Air Canada emergency landing at YYZ
 

Toronto News: Air Canada plane makes emergency landing at Pearson after reports of falling debris - thestar.com

Photo here: CP24- Debris falls from Air Canada flight causing damage

Yeah, right, the falling debris was from a Ruskie satellite.

Coupled with the (reported) engine shutdown makes it less of an opportunity to poke fun.

I was in the area where the vehicles were damaged recently for a burial at the nearby Catholic cemetery. It is under the departure path for YYZ runway 23.

The flight path of AC 1 is here:

FlightAware > Air Canada (AC) #1 > 28-May-2012 > CYYZ-CYYZ Flight Tracker

I remember years ago engine failures at Eastern seemed to always rain metal parts on the neighborhoods around the airfield in MIA. The Miami Herald would have a picture of a resident holding metal fragments and there would be a standard pax interview of the guy from JFK 'I heard a bang and I knew we wuz gonna die!'

That debris held by the news reporter looked like whats left of an LP turbine blade.
There have been some 'issues' with the GE90 turbines.:8

edit to add there has been an AD applicable to the growth engine (-110 and -115) turbines. But I would have thought they would be compliant by now!
Maybe it didn't go far enough:uhoh:

A Ruskie satellite? I thought the Cold War ended in the last century. It could have been part of an American satellite but more likely a remnant of an LP turbine.

more like a cooked LP aft stg turbine vane, the blades probably left earlier.

I wonder what the runway looks like

What is wrong here?

No gear down command while it's transiting in the gear up sequence!

No 37.5 degree bank turns at less than V2 or close to Vs with a stick shaker going off!

No EGWPS warning but a continued climb to a safe altitude and what I have to assume proper procedures to a safe landing!

Good work chaps!

And the aircraft didn't plunge either.

It wasn't even an Airbus! - [shock - horror];)

And the pilot must have made sure that the debris narrowly missed the nearby school/kindergarten/hospital (choose one)...;)

GE90 engines.

Geese migration time. I'm calling FOD.

From what I seen in pics and news, looks like a LP turbine blade, and there are alot of cars sometimes on the RWY 23 also. The GE-90 is amazing, and made just for the 777.
Hats off to the crew that did what they were taught and trained to do, and other than small damage on ground (cars) per reports anyway, all else is well, they dumped their fuel, and landed with no other known problems.
Russian Satelite, GET REAL PLEASE!

Yep, do not understand why the first poster had to be so dramatic and call it an emergency landing, looks very much like a normal landing with one engine shut down as would be the case with any decent carrier

Probably because it was an 'Emergency landing'?

TheStar.....Canada's own Daily Mail.

You know, I was thinking that it was even better than the Daily Mail.

That's too weird. I was litterally watching a justplanes AC 77W DVD. Also AC001 to Narita....

Request issuance of a temporary sense of humor to CPTG747. Thank you.

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.

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.

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

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. :)

Well, there's 1 out of 4 and 1 out of 2 to consider.

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.

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.

Not a Russian Satellite then?
 

We've got to know. The recycling people in my town get pretty upset if you put other stuff in the bins reserved for Russian satellite parts.;)

Yes, we know all about that. DC-8, Two engines out on the same side, New Orleans, 45 years ago.

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

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

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.

Perhaps they hit Venus.

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.

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:ugh: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.

:confused:

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

No, you can't :rolleyes: 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.

Венера were more probes than satellites, but anyway, some of them did (hit Venus).

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.