Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

successful inflight start after eng fail...go or come back?

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

successful inflight start after eng fail...go or come back?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th May 2007, 01:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
successful inflight start after eng fail...go or come back?

Dear Friends,

Given the following scenario, average airport, average alternate airport availability for a say short over land, flight. rather fair wx conditions, a 737 CL. Engine quits for no aparent reason, successful inflight start, do we continue or come back ? I personally would go back if I canīt find a reason why an engine failed(such as ice formation or a stall), even though I think if an engine quits for no explainable reason, chances are it wonīt relight.

Anything written in your sops? Any experiences?

The thread is all yours...
SW.
sudden Winds is offline  
Old 28th May 2007, 01:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No clues at all - fuel interruption etc,?

Does Boeing or CFMI have anything to say?
barit1 is offline  
Old 28th May 2007, 02:48
  #3 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2 cents

In my training, using your scenario, losing an engine shortly after T/O is a simple return to base, no need to attempt a restart.
Dream Land is offline  
Old 28th May 2007, 05:43
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
boeing does not recommend restart unless required for performance reasons. why? because if an engine quits (especially for no apparent reason) something is majorly WRONG!

otherwise: depending on trackmiles to touchdown and number of engines i would consider it ok to continue to dest. but no need to push. of course a return or diversion will cost your company some extra money. but hey, how often do things like engine failures happen?
FCS Explorer is offline  
Old 28th May 2007, 07:01
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree. Something is not right. Fuel contamination? Go back. Unless, of course, the place you have left has just been overrun by islamofascists or something like that. Then drop into the first safe place en-route.
Wingswinger is offline  
Old 28th May 2007, 07:24
  #6 (permalink)  
Transparency International
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Denmark
Posts: 747
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
boeing does not recommend restart unless required for performance reasons. why? because if an engine quits (especially for no apparent reason) something is majorly WRONG!
Do you have a written reference for that statement?
dusk2dawn is offline  
Old 28th May 2007, 13:39
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A simulator instructor for one of the Alteon operations gives his crews a scenario of a volcanic ash event, followed by dual flame-out. He "permits" the relight of one engine in the 737. He then restricts the N1 on that remaining engine to only 60% which puts the crew in a serious position with gear down and flap 15 for the subsequent one engine inoperative and half power on live engine for landing. His rationale is that volcanic ash ingestion will probably cause partial loss of power on an engine that has been relit.

While this sounds like all jolly good fun for the instructor but probably a pain in the bum for his hapless "students", I haven't seen in any publication, proof positive that a relight under these conditions may only result in low thrust being available.

Has anyone had experience of this phenomena? And is this simulator scenario just another one of those unlikely double jeopardy "scenarios" beloved by some whose profession is simulator instructing?
Tee Emm is offline  
Old 28th May 2007, 18:17
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Has anyone had experience of this phenomena?"

Yes, engine failed without any prior indication of problem, or obvious engine damage.

As per the Ops Manual recommendation of "No obvious damage" etc., relight was successfully completed, resulting in normal operation.

As a precaution, with the reasoning that it wouldn't have failed in the first place unless something was wrong, I returned to the departure airport.

Approaching the circuit, it failed again. (FCU problem with slow air bubble accumulation in a pressure chamber).

I rest my case your honour

Regards,

Old Smokey
Old Smokey is offline  
Old 28th May 2007, 20:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wouldn't necessarily go back, but an expedient (as opposed to immediate) landing at a suitable field might be worthy of some serious thought.
flyboyike is offline  
Old 28th May 2007, 21:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under the sea
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do you have a written reference for that statement?
I believe the wording on the last 757 QRH I had was if a restart was REQUIRED. Theory being that with 180 minute ETOPS surely 10 minutes in a circuit would be acceptable risk.
extreme P is offline  
Old 29th May 2007, 00:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just as an aside, what do you think the Customers would make of a Flight which Pressed On whilst relighting an engine and then thought about the consequences after it failed again? (see previous contaminated fuel/bubble issue).

Since we're talking about double jeopardy, what if one of the aforementioned Customers got a bit nervous as a result of the situation and disposed of their subsequent cigarette in the bin, causing an uncontained cabin fire whilst the aircraft was halfway between LPLA and TBPB?

Would you want to be indulging in staff travel with your wife and kids on that particular excursion?
Threethirteen is offline  
Old 29th May 2007, 03:15
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The data is clogged with similar incidents, many on Boeing planes, where the engines quit for no apparant reason (to the crew) and were restarted successfully. Later analysis showed the reason for them quitting was fuel starvation (missmanaged). So I doubt seriously that Boeing recommends one to leave them alone after such a mysterious cockup.
lomapaseo is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.