AC872 Compressor Stall

[deicer]

 

 

[boestar]

Walked past this in the hangar yesterday getting its engine replaced.  

[conehead]

I was onboard this one yesterday. I think they didn't dump any fuel after the event, was kind of surprised to see there is still 90,000 kg fuel onboard. 

[Seeker]

Fuel is expensive.  Don't dump it if you don't have to.  Credit to the pilots for their overall consideration to the situation.

Personally, if the numbers work I would not dump fuel.  Or, conversely dump to the point that the numbers work.

 

[Vsplat]

Fuel dumping is really something to be avoided unless absolutely necessary to, as Seeker says, 'make the numbers work'.  Apart from the obvious cost issues, it's a pretty big environmental hit despite the vaporization that takes place.  All of it eventually makes its way to ground.

Aside from all of that, there is the consideration of creating a cloud of fuel vapor right next to a compressor stall launching fireballs.....

All in all, looks like a happy ending with a lot of threats to manage and weather complicating the plan.  I hope the crew gets the support they deserve.

Vs

[PinC]

Except the guidance for the 777 is that if in an abnormal configuration, then dump to 250,000kg wgt for landing. If landing overweight for non-aircraft reasons, ie security or medical, then landing up to 300,000kg is ok.

 

[Vsplat]

Haven't flown the triple, I assume 'abnormal configuration' means something that would affect balked landing or go-around climb in the landing configuration - something like a flap or slat issue affecting retraction, gear stuck down or an engine out.

In this case, the closest thing would be an engine out, though I understand (from other public sources, so maybe not true) the affected engine was left running below the stall power range.  I'd assume that wouldn't be any help in a go around so perhaps the 250K landing weight makes the most sense.  That said, how close were they to that with fuel for Europe?

Vs

[Junior]

Comments:

 

Seems very strange that on the takeoff clearance, they gave themselves a heading clearance to 050 when the clearance was heading 330. They declared a Pan-Pan after the engine failure which is only heightened alert and turned without a clearance to 050.

Looking at the video, it sure looks like they started the right turn quickly after takeoff. Surprised they didn't declare an emergency and go straight ahead a bit(maybe 1000 feet). There apparently was weather to the west so perhaps that is the reason for the turn. 

The inbound weather may be the reason they did not dump fuel. Perhaps time was tight but then why not just ask for delaying vectors instead of the time to enter and brief a hold.

 

 

 

 

[conehead]

1 hour ago, Junior said:

Looking at the video, it sure looks like they started the right turn quickly after takeoff.

 

 

 

 

Just a wild ass guess here, but since it was the right engine that failed, perhaps this turn was the result of assymetric thrust? Although, the TAC should have compensated as soon as there was a 10% difference in thrust between the 2 engines...