2nd Segment Fire Priorities (B737NG)

[ImbracableCrunk]

I just finished my PC, and got into a discussion with the checker about priorities during an engine fire. I followed the "cooperate-graduate" method, but I don't agree.

We were taking off F5, Assumed Temp, NADP1, no EOSID or T-Pro and at gear retraction, we got a #2 engine fire indication with the engine still producing normal thrust.

My thought is that we should at 400', perform the memory items to completion and then accelerate at whatever altitude we happen to be (above 800', the acceleration altitude).

The checker said that we have to start our acceleration by 800' to 1050' (800+250 tolerance), thereby interrupting the memory items with other commands.

The Question: Is there a reason why one should interrupt the memory items to start accelerating? Is it simply a misapplication of the engine failure guidelines?

[4dogs]

Clarification

IC,

Could you please clarify two things for me:

First, what is the "cooperate-graduate" method? I am not familiar with this terminology.

Second, where does the 250' tolerance on acceleration altitude come from?

Stay Alive

[411A]

First, what is the "cooperate-graduate" method? I am not familiar with this terminology.

Second, where does the 250' tolerance on acceleration altitude come from?

Although fully understanding the first part (long time modus operandi at some airlines), I also wonder just where this 250 foot tolerance comes from...

FAA inspectors generally presume that the pilot, once an engine fire is annunciated just after takeoff (and excluding severe damage/heavy vibs etc) would expect that engines thrust to be used until the end of the acceleration phase, before fire drills are commenced, whereas...most EU ops want the fire drill started at 400 feet, no later, period.
Having operated under both scenarios (for sim training) I follow the expected laid down company procedure, as this is far easier than trying to educate myopic checkers in the (correct) FAA procedure.
IE: Some of the EU trained guys are apparently of the (old) deHavilland Comet mindset (engines buried in the wing, not on pylons, as they are today), and want fire drills started at what I (and the FAA) consider, unacceptably low altitudes.

So, I would suggest for the original poster, do as your checker says, for much easier progression.

[charlies angel]

You'll find its a MINIMUM of 400' to commence drills outside the good ole U S of A. I'm sure you knew that though. Errors cannot be tolerated after all

[Port Strobe]

do as your checker says, for much easier progression

Whilst I doubt anyone could find cause to argue with that statement, isn't there room for the captain's judgement to override? Why chop the engine during low level manoeuvring to redirect your climb away from steeply rising terrain and add to the workload of both of you in a situation where margin for error is much less than you're used to? Making use of that thrust available under steady state conditions seems to make sense to me in that situation.
On the other hand why would you be content to wait on completing the acceleration when climbing straight ahead over flat countryside? I'd rather get the fire out please.

the (correct) FAA procedure

I thought the longer you worked in this game, the more you realised it's mainly just shades of grey and good judgement prevails? If we only had to learn the correct procedures we'd be all be aces in no time. Both procedures work, they just optimise different criteria.

[411A]

...isn't there room for the captain's judgement to override?

Absolutely...in the air during actual line flying.

[BOAC]

Well done 'charlies a'! Don' t expect he will 'notice' though.

[STBYRUD]

I would agree - you won't ever change the opinion of your checker, do as he wants you to, make up your mind and prepare your own plan and brief it to the guy next to you during actual flying. Sure, you really might want the other engine to run as well for the intial climb - depends on the circumstances of course - thats your decision as PIC. I remember my one of my first flight instructors preaching to us "Where there's fire, there's power" I believe he was thinking of an F104 though

[Piltdown Man]

Don't bother trying to change a Checker's mind. Just agree. But given the choice, with an engine fire (with no apparent loss of thrust), I'd wizz up to 1,500' AGL (or whatever S/E Accel is), clean up and get to Vfs + 20 and then run the memory items (all three of them). In our case, we've been told by the manufacturer that the engine can burn for 20 minutes without compromising the integrity of the airframe. Mmmm! I'll just push it for 10-20 seconds or so.

However, given a fire with seizure, high vibration or loss of thrust then I'd start proceedings once I'd got the thing flying nicely when above 400' AGL. But not rushing is the key. And as some of my colleagues have said in the past, "Enjoy your engine failures."

PM

[Sciolistes]

My opinion is that the whole point of a recall is that it is completed quickly, accurately and obviously completely. Jumping out of a recall has to be a major no no unless there is a clearly greater threat that requires immediate action. I wouldn't regard not accelerating as any kind of threat in the circumstances described above.

Neither do I believe you should just agree with the checkie for the sake of an easy life. If I am being told to do something that seems significantly wrong to me I seek clarification and at least determine if tne feedback is bonkfide SOP or personal opinion. I am sure you have to tread carefully with some characters, but I think something is wrong if we walk out of a check more confused than we walked in.

[411A]

...but I think something is wrong if we walk out of a check more confused than we walked in.

Oh I don't know, I've seen it happen any number of times.
One time whilst completing recurrent on the L1011, the First Officer was totally confused, and no wonder....the checker was totally devoid of a reasonable skill of the English language.
He went on to the exec suite, where he belonged....Director General of THY actually.

You'll find its a MINIMUM of 400' to commence drills outside the good ole U S of A.

Yes, however...having completed a number of 1179 rides with UKCAA inspectors, they didn't see it that way.

[ImbracableCrunk]

First, what is the "cooperate-graduate" method? I am not familiar with this terminology.

Cooperate with the examiner (right or wrong) and you can pass the exam.

Second, where does the 250' tolerance on acceleration altitude come from?

Company standards. Or so I'm told. I tried to find them, but the majority of the documents are not in English - if you can find them.

I was reading the FCTM, and Boeing doesn't seem to make too much a of distinction between an engine fire+failure and a plain engine fire.

Neither do I believe you should just agree with the checkie for the sake of an easy life.

I don't either. But I'm just the hired help, and so is the checkie, it seems. The decree for this type of training comes from on high, through several poorly translated documents, I imagine.

[Sciolistes]

I was reading the FCTM, and Boeing doesn't seem to make too much a of distinction between an engine fire+failure and a plain engine fire.

The back of the FCTM (Section 8?) contains the management guide and provides such recommendations. Also the QRH non-normal section of the checklist instructions should provide some ammo too.

Company standards. Or so I'm told. I tried to find them, but the majority of the documents are not in English - if you can find them.

Very odd SOP. Anyway, I always assumed that anything of that nature must be on the flight deck.

[411A]

Anyway, I always assumed that anything of that nature must be on the flight deck.

You know what is said about 'assumed'...
At one airline I worked for, long ago, they provided ops manuals and the QRH directly from Boeing...with the airline logo printed on the cover.


Worked like a charm.

I would ask...who knows more about the specific airplane desired operating procedures, than the original manufacturer?
Airlines...who try to fit a 'one size fits all' scenario?
Hardly...

[Denti]

You are aware that Boeing tries the one size fits all approach for the last couple years now? Harmonization across all its aircraft types is the hymn they sing now to make crosstraining easier. Doesn't matter if that doesn't work all that well though.

[ImbracableCrunk]

The back of the FCTM (Section 8?) contains the management guide and provides such recommendations. Also the QRH non-normal section of the checklist instructions should provide some ammo too.

I was looking at that section for some guidance, too:

Engine Failure versus Engine Fire After Takeoff
Engine Failure versus Engine Fire After Takeoff
The NNC for an engine failure is normally accomplished after the flaps have been
retracted and conditions permit.

In case of an engine fire, when the airplane is under control, the gear has been
retracted, and a safe altitude has been attained (minimum 400 feet AGL)
accomplish the NNC memory items. Due to asymmetric thrust considerations,
Boeing recommends that the PF retard the affected thrust lever after the PM
confirms that the PF has identified the correct engine. Reference items should be
accomplished on a non-interfering basis with other normal duties after the flaps
have been retracted and conditions permit.

No distinction between thrust or no thrust with an engine fire that I can ascertain.

[JeroenC]

Why interrupt the memory items to accelerate? Pitch down, the PM need not be involved?
OK, FDs give "false" info, but that;s also the case during an emergency turn.

Never even thought of keeping a burning engine running during climb to 1500 ft... We are so SOP drilled these days.
Makes me think though, I like the idea.

[ImbracableCrunk]

I've heard a few people say that the plane is certified with the idea that the engine can burn on the wing for a while.

If the engine had catastrophic damage, I don't know that I'd want the engine being fed fuel. If it was a fire with thrust, (stable N1 and N2) then I'd wouldn't mind keeping it running to get above the terrain if Boeing certified it that way.

Thoughts?

I am against the idea of interrupting memory items simply because the training department can't differentiate in it's documents the difference between the engine fail profile and any other possibilities.

[oceancrosser]

You are aware that Boeing tries the one size fits all approach for the last couple years now? Harmonization across all its aircraft types is the hymn they sing now to make crosstraining easier. Doesn't matter if that doesn't work all that well though.

Yep, dumbing things down for the sake of harmonization with the 737

[Sciolistes]

Why interrupt the memory items to accelerate? Pitch down, the PM need not be involved? OK, FDs give "false" info, but that;s also the case during an emergency turn.

As long as you can communicate well and concisely enough to bring the PM with you and not just start flying outside the box and leave the PM unsure if you are in control, loosing SA or have a cunning plan. Two things I would most definitely want to avoid is loss of control or a confused partner.

Never even thought of keeping a burning engine running during climb to 1500 ft... We are so SOP drilled these days. Makes me think though, I like the idea.

I like to think that I'm not blinkered and that I would have the confidence to manage and balance the risks on the hoof (as it were). However, we don't operate from an airfield where a simple engine failure at V1 would mean we were unable to maintain terrain separation, so I can't see any reason to keep adding fuel to a fire to retain thrust.

I've heard a few people say that the plane is certified with the idea that the engine can burn on the wing for a while. If the engine had catastrophic damage, I don't know that I'd want the engine being fed fuel. If it was a fire with thrust, (stable N1 and N2) then I'd wouldn't mind keeping it running to get above the terrain if Boeing certified it that way.

I hear this from time to time, but I think maybe it is confused with the average survivability time of 17 mins for in flight fires based on actual non-survivable incidents! The Boeing FCTM is quite clear "Indications of an engine fire, impending engine breakup or approaching or exceeding engine limits, should be dealt with as soon as possible." I read that as 'all bets are off'

Worth a read too: SKYbrary - Reflections on the Decision to Ditch a Large Transport Aircraft. Especially this bit "when you consider the whole episode from the start of the fire to touching the water took only six minutes, but when you’re on fire — that’s a long time".