AC emergency

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1976
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: AC emergency

Post by Heliian »

Looks like a retread blew off, the engine ingested something big enough to ruin every fan blade.
---------- ADS -----------
 
yycflyguy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am

Re: AC emergency

Post by yycflyguy »

Inverted2 wrote: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:24 pm Can these 767s dump fuel? I’m going to assume they couldn’t as they held for hours?
Only some of the AC B767 FINs have dump capabilities. This one did not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: AC emergency

Post by valleyboy »

The 76 has a great power to weight ratio but is there any word that the engine was shut down and they circled with one engine inop burning fuel. There is a real lack of information. I'm surprised the internet trolls didn't blame Boeing.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
yycflyguy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am

Re: AC emergency

Post by yycflyguy »

valleyboy wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:41 am The 76 has a great power to weight ratio but is there any word that the engine was shut down and they circled with one engine inop burning fuel. There is a real lack of information. I'm surprised the internet trolls didn't blame Boeing.
It is my understanding that they were single engine. From the pictures of the blades there were probably significant engine vibrations. There are also passenger photos of significant torching, presumably when the debris went through the core. No mention if there was power loss on it before it was shut down.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Pratt X 3
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 842
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:19 pm

Re: AC emergency

Post by Pratt X 3 »

ATC communication with Air Canada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z44W_S5skis
---------- ADS -----------
 
Have Pratts - Will Travel
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: AC emergency

Post by valleyboy »

Good stuff -- text book -
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
Laser Tilt
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:15 am

Re: AC emergency

Post by Laser Tilt »

---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC emergency

Post by pelmet »

Laser Tilt wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:04 pm VasAviation video of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z44W_S5skis
Thanks,

Overall seems like a good decision to burn off the fuel for a lighter landing with at least one tire blown out.

Some interesting insight from the recording including what sounded like poor wording/misunderstanding from ATC which perhaps was part of the cause of them turning in the wrong direction at one point. It did sound like there was a miscommunication for the holding clearance based on the track they took but the tape is condensed so I am not sure. It almost seems like at places like this one should request the holding clearance in full again for confirmation that you heard it correctly, if it sounds like there was any chance you were both talking at once or any other reason for doubt.

Strange how the gear wouldn't go up at first but could go up later. Also nice of ATC to tell them that they have an almost 4000m runway available which later turns out to be 3050m(basically 10,000'), although one can easily see the very long displaced threshold on the airport chart resulting in it being not overly long and there was plenty of time for review. But there can be situations where there is not much time and a quick return is required. At my company, during the takeoff briefing, a lot of people mention the longest runway that could be used in the event an emergency return(with wind as a consideration). 32L was definitely not that.

Tailwind on landing wasn't the preferable situation at probably close to max landing weight with only one reverser available combined with a reduction in braking capability. Not surprisingly, the brakes did get very hot which can be hazardous, especially if there was leaking hydraulic fluid which is quite possible after a gear issue like this one.

It appears that there is an approach in the opposite direction available, perhaps with a longer LDA and into wind landing which could no doubt be acceptable to ATC for an emergency. Personally, I would suggest using the into wind runway in such a situation.


Actual pic here....
https://scontent.fybz2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=5ED5DA9C
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pelmet on Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:04 pm, edited 9 times in total.
Gannet167
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 589
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: AC emergency

Post by Gannet167 »

I'm not a 767 guy so I'm probably missing something. Why try to raise the gear? Weather looks VMC, no big obstacles to climb above, gear damage so why risk having it get stuck retracted? Especially when it doesn't want to come up. I'd leave it down and locked and not risk having problems getting it back down. Need to burn fuel, gear is generally the most effective drag to help increase fuel flow.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC emergency

Post by pelmet »

Gannet167 wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:33 am I'm not a 767 guy so I'm probably missing something. Why try to raise the gear? Weather looks VMC, no big obstacles to climb above, gear damage so why risk having it get stuck retracted? Especially when it doesn't want to come up. I'd leave it down and locked and not risk having problems getting it back down. Need to burn fuel, gear is generally the most effective drag to help increase fuel flow.
Thanks,

In the video, the pilot states that "the gear will not retract". I assume that this means that there is some sort of malfunction preventing retraction such as a damaged air-ground sensor/tilt mechanism/etc. Later on, it does retract. There does appear to be a lock override trigger on the 767 so I wonder if that was used to eventually raise the gear.

Voluntarily keeping the gear extended after an engine failure during the takeoff roll/initial climb in a heavy twin engine aircraft can be an extremely risky decision due to the lack of initial climb performance, which can be very poor even with the gear retracted. They did ask for vectors toward lower terrain, so performance was obviously a concern.

The last aircraft that I remember having a 50% power loss and unable to retract the gear was the Air France Concorde in Paris. Perhaps different aerodynamics, but they didn't get very far.
---------- ADS -----------
 
hamstandard
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:33 am

Re: AC emergency

Post by hamstandard »

Someone out there created a collage of pics/videos....

https://www.news../air-ca ... to-madrid/
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: AC emergency

Post by valleyboy »

Just stop and think abut what we are seeing here. How many Twin engine 705 aircraft will fly with one engine inop at heavy weight with the gear hanging down. Boeing got it right with this one but there were likely growing pains as well.

Gear does not fix its self and I would think that we miss something in the recording. They likely elected to leave the gear down until either the had to pull it up for performance, proper cool down period or (as happened) they got a visual. There could of been concerns of a wheel well fire. I know I would have been thinking that way. From what I can see all actions were deliberate and thought out well. It also shows confidence in the engine to fly around as they did. We also must be aware that they are also coordinating all steps with with all aspects of who might be involved at home like operations, maintenance and SOC.

A type that has been operated for years with established training and crew competence, Senior equipment and routes appears to have benefits. It magnifies some of the safety issues plaguing the aviation industry. Turkey, right in the same time frame and yes issues ignored by the 2 high profile tragic events.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
New Antique Pilot
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:13 am

Re: AC emergency

Post by New Antique Pilot »

About 40 years ago a DC-9 at MTOW took off from Toronto on a longer than usual domestic flight. Vr would have been close to 180 kts. Right around rotation they blew a tire. Pieces of the tire went into one of the engines and also took out the hydraulic lines in the wheel well.
Now they had an engine failure and the gear would not come up. I can’t recall if they were ever able to get high enough to dump fuel or to a fuel dumping area. Anyways they safely made it back after staggering around west of YYZ. Perhaps someone out there has more details.

NAP
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Canoehead
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:08 pm
Location: YEE 220 @ 4

Re: AC emergency

Post by Canoehead »

New Antique Pilot wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:50 am About 40 years ago a DC-9 at MTOW took off from Toronto on a longer than usual domestic flight. Vr would have been close to 180 kts. Right around rotation they blew a tire. Pieces of the tire went into one of the engines and also took out the hydraulic lines in the wheel well.
Now they had an engine failure and the gear would not come up. I can’t recall if they were ever able to get high enough to dump fuel or to a fuel dumping area. Anyways they safely made it back after staggering around west of YYZ. Perhaps someone out there has more details.

NAP
Sadly they didn't get airborne. They were departing off of what is now 24R.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_189

(Unless there was another incident in that era. I don't believe the DC9s had fuel dumping capabilities)
---------- ADS -----------
 
New Antique Pilot
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:13 am

Re: AC emergency

Post by New Antique Pilot »

Canoehead wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:10 am
New Antique Pilot wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:50 am About 40 years ago a DC-9 at MTOW took off from Toronto on a longer than usual domestic flight. Vr would have been close to 180 kts. Right around rotation they blew a tire. Pieces of the tire went into one of the engines and also took out the hydraulic lines in the wheel well.
Now they had an engine failure and the gear would not come up. I can’t recall if they were ever able to get high enough to dump fuel or to a fuel dumping area. Anyways they safely made it back after staggering around west of YYZ. Perhaps someone out there has more details.

NAP
Sadly they didn't get airborne. They were departing off of what is now 24R.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_189

(Unless there was another incident in that era. I don't believe the DC9s had fuel dumping capabilities)
Yes that was another one. The one I am talking about definitely got airborne. It was a year or 2 after the accident one off the end of 23L or whatever the runway # it was at the time.

NAP
---------- ADS -----------
 
New Antique Pilot
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:13 am

Re: AC emergency

Post by New Antique Pilot »

DC-9-32’s definitely could dump fuel.

NAP
---------- ADS -----------
 
fish4life
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: AC emergency

Post by fish4life »

New Antique Pilot wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:36 am DC-9-32’s definitely could dump fuel.

NAP
Are you sure about that? A quick google search says they can’t
---------- ADS -----------
 
TheStig
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: AC emergency

Post by TheStig »

Thanks for posting the links. Kudos to a job well done by the crew, MAD ATC and the Spanish Air Force. With respect to the comments about the 767, Boeing absolutely got it (and the 757) right. It will be interesting to find out how much power the engine produced after ingesting the tire debris, however, with a 138 people and 40-45T of gas it wouldn't have matter too much. Incidents such as this and the Southwest uncontained engine failure and subsequent depressurization make a strong case for training for multiple related failures as opposed to just individual failures.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: AC emergency

Post by valleyboy »

We were always training multiple related failures and like this incident a blown tyer was almost always an engine inop or a wheel well fire. When something grenades there is always the possibility of multiple failures.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
New Antique Pilot
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:13 am

Re: AC emergency

Post by New Antique Pilot »

fish4life wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:05 pm
New Antique Pilot wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:36 am DC-9-32’s definitely could dump fuel.

NAP
Are you sure about that? A quick google search says they can’t
A retired Air Canada DC-9 mechanic friend of mine says that they could dump fuel. Lever was on the floor near the Captains seat. A red hinged cover on the floor was lifted to access the dump handle. Maybe it was an option. Sorry for the thread drift. I just wanted to point out that there have been other cases besides the Concorde accident when the gear wouldn’t come up.

NAP
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”