US Airforce C17 4 engine failure.
If a strike sweeps along only one side, it may snuff out one engine as it goes by. If the lightning channel orientation is side to side rather then more or less fore and aft (which is less common but apparently happens), two engine (or conceivably more, if there are more) could flame out...
Is there any reported four engine flame out ever due to this scenario ?
Lightning problems are again mostly temporary and have to do with disturbances in the inlet air resulting in a bang or engine surge. A flameout of even a single engine would be a very rare event.
Four engine annomalies are almost always fuel managing problems and temporary in nature.
Short of running out of fuel (Air Canada Flight 143, Air Transat Flight 236) most of the four engine failures I am aware of have been environmental (Meekatharra BAe 146 rollback, BA Flight 9 volcanic ash incident) - hence the post about lightning as an environmental factor, rather than an electrical interference one.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall a mysterious ANG C130 hercules losing all 4 engines and crashing off the coast of Oregon. Even the Senator from oregon tried to get a full understanding of this crash to no avail.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Asia
Age: 54
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hail Storm
What I know of that it entered in a severe hail storm closer to some of the highest mountains in the world and had multiple lightning strikes. Probably engines ate lot of ice and rest was done by lightning.... Thanks God they got a relight.
Not exactly environmental?
Checkboard mentioned
Report:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200286_001.pdf
Hmmm.
Perhaps too pedantic for some however here goes.
I have just read the report (thanks for the links) and I disagree that the cause was environmental. Certainly under different environmental conditions the incident would not have occurred however the conclusions seem to be that the environmental conditions encountered were normal conditions that the aircraft should have been capable of operating in.
All the main recommendations are with respect to changes in operating procedures and indeed verification of Airworthiness Certification.
No mention at all is made to the future avoidance of these particular environmental conditions.
Mostly a design and/or operations manual and/or certification failure it seems to me.
most of the four engine failures I am aware of have been environmental (Meekatharra BAe 146 rollback,
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200286_001.pdf
Hmmm.
Perhaps too pedantic for some however here goes.
I have just read the report (thanks for the links) and I disagree that the cause was environmental. Certainly under different environmental conditions the incident would not have occurred however the conclusions seem to be that the environmental conditions encountered were normal conditions that the aircraft should have been capable of operating in.
All the main recommendations are with respect to changes in operating procedures and indeed verification of Airworthiness Certification.
1. The Civil Aviation Authority minimise the risk of engine roll-back on BAe 146 Aircraft by ensuring that the aircraft can be operated throughout the certificated operational flight envelope, under all environmental conditions, with an adequate margin of safety above the threshold at which engine roll-back may occur.
Mostly a design and/or operations manual and/or certification failure it seems to me.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glasgow
Age: 77
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hercules
PtH,
There was a lengthy account of this (or a very similar) event on the web. As I recall the means by which engines were synchronised involved shutting off fuel and that was done engine by engine until they were all out. Thereafter there was no means by which the crew could re-start and they ditched in the sea in darkness. I have a vague idea one or more survived.
A similar event is also mentioned but in this case the pilot disconnected the automatic sync. before all 4 were stopped and all was well.
Hope this helps.
Sandy.
There was a lengthy account of this (or a very similar) event on the web. As I recall the means by which engines were synchronised involved shutting off fuel and that was done engine by engine until they were all out. Thereafter there was no means by which the crew could re-start and they ditched in the sea in darkness. I have a vague idea one or more survived.
A similar event is also mentioned but in this case the pilot disconnected the automatic sync. before all 4 were stopped and all was well.
Hope this helps.
Sandy.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an incident less well-known than Speedbird 9's ash cloud confrontation, I seem to recall a BOAC/BA VC10 suffering a 4-engine flame-out while in the cruise somewhere in the region around Bangkok.
Early mid-'70s? The story that I heard was that it was the consequence of lack of communication between the 2 front seats and the F/E, but I'm sure that was just a calumny.
Recovered with a RAT-driven relight at 6000 ft? Something like that, perhaps.
Edit. Some research on my own posts reminds me it was 1974, and something to do with fuel starvation, as opposed to lack of fuel in the tanks, of which there was plenty.
Early mid-'70s? The story that I heard was that it was the consequence of lack of communication between the 2 front seats and the F/E, but I'm sure that was just a calumny.
Recovered with a RAT-driven relight at 6000 ft? Something like that, perhaps.
Edit. Some research on my own posts reminds me it was 1974, and something to do with fuel starvation, as opposed to lack of fuel in the tanks, of which there was plenty.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found a brief description of the VC10 incident here, for those researching 4-engine failures.
I just love the laconic phrase "The crew responded by initiating a descent ........"
I just love the laconic phrase "The crew responded by initiating a descent ........"
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no knowledge of the subject event but I have had engines stop following lightning strike.
Notice I say stop not flame out - which is a particular type of stopping. In my experience a more common type of stopping follows a surge caused by the temperature delta across the intake.
In the latter case the pilot may need to shut the engine down after the surge to prevent over temperature
Notice I say stop not flame out - which is a particular type of stopping. In my experience a more common type of stopping follows a surge caused by the temperature delta across the intake.
In the latter case the pilot may need to shut the engine down after the surge to prevent over temperature
I would imagine that I have been struck by lightning getting on for 20 times during my flying career (including a fire ball episode). My record was 6 times in a month operating DC-10s into and out of JFK.
On no occasion have I ever seen the slightest hint of a flicker on an engine instrument. However, it would have to be said that the most complex engine controls that I ever came across were the auto throttle systems on the DC-10 and the Short Belfast (which had the Smiths SEP-5 triplex auto-land system fitted as per the HS Trident). Both systems were excellent and did not respond to lightning strikes.
By the way, do any of you out there remember Flt Lt Ignatowski?
"Iggy" was (among other things) a famous captain on No.202 Squadron, based at RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland flying Handley Page Hastings meteorological aircraft.
In those days, there were no weather satellites or anything like that, so, apart from the weather ships which were based in the Atlantic, the only other way to find out what the weather was going to do in Europe tomorrow was to fly west into what was coming and take lots of readings.
So, why do I mention "Iggy"?
Well, it was considered that "Iggy" had been struck by lightning more than any other pilot on the planet.
That was why he was known throughout the RAF as the "Magnetic Pole".
On no occasion have I ever seen the slightest hint of a flicker on an engine instrument. However, it would have to be said that the most complex engine controls that I ever came across were the auto throttle systems on the DC-10 and the Short Belfast (which had the Smiths SEP-5 triplex auto-land system fitted as per the HS Trident). Both systems were excellent and did not respond to lightning strikes.
By the way, do any of you out there remember Flt Lt Ignatowski?
"Iggy" was (among other things) a famous captain on No.202 Squadron, based at RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland flying Handley Page Hastings meteorological aircraft.
In those days, there were no weather satellites or anything like that, so, apart from the weather ships which were based in the Atlantic, the only other way to find out what the weather was going to do in Europe tomorrow was to fly west into what was coming and take lots of readings.
So, why do I mention "Iggy"?
Well, it was considered that "Iggy" had been struck by lightning more than any other pilot on the planet.
That was why he was known throughout the RAF as the "Magnetic Pole".
Last edited by JW411; 28th Oct 2010 at 14:48.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 15 years ago, Aviacsa in Yucatan had #3 engine uncontained failure on a BAe-146, which took out #4 as well. Losing both engines on the right shut off the fuel to the two on the left, so they landed deadstick at Campeche, a Gen Av field - at night.
GB
GB
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Losing both engines on the right shut off the fuel to the two on the left, so they landed deadstick at Campeche, a Gen Av field - at night.
pb
GB, CPB; The Aviacsa #4 engine failure was due to oil starvation (maintenance error).
Although the indications to the crew were of three engines inoperative (collateral damage), in fact only two stopped (#3 & 4).
The landing was made with without hydraulics – no flaps, airbrake, spoiler, and main brakes. The pitch trim was inoperative, several instrument failures, holes in the fuel tank, fuselage, and wing mainspar, and there was a small fire in the cabin!
The 146 has suffered multiple engine failure/shutdowns events. All, except one birdstike, were associated with high altitude icing (and subsequent crew action); all engines have been modified to provide enhanced anti-icing.
Although the indications to the crew were of three engines inoperative (collateral damage), in fact only two stopped (#3 & 4).
The landing was made with without hydraulics – no flaps, airbrake, spoiler, and main brakes. The pitch trim was inoperative, several instrument failures, holes in the fuel tank, fuselage, and wing mainspar, and there was a small fire in the cabin!
The 146 has suffered multiple engine failure/shutdowns events. All, except one birdstike, were associated with high altitude icing (and subsequent crew action); all engines have been modified to provide enhanced anti-icing.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible that the lightening strikes caused some kind of electrical control issue, (computer crash etc...) which caused something like fuel starvation or a similar problem?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR, Safetypee seems to have access to a report. I had the perspective of being in the industry, and involved in Mexico, and somewhat involved with Aviacsa at the time. I have no report. It was said at the time that the Aviacsa engineer wanted to pull #3 for cracks, but the Lycoming engineer on site insisted in getting more hours on wing.
How #4 kills #3, as related by SafetyPee, except by shrapnel or fuel shutoff I don't know. Debris from #3 killing #4 makes sense. PSA had #4 aft section explode at 27K alt, and I'm sure it didn't kill #3 or the others. There was hot shrapnel in the cabin in that case, also at night, and they landed without further incident in KFAT.
Back to the C-17. I am skeptical of a machine built to govt specification being as robust as a civil machine. The single customer gets too detailed with the design, rather than a broad specification, and the manufacturer builds to the specification in the contract.
The KC-10A, a tankered DC-10, was for years, and may still be, the most reiliable plane in the USAF fleet. It has only a few mil radios, and boom electronics. The boom drive is even an autopilot computer from an MD-80.
GB
How #4 kills #3, as related by SafetyPee, except by shrapnel or fuel shutoff I don't know. Debris from #3 killing #4 makes sense. PSA had #4 aft section explode at 27K alt, and I'm sure it didn't kill #3 or the others. There was hot shrapnel in the cabin in that case, also at night, and they landed without further incident in KFAT.
Back to the C-17. I am skeptical of a machine built to govt specification being as robust as a civil machine. The single customer gets too detailed with the design, rather than a broad specification, and the manufacturer builds to the specification in the contract.
The KC-10A, a tankered DC-10, was for years, and may still be, the most reiliable plane in the USAF fleet. It has only a few mil radios, and boom electronics. The boom drive is even an autopilot computer from an MD-80.
GB
TR, re 146 engine failure, IIRC there was only a sparse accident report published in Spanish.
The #4 engine suffered an uncontained failure of the main turbine which resulted in the extensive shrapnel damage; some of which either cut the adjacent engine fuel line and/or the electrical power to the fuel shutoff valve – and the #2 engine instrument cables on the other side of the fuselage!
The non-containment was due to the bearing package shearing the main power shaft and the turbine disc / blades exiting the engine off axis. This is not supposed to happen according to the certification requirements, and with previous instances or near incidents, the manufacturer was required to modify all engines – new single bearing to replace 4/5 bearing.
The damage to the adjacent #3 engine pylon was so severe that the three engine ferry was without the engine / pylon.
The #4 engine suffered an uncontained failure of the main turbine which resulted in the extensive shrapnel damage; some of which either cut the adjacent engine fuel line and/or the electrical power to the fuel shutoff valve – and the #2 engine instrument cables on the other side of the fuselage!
The non-containment was due to the bearing package shearing the main power shaft and the turbine disc / blades exiting the engine off axis. This is not supposed to happen according to the certification requirements, and with previous instances or near incidents, the manufacturer was required to modify all engines – new single bearing to replace 4/5 bearing.
The damage to the adjacent #3 engine pylon was so severe that the three engine ferry was without the engine / pylon.