Over the weekend, Singapore Airlines Flight 836, flying from Singapore to Shanghai, lost power mid-flight on both of its Rolls-Royce engines. (www.businessinsider.com) 기타...
About rain ingestion flameout, an amazing story is Taca flight 110 in May of 1988.Landed dead stick on a levy.No serious injuries. Plane repaired and still in service today.
I saw a radar pic on Flightradar indicating the choice of route was directly into a severe thunderstorm. Will be interesting to see the official outcome.
I don't believe there are proper words in my vocabulary to describe that, my friend. LOL I wouldn't even like the idea of a Boeing in there without power.
Well, I was wondering about that. Must not be much to it though. Friend of mine up here in town is a retired Pan'Am driver. I asked him about Roswell one day, where they were training a bunch at the time. He said he was a 707 Captain, wound up going to Rio one weekend. He said they stuck him in the left seat and a check captain in the right and away they went. Same thing coming back. 2 days on the systems books and he was signed off; a genuine 747 Captain. Them was the good old days. A man would play hell doing that this day and time.
Preacher, you know how much I respect your opinions, but - as a former Clipper Driver- I find that hard to believe. If there was a negative to Pan Am's Training Department, it was that they overtrained us. They used to tell us that, if you get by the Company Check, the FAA will be a piece of cake. I found that to be true. Speaking from USAF, two airlines, and Flight Safety- Pan Am's Training was excellent and I never heard or any corner cutting. Re: another thread- hang in there about the Lord. I'll sure need him to put in a good word for me at the Gates...... I have to witness for him now!
You know, II think I might have an answer to this. Preacher, I have long read and respected your posts here. I know you wouldn't falsify or embellish to make a story better. Back in the late '60's Pan Am was growing like crazy. It is very likely that your friend bid F/O on the 74' to check out the new airplane and get the Rating and shortly after was able to hold 707 Captain,, then as more 74's were delivered, was able to hold Captain on the 74'. If he already had the Rating his checkout would more or less be what the Airline wanted it to be. If he went to GIG with a Check Captain, he would have been in the log as SIC and perfectly legal. BTW, still in DFW- finally hung it up at NJA. Got my last flying paycheck about a month after I turned 75.
Well, I appreciate all the kudos and I'm kinda like you, had to hang it up, age and medical, more medical than anything but I'm getting over that. Health is coming back but this insulin gonna spoil everything, although I heard a waiver for this one a day Lantis is coming, but haven't seen it yet. As far as the PanAm driver, all I know, that's what he told me and more than once. Past that you know what I do. LOL
Man, I guess my memory from 1983 is fuzzier than I thought. I just researched it again (originally read the account in Flying Magazine) and it WAS a 767. I thought it was a DC-10. This getting old stuff really stinks. lol
Felipe, very good point. The Trent engines are fairly easy to restart due to the programming in the Rolls engines. They will continue to attempt restarts unless the PIC de sides to override and attempt a manual start but it is far better to allow the Rolls to attempt auto start. Descending allows better and more powerful spooling for the restart. This of course is best with both power plants out. With a single failure, bleed over assist and the auto-throttle up, to maintain cruise, makes the restart much easier.
"When a jet like the A330 loses an engine, it's still certified to fly for as long as four hours on the remaining engine. Obviously, when a jet loses both engines, the situation is much more serious."
Yep, then they are certified to fly on no engines for 8 hours....thanks folk, I'll be playing here all week. :-)
I'm surprised they didn't divert to the "nearest airport at a point in time" Hong Kong as opposed to continuing on to Shanghai. If my engines quit, even for a known reason such as Ice ingestion or heavy water ingestion, my thought would be to get it on the ground for inspection to ensure some other internal damage hadn't occurred as opposed to flying away from a perfectly good piece of asphalt.
Well Mike, that's kinda my feeling. Not really any question. Even if it was a known thing or all was normal after the restart, There should not have been any question on getting down, even if it meant landing heavy. Even if only 1 and even if it restarts, I think or would have thought it was pretty much SOP to get down ASAP. Sounds like not all has been told here.
Decision is made by airlines dispatch dept. Yes pilot has ability to do as he pleases since he is the final decision maker but would most likely not have a job after disageeing with dispatch.
After what have happaned, only a criminal pilot could make such to continue the flight after both engine shutdown, and if by chance, it be repeated? He makes a new re-start the engine until he gets to destination?
Conversations with colleagues recently exposes thoughts and feelings of relutance to fly with either Malaysia Airlines or Air Asia as a result of dramatic incidents with with both these companies. A reported potential incident with Singapore Airlines demonstrates that any and every airline can experience problems. I am delighted with the current restructure with Malaysia Airlines.
There a problems, and then there are PROBLEMS ( like losing a complete plane with passengers, etc.). I've flown to Europe, Egypt, Hong Kong, etc. all with Singapore Airlines. Great service, stewardess's are not only stunning but provide superb service (every request is met with a wonderful smile).
Pilot says get the manual and initiate a restart of the failed engine. Copilot starts resetting wrong engine. Pilot says we have lost both engines now. Copilot says.......
There comes a time when you got to and there is no way around. I was on a DAL flight one night as a pax. We were at MEM stop going on to LIT. Captain walked back in cabin and said we can call a bus for those that would rather stay on the ground but there is a wx line stretching from ORD to IAH topping about 41000, just sitting there and not moving. Needless to say, the plane is going to LIT, whether you are on here or not and there will be no cabin service. Everybody staed on board. For the 10 minutes or so that it took us to punch thru, it was like being on the inside of a lightbulb and altitude spreads were as much as 10 grand. When we did punch thru, it was smooth air.
sS I mentioned on a previous comment, any airline can experience alarming problems. On 2 June Qantas had a situation that raised alarms. QF 93 travelling Melbourne to Los Angeles made an unplanned stoppage at Sydney due to uncertain mechanical issues.
On a simulator training session quite a few years ago, the instructor threw some smoke in the cockpit of a DC9 enroute from YUL to YYZ but only 5 min before being a beam YOW. The crew went through the fire/smoke drill perfectly. The only problem was they did not immediately divert to YOW but kept flying to YYZ.
There have been quiet a few folks here questioning why the pilots did not use a diversion airstrip and set the 330 down on the ground. There are several probables to this question. With the extended times given in ETOPS (rules that govern how far away a twin engine can fly from a diversion airstrip), the allowable time is set at 120 minutes plus 15% once an airliner's indicated speed drops below 389 knots. I know, in some cases ETOPS is set at 180 minutes, but this perimeter is used for special long haul equipment, normally designated as "E" for extended range. But back to ETOPS concerning this flight 836. ETOPS is designed for an engine out scenario so in a case like flight 836 where you have dual flame outs, the rules of engagement change dramatically. The first rule as a Captain is to go to Engine Status on the MFD and make a determination as to the cause of loss of power. Just like in an automobile, if your engine suddenly shuts down without a warning, you go to the gauges. Fuel? OK. Oil pressure? OK. Temperature? OK, and so on. But when dealing with power plants the size of a small bus and the thrust to lift 450,000 lbs, the problem solving becomes very trying, even when your on board computer is accessing 250 inputs in micro seconds. As a professional pilot, you spend literally hundreds of hours in simulators preparing you for this one of many emergencies that might present itself in flight. And it is at this time that you must recall all of that knowledge and act accordingly. Believe me, as an airline pilot, you want to get back onto terra firma just as much as any other person on board! To be cruising at nearly 40,000 feet and loose all power from your engines will cause you to sit up straight but it also puts you into a different mode as a pilot. You become keenly aware of your instrument readings most of which is how near am I to stall speed! Dropping even 15,000 feet in this case would still have given the PIC time to commit to an alternate runway according to charts in and around his flight path. All in all a good flight with a good landing at the destination airport!
After reading your post, I went back to the article and followed the link to the AVHerald site. Comments posted there were quite interesting. Thanks for the post.
Well, they say pilots train for that. The only training I ever got on a Boeing back in the day was " Do you know how to pray and handle a glider?" That was going from a 707 to a 757.
well, no need to start an argument as no minds will change, BUT, I believe in God and the power of prayer. It has worked for me in many places. You may do as you wish. That is a good thing about this country that we have the right to disagree. I am very proud of my time given in defending that right. And regarding the training, that was a valid comment from a Boeing guy.
Well, one can't be PC everywhere. I think I did good saying no more than what I did. I could have preached you a good sermon. As far as it getting in your life, too bad, as I just relayed what was said to me. Anything less would have nullified the effect of it. Besides, there were actually 3 of us that day that must have all believed; me, my FO and the Boeing guy. Have a blessed day.
Paul, I don't know if you are the U.S., but here Preacher and I are just as free to express our beliefs as you are to express your lack of belief. If I offend you- hey the First Amendment gives me the Right to offend! And, by the way before you say it, the Constitution's intent on Religion was to protect the Church from the State, not vice versa.
Then why did you post this over on the discussion about the private Harrier squadron: "This guy must have more money than god. The cost of fuel alone!". If you want to eschew opinions differing from your own, perhaps you should be more circumspect with the forums in which you participate
There is not really anything else that can be said here. Yes, they had a cockpit full of senior airmen. Not taking anything away from them other than to say, they FLEW THEIR PLANE. I may get in trouble for it as well but it goes without saying that the Hand of God was on that flight.
...and just when I am about to take an SQ flight from BKK to SIN on Monday... wonderful. I will be taking a good look to see what engines are fitted - not that the knowledge will assist in any way of course - hm, maybe I will NOT look.
If it was caused by the proximity to the thunderstorm (and water intake) I will be both surprised and rather less than impressed, since the Asian region can experience tropical storms for much of the year.
Possibly like the Southern Airways DC9 that lost thrust on both engines after hail ingestion on 4 April 1977? Per airsafe.com, landed on a road near New Hope, Georgia but hit trees and a building. Unfortunately lost 62 of 85 lives on the DC9 plus 8 people on the ground. Too much water in any form is bad.
Sorry for the auto spell check errors. In a bit of a hurry. Rolls Royce engines are among the best in the world. Next to GE's Next Gen engines, the Trents are some of the finest power plants available. Rolls prides themselves in finding any problem that occurs in their engines and I'm confident they'll find the issue that caused these flame outs.
What is missing here is the Airbus flight manual instructions for an engine out emergency. The sequence to follow for an in flight engine start is fairly basic to all turbo fan engines. A dual engine failure would point to a fuel interruption. However, RR engines have an auto restart feature that is controlled by the flight management computer. The loss of 13,000 feet in a dual power plant failure would be normal for the Airbus A319/320 if the plane was at Mach .85 at 40,000 feet. As to the question of putting the plane on the ground with engines shut down, there are contingency plans already in the works as soon as the engines loose power, whether it be a single engine or both. All pilots are familiar with the story of the Gimly Glider and the miss calculation of fuel on that flight which caused both engines to flame out with no chance for restart. This in fact turned the Boeing into a giant glider. According to Singapore Air, there ground investigation produced know reason for the flame out. What we have not heard is what RR knows about this incident. Rolls continuously monitors its engines and can record over 230 engine sensor inputs in live time. This is where the real story will come from as Rolls Royce gathers all the monitored information and produces their own report on the engines.
I question the pilots choice to continue flying for another one and half hours rather than divert to a closer air field. Makes me wonder if the shut down was not accidental in nature and not a mechanical problem. This happened years ago to Delta 767 climbing out of LAX.
I read 13,000 whatever they lost in altitude I think it was a bad decision not to land at the closest airport that could handle that plane at its weight. I'm not sure if it is cable of fuel dumping.
Seems Passengers would not have noticed as the fall was not too steep and speed increased rather than stalling...Can experts narrate what exactly would have happpned ?
I see the airplane first flew on March 12th, and was delivered to SG on March 31st. So glad that Airbus took their own sweet time to fully test this aircraft before allowing passengers aboard.
I wish Airbus would make the "computer" a tool and render control of the aircraft to pilots.
Not likely since most of the pilots I know won't ever join the socialist liberal wing and they have to be controlled somehow! And I thought water had a lot of oxygen in it so why won't it burn. Darn those pesky rain showers.
It was an infelicitous imbalance of the four humors air, fire, water, and earth. When the first three get out of balance in an aircraft, it is liable to impact the fourth. Simple as that.
Hmm, channeled properly those storms could give you a huge increase in power. Airbus just needs to add monsoon cowl doors that collect the water and allow it to drain directly after the burner and before the 1st turbine stage. Free water injection!
Though A330 is certified to fly 4 extra hours when loses an engine to me the pilot should have diverted to the nearest airport to avoid any possible disaster.Why put passengars'life on the line when pilot has the final say either to land or otherwise?
You are referring to flight 242 departing Huntsville, Al, in route to ATL on Aprill 4, 1977. These types of tragedies are very rare today due to far better power plants and better weather routing by airline dispatch personnel. The cause of flight 242 going down was attributed to extreme weather producing rain at the rate of eight to ten inches an hour and large hail being ingested into the engines. The flight level was somewhere around 16,000 feet at the time of the engine failures and restarts were impossible for the P&W 72 engines. Today's engines are capable of water ingestion of greater than twelve inches an hour, greatly due to the higher bypass ratio of today's power plants. In short, this flight disaster could have been avoided with better weather information to the flight crew. The section of Hwy 92 still has a brass placket at the crash site listing all those who lost their lives that day in New Hope, GA. This accident is still used as an example for ATP flight training today.
No, but the core of both aircraft power plants is a "jet" turbine (as opposed to a piston engine).
The A400M has turboprop engines, in which a "jet" turbine drives propellers using a shaft, somewhat similar to traditional piston engine propellers. Turboprops are relatively common on aircraft which operate at slower speeds.
The SAL A330 has (Rolls Royce Trent high-bypass) turbofan engines in which a "jet" turbine is encased in a housing and powers a shaft to turn a series of fan blades which blow a large volume of air through the housing surrounding the engine but bypassing the engine core itself.
Google "turboprop", "turbofan" and "high bypass"
I am under the impression that computer software which controls fuel distribution is the suspected cause of the A400M crash.
You and Sparkey would make a good match trying to convince the world and aviation world for that matter that all are jets, regardless if there is a prop.; Even most pilots would argue with you about a jet and a turboprop.
Cessna tried back in the 80's when they promoted the CE-425 as a "Prop Jet" in their advertising and had a "Prop Jet" decal on both of the PT6 nacelles.
Hey preacher, I was trying to give a simple but accurate answer but it got complicated real fast.
I understood the possible debate so I used quotes around "jet". To me the core of a turboprop powerplant is a "jet" engine.
The most interesting a/c powerplant was the giant rubber band the Germans used to launch gliders (downslope) in the 1930s when they were severely restricted by Versailles. Some of their best WWII fighter pilots received initial flight training using these devices. Some of those gliders (eg Lippisch Zogling and Schneider SG38)had no instruments, no panel, no ASI, nothing whatever. The pilot judged his airspeed by the sound of the airflow in the wires.
I pretty much have similar thoughts as I answer questions about turboprops from friends and don't want to get into the weeds.
My take is that all of these engine types....turboprop, turbojet, turbofan, high bypass, etc. have one thing in common. They all have a turbine engine, turbine blades vs. pistons...I know, big surprise. The difference in my mind is what provides the thrust, the turboprop uses a propeller to do it (I think Garrett's provide about 5-10% of total thrust from the exhaust end of the engine) and the other types of turbine engines use jet propulsion as the sole source of thrust and hence the "Jet" engine name when they were introduced. I don't know enough about the Un-Ducted Fan that was being tested a number of years back by PW (?) to throw that into the mix.
Then there are the jet skis that use water jets to provide the thrust. But I digress, I don't even want to go there!! ;-)
Engines are tested for resiliance against flameout from rain. Mother Nature (if you believe in her) can throw more water than the testing engineers can.
Singapore Airlines says it's investigating how one of its jets suffered a loss of power in both of its engines over the weekend and descended 13,000 feet—nearly 2.5 miles—before regaining altitude en route from Singapore to Shanghai.
I saw a news report stating that the aircraft in question was only a year old,basically brand new ..they also said after an inspection, etcetera, the aircraft was put back into service..holy cow! I am not a pilot but I do know large aircraft are not made to be "gliders"..one engine operating is manageable..2 engines not operating is a scary thought!!
I'm a thinkin' it was less than a year. Somewhere I thought I saw it going into service in March of this year. That is on another post below. I believe it did go back in service after thorough inspection. They did not find the cause of the flame out.
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..