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

Engine Failures

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

Engine Failures

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 13th Jan 2001, 23:45
  #1 (permalink)  
Golf-Kilo Victor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation Engine Failures

Has a commercial Twin Jet ever had a double engine failure, and if so, what are the odds??
 
Old 13th Jan 2001, 23:55
  #2 (permalink)  
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

To: Golf-Kilo Victor

It has happened on several occasions but it was due to inadequate fuel load. The certification requirements are that it can happen no more frequently than 1 10-9 or one time in a billion hours of fleet operation for that engine type on the aircraft type being certificated.

------------------
The Cat
 
Old 14th Jan 2001, 02:26
  #3 (permalink)  
Hung start
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

And 9 years ago, a MD80 lost both engines due to ice ingestion (well I know, it STARTED with ice), at 2300 feet climbing, in IMC. Landed/crashed in a field NE of ESSA,Stockholm.
 
Old 14th Jan 2001, 07:05
  #4 (permalink)  
dingducky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

i just watched the movie freefall yesterday.
its about the gimli glider.
the 767 in canada where they used the wrong conversion and only had half the fuel they thought they did!


------------------
Follow your dream! Unless it's the one where you're at work in your underwear during a fire drill!
 
Old 14th Jan 2001, 07:44
  #5 (permalink)  
411A
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Double engine failure with a DC-9 in the southern US a number of years ago due to ice/very heavy rain ingestion. Also ONA (Overseas National DC-9) had a double engine flameout due to fuel starvation in the Caribbean. CX came VERY close awhile back with an A330 with gearbox bearing failures. Hmm, three is better, 4 better yet!
 
Old 14th Jan 2001, 12:36
  #6 (permalink)  
Roger Turbojet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

A Tristar back in the eigthies lost all three engines, two were lost, the last (number 2) only made it (to landing, and then failed) because it had been shut down during flight. Cause: During overnight maintinance a mixup had occured and the rubber O-rings on the chip-detectors was missing. During flight the oil leaked from all engines. The number 2 came on first with low oil qty warning, and was shut down. Crew decided to return to Miami, and on return the other two low oil qty came on. Crew belived it was a false indication (what are the ods of all three engines missing oil...???) So shortly after the number 1 and 3 engine failed. Over a period of time the L1011 was a big glider. The crew started the number 2 engine, and flew on that single engine into Miami and made a safe landing. After landing as the aircraft was to leave the rwy, the number 2 engine allso failed.


[This message has been edited by Roger Turbojet (edited 14 January 2001).]
 
Old 14th Jan 2001, 15:28
  #7 (permalink)  
IFR_Twin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Unhappy

In '97 the crew a BAe146 jet shut down one engine and later another during an emergency landing.

15min into the flight the crew saw that the oil quantity gauges for No. 2, 3 and 4 engines indicated empty and No.1 gauge indicated less then 1/4 full.

The crew conducted an emergency ILS with the thrust levers set to maximum thrust on No.1 No. 2 set to idle No.3 was shut down No. 4 also set to idle power.

The magnetic chip detectors plugs (MCDP) were removed and found to have no seals.


 
Old 14th Jan 2001, 18:26
  #8 (permalink)  
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Regarding the above listed failures I had referenced them in a previous post on ETOPS. Although not specific, I mentioned Ice/Rain ingestion, Fuel Starvation,Volcanic ash clouds and Oil starvation due to not installing the O rings. The O ring incident was a Tri Star. I was not aware of the 146 having the same trouble. It sems that Rolls Royce does not have a lock on a non Murphy Proof design.

------------------
The Cat
 
Old 14th Jan 2001, 23:37
  #9 (permalink)  
Roger Turbojet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Lu Zuckerman:

If you are reefering to RR engines on the 146, the manufactor is Lycoming and not RR.
 
Old 14th Jan 2001, 23:59
  #10 (permalink)  
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

To: Roger Turbojet

"I was not aware of the 146 having the same trouble. It sems that Rolls Royce does not have a lock on a non Murphy Proof design".

I know that the engines were made by Lycoming. That is why I stated the RR does not have a lock on a non Murphey proof design implying that the same problem existed on the 146 engines. Open for the same maintenance error.
------------------



------------------
The Cat
 
Old 15th Jan 2001, 00:53
  #11 (permalink)  
brianmay
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Those seals certainly are a problem.

No wonder the Canadians club them to death!

You would have thought that the MCDs would rattle a bit without seals wouldn't you. TQF 146 was VERY serious indeed, story at BAe was that it was (or very nearly) down to one engine.
 

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.