|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Jet Crashing into Concrete Barrier
|
Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 10-06-2004 05:57 PM
At the beginning of the ETOPS era, I think the first widely used time limit was 120 minutes. In addition to what Daryl wrote, the time limit also applies to flight planning. You must plan your route such that you are never more than the time limit away from a suitable airport at single-engine cruise speed. ETOPS 120 works well for crossing the North Atlantic since great circle routing (and the NATS--North Atlantic Track Structure) between the east coast of the US and Europe easily fits within the 120 time limit.
For other routes (like over the Pacific) ETOPS 120 meant having to fly longer than great circle distances in order to hug the coasts and meet the time limit. Hence the push for ever higher ETOPS limits. Some of the engines on today's jets are considered reliable enough to allow ETOPS 208. At this point I think most are certified up to ETOPS 180. Normally an engine/airframe combination must have a proven track record to be granted this, but some, like the B-777, were certified to ETOPS 180 right from day one without an operational trial period, based on previous engine experience on other airframes. With ETOPS 208 there are very few city-pairs left in the world that can't be flown on a great circle. The present long-distance champ is Singapore Air's flight 21 Newark, NJ to Singapore--18 hours 35 minutes of daily non-stop service using an A340-500! Depart EWR 11:00pm tonight, arrive SIN 5:35am Friday. Can you say "flat ass"?
There have been a couple of total flameouts in jets over the years, but none due to engine failure AFAIK. Do a search on "Gimli Glider" (sorry Daryl! ) for the story of an Air Canada B-767 that became a glider one day in July 1983. Not to worry, the amazing story has a happy ending.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 11-11-2004 01:54 PM
Air Transat Flight 236 incident:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041020/news_1n20azores.html
quote: October 20, 2004
MONTREAL – The Canadian pilot who was hailed as a hero for gliding a packed, powerless airliner to an emergency landing in the Azores three years ago made mistakes that allowed all the jet's fuel to drain out through an engine leak, a Portuguese aviation agency said Monday. Portugal's Aviation Accidents Prevention and Investigation Department said the leak was caused by improper replacement of a Rolls-Royce engine on the Airbus 330 jet operated by Canadian charter flight operator Air Transat.
Capt. Robert Piche avoided calamity for the Air Transat flight's 306 passengers and crew when he flew the big jet for 65 miles without power, gliding through darkened skies to make a landing-gear-crunching landing at the Lajes Airport in Terceira.
The only injuries – to 16 passengers and two crew members – came during the evacuation of the plane on the Lajes runway.
Piche said the report represents the final chapter in the incident and would not comment further.
Piche's deft command of the flight's last 19 minutes, when the jet was without engine power, has been cited as one of the finest piloting achievements in modern aerospace.
But in its 103-page report on the "all engines-out landing," the agency suggested Piche's heroics might not have been needed had the crew followed proper procedures in detecting and dealing with a fuel leak in the right engine.
The investigating agency said the crew did not correctly evaluate the engine-leak situation, and then did not follow the proper checklist.
Instead of shutting down the fuel lines leading to the right engine, the crew cross-fed fuel from the left-engine tanks to the source of the leak. That allowed all of the jet fuel to drain.
"The flight crew did not recognize that a fuel leak situation existed and carried out the fuel imbalance procedure from memory, which resulted in the fuel from the left tanks being fed to the leak in the right engine," the agency said.
The 103-page report details the events that led up to the Aug. 24, 2001, flight from Toronto to Lisbon, which took off with more than enough fuel to reach its intended destination.
Problems began days earlier when Air Transat's maintenance crew replaced the jet's right engine with one that had not been retrofitted for an updated configuration.
Air Transat technicians did not review a Rolls-Royce service bulletin that would have indicated a hazard in mismatching fuel and hydraulic lines, the agency said.
As a result, a fuel inlet tube on the newly installed right engine failed after chafing and hard contact with a hydraulic line, the agency said.
About four hours into the flight, the crew noticed unusual oil readings in the right engine, and then a fuel imbalance between the left and right inner-wing tanks.
The flight crew diverted to the Azores as the fuel problem worsened. About 150 miles from Lajes, the right engine flamed out. The left engine followed suit 13 minutes later.
Flying without engine power, the passenger cabin dark save for emergency lighting, Piche brought the Airbus down to a hard, tire-shredding landing.
http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/op-ed/ed269.htm
quote: Air Transat Flight 236 By Devon Leslie It had been a relatively calm flight on the morning of August 24th, 2001. Air Transat Flight 236 out of Toronto was heading to Lisbon, Portugal to deliver a new batch of vacationers. The Airbus 330, cruising at 39,000, sped through the atmosphere at .84 Mach while her passengers slept. She was the pride of the airline, and she let everyone know as the whir of her Rolls-Royce engines sang to the occupants. Only the aircraft fuel computer knew the dark secret brewing on the right wing. A secret that had been interpreted as a fuel imbalance in the right tank. It was only a matter of time before the secret would shake every occupants' courage to their knees.
http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh38798_2004-10-18_20-47-19_n18676681_newsml
quote: Pilot hero of Azores jet landing made errors-report Mon Oct 18, 2004 04:47 PM ET By Robert Melnbardis MONTREAL, Oct 18 (Reuters) - The Canadian pilot who was hailed as a hero for gliding a packed, powerless airliner to an emergency landing in the Azores three years ago made mistakes that allowed all the jet's fuel to drain out through an engine leak, a Portuguese aviation agency said on Monday.
Portugal's Aviation Accidents Prevention and Investigation Department also said improper replacement of a Rolls-Royce (RR.L: Quote, Profile, Research) engine on the Airbus 330 jet, which was operated by Canadian charter flight operator Air Transat, led to the fuel leak.
Air Transat is owned by vacation travel company Groupe Transat A.T. Inc. (TRZ.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) , while European aerospace group EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) owns Airbus.
Captain Robert Piche avoided calamity for the Air Transat flight's 306 passengers and crew when he flew the big jet for 65 nautical miles (120 km, 75 miles) without power, gliding silently through darkened skies to make a landing-gear-crunching landing at the Lajes Airport in Terceira.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 11-11-2004 04:16 PM
More engiineless gliding stories.
The first one seems almost incredible. How could the crew not realise that they had only half the required fuel load? Don't they check the actual quantity of fuel loaded against that called for? Don't they also check it against what would be a reasonable fuel load for an aircraft of that type making a flight of that distance?
Doesn't this also make a strong case for the universal use of metric uniits for this sort of thing? Although rare, thiis isn't the first case I've heard of where a safety-critical system has failed due to confusion over units. At least if all metric units were used it is likely that an error would be very large, and unlikely to pass unnoticed.
If the required load was 10 tonnes (10,000kg) for example, and it were to be mistaken for 10kg, or 10,000 tonnes, or even 1 tonne, it would be unlikely that the error would not be spotted. With mixed metric and imperial units, some of the combinations are close enough not to be noticed, but far enough out to cause problems.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|