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

Air Canada 767 Problems at Madrid

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

Air Canada 767 Problems at Madrid

Old 16th Feb 2020, 16:39
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,933
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes on 22 Posts
What Boeing has to say.
An overweight landing with an engine inoperative or a system failure may be less desirable than landing below maximum landing weight. Yet, delaying the landing with a malfunctioning system or engine failure in order to reduce weight or jettison fuel may expose the airplane to additional system deterioration that can make the situation worse. The pilot in command is in the best position to assess all relevant factors and determine the best course of action.
An inability to calculate landing performance for overweight landing with the reduced braking capacity I'd humbly suggest as a SLF the crew did the right thing ie agree with tcasblue.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...icle_03_1.html

If SE was not a problem as you stated, why didn't the crew fly for 4 hours towards destination and then land - if this is indeed the safest option
I suppose you're suggesting they retract the gear then, people have run out of gas trying that, besides the fact the flying rubber may have caused untold damage to systems in the wheel well. Sticking near the airport was smart IMHO.
The possibility of tire damage, which was only confirmed hours later by sending up a fighter aircraft
I'd say the crew were well aware of the initiation of their problems, that's why they left the gear down. An inspection by the fighter was prudent to assess the level of apparent damage, one can never have too much information in such cases.

Last edited by megan; 16th Feb 2020 at 16:54.
megan is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2020, 18:40
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TwinJock View Post
You do make some valid points, but it seems you see the failures in isolation.

The crew was definitely aware that they had an Engine failure, and that should have been the priority. The possibility of tire damage, which was only confirmed hours later by sending up a fighter aircraft, seems to me to have became the focus of the crew.

I still maintain that "hanging" around for hours on a single engine is not the best option available to the crew. If it was purely a tire problem, with 2 engines turning, then they can stay airborne as long as they want, think about it, contact whoever they wanted to, and figured out how to intercept a radial.

If SE was not a problem as you stated, why didn't the crew fly for 4 hours towards destination and then land - if this is indeed the safest option. Twin with an Engine failure should land at nearest suitable airport in terms of time, and 4 hours sounds way excessive.....

We see the ETOPS argument being used more and more during EFATO and in the cruise. Whilst the aircraft is certified for 180 minutes ETOPS it gives you NO guarantee that the operating engine will last at least that long...

Any reason for not landing on the longest runway available, as the FCTM points out?


I agree completely with you.

We are not talking about a situation here where the crew just went through the appropriate checklists then advise the cabin crew and passengers of the situation.

Take the appropriate time needed to get all the previously mention items done correctly (checklists, announcements), then come in for a landing.

They actually waited for an F18 to be available to them to fly up close enough to the aircraft to validate a blown tire.

Then they stayed up in the air for presumably 4 hours on one engine... I'm sure the passengers were very happy and stressed out for all that time.

What if another aircraft was not available to fly up to check their aircraft out to validate the blown tire?

The argument of ETOPS is not valid one in a scenario where a twin engined aircraft takeoffs and shuts down one of its engines for what ever reason and becomes a MAYDAY aircraft... Any modern turbine powered twin engine aircraft (whether ETOPS or not) can stay in the air for a long time on one engine, but this is not the point.

In any case there will always be pilots that see things differently and I believe this will be a ongoing argument... Land ASAP on one engine or burn off fuel to land under the max landing weight. Same thing with cross wind landings... some argue the proper technic is not to un-crab the aircraft prior to touch down and those that say yes un-crab, low wing into the wind and use the rudder to straighten out the aircraft prior to touch down.


Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2020, 19:34
  #103 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 45
Posts: 4,110
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
and I believe this will be a ongoing argument... Land ASAP on one engine or burn off fuel to land under the max landing weight.
I do no think so. We've had it here for several times, with very good contributions. No one I remember managed to say more than the Boeing's AERO article.

My take on all combined is that with a fuel-jettison aeroplane (never flown one!) there is a certain logic to reduce down to max OEI go-around weight in case of inclement weather. Otherwise, if calculated landing distance allows, there is no justification to say airborne for the sole purpose of reducing weight.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2020, 19:37
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: unknown
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TwinJock View Post
You do make some valid points, but it seems you see the failures in isolation.

The crew was definitely aware that they had an Engine failure, and that should have been the priority. The possibility of tire damage, which was only confirmed hours later by sending up a fighter aircraft, seems to me to have became the focus of the crew.

I still maintain that "hanging" around for hours on a single engine is not the best option available to the crew. If it was purely a tire problem, with 2 engines turning, then they can stay airborne as long as they want, think about it, contact whoever they wanted to, and figured out how to intercept a radial.

If SE was not a problem as you stated, why didn't the crew fly for 4 hours towards destination and then land - if this is indeed the safest option. Twin with an Engine failure should land at nearest suitable airport in terms of time, and 4 hours sounds way excessive.....
This wasn't a twin with an engine failure. This was a twin with an engine failure and reduced braking capability, and the high possibility of more tire bursting on landing. I find it strange that you thing that I am the one thinking of the failures in isolation when you want to just land ASAP(or close to it) without serious considerations of the ramifications of further tires bursting and significantly reduced deceleration capability.

The crew could have flown four hours(or whatever time it would take to get to MLW-or less weight) but logic would make someone stay around Madrid due to potential further degradation of systems, the good weather and runways with a long LDA available. Too bad they didn't use one long runways into wind.

Last edited by tcasblue; 16th Feb 2020 at 20:03.
tcasblue is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2020, 19:44
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: unknown
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
I do no think so. We've had it here for several times, with very good contributions. No one I remember managed to say more than the Boeing's AERO article.

My take on all combined is that with a fuel-jettison aeroplane (never flown one!) there is a certain logic to reduce down to max OEI go-around weight in case of inclement weather. Otherwise, if calculated landing distance allows, there is no justification to say airborne for the sole purpose of reducing weight.
I already gave the justification based on what Boeing states about not landing overweight with a blown tire. Do you not think that this is important. Can you calculate the landing distance for a blown tire. And then what is the landing distance if the remaining three tires blow out on that gear leg. Will the landing be smooth or accidentally firm. Will it be accidentally long....then what...go-around?

Originally Posted by Jet Jockey A4 View Post
I agree completely with you.

They actually waited for an F18 to be available to them to fly up close enough to the aircraft to validate a blown tire.

Then they stayed up in the air for presumably 4 hours on one engine... I'm sure the passengers were very happy and stressed out for all that time.

What if another aircraft was not available to fly up to check their aircraft out to validate the blown tire?
Who cares if the pax were not happy and stressed about staying airborne for four hours. They would be a lot more stressed if the remaining tires had blown on landing and they had gone off the side or the end of the runway. Do you really consider the happiness of pax for serious decisions like this?

If no F-18, I suspect the same decisions would have been made.

Meanwhile for the scared of single engine operation crowd, I wonder how many commercial PC-12's were flying at the time.

Once again.....
"Situations Beyond the Scope of Non-Normal Checklists It is rare to encounter in-flight events which are beyond the scope of the Boeing recommended NNCs. These events can arise as a result of unusual occurrences such as a midair collision, bomb explosion or other major malfunction. In these situations the flight crew may be required to accomplish multiple NNCs, selected elements of several different NNCs applied as necessary to fit the situation, or be faced with little or no specific guidance except their own judgment and experience."

Last edited by tcasblue; 16th Feb 2020 at 20:07.
tcasblue is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2020, 21:25
  #106 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 45
Posts: 4,110
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
@tcasblue I do not find my statement at odds with your logic, or vice versa. Anyways all I tried to say was there actually is an end to OEI overweight landing debate.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2020, 02:49
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
40 minutes QRA

Maybe off topic but I guess I find this bit curious from an earlier post

"They actually waited for an F18 to be available to them to fly up close enough to the aircraft to validate a blown tire."

From the post in Spanish, the airforce commander seems proud it took only 40 minutes to scramble a QRA fighter.

Does anybody else find this ever so slightly ridiculous?

​​​​
pilot9250 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2020, 08:07
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It depends where the fighters are based. Madrid is in the centre of Spain whereas I expect QRA fighters to be positioned to counter hostile external threats. Madrid is something like 350km from its nearest coastline.
threep is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2020, 08:36
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The fighters are based next door to LEMD at LETO.
733driver is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2020, 08:49
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,606
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Turbine70 View Post
From the post in Spanish, the airforce commander seems proud it took only 40 minutes to scramble a QRA fighter.

Does anybody else find this ever so slightly ridiculous?
​​​​
That was possibly the time needed to find an F-18 pilot whose first instinct wouldn't be to shoot down the 767 ...
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2020, 11:35
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
That was possibly the time needed to find an F-18 pilot whose first instinct wouldn't be to shoot down the 767 ...
Most F-18 pilots whose first instinct would be to shoot down the 767 have now retired after multiple ejections.
They had to eject after shooting down the KC46 that was coming to refuel their fighter jet.

Last edited by Luc Lion; 21st Feb 2020 at 11:50.
Luc Lion is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2020, 12:45
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: in a cigar lounge smoking a Partagas P2
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Turbine70 View Post
Maybe off topic but I guess I find this bit curious from an earlier post

"They actually waited for an F18 to be available to them to fly up close enough to the aircraft to validate a blown tire."

From the post in Spanish, the airforce commander seems proud it took only 40 minutes to scramble a QRA fighter.

Does anybody else find this ever so slightly ridiculous?

​​​​
No. But your comment is ridiculous

It was known mechanical trouble and no QRA intruder.
foxcharliep2 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2020, 19:50
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,412
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by foxcharliep2 View Post
No. But your comment is ridiculous

It was known mechanical trouble and no QRA intruder.


It doesn’t look like a standard “out of the box” Q mission... there was no threat and the passengers safety was at stake...
wiggy is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2020, 03:36
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post


It doesn’t look like a standard “out of the box” Q mission... there was no threat and the passengers safety was at stake...
​​​​​​
Always a mystery.

I guess I assumed that the Q in QRA means quick, and that 'go there and intercept that' is standard and included in "out of the box".

Fortunately it seems, while benefiting from an external visual, the Q part of QRA wasn't too critical.

Last edited by pilot9250; 25th Feb 2020 at 04:01.
pilot9250 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2020, 04:16
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Moscow
Age: 43
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Turbine70 View Post
​​​​​​
Always a mystery.

I guess I assumed that the Q in QRA means quick, and that 'go there and intercept that' is standard and included in "out of the box".

Fortunately it seems, while benefiting from an external visual, the Q part of QRA wasn't too critical.
Let's say one has an alert aircraft on standby to deal with an urgent threat, and something comes up that does not look really urgent or threatening. In this case, is in better to commit the alert aircraft, or wait for some other aircraft to be prepared to launch?
AlexGG is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2020, 08:23
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Always moving
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gents,

Please don’t assume facts that you don’t know anything about.

QRA a/c are airborne within 15 minutes max.
For this particular msn:
-767 reported its intentions to hold over 4hrs to burn fuel
-the Spanish Air Defence Command then offered the help of a chase a/c (F18)
-once the crew accepted the help, they called a pilot that was preparing another msn for that very afternoon and retasked him and his a/c

There was no need to rush or to scramble the QRA. QRA must be preserved for other defence related msns plus the QRA is armed with missiles and gun while this chase a/c was not.

Please always remember whenever you have an emergency that fighter a/c might help. Radio, navigation, etc... Portugal latest events come to my mind for instance.
Markos. is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2020, 10:42
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 900m
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The idea of having a visual check on the aircraft in flight is not “just to verify a blown tyre” but to give a report on the overall condition of the aircraft.

I wanted a visual check of my ship done when we had a tyre blow with further complications on T/O, before planning our landing. Trouble was, they couldn’t get a fighter and wanted to vector a Fokker Friendship on to us. I politely declined. If you have someone in formation with you, you want someone who is in practice.
You also need someone who knows what to look for and can respond to queries from the cockpit, while assuming appropriate position.
Twitter is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2020, 18:33
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,797
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
I says a lot about the state of PPRuNe that an incident where the pilots followed the recommended procedure, no one was hurt, and the aircraft suffered no damage other than what occurred during the initiating incident has generated six pages of discussion about why the crew (and others) did what they did.
tdracer is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2020, 18:38
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 139
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Are we still talking about this? Geez...
Zombywoof is online now  
Old 25th Feb 2020, 19:20
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,606
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
I says a lot about the state of PPRuNe that an incident where the pilots followed the recommended procedure, no one was hurt, and the aircraft suffered no damage other than what occurred during the initiating incident has generated six pages of discussion about why the crew (and others) did what they did.
Well I'll admit to having enjoyed a healthy, albeit vigorous, debate which served as a reminder that professionals don't always agree about everything.

And if all else fails, you can always tweak your PPRuNe control panel settings and get it down to 4 pages.
DaveReidUK is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.