GD&L,
...but an airplane on single engine above MLW has to come down quicker than normal, to keep a smooth descent gradient, right... And the assymetric landing due to fuel imbalance, is it possible? In this case, the engine ran down (possibly due to a gearbox failure). Clearly then, this engine will not use the fuel from it's own tank. Not sure about 767 specifics, but there would come a point where a "fuel imbalance checklist" would be used, however the imbalance can often be considerable (several tons) before this is necessary. Different types have different limitations in terms of imbalance. Provided you stay within these limits, the handling won't be compromised. Hope this helps. Well done chaps. :ok: |
Just back from EBB, I was one of the FD crew on board NWI. Some of the reports are accurate, some not so.
Dynamite Dean for one. I am sorry you did not hear the PA telling the crew that fuel was about to be dumped, however, we did inform the crew, pax, ATC both on 126.9 and EBB control. From my point of view and that of the cabin crew, a fantastic job was done. Yes I hear you say "well he would say that", but we did. From engine failure to landing was 31 mins (from ACMS)! "The bird was heavy". Yes it was, 161 T to be precise and a landing into EBB 3900' amsl gave us a TAS of approx 208kts, IAS 174kts. I do not know if you have knowledge of H & H Apts, but the landing was "text book" straight down the line. An excellent job with full rev on the live engine. The CSD did an excellent job of prepping CC + cabin, the NITS was text book too. I know we train for such eventualities, but when it happens on the line it does take you by surprise and the then the training kicks in. This all sound far to "yank" speak, so I will sign off. Finally, thank you Leander for your kind comments. PS. D Dean, the fues pins in the tyres did their job thus making it safer for the Fire Crews in attendance. |
PB
During this time the Capt made some remarks about fuel dumping and a thick white vapour trail billowed out from begind the outboard wing on my side of the plane which was on the outside of the turn( I have seen fuel vented from a 74 and I think can tell the difference from a wing tip vortex) If the venting is only on centre tank could the centrifugal force effect have drifted the centre tank dump vapour out that far as we turned?? NoD |
Top Bunk and NoD thanks for taking trouble to reply
TB dont think the bumps were atmospheric it was very clear and fine that day and I would assume that the plane wouldnt fly smoothly with all its various extendable bits dangling around . As for the comment about climb power well I may sit behind you guys but I know what the engines sound like in different phases of flight and it certainlywasnt flite idle and sounded louder than cruise. I wont argue with you tho since I used the phrase losely I just meant the engines were working fairly hard but the plane was going down not up. NoD thanks-am I right in thinking small typo in your reply which seemed to inicate that the centre tank can be dumped but the vents are on the wing itself. That wd seem to fit perfectly since I assume the plane was fairly heavily fueled for the 7 odd hours to Bermuda but plus the fact there is only one runway there and the nearest diversion is 700nm away. So I guess they dumped the centre tank fuel-which I saw and then burned off the rest Thanks again PB Thanks to both for taking the trouble to reply |
BDA is a tankering sector and the flight would have had anything up to 15 extra tonnes of fuel loaded. Level flight with speedbrakes out and gear down at Vref +100 (Around 250 knots at 145 tonnes) uses nearly Climb Power. The aircraft shakes a lot in this configuration.
Not bollix Top Bunk. Been there. |
I would agree with the above. A few years ago I found myself in an aircraft with too much fuel on board for the sector to be flown (there had been an airframe switch).
To get down to landing weight at destination we flew the entire sector using climb power making full use of engine bleeds and air brakes. Never having tried this before I was somewhat surprised to find that we did not have to reduce below climb power until 10 miles finals at the destination! |
"To get down to landing weight at destination we flew the entire sector using climb power making full use of engine bleeds and air brakes."
Crikey! How long was the sector? Do your airbrakes produce much airframe rumble? On my type we would be crucified for flying continuously at climb power or doing a sector with the airbrakes out ..... or both! |
This thread is descending into quite bizarre 'Spotters' territory claims!
|
Well done Etec and crew.....a credit to BA
Looks like a very good professional job carried out under difficult and unusual circumstances...EBB being hot, high (and surrounded by enormous 'sh.tehawks!). But, sadly, there are some real w.nkers on here who pontificate without knowing the full facts. |
eTec
"The bird was heavy". Yes it was, 161 T to be precise and a landing into EBB 3900' amsl gave us a TAS of approx 208kts, IAS 174kts. 208 kts seems a bit high, therefore I assume the readings were taken at a higher altitude some where during the approach. What is the max tyre speed on the B 767 ? Human Factor So how would you combine an engine separation and you fuel imbalance checklist ? Interesting is it not? Maybe we should open a tread on this one. |
MrBernoulli:
The sector was only around 90 minutes and the Company was very happy at the solution. The alternative would have involved a long delay and the passengers didn't mind since there were none! |
MrBernoulli, how long have you been in this game, that you can make such statements?
I don't know if you are a Captain or First Officer, but such statements open you to ridicule. As the crew on the day, you make whatever decisions are necessary to achieve the situation you are faced with, according to the airplane limitations. I once had to fly a sector, gear down, speedbrakes out, just to arrive at destination around max landing weight. We didn't have the option of dumping fuel (aircraft type) , it was well within the airplane operating envelope and it was Operations that changed the schedule after we had fuelled up. Equally the pax were advised what would happen, but they were delighted because we arrived at their preferred destination. Yes, ity was slightly more noisy than normal, but I think the pax enjoyed their G&T's. And before you ask, CAP 56, yes, we did check the performace most rigorously, before we departed! |
Cap56,
Don't you think that even if the define maybe could have any effect on the design the people would have gone several times? Perhaps we should open a thread on that one. A green one. :hmm: |
Never a truer word spoken. :)
|
So how would you combine an engine separation and you fuel imbalance checklist ? |
Anyway, back on topic :)
A/C now back at LHR as of 2230 last night. Engine shutdown caused by wiring defect to FMU HP fuel shutoff valve. Repair made and FMU replaced. Nice job by the eng's concerned :ok: |
Speculation, half truths, know alls and pomposity.
Eng you seem to have the inside knowledge and also one of the crew posted on here. However your accounts will no doubt be ignored, called into question and then the know alls will debate the HP valve blah blah blah. PPrune at its best NN |
NN, info is straight from the proverbial 'Horses mouth'. PPrune is a great resource and i tend to just filter out the doubters and malingerers from my viewing ;)
|
Thanks for comments Openfly!
|
Is it my imagination or are BA having a hell of a time lately? :eek:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:05. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.