737 goes down off Hawaii

That's something those of us flying more modern aircraft just don't even think about. We may have to fly a special routing for terrain, but it's pretty much gospel that once you get into MCT, that working engine will provide thrust for as long as you need it, and that thrust will be sufficient (at any weight/isa that you launch in) to keep you in the air until you are ready to land.
 
sounds like they lost an engine right after takeoff, and while single engine, and began to get excessive EGT on the remaining one while trying to stay airborne and bring it around for landing. If they were near max gross and if they had JT8D -5/9/11 motors, single engine performance would be tight, depending on the OAT: and any over temp of the remaining motor will degrade that even more; potentially to the point of the remaining engine merely taking them to the crash site. -15/17 motors, is less of an issue performance wise.

Pretty much. Blew one engine, overtemp'd the second one.
whoops
 

Attachments

  • a little hot.jpeg
    a little hot.jpeg
    214.9 KB · Views: 32
Last edited:
That's something those of us flying more modern aircraft just don't even think about. We may have to fly a special routing for terrain, but it's pretty much gospel that once you get into MCT, that working engine will provide thrust for as long as you need it, and that thrust will be sufficient (at any weight/isa that you launch in) to keep you in the air until you are ready to land.

When flying the 737-200, this is definitely a consideration I’ve had to make. Depending on the weight/temp/DA combination at a given time, there’s been times where it’s been essentially a macro Piper PA-44 Seminole, in terms of single engine performance, and all the considerations that come with that.

Off the top of my head, I think @Derg and I are the only two on here with 737-100/200 experience. Am curious what performance considerations he took, and if they were the same as what we deal with.

But yes, these are things many pilots take for granted in jets with CFM and other high bypass turbofans that have tons of power available single engine, versus a low bypass turbofan like the JT8D, which hs a lot of thrust limitations, especially with the earlier models.

Pretty much. Blew one engine, overtemp'd the second one.
whoops

Which I can understand. If performance wasn’t happening single engine, and flying in ground (water) effect wasn’t working…..which is tough as hell enough to do night unaided and not hit the water…..then I can see the crew pushing the remaining one up to milk every bit of thrust they can out of it to avoid hitting the water. They’re bringing it around the radar pattern anyway, it’s not like they’re flying it over-temped for an hour. So it becomes a gamble of needing that extra thrust performance right now, versus the time that extra thrust performance will last with the excessive EGT before things start to melt in the hot section. Chances are, had there been a shorter radar pattern or the emergency allowed for a tighter traffic pattern and the QRH was able to be run during that time, they may have had the time available to get it back to the runway before that EGT began doing its damage.

In a situation like this, go-around EPR goes out the window, and it’s all managing the EGT as best as possible. These guys just ran out of time as it came to milking all the thrust possible from the remaining engine, and by extension, ran out of options. It looks like they kept up the fight and kept the dice rolling all through the emergency and into the decision to have to ditch…..a guts decision, and if you think about it, one that there was absolutely zero time to prepare for due to having to manage single engine flight and just trying to keep the jet airborne at low altitude. So no time to do anything related to ditching. That the jet held together as good as it did is a testament to the solid airframe of the jet, as well as the skill of the crew in setting it down, as well as good luck of calm swells.

Kudos to these guys. A hearty Well Done.

JT8D-15 below, and the -200 cockpit at night cruising along…most likely how their setup was.

B0894FAE-16D1-4222-8634-CFC4E08B7407.jpeg
E6299C69-9AA4-4033-92A7-495A28F97A1E.jpeg
 
I’ll have to check my license because my wallet isn’t on me right now, but is the 737 rating the same for 100-200 vs the NGs? Like could I fly the classic, and can a classic guy fly the NG? Or is there some additional training required?

Cause I’ll be honest. Looking at those hand dials and clocks, I’d probably be lost. :p
 
I’ll have to check my license because my wallet isn’t on me right now, but is the 737 rating the same for 100-200 vs the NGs? Like could I fly the classic, and can a classic guy fly the NG? Or is there some additional training required?

Cause I’ll be honest. Looking at those hand dials and clocks, I’d probably be lost. :p

B737 covers all type-wise; Jurassic and T-43A, Classic, NG and C-40A/B and P-8A, Max. Just differences training. I wouldn’t have a clue how to operate the screens in the NG/Max. But I know the overhead panel like a champ in all of them. :)
 
I’ll have to check my license because my wallet isn’t on me right now, but is the 737 rating the same for 100-200 vs the NGs? Like could I fly the classic, and can a classic guy fly the NG? Or is there some additional training required?

Cause I’ll be honest. Looking at those hand dials and clocks, I’d probably be lost. :p

Seriously? I can’t believe a professional even has to ask this question. But I’m not surprised. What’s it like the 4th airplane you have ever flown?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Seriously? I can’t believe a professional even has to ask this question. But I’m not surprised. What’s it like the 4th airplane you have ever flown?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh noes. I didn’t know the type rating/differences history of the airplane I was forced on 8 months ago. I’ll try and impress your highness next time. Sorry :(
 
Meh. I’ve worked at only two airlines (3 if you want to call the buying airline as separate), and they were single types. I’ve never studied different types ratings or what you need to fly what plane. Stuff like flying a 717 shows up as a DC9 on your certificate is not something I knew, instead learned from an AirTran guy. For the 737, the MAX training was a requirement as part of the re-certification for flight and that was a strict/regiment program consisting of ground school and sim time.

It was a forced displacement and we fly NGs only and then this year the MAX. That’s what my training consisted of and I don’t know about the classics. In the same way I flew the CRJ-200, have the CL65 designation on my license, but do not know the full extent of what that type covers. Never flew the CRJ-900, I believe was differences only, but I don’t know if the CL65 covers any Bombardier business jet. Didn’t apply to me, so never found out.

If that makes me a lesser pilot to you, “whoops - my bad.”
 
Last edited:
Meh. I’ve worked at only two airlines (3 if you want to call the buying airline as separate), and they were single types. I’ve never studied different types ratings or what you need to fly what plane. Stuff like flying a 717 shows up as a DC9 on your certificate is not something I knew, instead learned from an AirTran guy. For the 737, the MAX training was a requirement as part of the re-certification for flight and that was a strict/regiment program consisting of ground school and sim time.

It was a forced displacement and we fly NGs only and then this year the MAX. That’s what my training consisted of and I don’t know about the classics. In the same way I flew the CRJ-200, have the CL65 designation on my license, but do not know the full extent of what that type covers. Never flew the CRJ-900, I believe was differences only, but I don’t know if the CL65 covers any Bombardier business jet. Didn’t apply to me, so never found out.

If that makes me a lesser pilot to you, “whoops - my bad.”
It's just a tad odd that you spend so much time trying to find dirt on other airlines yet you don't even know the airplanes you are legally allowed to operate. Different strokes for different folks, you'd just think you'd spend some of your time learning about your own career vs. others.
 
It's just a tad odd that you spend so much time trying to find dirt on other airlines yet you don't even know the airplanes you are legally allowed to operate. Different strokes for different folks, you'd just think you'd spend some of your time learning about your own career vs. others.

I figure if they want me to fly something different, they’ll train me. Both airlines I’ve flown for ended up getting merged. I try to keep up with the happenings at other airlines.
 
It's just a tad odd that you spend so much time trying to find dirt on other airlines yet you don't even know the airplanes you are legally allowed to operate. Different strokes for different folks, you'd just think you'd spend some of your time learning about your own career vs. others.
It is a nice illustration of how ridiculous type ratings vice “is this a good idea” is, too.

I am legally (by the FAA) permitted to fly a King Air 300 (presumably EFIS 85), a King Air 350 (EFIS 85), the King Air 350i (ProLine), the ProLine Fusion 350i model, the Garmin-fitted 350s and presumably the 360 because nothing ever changes according to either the Kansas farm boys (or the whiz kids in Seattle, in the case of the 737; same gripe, although the flight characteristics of none of the airplanes I listed here which enjoy a common type have been as bastardized or radically altered as the 737Max). That’s despite having the brain stem power only for the ProLine 21 avionics.

@MikeD pointed out he’d have little idea how to work the NG avionics (paraphrasing slightly), but is still allowed to fly it. And, with differences and sim after only two smoking craters, the MAX.

It’s pretty ri-god-damn-diculous.
 
Last edited:
It is a nice illustration of how ridiculous type ratings vice “is this a good idea” is, too.

I am legally (by the FAA) permitted to fly a King Air 300 (presumably EFIS 85), a King Air 350 (EFIS 85), the King Air 350i (ProLine), the ProLine Fusion 350i model, and presumably the 360 because nothing ever changes according to either the Kansas farm boys (or the whiz kids in Seattle, in the case of the 737; same gripe, although the flight characteristics of none of the airplanes I listed here which enjoy a common type have been as bastardized or radically altered as the 737Max).

@MikeD pointed out he’d have little idea how to work the NG avionics (paraphrasing slightly), but is still allowed to fly it. And, with differences and sim after only two smoking craters, the MAX.

It’s pretty ri-god-damn-diculous.
Laughs in LR-JET and HS125. Even my MD type. The avionics are mostly the same between the MD10 and MD11 but that's about it. I mean yes they both have three engines. But all that being said I know which airplanes I can fly. I don't think that's too out there to be expected of a holder of said type rating.
 
I’d actually argue (and the examiners at the big box school all agree) that it’s actually a requirement to know your limitations of what you can and can not fly with a type rating.

My C525S rating allows me to fly the old CJ, CJ1, CJ2, CJ3, 3+, CJ4, M2, and 2+. All with wildly different performance, avionics etc. all single pilot. Same with the CE500, BE350…or how about the fact my Astra type rating got me a G-100 type rating at the same time even though I don’t know anything about it.

Doing a quick logbook check I have flown 35 different types of aircraft. But I actually enjoy flying and consider my self an aviator. The more types the better.

I can see how someone who doesn’t know what 737 they can fly probably doesn’t consider themselves the same.
 
Back
Top