Engine Fire - Stopping into wind?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the 747 QRH which is similar for the 777, concerning an RTO:
When the airplane is stopped, perform procedures as required.
Review Brake Cooling Schedule for brake cooling time and precautions (refer
to Performance Inflight chapter).
Consider the following:
• the possibility of wheel fuse plugs melting
• the need to clear the runway
• the requirement for remote parking
• wind direction in case of fire
• alerting fire equipment
• not setting parking brake unless passenger evacuation is necessary
• advising the ground crew of the hot brake hazard
• advising the passengers of the need to remain seated or evacuate
• completion of the Non-Normal checklist (if appropriate) for conditions
which caused the RTO
When the airplane is stopped, perform procedures as required.
Review Brake Cooling Schedule for brake cooling time and precautions (refer
to Performance Inflight chapter).
Consider the following:
• the possibility of wheel fuse plugs melting
• the need to clear the runway
• the requirement for remote parking
• wind direction in case of fire
• alerting fire equipment
• not setting parking brake unless passenger evacuation is necessary
• advising the ground crew of the hot brake hazard
• advising the passengers of the need to remain seated or evacuate
• completion of the Non-Normal checklist (if appropriate) for conditions
which caused the RTO
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have really covered their backside with greyness & guidelines. Not perhaps a bad thing.
"perform procedures as required." = your judgement.
"consider the following." = your judgement.
Surprisingly not using the effected TR is not included. Anyone from Boeing know why not?
"perform procedures as required." = your judgement.
"consider the following." = your judgement.
Surprisingly not using the effected TR is not included. Anyone from Boeing know why not?
As has been said - consider it.
At many airports in many parts of the world turning a 777-3 into wind could put a door 1 slide and both doors 5 over the bondu/storm drains/edge light (ouch) or worse - possibly in the dark, and you're often dealing with places where the fire services kit has worse head lights and a poorer off road capability than my old Citreon Saxo. So that's "turning" considered......
As for the TRs, as has been implied on the 777 according to Boeing you should try for reverse on both, regardless of the failure, I believe on the 744 you try to select all to reverse. and like others - no idea why.
At many airports in many parts of the world turning a 777-3 into wind could put a door 1 slide and both doors 5 over the bondu/storm drains/edge light (ouch) or worse - possibly in the dark, and you're often dealing with places where the fire services kit has worse head lights and a poorer off road capability than my old Citreon Saxo. So that's "turning" considered......
As for the TRs, as has been implied on the 777 according to Boeing you should try for reverse on both, regardless of the failure, I believe on the 744 you try to select all to reverse. and like others - no idea why.
Last edited by wiggy; 24th May 2016 at 14:06.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: N5109.2W10.5
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi wiggy,
We have one simple RTO procedure for all runway conditions, so when the chips are down - there is a better chance that you will do it correctly.
https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...off_safety.pdf
Page 2.8.
"Reverse thrust is not used to determine the FAR accelerate-stop distance (Figure 9), except for the wet runway case for airplanes certified under FAR Amendment 25-92. FAR criteria provide accountability for wind, runway slope, clearway and stopway.
FAA approved takeoff data are based on the performance demonstrated on a smooth, dry runway. Recent models certified according to FARAmendment25 92 also have approved data based on wet, and wet skid-resistant runways.
Separate advisory data for wet, if required, or contaminated runway conditions are published in the manufacturer’s operational documents.
These documents are used by many operators to derive wet or contaminated runway takeoff adjustments."
2.32.
"Most ofthe takeoffs planned in the world do not include reverse thrust credit. This is because the rejected takeoff certification testing under FAA rules does not include the use of reverse thrust, except for the wet runway case for airplanes certified under FAR Amendment 25- 92. An additional stopping margin is produced by using maximum reverse thrust. We stress the word “maximum” in relation to the use of reverse thrust because of another commonly held misconception. Some pilots are of the opinion that idle reverse is “equally or even more” effective than full or maximum reverse thrust for today’s high bypass ratio engines.
This is simply not true. The more EPR or N1 that is applied in reverse, the more stopping force the reverse thrust generates."
according to Boeing you should try for reverse on both, regardless of the failure,....and like others - no idea why.
https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...off_safety.pdf
Page 2.8.
"Reverse thrust is not used to determine the FAR accelerate-stop distance (Figure 9), except for the wet runway case for airplanes certified under FAR Amendment 25-92. FAR criteria provide accountability for wind, runway slope, clearway and stopway.
FAA approved takeoff data are based on the performance demonstrated on a smooth, dry runway. Recent models certified according to FARAmendment25 92 also have approved data based on wet, and wet skid-resistant runways.
Separate advisory data for wet, if required, or contaminated runway conditions are published in the manufacturer’s operational documents.
These documents are used by many operators to derive wet or contaminated runway takeoff adjustments."
2.32.
"Most ofthe takeoffs planned in the world do not include reverse thrust credit. This is because the rejected takeoff certification testing under FAA rules does not include the use of reverse thrust, except for the wet runway case for airplanes certified under FAR Amendment 25- 92. An additional stopping margin is produced by using maximum reverse thrust. We stress the word “maximum” in relation to the use of reverse thrust because of another commonly held misconception. Some pilots are of the opinion that idle reverse is “equally or even more” effective than full or maximum reverse thrust for today’s high bypass ratio engines.
This is simply not true. The more EPR or N1 that is applied in reverse, the more stopping force the reverse thrust generates."
Some pilots are of the opinion that idle reverse is “equally or even more” effective than full or maximum reverse thrust for today’s high bypass ratio engines.
This is simply not true. The more EPR or N1 that is applied in reverse, the more stopping force the reverse thrust generates."
24th May 2016 04:20
This is simply not true. The more EPR or N1 that is applied in reverse, the more stopping force the reverse thrust generates."
24th May 2016 04:20
They not add much in terms of total stopping power but in a high speed reject on a limiting runway you are going to need every ounce of retardation you have to avoid an overrun and even that might not be enough. Use max. reverse on every RTO regardless of the failure.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use max. reverse on every RTO regardless of the failure.
A wild sweeping statement IMHO. I've had a takeoff config warning at 95kts. First reaction was "this can not happen and must be false." 2nd reaction was, "something is not correct so let's stay on the ground." RTO sped about 105kts RWY 2400m, dry. Pulled full reverse so F/O didn't go crazy at non-standard actions, and then set them to idle almost immediately and disconnected auto brakes. Turn-off was at the end. QED.
Remember TR's are not included in the stop calculation on non-slippery runways. Look out the window and retard as necessary, surely.
A wild sweeping statement IMHO. I've had a takeoff config warning at 95kts. First reaction was "this can not happen and must be false." 2nd reaction was, "something is not correct so let's stay on the ground." RTO sped about 105kts RWY 2400m, dry. Pulled full reverse so F/O didn't go crazy at non-standard actions, and then set them to idle almost immediately and disconnected auto brakes. Turn-off was at the end. QED.
Remember TR's are not included in the stop calculation on non-slippery runways. Look out the window and retard as necessary, surely.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use max. reverse on every RTO regardless of the failure.
The thread on Korea Air 2708 says that the right aft evacuation slide blew under the aircraft and became unusable. (The aircraft is stopped with the damaged #1 engine downwind in what looks like a pretty stiff breeze.) Maybe a disadvantage to stopping with a burning engine downwind?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, a fascinating and informative debate. Thank you.
The data regarding stopping distance on the 73 classic was particularly interesting, but it does assume a failed engine with zero thrust. An engine fire does not necessarily mean a failed engine (in thrust terms), but certainly food for thought.
The data regarding stopping distance on the 73 classic was particularly interesting, but it does assume a failed engine with zero thrust. An engine fire does not necessarily mean a failed engine (in thrust terms), but certainly food for thought.
