Great CRM: 767 uncontained engine fire/tear drop return with CVR/FDR.

typhoonpilot said:
Blown tire is a tough one. My previous company had two high speed airports at max gross takeoff weight for blown nose tires. The pilots both felt that it fit under the "aircraft unsafe/unable to fly" definition because it was a very loud bang and rumble just prior to V1. The company felt otherwise and thought they should have taken them into the air. There was significant damage to the underside of the airframe from the tire debris in both cases. Hard to say what I would do in that situation. I agree with the concept of going like you because you're right, it would be easier to stop from a stable approach, but the startle factor might cause an abort reaction like it did with the two pilots it happened to for real.


TP
Click to expand...

Tire failure go/no-go always brings this one to mind:

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/when-mr-murphy-rides-in-your-jumpseat.91792/
 
Oh my, this was handled very poorly from the get-go. Why on earth would you continue the takeoff before V1? Alright, for the benefit of the doubt: Maybe they were at/above V1, and the PM forgot to call it.

Alright, what else?

Reducing TL to idle without a crosscheck from the other pilot at 200'...
Fuel control switch to cutoff at 500' without a crosscheck from the other pilot...

Beyond that, well, they did what they had to with the fire indication still there. Perhaps a bit rushed, but can't fault them too much for wanting to get it back on the ground.

Sorry @Boris Badenov, this was handled Wrong. There's no reason to go securing it as fast as they did. Fast hands with fuel switches down low in one of these machines will lead to a hull loss much, much faster than an engine fire burning on a pylon. The way they handled it is how you'd do it if it was a piston twin or a lighter turboprop. No reason at all to apply that to a heavy jet with underslung engines on pylons.

But what do I know? I'm just a 767 pilot!
 
Last edited:
dasleben said:
Oh my, this was handled very poorly from the get-go. Why on earth would you continue the takeoff before V1? Alright, for the benefit of the doubt: Maybe they were at/above V1, and the PM forgot to call it.

Alright, what else?

Reducing TL to idle without a crosscheck from the other pilot at 200'...
Fuel control switch to cutoff at 500' without a crosscheck from the other pilot...

Beyond that, well, they did what they had to with the fire indication still there. Perhaps a bit rushed, but can't fault them too much for wanting to get it back on the ground.

Sorry @Boris Badenov, this was handled Wrong. There's no reason to go securing it as fast as they did. Fast hands with fuel switches down low in one of these machines will lead to a hull loss much, much faster than an engine fire burning on a pylon. The way they handled it is how you'd do it if it was a piston twin or a lighter turboprop. No reason at all to apply that to a heavy jet with underslung engines on pylons.

But what do I know? I'm just a 767 pilot!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it took until page 3 for someone to stop tap dancing and just say that this was a terrible display by the captain. The only thing this guy did right was not crash, but otherwise did everything else wrong.

At my last gig, a captain managed to shut down both engines on a LOFT because he shut the engine down without cross checking with the FO first. They crashed because they couldn't get the good engine restarted before they hit the ground.

Kids, don't think that crap like this is cool. While it worked out this time, this IS NOT how modern airliners are flown.
 
jtrain609 said:
I'm not sure why it took until page 3 for someone to stop tap dancing and just say that this was a terrible display by the captain. The only thing this guy did right was not crash, but otherwise did everything else wrong.

At my last gig, a captain managed to shut down both engines on a LOFT because he shut the engine down without cross checking with the FO first. They crashed because they couldn't get the good engine restarted before they hit the ground.

Kids, don't think that crap like this is cool. While it worked out this time, this IS NOT how modern airliners are flown.
Click to expand...
And hell, a 767 isn't modern at all. As @Polar742 puts it, it's old junk. I've flown ex-TWA 767-200s older than the 402s I used to fly. The fact that this happened in 2004 is even more of a facepalm. The jet was designed in the late 70s/early 80s to be flown in a manner that's not, well, what was shown in the video (more than 20 years after the first 767s hit the line!).
 
I'm kind of surprised by what I'm reading. I figured if there is a fire that won't go out on your airplane, you put the sucker down ASAP, which looks to be what he did. I wonder how much time would have been added to the return if done the "correct" way. Serious question.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Right. He saved the airplane and everyone on it, but he didn't observe the proper self-impressed procedural orthodoxies, so he did it Wrong. I'd wager that if he'd flown a proper 15 mile final and the wing had fallen off, you'd explain to us that it was sadly inevitable.
Click to expand...

And there it is. Traditional (outdated) safety philosophy. "The outcome was acceptable, so clearly it was safe!"

If you would take half a second to actually listen to some of the professionals on here, you might learn something.
 
ChasenSFO said:
I'm kind of surprised by what I'm reading. I figured if there is a fire that won't go out on your airplane, you put the sucker down ASAP, which looks to be what he did. I wonder how much time would have been added to the return if done the "correct" way. Serious question.
Click to expand...
You do get it back on the ground as soon as safely possible.

The main criticisms here are about how the engine was secured.
 
ChasenSFO said:
I'm kind of surprised by what I'm reading. I figured if there is a fire that won't go out on your airplane, you put the sucker down ASAP, which looks to be what he did. I wonder how much time would have been added to the return if done the "correct" way. Serious question.
Click to expand...

There are circumstances where that's true, but an engine fire on a pylon typically isn't one of them. It's probably riskier to do what that captain did vs. following procedure, and thus less safe, regardless of the outcome in this specific example.

I don't mean that you fly for an hour with an engine fire, but you should take the time to follow procedure.

An uncontained cargo fire and an engine fire are very different animals.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
There are circumstances where that's true, but an engine fire on a pylon typically isn't one of them. It's probably riskier to do what that captain did vs. following procedure, and thus less safe, regardless of the outcome in this specific example.

I don't mean that you fly for an hour with an engine fire, but you should take the time to follow procedure.

An uncontained cargo fire and an engine fire are very different animals.
Click to expand...

QFT.

A fire inside the pressure vessel of an aircraft is a no holds barred, get on the ground ASAMFP and damn the limitations kind of emergency. If it happens in cruise, you'll have turned the aircraft toward a runway that you can land on and started down before you have a chance to get the QRH to the right page.

I forget what the actual number is, but with a fire in the cabin or the cargo bin, you've got something like 15 minutes on average before everybody on the airplane is dead.

Another classic example of, "Screw it, we'll deal with it on the ground" is something like an APU fire on short final. Are you really going to take the airplane back into the air in order to run the QRH that will tell you to land as soon as possible? No, of course not; get the plane on the ground in the next 15 seconds, grab the QRH and fix the problem in a location where you can evac the airplane if you need.
 
jtrain609 said:
QFT.

A fire inside the pressure vessel of an aircraft is a no holds barred, get on the ground ASAMFP and damn the limitations kind of emergency. If it happens in cruise, you'll have turned the aircraft toward a runway that you can land on and started down before you have a chance to get the QRH to the right page.

I forget what the actual number is, but with a fire in the cabin or the cargo bin, you've got something like 15 minutes on average before everybody on the airplane is dead.

Another classic example of, "Screw it, we'll deal with it on the ground" is something like an APU fire on short final. Are you really going to take the airplane back into the air in order to run the QRH that will tell you to land as soon as possible? No, of course not; get the plane on the ground in the next 15 seconds, grab the QRH and fix the problem in a location where you can evac the airplane if you need.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And an engine fire on final is different too. The most pressing danger for a V1 failure and fire is hitting the big-ass tree on the hill out there, not burning up. If you accidentally shut down the wrong engine, you're dead.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Agreed. And an engine fire on final is different too. The most pressing danger for a V1 failure and fire is hitting the big-ass tree on the hill out there, not burning up. If you accidentally shut down the wrong engine, you're dead.
Click to expand...
In other words: Maintaining control of the airplane and flying the (possibly complex) engine-out departure is going to be more important than goofing around with thrust levers and fuel control switches at that point.

It's in a pod for a reason ;)

Edit: now that I have time to watch it...eeep.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Agreed. And an engine fire on final is different too. The most pressing danger for a V1 failure and fire is hitting the big-ass tree on the hill out there, not burning up. If you accidentally shut down the wrong engine, you're dead.
Click to expand...
Autothrust Blue said:
In other words: Maintaining control of the airplane and flying the (possibly complex) engine-out departure is going to be more important than goofing around with thrust levers and fuel control switches at that point.

It's in a pod for a reason ;)

Edit: now that I have time to watch it...eeep.
Click to expand...
That's exactly it: It's not a metroliner with an engine that's sitting right on top of the wing and needs to be feathered ASAP. It's a 767, where the engines hang below the wings on pylons. @typhoonpilot mentioned this before, but when you pull the engine fire switch, everything (hydraulics, fuel, electrics, pneumatics) is cut off as well. It really will not burn a wing off if it continues burning like what could happen in a light twin.
 
dasleben said:
That's exactly it: It's not a metroliner with an engine that's sitting right on top of the wing. It's a 767, where the engines hang below the wings on pylons. @typhoonpilot mentioned this before, but when you pull the engine fire switch, everything (hydraulics, fuel, electrics, pneumatics) is cut off as well. It really will not burn a wing off if it continues burning like what could happen in a light twin.
Click to expand...
I fly a "light twin" and you won't see me messing about with a fire T-handle before 1500' AFE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top