Old B747SP incident in Buenos Aries
After dinner with friends last night the gentleman told me about a flight he made out of BA - (destined for NY I think) On takeoff they lost two to on one side, in addition to flap damage due to heavy bird strikes..
It became a serious challenge to maintain control of the very heavy aircraft, reconfigure fuel weights and dump until they were down to weight. As I understand it at one point a third engine also lost power but was recovered, The guy sitting next to my friend in First was a senior executive with overall responsibility for flight safety and ops responsibilities for an American Airline, He very quickly became convinced that they were going down but did not choose to tell my friend the bad news not knowing what his reaction would be. After some five hours of flying around getting reconfigured and discussing potential outcomes, they returned to make a safe landing back at BA. The now "two best friends" met up for a further two days of de-stressing and at that time, he gave my friend the news that during the flight he was convinced they were not going to make it. Said friend I understand was quite happy not to have known the potential outcome. Now here's the sting, I can find no reference to this incident and I have looked in the PPrune archive, on various websites, and on the NTSB web site (I think Panam was mentioned) and date in the 1980's possibly around 1985. and found nothing. Does anyone have any knowledge of said incident? or information, possibly a report?, I understand that certain issues of this type could be buried in the long grass by certain airlines not wanting bad publicity, who knows. I will be seeing my friend in a few days time and I might have a little more detail, but as a starter for 10, here we are. I would like to continue our discussion with a little more knowledge since he seems to be laying something to rest. Your mission, should you accept it, etc, etc.... With thanks, IG |
It's not your one but has a lot of similarities with the PeopleXpress B747-200 ex EGKK in the early 80's which had very similar issues at Vr, 2 engines on port side stalling and 3rd flaming, and got almost within treetop height of Russ Hill just west on Rwy26, whilst dumping everything it could. Unbelievable airmanship from the crew to save it. I saw it taxi out but didn't see the ensuing near disaster.
|
Was this a Pan Am flight EZE-JFK? Or was it Aerolíneas Argentinas?
|
Here's a link to a website devoted to the B-747SP. I'm not familiar with that particular website, but it may be a good starting point for your search. Good luck and let us know what you find out.
The link: https://www.747sp.com/ Cheers, Grog |
I would have access to anything like that if the facts were even partially correct. Since I don't recall in my mind anything that matches I don't want to waste a lot of time.
Can you at least provide a couple of guaranteed facts and I'll tell you if the data is recorded against them |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10513267)
Was this a Pan Am flight EZE-JFK? Or was it Aerolíneas Argentinas?
Aerolineas did fly a single 747SP for 10 years, but it appears to have been most often used to MIA and LAX rather than JFK. Edit: No, AA's 1987 timetable does show the SP serving JFK. |
Originally Posted by V12
(Post 10513249)
It's not your one but has a lot of similarities with the PeopleXpress B747-200 ex EGKK in the early 80's which had very similar issues at Vr, 2 engines on port side stalling and 3rd flaming, and got almost within treetop height of Russ Hill just west on Rwy26, whilst dumping everything it could. Unbelievable airmanship from the crew to save it. I saw it taxi out but didn't see the ensuing near disaster.
Events of that type meant much tougher requirements for inlet performance at high angles of attack for the 767 and for the 747 re-engine with the JT9D-7R4G2. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10513307)
I have a vague recollection of 'coffee pot' discussion of an event that sounds like this one - what my coworkers described was an over-rotation on takeoff - inlet separation cause 3 engines to surge (two unrecoverable), they circled around while dumping fuel and landed.
Events of that type meant much tougher requirements for inlet performance at high angles of attack for the 767 and for the 747 re-engine with the JT9D-7R4G2. I recall (subject to the official report) The investigation showed that most of the engines were heavily worn with little EGT margin (as purchased from PE by CO). The FDR showed the crew over pitched the aircraft after the first engine quit (nonresponsive in an engine stall condition). The other engines continued to operate during the turnback but likely may have experience a short powerloss while pitched up. I have seen clips from that video in the public arena since then. |
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
(Post 10513376)
I recall (subject to the official report) The investigation showed that most of the engines were heavily worn with little EGT margin (as purchased from PE by CO). The FDR showed the crew over pitched the aircraft after the first engine quit (nonresponsive in an engine stall condition). The other engines continued to operate during the turnback but likely may have experience a short powerloss while pitched up.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...989_N605PE.pdf |
No F/E in the cockpit?
|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10513383)
The official AAIB report ('I have the honour to be Sir your obedient servant' etc.) is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...989_N605PE.pdf |
That sounds like a Canadian Pacific ex YVR in ‘78 or ‘79. But I think that one was also a bird massacre event. |
After meeting my friend this morning I know a little more.
a) It was definitely PANAM b) Definitely an "SP" c) Definitely Buenos Aires to JFK d) After checking with SWMBO, he has stated that it is now definitely in the late '79 to early 1980 timeframe e) The passenger sitting next to him was a KLM Executive expert, who was subsequently called to provide input to an internal enquiry. Possibly under non-disclosure? (My thoughts here) I don't know whether I will be able to push for too much more info, his description of the event has obviously burnt a mark on his memory, but it has tweaked my interest. Thanks for all the help so far, he was really appreciative of the feedback from this site since not a great deal of the "What and Why" appears to have been communicated with the SLF. Thanks, IG |
Originally Posted by hart744
(Post 10513408)
No F/E in the cockpit?
According to the report the crew member in the Flight Engineers Station was a licensed flight engineer - turbojet. He was also an ATP holder (although not rated on the 747 as a pilot). OH |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10513383)
The official AAIB report ('I have the honour to be Sir your obedient servant' etc.) is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...989_N605PE.pdf |
Enroute re-clearance might have been to reduce fuel loads. We do it on the newer jets today while crossing the pond, it allows us to carry less reserve fuel.
|
Originally Posted by Imagegear
(Post 10513664)
After meeting my friend this morning I know a little more.
a) It was definitely PANAM b) Definitely an "SP" c) Definitely Buenos Aires to JFK d) After checking with SWMBO, he has stated that it is now definitely in the late '79 to early 1980 timeframe e) The passenger sitting next to him was a KLM Executive expert, who was subsequently called to provide input to an internal enquiry. Possibly under non-disclosure? (My thoughts here) I don't know whether I will be able to push for too much more info, his description of the event has obviously burnt a mark on his memory, but it has tweaked my interest. Thanks for all the help so far, he was really appreciative of the feedback from this site since not a great deal of the "What and Why" appears to have been communicated with the SLF. Thanks, IG Could be PA N739. Had 2 in less than a month, dual engine bird ingestions, one event in IST and one in EZE. Single IFSD, not a big deal except to the birds. |
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
(Post 10514240)
Could be PA N739. Had 2 in less than a month, dual engine bird ingestions, one event in IST and one in EZE. Single IFSD, not a big deal except to the birds.
|
Originally Posted by CargoOne
(Post 10514040)
.. today it is hard to believe that prior to -400, 747 wasn't really a long haul aircraft compared to what we used to these days. LGW-MIA was not doable without enroute re-clearance.
I think you're being a bit harsh on the poor old beast...LHR-MIA was definitely "doable" on most typical days on a 747-100 without resorting to reclearance but there often wasn't much to spare in the way of weight. The -200 with RR engines would do the likes of LHR -SEA and, with, reclearance LHR-NRT non-stop. You are right though, the -400 was a game changer and helped usher in "Ultra" Long haul.. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10514261)
N739PA, the plane that was blown out of the sky over Lockerbie, was not an SP.
I doubt that the subject description in the OP is in the recorded data, other than the ice cubes in a drink |
N743PA also not an SP. If my memory is correct (seldom is according to my wife) the SPs were N5..PA registered
Edit: 530 to 540 it would seem. |
Originally Posted by Pistonprop
(Post 10514384)
N743PA also not an SP. If my memory is correct (seldom is according to my wife) the SPs were N5..PA registered
Edit: 530 to 540 it would seem. |
Lomapaseo -
Feb 79 EZE N532PA double engine birdstrike, one engine shutdown , I hope that's it because that took too much time chasing it. Perhaps tdracer will be along shortly who may be able to confirm and put a little more flesh around it. Good work, IG |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 10514277)
I think you're being a bit harsh on the poor old beast...LHR-MIA was definitely "doable" on most typical days on a 747-100 without resorting to reclearance but there often wasn't much to spare in the way of weight. The -200 with RR engines would do the likes of LHR -SEA and, with, reclearance LHR-NRT non-stop.
. |
5 hours flying around on 2 engines or less sounds like a very long time. The SP can dump a lot faster than that.
|
Originally Posted by V12
(Post 10513249)
It's not your one but has a lot of similarities with the PeopleXpress B747-200 ex EGKK in the early 80's which had very similar issues at Vr, 2 engines on port side stalling and 3rd flaming, and got almost within treetop height of Russ Hill just west on Rwy26, whilst dumping everything it could. Unbelievable airmanship from the crew to save it. I saw it taxi out but didn't see the ensuing near disaster.
|
Originally Posted by Twiglet1
(Post 10516190)
ATC lost sight of it due to her being so low if i recall
|
From the AAIB report of the 1988 People Express Gatwick incident linked above:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d3af846065.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....520fd6a8c2.jpg |
Originally Posted by Imagegear
(Post 10514496)
Lomapaseo -
Perhaps tdracer will be along shortly who may be able to confirm and put a little more flesh around it. IG Well after the 767 was certified and in service - sometime in late 1983 or early '84 - they combined the 767 and 747 Propulsion groups. |
Originally Posted by CargoOne
(Post 10514040)
2) US Major 747 Captain just 38 years old :)
The early -200Bs were not a significant advance on the original -100, that came later when the RR and GE engined versions came along, which P&W then caught up with, all still designated -200B so a bit confusing. Alitalia, along with several other operators, traded in the whole of their original 747 fleet, including this one, for the new and much more capable models in 1980-81. |
Originally Posted by WHBM
(Post 10516363)
Regarding the Gatwick incident. Although Frank Lorenzo's Continental was regarded as a mainstream US carrier at the time, it had a certain reputation. They had just absorbed People Express, which was a post-deregulation startup, and the 747 N605PE was still in PE livery.
Both People and Continental had some young senior captains at the time. People started up in 1981 and low time copilots in the early classes found themselves rapidly moving up as the airline expanded. Continental had an ALPA strike in 1983 and anybody willing to cross the picket line got a good number (and a bad place on the published 'list' of replacement pilots). A colleague of mine years ago got hired by Continental in his late 20's and made captain in two years. Years later circa 2001 ALPA offered the Continental pilots with 'unfortunate dates of hire' amnesty and accepted them as dues paying members. Some now refer to themselves as 'former s**bs'. |
Thanks to all for your input to my original question, it seems like although a rather scary event for the SLF at the time, it did not warrant any major review or investigation. Probably when less publicity was better than too much.
I have discussed your comments with my friend who seems to be more at ease with the reasons why very little information was available to the fare paying punters, and he will leave a little more settled than when he arrived. Thanks again, IG |
Originally Posted by WHBM
(Post 10516363)
Regarding the Gatwick incident. Although Frank Lorenzo's Continental was regarded as a mainstream US carrier at the time, it had a certain reputation. They had just absorbed People Express, which was a post-deregulation startup, and the 747 N605PE was still in PE livery. The aircraft came from a rather mixed background. It was an early -200B model, new to Alitalia in 1972 (the AAIB report incorrectly states 1978), traded back to Boeing in 1980. It then hung around for nearly 4 years, mainly in the desert with various leases out for the Jeddah Hadj, until it was picked up by People Express in 1984 when they were in expansion mode and used on transatlantic low-cost flights. They ran notably short of cash and eventually were sold to Mr Lorenzo and merged in a year before the incident. Continental had not been 747 operator until then so the previous methods and recently recruited staffing carried on. You might say the aircraft had not been operated by a well-resourced carrier for some 8 years prior to the event.
The early -200Bs were not a significant advance on the original -100, that came later when the RR and GE engined versions came along, which P&W then caught up with, all still designated -200B so a bit confusing. Alitalia, along with several other operators, traded in the whole of their original 747 fleet, including this one, for the new and much more capable models in 1980-81. Not all true Continental had operated 747’s in the past, four new -124 variants were delivered to the airline and operated between 1971 and 1974, then the price of fuel saw them replaced by the DC10 That was the queen of the skies ‘first life’ at Cal, then several used models rejoined the fleet with the PE merger in the ‘80’s |
Originally Posted by Imagegear
(Post 10514496)
Lomapaseo -
I think you may have found the original short record. Thanks Perhaps tdracer will be along shortly who may be able to confirm and put a little more flesh around it. Good work, IG By the way, does anybody know if it was common practice in the industry at that point of time to publish inhouse such kind of a safety related product comparable to "Crosscheck"? For example at AA, TW, BA, LH, JP, QF... Thanks! |
Originally Posted by PanAm707
(Post 10518216)
As I`m not allowed to insert links please check Merrick Library Miami Pan Am flight safety dialogue, Vol. 6, No. 3, April 1979 page 28 for a short report.
Thanks for the link to Crosscheck, quite interesting. Also the other Pan Am manuals and publications are worth a look. A picture of an era in air transport. |
https://merrick.library.miami.edu/cd...d/60984/rec/49 is a link to the specific issue.
|
Originally Posted by Longtimer
(Post 10518371)
https://merrick.library.miami.edu/cd...d/60984/rec/49 is a link to the specific issue.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....02e861e6e1.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a6468f0009.jpg |
Well Gentlemen,
I never fail to be amazed that after so many years, Pprune membership has again come up trumps to put flesh on the bones of this incident. Many people must have spent considerable time researching the challenge, to deliver a very useful outcome.I will be communicating the information to my friend who no doubt will take some satisfaction that the incident appears to have been well managed, and perhaps any latent fears he may have had, are put to rest. My sincere thanks to everyone, Imagegear |
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:45. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.