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

Uncontrollable Engine Fires

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

Uncontrollable Engine Fires

Old 24th Sep 2007, 08:45
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Uncontrollable Engine Fires

G'day all,
Had a question, seeing as though I've got command training on the 767 (which I've never flown) coming up. What is the best strategy for managing an uncontrollable engine fire after take off? First, let me set the scenario.
  • Take off with 20 kts HW (ie return on reciprical runway not available)
  • ILS available
  • Wx is right on Landing minima
  • Radar is unavailable
  • Uncontrollable engine fire during rotate
The 2 options I've been thinking about are:

1. Turn back to the field and when within the circling area, descend to the circling minima. Remain within the circling area and basically carry out a circling approach on 1 engine.
Pros : gets you back on the ground the quickest
Cons : Not sure if the A/P will handle such a late intercept on 1 eng.
Late configuration change

2. Fly the full procedural ILS
Cons : Takes a lot longer to get on the ground

What do you guys think the best way to go is?
Cheers
'holic is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2007, 09:13
  #2 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,748
Off the top of my head..... which is how it would be in the real world.

1. Declare MAYDAY (obviously) - lets ATC know to get everyone else out of the way.

2. Are you familiar with field / local obstacles. Would there be a problem with just turning downwind and climbing to 2000'agl? (Other than potential traffic conflicts). With no radar available there are possible problems with following an EOSID and then trying to get yourself back into a position to make an approach - of course if you HAVE to follow an EOSID due to terrain you have no choice.

3. Use your nav display / navaids to position yourself for a base leg and fly the ILS. It has to be done urgently BUT you don't want to rush it so you end up fast/high etc.

4. Whilst all this is going on, a quick PA to the effect that we are making an immediate return to land and a quick ding dong to the No1 to get them to make a quick sweep for secure cabin.

5. With WX at minima and a burning engine/wing .... are you going to go around at minima? Could be argued that if you do it may be your last act of aviating....if you don't - likewise



OK. That took me more time to think about and type than you would probably have in the real event........ a fire is an unknown quantity and an unextinguishable fire is a nightmare...you just don't know what's going on out on that wing.

Bottom line, you have to get it on the ground ASAP but don't rush to the extent that you put yourself in a position from which a landing is impossible.
Remember, a Commander may deviate from standard practice if in his opinion it is necessary to protect the immediate safety of the aircraft and passengers. Perhaps this scenario is one of the few where it really applies?

Good Luck.

A4
A4 is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2007, 09:16
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austria
Age: 45
Posts: 6
By the time you have followed your EFCOP to MSA or minimum radar vectoring altitude - depending on surrounding terrain - quite a few minutes will have passed anyway, especially at MTOM.
Also: what circling criteria are you talking abaout?
PANSOPS: 5,28km (Cat D), or TERPS (around 2,3km I believe).

If ATC is capable (read: trustworthy, depending on the part of the world you are in.....), I would always go for a tight radar vector pattern: gives you time to warn the cabin, get the A/C properly set up (F20, autobrakes, EGPWS inhibits etc.) and you will have a fairly stabilized approach. Better spending 30 extra seconds to get things under control than to screw up the approach and have to go around....
If ATC is no good, do your own short line-up according to terrain and keep ATC informed.

BTW: I found SE circling at or near MTOM on the 767 the only maneuver that can indeed be a bit tricky........never ever get below target speed!!


Just my 2 Euro-Cents....

Good luck!
reduce to minimum is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2007, 11:22
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Thanks for the replies . Some very valid points raised which will make life easier when I have to fly this in the sim or, God forbid, in real life.

Just to try and be a little more specific and to answer some your queries, lets just say we're departing from 27L EGLL. Just bear in mind that the radar is out, so radar vectors aren't an option.

On the chart I have, the circling minima is 1080', based on PANSOPS 5.28 nm.
The full ILS procedure begins at 2500' and 7.5 DME LON, which is 9.6nm from the 27L threshold.
The applicable MSA is 2300'
There's no Eng Out procedure to follow.

The way I'm imagining things would go is :

Eng fire at rotate.
By the time you've accomplished the recall actions, fired both fire bottles and realised that the fire IS uncontrollable, I'm guessing you will be at 2000'-3000' and, depending on the SID you're following, ouside the circling area.

What do you do?

Do you maintain 2500' and track for the full ILS? ; or

Turn to be within the circling area, descend to 1080' and then circle for a 2-3nm final and intercept the ILS?

The second option is obviously the quickest and sounds fine on paper. But the real question is: on the 767 will the A/P in APP mode handle such a close in intercept of the ILS on 1 engine? The only 2 heavy types I've flown are the 747 Classic and the 744. The classic definitely would NOT cope with such a manoeuvre, whereas I think the 744 probably would, with a little bit of nursing around the corner in Hdg Sel. I've absolutely no idea what the 767 is like

There is always the option of disconnecting the A/P if it's not performing, but under the circumstances not my idea of a fun day out

Cheers
'holic is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2007, 11:23
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Airplane
Posts: 133
The scenerio you describe sounds like something you would see in a sim. The odds of all those conditions coming up in real life are remote to the extreme. Of course that doesn't mean it can't happen. In the sim you are trying to get though the scenerio, so as long as you don't waste too much time and get the airplane on the ground in one piece there should be no problem. In real life you don't know what is happening out on that wing so you should get the plane on the ground in the absolute minimum time. If you have time to talk to the F/A and pax you are taking too much time. Just tune the ILS and get to it quick. Do not use minimums, the autopilot will find the runway. Max braking to a stop and evacuate.

7
airbus757 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2007, 16:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 989
ILS - Chart

Whilst the ILS Chart says those figures, ATC can do better things. Dunno about LHR but the best I've had is descent to 1600' with a 5nm intercept at Glasgow. Certainly not what the chart had in mind...Tell ATC, if they can, I'm sure they will help!
Cough is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2007, 16:43
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: paris
Age: 44
Posts: 100
and another little thing is your burning engine, in the first phase of the take off will be giving you 100% thrust (maybe even a bit more ...) so you'll be clearing a good deal of obstacles very fast before shut down. you'll much more than your single engine climb gradient.

so msa or radar safety altitude will be reached much earlier. and clearly as someone said before it's better to take a little more time and make it in one approach than going around or overshooting your loc or g/s.

seb
airseb is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2007, 02:11
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,575
As the B767 has wing mounted podded engines, the best scenario it would seem to me would be for the burning engine to separate from the wing.
If this were a B707 (instead of a 767) the normal drill would be to accelerate to the barber pole and hope that the fire at least is reduced (perhaps extinguished)...this has been tried in the past with this particular aeroplane, and it has worked.
Recall the BOAC B707 that departed LHR long ago, the engine separated, however, the tank valve was not closed, therefore the wing continued to burn.
Follow the fire drill exactly for best results.
411A is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2007, 17:21
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 260
Holic,
I believe that Cathay had a similar incident a few years back on a 747-200 ( gear-box caught fire and the two shots failed to extinguish it). As you point out, by the time you have completed the fire drill correctly and determined that the fire has not extinguished, you will be almost through the flap retraction and may be at approx. 2000 feet. Descending to circling minima will not help if the weather is at landing minimums!.....rather having declared a Mayday and quickly sorted through the appropriate checks and c/c brief + short PA, aim to couple up with the ILS and carry out an auto-approach to a manual landing ( in accordance with your company's SOP's, of course). By the way, the 747 classic would cope with a quick return, as long as you carefully monitor the automatics and be prepared to go manual to capture the localiser/glideslope. For the 744, no problem -manual landing with Flaps 25 and the Vref close to the departure V2.
Good luck - don't forget the aim of the game is a safe conclusion!
skiesfull is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2007, 22:32
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Thanks for the replies everyone.
Skiesfull, now we're getting to the crux of the original question Firstly, I realise the example I've given at EGLL with no radar is a little unrealisitic, but there is at least one port we operate from with no radar, and a few others where ATC is a little ..cough.. unreliable and I would be very hesitant asking for vectors for the ILS with Wx at minima.

The idea of descending to circling minima, with the radar out and Wx at minima, is to then remain within the circling area (5.28nm), thereby maintaining obstacle clearance, and circle for a short final (2-3nm) and couple up to the ILS.

The second option is to maintain MSA and carry out the full ILS procedure.

FWIW, the TSB of Canada conducted a study into inflight fire/smoke events and found that the average time from first detection of a fire until the aircraft landed/ditched/crashed was 17 mins.

I had a bit of a play around with both the above options on MSFS (sad, but this has been bugging me) and the first option (2-3nm final) takes about 7-8 mins to get back on the ground. The second option (full ILS) takes about 14-15 mins, which when you compare to the average 17 mins quoted above, could be pushing your luck.

Obviously the first option is the best as far as time is concerned. However, what I am unsure about is if the A/P on the 767 will cope with such a close in intercept of the ILS on 1 engine, or would you be setting yourself up for an unstable approach?

Cheers
'holic is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2007, 01:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 743
How about climb straight ahead to MSA, carry out a 45-degree procedure turn and land on the reciprocal runway via the ILS for that runway? You indicated that a return on the reciprocal was not an option because of the 20-knot tailwind, but is that necessarily so? Sure it's above the limit, but with an uncontrollable fire that might be the safest option, assuming of course that there's enough runway length available.

The CX incident mentioned earlier involved a fully-loaded 744 departing off 13 at Kai-Tak with an engine fire at V2 or thereabouts. They immediately turned around and landed on the reciprocal runway with the No.2 (I think) engine on fire. I think they were airborne for approximately 12 minutes. Admittedly they didn't have to cope with a 20-knot tailwind, but they were damn close to MTOW when they landed and the Kai Tak runway wasn't overly long.

Just some food for thought - I guess the answer is to know your aircraft and what it can do in those types of situations.
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2007, 02:06
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Good point, BuzzBox.

I had considered that option also, and reckon it would shave about another 1-2 mins off the time to return. Even though the 20 kts TW is outside limits, I estimate you would need about 3000m of runway to land a 767, which is less than the majority of airports we operate from.

I was tending to shy away from this option, in the given circumstances, because:

1. At heavy weights, I'm not sure that brake energy limits wouldn't be exceeded.
2. You may be compounding the problem with a brake fire.

Happy to be convinced otherwise
'holic is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2007, 02:10
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island Province
Posts: 1,108
Usual rules apply. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, and then Manage. In this instance manage requires time to have high priority.
Management can be aided by knowledge; so find out what the capabilities of the autopilot are – I doubt that a short turn in will provide the reassuring success that you need in this instance. You have one approach, no GA (self set time limit), so get it right – expedite but don’t rush.
Knowledge of certification can be reassuring; some engine fires may not be extinguished, but they should be contained for quite some time. The structural and system design provides a margin – I won’t quote a limit, but note the Nimrod (Comet) that successfully ditched with an engine fire inside the wing after quite a long flight time. Also IIRC ’hloics quote (Canadian report) was for cabin related fires, so beware any preconceptions or bias.
The probability is that a standard emergency return to the airport (as briefed) will provide a higher success rate than attempting some unpractised, non standard, poorly planned alternative.
alf5071h is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2007, 22:48
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
there is a danger in finding a shortcut and having the shortcut kill you instead of the fire.
fly the plane

follow the checklist

advise atc ,get their input BUT you make the decision.

advise f/a's/pax

and land.

now, if you are in a concorde situation in which the plane's wing is actually burning off...land anywhere and evacuate.

chances are this is more to see if you will CRACK and screw up something else...and yes the engine will probably fall off eventually...
bomarc is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2007, 01:40
  #15 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
The probability is that a standard emergency return to the airport (as briefed) will provide a higher success rate than attempting some unpractised, non standard, poorly planned alternative.
I agree, no need to panic. As someone pointed out earlier use V-2 for approach speed and perform the checklists as 411A pointed out. If the blasted engine falls off, it falls off. Hopefully not injuring anyone on the ground.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2007, 09:34
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 692
This may provide some food for thought ...


JD
Jumbo Driver is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2007, 11:23
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 341
'holic

If I could just add a couple of points to the already excellent advice given by others:

As you quote EGLL, you can still use the radar minmum charts, even if no radar service available, to get safely to a lower altitude as long as you are absolutely sure of your position. Its also feasible to utilise non-precision approach data (if available) to enable earlier descents i.e with 5 deg of approach course before intrecepting the localiser.

You quote 3,000 metres landing distance required for the B767 with 20kts tailwind. Are you sure you have that right? Could that figure possibly be the scheduled (planning required) distance as opposed to the unfactored advisory distance?

I don't have 767 data but B757 figures at max TOM (113T) with 20kt TW for landing give 4,745 FEET dry rw (6,525 Ft wet rw) unfactored and 8,700 FEET scheduled(wet by definition). I know the weights are not comparable and so would be interested to see 767 figures.

Last edited by Starbear; 29th Sep 2007 at 11:58. Reason: adding dry/wet comments
Starbear is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2007, 14:12
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,575
Hmmm, I note that many of the responders from the UK still apparently have the 'Comet syndrome', as regards turbojet engine fires.
An engine fire, altho serious, is much less do in a wing mounted podded engine, provided the correct engine fire drills are carried out within a reasonable time.
To go steaming around at low(er) altitudes, trying to get back on the ground, pronto, is many times less safe than actually using common sense, provided however that any remains on the FD in the first place.
I recall not long ago, with engine fires just after takeoff, where some UK pilots were in the habit of insisting that the fire drill be carried out at the lowest possible altitude, never mind the fact that in many cases (excepting severe apparent damage or separation) the engine may well still be producing useable thrust.
The FAA attitude (generally) is to leave the engine operating until clearly a safe altitude is reached, not start moving throttles/fuel levers/switches just off the ground...and certainly not rushing that landing, with poorly thought out off the cuff procedures.

And, before some wise guy says...'this would never be allowed with the UKCAA', they would be absolutely wrong, as I have done a few 1179 sim rides with two CAA inspectors, and they both have accepted my ideas, simply because....I have lots of command hours in the specific type.

To 'rush' an approach simply because an engine is on fire, especially in IMC conditions, is to likely result in bypassing the hospital, and proceeding directly to the cemetary.

Take your (reasonable) time and do it....right.

Last edited by 411A; 29th Sep 2007 at 19:45.
411A is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2007, 08:59
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 341
Whilst I absolutely agree with those comments guarding against "rushing around at low altitudes uneccessarily" there maybe times when it is actually necessary and so is worth thinking about from time to time on how this could be achieved safely.

Just change the uncontrollable engine fire scenario to one of dense uncontrollable smoke in the F/D or cabin and the required justification may be there and even a 20kt tail wind may be worth considering.

Also worth noting, from the FSF bulletin linked above:

In the case of -WE (BOAC 707 LHR) the No. 2 engine, together with part of its pylon, became detached about 1.5 minutes after the start of the fire BUT this was attributed to the fuel valve not being closed as required by the drill (QRH or recall equivalent). So again the comments about ensuring drills are correctly completed in addition to expediting are spot on.
Starbear is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2007, 11:04
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 131
It seems to me that since the engines are podded below the wings on most modern airliners, and they are there to keep them separate from the wing structure in a fire, wouldn't it make sense for there to be a mechanism (explosive bolts or whatever) that would actually jettison an engine pod in an extreme case like this one? Has this been done?
Crosshair is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.