Greybeard, respectfully, are you suggesting that the spec of the C-17 is less robust than civil airliner?

I'll have what you're drinking pal!

IIRC a TACA 737 Classic ended up as a glider many years ago after flying into some pretty bad CBs and both engines flamed out due to water ingestion, even with continuous ignition and EAI. Neither engines managed to restart and the plane landed in a ditch. Sullenberger stuff.



IMO a 4 engine flame out from CBs is definitely possible.

GB / Safety P
 

Thanks for the clarification, that makes more sense.

I think it quite doubtful that all four engines flamed out. Perhaps a surge or two and after that some crew actions.

If there was a flameout problem then the airworthiness aspects will spill over into the commercial fleet

It's partly spec, and partly experience. By the time the KC-10A were built, there were DC-10s with already a dozen years in service. Civil planes get up to ten times the flight hours per year compared to military. Specs are built up from experience, of course.

There were several lightning caused failures and subsequent improvements made to the DC-10 before the first KC-10A was built, for example.

GB

The 737-300 was new at the time of its dual flameout, and continuous ignition was not yet required on their CFM-56. The Salvadoran captain, with his left eye gone from a rebel/bandito attack, landed the 737 deadstick on a dike in New Orleans. Boeing flew it off the dike after shedding all possible extra weight.

I met the gentleman several years later when he was capt on TACA 767. He humbly admitted he did not understand the new weather radar, as he had not been adequately trained on it.

This Capt. had a good background in general aviation and deadstick landings. He owned a fleet of cropdusters, which he also used for towing banners.

GB

umm lifting,

have to agree on that, but then what could you expect from a captain with cheek scar from being shot at by guerrillas and a co-pilot with a 'tache like that ! :E

The problem with the 146 is (was) both environmental and technical, in my opinion.

I had a similar 4-engine rollback in the 146, and it seemed to be coincident with engine ant-ice selection at cruise altitude. On turning off all the ant-ice, all 4 came back again.

The problem was compounded by the thrust management system, which tries to equalise all 4 engines.

In a Similar Donkey-Konk Vein
 

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/43214...rops-twin.html

The current A330 malaise

Iggy Lightning Rod
 

Working with 'Iggy' Ignatowski on 202Sqn in the early sixties as a Cpl rigger I can verify that lightning strikes were an almost daily occurance on the Met recon 'Bismuth' flights over the big pond - the siggies had to have spare trailing aerials as they were usually chopped off by the strikes. As each aircraft had to be degaussed and have a full compass swing before it's next mission, and the nearest 'magnetically pure' airfield was Lindholm in Yorkshire, that created quite some action - we only ever had five or six aircraft so you can figure there were usually one or two needing the treatment. Generally airframe damage was limited to some pepperpot holes in the nose and a number of static wicks burnt off the elevators and ailerons but only once did I hear an aircrew complain about a loud bang and smell of 'burning' or ionised air after the strike so the risk was acceptable with no injuries or lost aircraft reported.