Westjet engine problem YYZ July 24,2014

[Pop n Fresh]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/westjet-fl ... -1.1929488

Looks like everything turned out well. I have to admit I'd be a bit apprehensive this week.

Sorry, I can't spelld. Spell cheque is no help sometimes.

[C-FABH]

A14O0129: WestJet flight WJA585, a Boeing 737-800 aircraft, was climbing out of Hamilton Intl. Airport when the check engine light illuminated. The crew completed the appropriate checklist and shut down the engine (CFM56-7B27/E). An emergency was declared and the aircraft diverted to Toronto where it landed uneventfully. Maintenance is investigating.WestJet flight WJA585, a Boeing 737-800 aircraft, was climbing out of Hamilton Intl. Airport when the check engine light illuminated. The crew completed the appropriate checklist and shut down the engine (CFM56-7B27/E). An emergency was declared and the aircraft diverted to Toronto where it landed uneventfully. Maintenance is investigating.

[Docbrad]

A "check engine" light? Better go get my code reader...

[Liquid Charlie]

twin engine aircraft with an engine shut down = mandatory MAYDAY -- and still people think it's not necessary -- i'm going to put that down to inexperience --

[B208]

twin engine aircraft with an engine shut down = mandatory MAYDAY -- and still people think it's not necessary -- i'm going to put that down to inexperience --

Reference?

[NotDirty!]

twin engine aircraft with an engine shut down = mandatory MAYDAY -- and still people think it's not necessary -- i'm going to put that down to inexperience --

But MAYDAY was not one of the options... MADAY, I took to mean Mad, eh? ... as in a Canadianism for "are you mad", or "Are YOU MAD?!" Since I couldn't decipher between those two, I abstained from voting. [Go Abstinence! ... said no sane person ever!!]

[The Raven]

Ok guys, here's my perspective and bear with me on this. Mayday or Pan-Pan is an "attention getter". By that I mean, when ATC hears those words they sit up and take notice. Also, other pilots take notice (and shut up, unless it's important). Regarding ATC, they are busy and sometimes only hear what they expect to hear. When the words Mayday or Pan-Pan are broadcast it gets the attention of air traffic control right away.

I will give you a couple of examples.

In my almost 40 year career flying transport aircraft I have had 8 engine failures/shutdowns/fires. The following are 2 times when I didn't immediately use the words Mayday or Pan-Pan and a bit of confusion ensued.

1....While flying a 727 departing YYZ (heading for Florida) we had an engine fire at rotation (just like in the sim). We did the fire drill and the fire went out. We called ATC and the conversation went something like this:

Us: Toronto departure it's XX123 airborne off runway 23, 3000 climbing 5000, we've had an engine fire and would like to return to YYZ.
YYZ Departure: Roger XX123, turn left heading 180, climb FL230, when able proceed direct EWC.
Us: Perhaps you didn't understand, we've had an engine fire and failure and and need to return to YYZ.
YYZ Departure: Uh sorry XX123, turn left heading 057 for the downwind and let us know when you are able to accept the approach.

Now the above example occurred 30 years ago so obviously the wording was probably a bit different, but I'm sure you get my drift. Had we prefaced our initial call to ATC with Mayday or Pan-Pan it would have immediately got the controller's attention and we would have been handled as an aircraft with an emergency right away. It would have taken away any confusion.


2...While cruising at FL390 in a 767 over SSM, we lost oil pressure in the right engine and needed to shut it down. We decided to return to YYZ. We called ATC and the conversation went something like this:

Us...Toronto Centre it's XX123
YYZ Centre: silence
Us...Toronto Centre it's XX123
YYZ Centre: silence
Us...Mayday, Mayday, Mayday...XX123 has had an engine failure and is descending out of FL390 over SSM in the right turn back to YYZ.
YYZ Centre: Roger XX123, check your Mayday, descend to FL230, proceed direct YYZ, when able advise your intentions.

In this particular case I can only assume that the first 2 times I tried to call Toronto Centre they were busy, and ignored our calls. On the third call we declared a Mayday and that got their attention.

I won't bore you with the other 6 times I've declared a Mayday or a Pan-Pan, but suffice it to say that it got a busy air traffic controller's attention right away and we were handled with efficiency and expediently.

Also, many air traffic control networks world wide will not recognize an emergency unless the words Mayday or Pan-Pan are used. That includes medical emergencies. It's best for all international airline pilots to preface any emergency, anywhere with those words. It eliminates any confusion immediately.

These are just a couple of my experiences in the past 40 years. Bottom line is this....Mayday or Pan-Pan gets the attention right away of those that can offer assistance. Why not use them and eliminate the possibility of confusion?



Postscript: The other 6 engine fire/failure/shutdowns were:

1...727... top of climb, engine surge, egt exceeding limits....shut down
2...L1011...in cruise, engine surge, flames from engine....shut down
3...DC8...dark and dirty night leaving JFK, engine stayed at max power, hard to land with an engine at max power.....shut down
4...747...departing Paris, loss of oil during initial climb....shut down and returned to Paris for a memorable layover
5...L1011...engine fire on take-off, turns out it wasn't a real fire, just a pneumatic duct that had let go...regardless we shut it down
6...DC8....engine surge during climb...shut down

We called Mayday on them all and were handled appropriately by ATC. We also called a Pan-Pan when we had to leave the tracks on the ocean due to a medical emergency.

[Liquid Charlie]

Reference?

any SOP/COM -- if you don't expect the speaker phone call from the DFO or VP ops -- and bring the KY --

[#37]

Reference?

any SOP/COM -- if you don't expect the speaker phone call from the DFO or VP ops -- and bring the KY --

Huh? An engine failure on a modern jet aircraft shouldn't constitute "grave and imminent" danger.
Save the most powerful words in aviation for when you are really in trouble, not because you've changed destinations...

[whiteguy]

Reference?

any SOP/COM -- if you don't expect the speaker phone call from the DFO or VP ops -- and bring the KY --

Huh? An engine failure on a modern jet aircraft shouldn't constitute "grave and imminent" danger.
Save the most powerful words in aviation for when you are really in trouble, not because you've changed destinations...

I think you'll find most companies SOPs/COM are written like this.

[#37]

Well, the airline in question says the opposite.

If an Inflight shutdown on a 737 is an "emergency" you are doing it wrong. Ya V1 cut I'll give ya... clapped out old Navajo, sure.
Inflight shutdown, nope.

[nohojob]

Ok but let's say you are at cruising altitude when you shut one down, then you may not be able to maintain your altitude even in a modern twin jet ?
So you ask ATC a lower level...and the answer is negative because of a few traffics bellow you.
Now your option would be to declare an emergency wouldn't it ?

Just to say i would declare an emergency to get the priority handling right away, seems safer to me.

[Liquid Charlie]

Well, the airline in question says the opposite.

I would be very surprised that ws does not consider a shut down an emergency under SMS and especially under any consideration of liability -- I'm thinking #37 has no idea of 705/121 operations - especially when the services are there and available and since paperwork is already required for an in flight shut down -- sure the modern twin engined jet is more than capable but when the redundancy runs out you are exposing yourself and passengers to a higher level of risk having said that in a true multi-engine aircraft (more than 2 engines) it is not necessary to call mayday or squak 7700 -- which will certainly get immediate attention -- rule of thumb - simple shut down land at nearest suitable airfield (could be several hours flying) -- compounded failure - 7700 and return to nearest airport or T/O alternate -- what the fuk is the mind set that makes people look down their noses when it comes to asking for help -- wtf are the schools or puppy mills as referred to by Doc turning out --

[Colonel Sanders]

I doubt anyone remembers, but a few
years back, a 747 lost an engine departing
LAX, and continued across the USA. And
across the North Atlantic, destination LHR.

No mayday for him.

PS I think he made it to Manchester. All
the four-bars here said it was perfectly normal
to lose an engine and continue the flight as
planned. IIRC the FAA was pissed and wanted
to charge him with careless and reckless. Had
something to do with "pax on time" legislation.

[GRK]

Yup…remember that one and a few others. (BA to LHR over Russia not too long ago) To make it a little clearer, in a twin, declare a Pan and land at the nearest SUITABLE airport is SOP. In a quad, declare a PAN and land at the nearest SUITABLE airport. Both mean exactly the same thing…but the word SUITABLE may be different in some cases. In all of these circumstances, I am pretty sure the decision isn't made in a vacuum by the crew. Ops gets involved, Maintenance gets involved,and so does the commercial side of the carrier. Where to put the pax? Is there maintenance available? Is there a serviceable jet to help move customers onwards? Hotels? Customs? Of course if there is a threat to the safety of the airplane in question, all that comes after safely being returned to earth (at the nearest SUITABLE airport) In the 4 engine jet, there may be a longer distance between those airports, and if the Captain and crew are satisfied that continuing to destination is the most SUITABLE option it's not unheard of to do so. I would say that certain parts of the world these days have my company worried about diverting with one shut down…in fact we get advice about it from the boss on a regular basis. Safe operations remains the Captains responsibility at all times, of course, but we all have a say in how to make that happen.
Fly safe!
GRK

[TG]

I doubt anyone remembers, but a few
years back, a 747 lost an engine departing
LAX, and continued across the USA. And
across the North Atlantic, destination LHR.

No mayday for him.

PS I think he made it to Manchester. All
the four-bars here said it was perfectly normal
to lose an engine and continue the flight as
planned. IIRC the FAA was pissed and wanted
to charge him with careless and reckless. Had
something to do with "pax on time" legislation.

British Airways as allowed 747s to complete long-haul flights on a couple of occasions despite pilots having to shut down an engine. Like GRK said, in some circumstances it is a company decision not just the crew. The example above is not a very good one though, they ended up in Manchester low on fuel instead of Heathrow. And that is what steared the pot.

To stay on topic, at this stage (being on fumes?) they probably called for a Mayday.

[photofly]

The BA flight wasn't actually low on fuel. There was just a misunderstanding about how much of the fuel in the one of the tanks could be accessed, with one engine shut down.

[TG]

Yes, you are right.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bul ... g_bnlg.cfm

In the latter stages of the flight the crew encountered difficulties in balancing the fuel quantities in the four main tanks, became concerned that the contents of one tank might be unusable and declared an emergency in accordance with the operator’s procedures.

[#37]

Well, the airline in question says the opposite.

I would be very surprised that ws does not consider a shut down an emergency under SMS and especially under any consideration of liability -- I'm thinking #37 has no idea of 705/121 operations - especially when the services are there and available and since paperwork is already required for an in flight shut down -- sure the modern twin engined jet is more than capable but when the redundancy runs out you are exposing yourself and passengers to a higher level of risk having said that in a true multi-engine aircraft (more than 2 engines) it is not necessary to call mayday or squak 7700 -- which will certainly get immediate attention -- rule of thumb - simple shut down land at nearest suitable airfield (could be several hours flying) -- compounded failure - 7700 and return to nearest airport or T/O alternate -- what the fuk is the mind set that makes people look down their noses when it comes to asking for help -- wtf are the schools or puppy mills as referred to by Doc turning out --

Soooooooo. .... you don't really know, then throw that shit about 705/121 in there and try to skew it that I don't care about safety or have some kind of aversion to asking for help.

Well, let's get back to the engine failure means mandatory Mayday. You made a blanket statement about companies SOP/COM s.... turns out the only real example presented says the opposite (my source says any Westjet type can look in COM Section 6 p177, drift down stuff).

Once you actually start flying you will realize that adjusting a clearance is not a big deal. The controllers from Gander to Victoria to Huston are great... tell them your descending and shutting one down, they will make it happen. Fly over the rocks enough you'll have a day you can't maintain your cleared alt. Tell them your descending. They are good.

I believe also that th 737s drift down at weights you might see YHM - YYC is somewhere in the high 20s. Ya higher than a Dash 8 ceiling. ... and it takes a heck of a long time to get down there.

So if you need to start going titanic and yelling Mayday, by all means go ahead... simply going to a different destination on one engine should not be enough for a well rounded Canadian pilot to play the Mayday card. Run the checklists, get sorted, go in and land, have a nice juicy steak.

[TG]

Well, let's get back to the engine failure means mandatory Mayday. You made a blanket statement about companies SOP/COM s.... turns out the only real example presented says the opposite (my source says any Westjet type can look in COM Section 6 p177, drift down stuff).

Once you actually start flying you will realize that adjusting a clearance is not a big deal.

Liquid Charlie has been flying for quite a long time actually...

Not a blanket statement in my case:
Precautionary engine shut down = Mayday call in our QRH/SOP (702, twin turbine > 12500lbs)
Except if the engine is only being shutdown for testing or training purpose and assuming a successful airstart.