Mitch Cronin Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Hmmmm.... Well, without a book in front of me, and with a rotten memory, I can't say what a level 1 or level 2, or 3 inspection is, but I've done a number of overweight/hard landing inspections.... Generally speaking, the busses are more fragile than the Boeing beasts, but it pretty much all comes down to how hard she was planted (gee's incurred).I like to think the folks in the pointy end are pretty good at knowing when it's time to dump fuel, and when it's time to land.... and I reckon if I was inside the thing, I'd like them to do just as they see fit.There's a lot of good reasons I can imagine that would require putting the thing down ASAP, regardless of weight, but cost isn't even in the picture (in my mind). ... and I'd have to say it's going to be a damned hard landing that damages a Boeing (ask the ex-Skyservice folks about that one - I'll bet the gear and wings were just fine after that fuselage buckled).... and I'd also like to think the vast majority of pilots flying the heavy machinery could do a fine job of kissing their craft on the deck when the situation demanded it.... In this neck of the woods, they're not all just button pushers who wouldn't know a stalled aircraft when they're trying to fly one. (did I just say that out loud? I meant to just think it. )As for the poor old GE90's.... Damn they make a lot of power! ... if only they'd stay together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I've only done overweight landing inspections on the 737, they suck! Lots of wing/body fairings and MLG bay areas not easily accessible to look at.You're shift is pretty much guaranteed to suck when this is on your plate.Dump or burn it off flyboy/gals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinnaker Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I've only done overweight landing inspections on the 737, they suck! Lots of wing/body fairings and MLG bay areas not easily accessible to look at.You're shift is pretty much guaranteed to suck when this is on your plate.Dump or burn it off flyboy/gals...From the 8th post down Mav: "Number two engine did catch fire for five to seven seconds"If an overweight landing is an option and there is/was a fire... I'll head for the airport regardless if a fire indication is gone or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 From the 8th post down Mav: "Number two engine did catch fire for five to seven seconds"If an overweight landing is an option and there is/was a fire... I'll head for the airport regardless if a fire indication is gone or not.Well.... that was from a viewer on the ground.... I was gonna say when he posted that, that the damned things are always "on fire".... it's just that the fire isn't usually visible. Of course it didn't "catch fire", as things went foul, it just puked some of that fire out the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Based on what I know about this one, I'd be shocked if there wasn't some flame coming out the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Based on what I know about this one, I'd be shocked if there wasn't some flame coming out the back.When a turbine lets go at full power, there will be flames pouring out the arse for a short burst, after all a jet engine is a fancy blow torch, but once you cut off the gas the flame goes out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMEfirst Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 When a turbine lets go at full power, there will be flames pouring out the arse for a short burst, after all a jet engine is a fancy blow torch, but once you cut off the gas the flame goes out!Not many people get to see an engine surge or puke its guts out the tail pipe.There are lots of posters on this site that are not AMEs nor are they commercial rated pilots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Not many people get to see an engine surge or puke its guts out the tail pipe.There are lots of posters on this site that are not AMEs nor are they commercial rated pilotsAbsolutely. ...though I think there may be more pilots here than you realize... but it wouldn't matter.... most of them haven't ever seen such a thing either, thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango Foxtrot Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I was sitting at a red light off the end of runway 08 in YVR, (before the parrallel runway was built), watching a JAL 747 classic take off. The aircraft injested a seagull into #3 engine right in front of me. The flame out the back of the engine was as big around as the fan, and stretched back past the aft cabin door! Pretty impressive! The nose dropped to level, and the aircraft slowly climbed out over Richmond. They went out over the ocean and dumped fuel, returned to land. I believe the engine only required a blade to be dressed out, possibly replaced. It was out in a few hours. You can just imagine what that 777 looked like! Tony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I once saw a Kalitta DC8 taking off in YXU with one of the inboard engines barking away like an angry Rotweiller right from the moment takeoff power was applied. Now I know they had just off-loaded their cargo and were departing empty but still - they kept going! The flames were impressive. The pilot's decision making skills - not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMEfirst Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Ah, the memoriesHere is a test for you aviation typesYour aircraft is on the gate, one engine started, you start the second engine, select fuel on.The ground crew calls on the interphone as says, OMFG, the RH engine is on fire.You have no fire warning in the cockpit.What do you do?extra points if you know what modification was added to the L1011 to address the hazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Throttle her up and blow it out (of course in YYZ they blow an ansul 350 into the inlet) On the L-1011 the fuel will not come on until the ignition is firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMEfirst Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 close, but not the most correct answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 don't touch the flippin' throttles... select fuel off and continue motoring. I don't know beans about that old tritanic, but based on all the raw fuel they belch during a start, I think I might just leave it motoring and run like hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I once saw a Kalitta DC8 taking off in YXU with one of the inboard engines barking away like an angry Rotweiller right from the moment takeoff power was applied. Now I know they had just off-loaded their cargo and were departing empty but still - they kept going! The flames were impressive. The pilot's decision making skills - not so much. We saw the same thing with Kalitta when I was still in YUL, he rotated climbed out and then a big orange puff, the silly bugger kept going! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMEfirst Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Mitch winsThe Mod was to allow pneumatic source to the engine after the fire handle was pulled.The starter could be crash engaged at lower N3Most guys (not mechs) panic and pull the fire handleHopefully no one has fired the 300 pounder into the core engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 http://www.aviationw...5-01-463681.xml Air Canada 777 Engine Failure Turns Spotlight On GE90By Guy NorrisSource: Aviation DailyJune 01 , 2012Canadian safety investigators with help from General Electric specialists are focusing on an unspecified turbine failure as a possible cause of a May 28 incident which led to the inflight shut down of a GE90-115B powering an Air Canada Boeing 777-300ER.The event took place shortly after takeoff from Toronto Pearson International Airport and forced the crew of the aircraft, bound for Tokyo Narita International Airport, to dump fuel before returning to land. Local media reports indicated debris from the engine had fallen on surrounding neighborhoods, and air traffic control told the crew that part of one of the engine cowlings had been discovered on the ground.Canadian transportation safety investigators also reported that an initial superficial examination of the GE90 showed no indications of damage to the inlet or fan. “The failure appears to have happened in the turbine section,” said an official.Although the GE90 has established an impressive in-flight shut down rate of only 0.002 over a 15-year service record, the highest-rated thrust variant, which suffered the most recent failure, is currently subject to a number of turbine-related airworthiness directives (AD). One of these, issued by the FAA in 2009, relates to the Stage 6 low-pressure turbine (LPT) which sources close to the investigation indicate could be the focus for the Air Canada investigation.The AD called for the repetitive inspections for shroud interlock wear of the Stage 6 LPT blades, and was issued after “eight reports of GE90-115B Stage 6 LPT single-blade separation events,” said the FAA.The directive also required replacement of eligible blades at the next shop visit as a terminating action.The FAA also issued an AD in November 2011 related to inspections of the GE90-110/115B high-pressure compressor (HPC) after “an aborted takeoff caused by liberation of small pieces from the HPC Stages 1-2 seal teeth and two shop findings of cracks in the seal teeth.” The compressor directive calls for eddy current inspection or spot fluorescent penetrant inspection of the Stages 1-2 seal teeth of the HPC stages 2-5 spool for cracks. The FAA adds the action was taken to “detect cracks in the HPC stages 1-2 seal teeth due to heavy rubs that could result in failure of the seal of the HPC stages 2-5 spool, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I witnessed a 'wet start' on an L10 many years ago.I always wondered if the tail was still black when the aircraft arrived in YYZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 AMEFirst:YUP a 300 pounder right down the throat for a wet start. It was a non event on the Tritanic to have a wet start and some flame out the rear end. no need to shut her down or even turn the fuel off it would blow itself out in short order. The 300 pounder got me some nice OT on the Engine change. #3 Engine so it was an easy one too.The tritanic is mostly known for the cloud of white smoke it roduces on start up. especially on a cold morning. Sometimes you would lose sight of the damned plane from 20 feet away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMEfirst Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Tin Lemon was great for OTLoved arctic patrol, spend the night starting engines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Fin 305 used to torch #2 on start up pretty much every time back in the 80's until they retired her. Quite impressive to see 50' of flame coming out for several minutes. A quick call on the headset to the skipper to shut off the fuel and keep it turning solved the problem. When it blew itself out, it was warmed up nicely and started properly on the second try!Until the one night they had a rookie crew that panicked and emptied an Ansul down her. How to turn an engine to a paperweight 101.I miss those fun days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Halldorson Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Maverick Posted 30 May 2012 - 07:01 PMI've only done overweight landing inspections on the 737, they suck! Lots of wing/body fairings and MLG bay areas not easily accessible to look at.You're shift is pretty much guaranteed to suck when this is on your plate.Dump or burn it off flyboy/gals...If I am diverting with an overweight airplane, do you really think I care if your day sucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Maverick Posted 30 May 2012 - 07:01 PMI've only done overweight landing inspections on the 737, they suck! Lots of wing/body fairings and MLG bay areas not easily accessible to look at.You're shift is pretty much guaranteed to suck when this is on your plate.Dump or burn it off flyboy/gals...If I am diverting with an overweight airplane, do you really think I care if your day sucks?Of course not but if there is time and no imminent danger you could very well make a bad situation much, much worse. There are max landing weights for a reason. You stick the gear through the wing because you muffed the landing and your day will be a hell of a lot worse than mine was going to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Maverick Posted 30 May 2012 - 07:01 PMI've only done overweight landing inspections on the 737, they suck! Lots of wing/body fairings and MLG bay areas not easily accessible to look at.You're shift is pretty much guaranteed to suck when this is on your plate.Dump or burn it off flyboy/gals...If I am diverting with an overweight airplane, do you really think I care if your day sucks?not bad for your first post, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Halldorson Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Of course not but if there is time and no imminent danger you could very well make a bad situation much, much worse. There are max landing weights for a reason. You stick the gear through the wing because you muffed the landing and your day will be a hell of a lot worse than mine was going to be.Very true Maverick but my risk mitigation should definitely be considering those concerns you have presented; and hopefully I can use my judgement to avoid having to demonstrate any superior skills that may be required.Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.