Engine Flameout and Smoke Scenario

[Lunchbox]

Here are 2 hypothetical scenarios that some people seem to have different views on.

Scenario 1 - Lets say you're flying east about 300 miles from your destination and you have an engine flameout up at cruise. You declare and emergency and run your checklist. While in your driftdown you manage to get the engine restarted and everything is back to normal. Now you're close to Springfield, IL which has a nice 8000 ft runway. Dispatch wants you to continue another 40 mins to you destination which happens to also be the maintenance base in Indy about 200 miles away. What do you do?

Personally, I'm putting it down in Springfield. Even though things are back to normal, I don't know what caused the flameout and it could happen again. If you disagree what is your logic?

Scenario 2 - You take off and FA's call you with a smell of smoke in the cabin but no visible smoke. You decide to declare an emer., fly a lap in the pattern and land. You stop on the runway the fire depart tells you over the radio that they see smoke coming from the engine but no visible flames. You call the FA's and there is no visible smoke in the cabin but still a strong smell of smoke. Do you evac the passengers on the runway or taxi to the gate to deplane?

 

[DE727UPS]

Scenario 1 I'd land at nearest suitable. Company might not like it but I know I'd get no grief if I made the call. Scenario 2 I can't answer cause luckily I fly freight....

 

[BobDDuck]

Scenario 1 is closest suitable (not closest available). Scenario 2 is probably clear the runway and get then get a safe evac going using the built in or airport provided airstairs, on to a bus. No reason to bring a potentially burning airplane right next to a terminal building. Also, an exterior engine fire, especially with the fire department right next to it, won't threaten the cabin too much.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Senario 1: I have three engines. Before I got to the current flight department #2 flamed out and was restarted without incident. The captain actually had to go back and let the PAX know. They were unaware.

Senario 2: I evacuate after clearing the runway. I would not taxi for long just enough to clear the white lines of the runway boundary. At least this seems to make sense from the safety of my hotel room

 

[ElihuSmails]

Scenario 1: barring any further details, I'll put her down at the nearest suitable alternate. Assuming I'd be in a two-engine airplane, where the passengers most likely noticed and the company and I would both be the villains du jour all over CNN, regardless of the circumstances. I probably wouldn't consider attempting an air start if there's a suitable alternate within drift down range or terrain clearance.

Scenario 2: probably make the first exit and evacuate on the taxiway.

All jokes aside, I don't think anyone will fault you for erring on the conservative side. I think that what you don't know can sometimes kill you in these scenarios and it's not worth any undue risks with pax on board.

 

[woodreau]

Scenario 1
I do know of a captain who got violated by the FAA for overflying the nearest suitable airport during an emergency to get the emergency aircraft to the nearest company maintenance base. The FARs are unambiguous about this one. You'll need to land at the nearest suitable airport in point of time.

I also know of another captain who had an emergency. Declared and was heading to the nearest suitable. The emergency fixed itself so he "undeclared" his emergency and continued for two more hours to his original destination. The FAA took a dim view on that one too.


Scenario 2
Somewhere don't remember which airline, I vaguely remember being told that if I was going to evacuate, evacuate on the runway. It's your emergency it's your runway until you resolve the emergency.

Evacuating on the runway screws up the airport but there's more room on the runway for emergency equipment to get around your aircraft and around all the carry-on toting selfie-taking pax milling about aimlessly like lost zombies. On a taxiway there might not be enough room for equipment to get around the aircraft.

 

[MikeD]

I probably wouldn't consider attempting an air start if there's a suitable alternate within drift down range or terrain clearance. .

I generally don't have any problem with attempting an airstart unless the shutdown was for an engine that was fire, FOD, for Frozen/seized. However, there's nothing wrong with not attempting a restart for the reasons you mention either. Both are sound techniques.

Somewhere don't remember which airline, I vaguely remember being told that if I was going to evacuate, evacuate on the runway. It's your emergency it's your runway until you resolve the emergency.

Evacuating on the runway screws up the airport but there's more room on the runway for emergency equipment to get around your aircraft and around all the carry-on toting selfie-taking pax milling about aimlessly like lost zombies. On a taxiway there might not be enough room for equipment to get around the aircraft.

It depends. No one answer to this option: sometimes a runway would be fine, sometimes a taxiway or intersection would be just as good. It depends. But I too wouldn't bring it back to the gate or go any further than the previous.

 

[Ziggyfuzz]

Scenario 2: shut down smoking engine while aarf observes, taxi to gate

 

[typhoonpilot]

Scenario 1 in a smallish two engine airplane in the States would be land at the nearest suitable airport. However, I would not use that same logic with a larger two engine passenger airplane in some other parts of the world. It would depend on the exact problem. For fire or something very serious you really only care about getting on the ground ASAP, but if it is just a plain jane engine failure over deepest darkest Africa or other remote areas a PIC must consider the result to the passengers of landing at the nearest suitable airport. One must consider safety and accommodation of perhaps 400 souls on board. For instance, I'm not landing in Mogadishu for an engine failure. The danger on the ground is far greater than continuing another hour or so south to Mombasa in a 180/207 minute ETOPS aircraft. Similarly Sanaa and Aden probably still show as suitable airports in most airlines manuals, but would you take your jet into Yemen right now? Same with Baghdad, it was a destination at my old company but there is no chance I would go in there with a 400 passenger jet and strand the people there for any length of time, that's just reckless decision making when you could continue 45 minutes south to Kuwait.

Another scenario I used to give new captains. You're over eastern Turkey in the winter at night and an engine fails. Where do you go. Lots of "suitable" airports nearby, Erzurum is the closest in point of time. You've never flown in there; it's surrounded by mountains well over 10,000 feet in elevation; and sits at 5765 feet above sea level? Another choice is Trabzon, just a little further north but the wind is 290/15. Again you've never been there. It would entail a non-precision approach with a circle to land. Let's add in that there is no moon. Do you want to do either of those single engine when you could fly 30 minutes further west to Ankara for radar vectors to an ILS?

Scenario 2 - I would need to know what the engine indications are. If they are normal I am not evacuating on the runway or taxiway. I might shut the engine down or even just turn the associated pack off and the problem is solved. Unless the smoke is filling the cabin or there is visible fire I'm not seeing what the urgency is.




Typhoonpilot

 

[adk]

For instance, I'm not landing in Mogadishu for an engine failure. The danger on the ground is far greater than continuing another hour or so south to Mombasa in a 180/207 minute ETOPS aircraft. Similarly Sanaa and Aden probably still show as suitable airports in most airlines manuals, but would you take your jet into Yemen right now?

[HASHTAG]#notfirstworldproblems[/HASHTAG]