Aircraft disabled on ylw runway ...

[cdnavater]

Immediate return is a procedure.

So is a VFR go around.

Hmm, can’t seem to find the reference for immediate return, I found a statement about crews using their judgement when not covered by procedures.
Is it your good judgement that says forget the checklist, we’re landing anyway? Curious, in the scenario we have been discussing, are you preparing the cabin?
In my world, a secured engine is an “abnormal landing” and I cannot justify landing without preparation that’s covered by the QRH, including company procedure that says for a planned single engine approach, you “shall” review the single engine go around route and procedure. After that if we decide that due to the weather for a go around, we will plan for a VFR return around the lake, then so be it.
You know what’s not covered if you don’t follow procedure, your ass! Better have a good reason other than,
“Ad nauseam proceduralisation is what some guys need I guess.“
Go ahead and rush things for the sake of, “I know better” I just hope I’m not on board when time comes.

Never said most of what you are implying. Never said rush. But said that crews needn't beat every eventuality to death and can efficiently expedite an approach and landing. Where I come from there are a lot of procedures and checklists, literally checklists about checklists, lots of talking, it uses up lots of time... it isn't ALL necessary all the time. Sure some are and can be resources and have a time to be referenced, but time and fuel is a resource too. Our decision making, our situational awareness prioritises how we use or don't use those resources case to case.

Contrarily, you seem to know what's best, and prefer to carry on and fly past a suitable airport, an airport with high crew familiarity, with a long runway, with VFR weather, with adequate facilities, the type of airport that the QRH procedure has strongly inferred you should land at, after possibly/probably/hopefully putting out a fire... Go ahead and carry on to destination yonder over the mountains for the sake of "I know better' I just hope I'm not on board when time comes.

Holy fucktard Batman!
I never once said this crew should’ve carried on, I replied to someone who suggested that the climb gradient doesn’t matter to which he/she is saying they meant it’s not limiting in an emergency. For that I’ll agree to disagree, if the fire is out and I’m performance limited, I’m not going in where I could be boxed in to a corner, to be clear this crew DID NOT do this.
Another poster talked about the extra 20 mins they spent circling around, running checklist, I commented on that, you jumped in to back him/her up, how else should I interpret the over proceeduralisation comment and I’m with you eagle.
Go back and read the conversation if you’re confused about your part in it.

[cdnavater]

Again, I’ll pose it as a question instead. Would you drop procedure and checklist to just get on the ground sooner with a secured engine?

So, there is an easy way to answer that question. Look at history, keeping in mind that there were initial reports of a fire.

flight PRO420 out of Dorval many years ago, not sure why the forum code insists on blanking out the name of the airline, keeps replacing it with a dot when I put in the name of the company. Fire in a nacelle, they turned back, then diverted to Mirabel, not sure if it was closer or not. Thought things were under control, engine was secured and fire out. Almost made it back, they were over the runway when the wing folded up. Had they made it back 30 seconds sooner, a totally different outcome was likely. FWIW, they thought the fire was out, but it wasn't.

Horizon 2658 out of SeaTac back in the 80's. They turned around and flew a circuit to land with traffic. By the time they got on final, fire had done in the hydraulics, landed with no steering and no brakes. Aircraft stopped when it hit a couple jetways. At least the wing stayed attached till they hit the first one. Nobody knows knows if a 180 back to a downwind landing would have got them on the ground with steering and brakes still working. the report does suggest they didn't have control issues till turning base to final.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buBgdau5Dn4

Air Canada 797. They decided it would be better to overfly some perfectly good runways where a DC9 could land and get stopped, chose instead to go to the big city that had services available. Those services didn't help the folks that burned alive in the back of the airplane. Had they landed at the first available runway, would have got on the ground, done an evac, everybody survived and could have stood outside watching the airplane burn, much like what happened to the PWA 501, a 737 in Calgary back in the 80's. Minor injuries during the evac, but everybody survived and got to watch an airplane burning on the taxiway.

Now take off the pilot hat, and I'll put on my engineer hat.

Any fire in a nacelle has only two significant sources of fuel to drive it, 3 if the gear retracts into the nacelle and can expose the tires to the fire. Hydraulic fluid will ignite at just north of 500C, and after ignition will burn substantially hotter. Jet fuel will ignite at a temperature slightly lower, and once burning, in still air burns just north of 1000C, hotter if it's being fanned by a 100mph breeze, and up north of 2000C at the pressures found inside a turbine combustion chamber. I haven't bothered to check ignition and burn temps for the rubber on the tires, without knowing the specifics of the compounds it's not realistic to check that part out.

Aluminum is a great material, strong as steel, but much lighter. Yield temp for aluminum is just north of 600C, varies somewhat with the alloy in question, but all alloys are well below the 1000C you get from a jet fuel fire. If that alluminum is exposed to yield temps for a time, even a short time, it will be weakened, and the clock will start ticking, each flex will take more out of it, and it does NOT recover from flex anymore. It's kinda like twisting the tab back and forth on your can of beer, once you go past the yield point, it gets weaker and weaker every time you twist, till just the touch of a finger is all it takes to break off.

After a fire in a nacelle, just because you think it's out, doesn't mean that it is fully extinguished, reference pro420 above. You are now riding in a machine that depends on aluminum that has potentially been exposed to temps above yield temperature. After that, every bump you hit, or other load you put on it, will weaken it even more, and if you dont get the load off of it, eventually it's going to give up.

It's quite likely the secured engine is just that, and the wing is fine, but it's also possible you have a bunch of aluminum getting weaker every time you hit a bit of turbulence, and if you dilly dally in the air it will reach the point of breaking. It's not a simulator where you can reset and run the scenario again if things go south, it's the real world and there is this old saying about 'playing with fire', it's not a smart thing to do.

There is a time and a place for checklists, and there is a time and place to set the book down and fly the airplane. If you have, or had a fire out on the wing, the first suitable runway is where you need to be going, and if it's right in front of you, get wheels on the ground ASAP. The only reason to not go directly to land is if you are having issues with getting the gear down and locked.

Thanks goldeneagle, you’ve given me something to ponder, I will say though the RJ engine was apparently designed to fall off if the fire doesn’t go out but I do consider what you wrote logical and may change my view on a fire that is “out”

[rigpiggy]

Have/had a fire...........get it on the ground safely asap. Let company figure out MX not your problem.