

[allaru]

ATC: "what sort of equipment do you need"....".F..d if I know we have one engine so what ever you recon".....

Well done to the crew, kept their calm and landed safely. Very busy given they did an immediate return.

Yes the spiel from missd again was crap....procedure is +ve climb gear UP...400 feet identify....engine limit surge stall memory items...dump fuel/or immediate return to land. Engine limit Surge Stall checklist / Overweight Landing Checklist / Refer to Climb Performance in QRH as per previous checklist / After take off checklist / Approach Checklist/ Descent Check List / Landing Checklist / Talk to Cabin / Possible Landing Distance Calculation / AND deal with ATC?. So very very busy.

Interesting point is that US ATC probably expecting fuel load in pounds...rather than 127T KG. 300000lbs would have been close enough for them.

[krismiler]

The fire tender in post #3 appears to be discharging foam into the right engine which suggests more than a simple compressor stall, also the bursts of flame seem to going on for quite a long time which suggests a delayed crew response in applying the appropriate drill, possible startle effect as the bangs are quite loud.

[KelvinD]

To be fair to the BBC (an organisation that has irked me recently), the piece linked to in the above post does not claim anything about an engine exploding in mid air.
The headline to the video piece says "Engine in flames in midair: we heard 4 large bangs". The only time the word "explosion" is mentioned is in a verbal comment from one of the passengers.
Remedial reading lessons may be appropriate here!

[wiggy]

Re large twin and flying level..

Originally Posted by hans brinker

I don't disagree with you, but I do think you might have misunderstood some of the original post. When he referred to being in the landing configuration after take off, I think he was referring to being on final after an immediate return due to an engine failure. At that point our procedure (A320) is to not extend the gear until we are on the slope, so he might have a point.

Problem is Hans saying "In landing configuration, at a heavy weight right after takeoff, airliners don't have enough power to fly level." isn't really open to misunderstanding, it's a very authoritative statement.

Unfortunately it is factually incorrect for many of the ETOPS twins in many situations, howzever it's manna from heaven for the journos looking for a quick " airliner narrowly missed school because expert says they can't fly level after take-off " type cut and paste....

[India Four Two]

the piece linked to in the above post does not claim anything about an engine exploding in mid air.

KelvinD, the original headline used the word “explosion” or “exploded”. It was subsequently changed.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by India Four Two

KelvinD, the original headline used the word “explosion” or “exploded”. It was subsequently changed.

Yes, the URL (which now redirects to a less histrionic one) is a giveaway:

plane-engine-explodes-in-midair-we-heard-four-large-bangs

[Midland63]

SLF here. Easy to be critical with hindsight but in an absolutely perfect world in order to avoid pax bleating to the press afterwards, would it not have been possible for one of the flightcrew to find 30 seconds to say something like:

"Afternoon ladies and gents, unfortunately our right engine has suffered what's known as a compresser surge. It sounds very alarming but there's nothing to worry about - the engine is *not* on fire and the aircraft is quite capable of flying on the other engine alone. We are however going to have to return to LAX where we'll land in about 15 [?] minutes. The cabin crew are going to repeat the safety briefing which please pay close attention to. Thank you."

Or is there not even time for that amongst the v heavy workload of turning a very heavy plane round to land again asap?

[fatbus]

There should be plenty of time . 2 jumpseaters .

[lomapaseo]

You can't control the passengers nor the press in using their words to describe an experience. You can only use your own words and ability to be heard or read, Fortunately most of the the TV Air-Disaster series tries for vernaculars more to the point

[pattern_is_full]

C'mon, folks. For 99.9999% of the world, a loud "bang" accompanied by a jet of flame is an explosion.

The fact that it is fuel vapor that actually explodes, and that engines (piston or jet) are designed to (usually) contain such events without damage - as are cannons, for that matter - doesn't mean an explosion did not occur.

[India Four Two]

What I find odd about ATC's response to the Mayday call is their question about "equipment". They had an overweight 777 with an engine problem, returning to land. There should be no need to query the crew - just "roll the trucks". At the very least, they would have to deal with hot brakes, which turned out to be the case:

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by wiggy

Re large twin and flying level..



Problem is Hans saying "In landing configuration, at a heavy weight right after takeoff, airliners don't have enough power to fly level." isn't really open to misunderstanding, it's a very authoritative statement.

Unfortunately it is factually incorrect for many of the ETOPS twins in many situations, howzever it's manna from heaven for the journos looking for a quick " airliner narrowly missed school because expert says they can't fly level after take-off " type cut and paste....

This is the post and reply I was referring to:

Originally Posted by misd-agin

Normal gear retraction is as soon as a known, stabilized, rate of climb is achieved. For non pilots that typically confirmed prior to 50' AGL. With an engine failure, unless the plane is very light, the ability of an airliner to accelerate to get rid of flaps (reducing drag) is much tougher. Depending upon weight it might not be possible with the gear down.

In landing configuration, at a heavy weight right after takeoff, airliners don't have enough power to fly level. This was a training event that was introduced to demonstrate that at heavy weights (ie immediate return scenario), even at max power you'd be unable to hold level flight while in landing configuration while single engine. Rule of thumb "no gear down until you're going downhill" (ie descent patth without level offs).

Originally Posted by 4runner

a large jet, isn’t at landing configuration at takeoff. It also is above landing weight if going far enough to change a few time zones or the weather. Thanks for your input cadet.

I felt this reply was unwarranted. The original poster was trying to explain something in simple terms, 4Runner misunderstood (purposely?) and I tried to clarify.

He might have been wrong about the performance, but in every one of my last 3 twin-jet types there was some statement about not flying level in the landing configuration at landing weight, never mind T/O weight. If you can show me a requirement for WB twins to be able to fly level at MGTOW in the landing configuration I will gladly stand corrected.

I personally am not worried about journalist”s using PPRuNe as a source.

[PAXboy]

As I have said before, carriers need to be ready with the TRUTH when one of these happens. The picture in the o/p is a single frame from a video. We know this because a compressor stall normally produces stabs of flame (I have seen another video showing that in this case) but the picture editor has taken the frame showing the most flame possible - because that is a 'better' photo.

If they got an on overweight 777 down for some lost tyres and a careful inspection of the gear and frame - it confirms that the Triple is 'old school metal'. Comforting.

[JanetFlight]

Originally Posted by India Four Two

What I find odd about ATC's response to the Mayday call is their question about "equipment". They had an overweight 777 with an engine problem, returning to land. There should be no need to query the crew - just "roll the trucks". At the very least, they would have to deal with hot brakes, which turned out to be the case:

You just took the words right out of my mouth...

[CDRW]

Better keep it a secret that jet engines -when working- are technically " always on fire"! Just the fire is contained in some fancy tubes. Hence the words " flame out" to imply the donkey has gone to sleep.

[NWA SLF]

Locating engines on the wings is an engineering sound decision but is newsworthy in the event of an engine surge. The first surge I experienced as a passenger was on a 727. With a series of bangs and resultant yaw, I saw most passengers sit up and take notice but then go back to whatever they were doing. I, however, noticed we descended for several minutes before continuing to our destination. I realized what had happened and assumed our descent would result in an unscheduled landing as we were over an hour from our destination. I had a long wait prior to my next flight so I was last to leave, asked a flight attendant to check with the captain. He confirmed a surge, needed to shut down the right engine, continued to destination on the remaining 2. The secret is to keep the flames out of view of the passengers and all is well.

[lomapaseo]

Originally Posted by CDRW

Better keep it a secret that jet engines -when working- are technically " always on fire"! Just the fire is contained in some fancy tubes. Hence the words " flame out" to imply the donkey has gone to sleep.

Except in this case the flame-out is an indication that it has woken up with a startle and is gasping to breathe

[jolihokistix]

Agreed that external flames were observed, and an explosion or loud bang of sorts or series of, was heard to have taken place within the engine. What I objected to was the journalistic use of 'plane engine explodes in mid-air', (as observed verbatim in the link above) when the engine itself remains intact and has plainly not exploded.

My original question still stands. What language would then remain to describe it, if and when an engine actually did 'explode'?

In the meantime I am happy to see that the language was subsequently toned down.

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by fatbus

There should be plenty of time . 2 jumpseaters .

What? are you suggesting jump seaters are going to get involved.? Then again maybe they could all have a little CRM meeting and decide what role each will play.

[jmmoric]

Originally Posted by JanetFlight

You just took the words right out of my mouth...

To be honest, at some airports they're preparing hospitals, closing roads, taking every emergency vehicle from the surrounding area when the "standby" is activated... and it is directly incorporated into the ATC procedure that you'll have to ask the crew before doing so.

At other airports it's more at the controllers discretion.

Another thing, some airliners do not like having emergency vehicles around when landing, bad for publicity I guess... so again.... been incorporated into the ATC procedure as well.

And believe me, there are places in the world where the slightest deviance on the frequency is on the news minutes after it happens.