11-30-2019, 09:32 AM
BB piece - 
Since the MH370 coverup/saga/mystery has faded past the front two pages of the Oz, BB has lost a little on his ATSB bashing mantra. However is still doing at least a weekly piece for the Oz, here is this week's contribution...
Experience, skills and support avert disaster
![[Image: 696b4db5b2bec3b9be12b0dc2cce2dc4?width=650]](https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/696b4db5b2bec3b9be12b0dc2cce2dc4?width=650)
Last week a Boeing 777ER suffered an engine surge after takeoff from LAX (Los Angeles).
The passengers observed the phenomenon of a sheet of flame appearing out the front of the engine every time it coughed — about once a second — until the pilots reduced the engine thrust.
The pilots declared an emergency and brought the aircraft around for a prompt landing. Upon clearing the runway after landing all the tyres deflated so the aircraft was then immobile. Excellent air traffic control at LAX, which I have operated out of several times, kept the drama unde control.
This is a very interesting case study for pilots. In older jet aircraft, engine surges (compressor stalls) were not that rare an event, unlike modern turbofans. Pure turbojets as in the B707 were temperamental and needed handling with care.
I once had a surge in a B727 and jets like the Rolls-Royce Avon-engined Sabre sometimes surged during combat manoeuvring at high angles of attack at high altitude with very cold temperatures, as the surge boundary is an inverse function of the absolute temperature. Pilots are required to practise engine failure after takeoff in the simulator every year.
I had this scenario in September in Dallas CAE in a super mid-size corporate jet simulator. Most airline pilots will go their whole career without having a real engine failure but it is a check ride requirement.
Then, as long as it is not a fire, the engine is assessed and if still rotating a relight is performed and the PAN emergency cancelled so operations normal is resumed. If the engine was damaged, for example by a birdstrike, or did not relight, then the pilot has two options.
Should he dump fuel down to maximum landing weight, which was done decades ago, or land overweight, which is done in the case of a land as soon as possible fire situation?
The B777ER has a maximum takeoff weight of about 350 tons and a maximum landing weight of 250 tons. In this LAX event the aircraft had 129 tons of fuel on board. B777 aircraft are certified for a touchdown descent rate of 600 feet a minute and emergency return landing at maximum takeoff weight touchdown of 360 feet a minute.
A Qantas A380 that diverted into Honolulu years ago did an autoland, which ensures the safe overweight touchdown rate. To dump nearly 100 tons of fuel has a lot of negatives. Costly, time consuming and an environmental hazard. It’s done above 5000 feet but not near any lightning as a massive fuel/air explosion could result.
The problem landing with all that fuel on board is kinetic energy, because the landing speed has to be increased due to the increased weight and again because of the reduced flap setting in the engine out configuration. This results in nearly double the kinetic energy, which is a squared function.
Unless there is a very long runway and the pilots can stay off the brakes as long as possible, very high carbon brake temperatures exceeding 600C will result. The wheels have fusible plugs which melt before the tyres explode.
The LAX B777 cleared the end of the runway and then, as expected, all 12 of his main tyres deflated. Then comes the problem of getting the passengers off, because with red hot brakes the wheels will be catching fire. A lot for the pilots to think about.
Hmm...maybe we could convince Old BB to start having a crack at Fort Fumble? I for one would endeavour to keep him informed of the latest developments/rumours/stitched up stats being leaked from the Fort Fumble make work, MOAS trough fund...
![[Image: EJc_aouU0AE5q78?format=jpg&name=360x360]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJc_aouU0AE5q78?format=jpg&name=360x360)
MTF...P2
Since the MH370 coverup/saga/mystery has faded past the front two pages of the Oz, BB has lost a little on his ATSB bashing mantra. However is still doing at least a weekly piece for the Oz, here is this week's contribution...
Experience, skills and support avert disaster
Last week a Boeing 777ER suffered an engine surge after takeoff from LAX (Los Angeles).
The passengers observed the phenomenon of a sheet of flame appearing out the front of the engine every time it coughed — about once a second — until the pilots reduced the engine thrust.
The pilots declared an emergency and brought the aircraft around for a prompt landing. Upon clearing the runway after landing all the tyres deflated so the aircraft was then immobile. Excellent air traffic control at LAX, which I have operated out of several times, kept the drama unde control.
This is a very interesting case study for pilots. In older jet aircraft, engine surges (compressor stalls) were not that rare an event, unlike modern turbofans. Pure turbojets as in the B707 were temperamental and needed handling with care.
I once had a surge in a B727 and jets like the Rolls-Royce Avon-engined Sabre sometimes surged during combat manoeuvring at high angles of attack at high altitude with very cold temperatures, as the surge boundary is an inverse function of the absolute temperature. Pilots are required to practise engine failure after takeoff in the simulator every year.
I had this scenario in September in Dallas CAE in a super mid-size corporate jet simulator. Most airline pilots will go their whole career without having a real engine failure but it is a check ride requirement.
Then, as long as it is not a fire, the engine is assessed and if still rotating a relight is performed and the PAN emergency cancelled so operations normal is resumed. If the engine was damaged, for example by a birdstrike, or did not relight, then the pilot has two options.
Should he dump fuel down to maximum landing weight, which was done decades ago, or land overweight, which is done in the case of a land as soon as possible fire situation?
The B777ER has a maximum takeoff weight of about 350 tons and a maximum landing weight of 250 tons. In this LAX event the aircraft had 129 tons of fuel on board. B777 aircraft are certified for a touchdown descent rate of 600 feet a minute and emergency return landing at maximum takeoff weight touchdown of 360 feet a minute.
A Qantas A380 that diverted into Honolulu years ago did an autoland, which ensures the safe overweight touchdown rate. To dump nearly 100 tons of fuel has a lot of negatives. Costly, time consuming and an environmental hazard. It’s done above 5000 feet but not near any lightning as a massive fuel/air explosion could result.
The problem landing with all that fuel on board is kinetic energy, because the landing speed has to be increased due to the increased weight and again because of the reduced flap setting in the engine out configuration. This results in nearly double the kinetic energy, which is a squared function.
Unless there is a very long runway and the pilots can stay off the brakes as long as possible, very high carbon brake temperatures exceeding 600C will result. The wheels have fusible plugs which melt before the tyres explode.
The LAX B777 cleared the end of the runway and then, as expected, all 12 of his main tyres deflated. Then comes the problem of getting the passengers off, because with red hot brakes the wheels will be catching fire. A lot for the pilots to think about.
Hmm...maybe we could convince Old BB to start having a crack at Fort Fumble? I for one would endeavour to keep him informed of the latest developments/rumours/stitched up stats being leaked from the Fort Fumble make work, MOAS trough fund...
MTF...P2