Mixing
Why didn’t the Captain of Cathay Pacific flight 780 shut down engine 1 and land with a more reasonable...
$begingroup$
In the approach phase, engine 1 of Cathay Pacific flight 780 got stuck at about 70% N1 and it forced the crew to do an overspeed landing (230knots).
Why didn't they shut it off by turning the fuel pumps off? Is there a backup mechanism if the fuel valve fails like in this scenario?
safety jet-engine accident-investigation fuel-systems airbus-a330
edited Jan 23 at 11:47
Notts90
2,10131639
asked Jan 22 at 17:46
xMoooxMooo
136125
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the approach phase, engine 1 of Cathay Pacific flight 780 got stuck at about 70% N1 and it forced the crew to do an overspeed landing (230knots).
Why didn't they shut it off by turning the fuel pumps off? Is there a backup mechanism if the fuel valve fails like in this scenario?
safety jet-engine accident-investigation fuel-systems airbus-a330
edited Jan 23 at 11:47
Notts90
2,10131639
asked Jan 22 at 17:46
xMoooxMooo
136125
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the approach phase, engine 1 of Cathay Pacific flight 780 got stuck at about 70% N1 and it forced the crew to do an overspeed landing (230knots).
Why didn't they shut it off by turning the fuel pumps off? Is there a backup mechanism if the fuel valve fails like in this scenario?
safety jet-engine accident-investigation fuel-systems airbus-a330
edited Jan 23 at 11:47
Notts90
2,10131639
asked Jan 22 at 17:46
xMoooxMooo
136125
$endgroup$
In the approach phase, engine 1 of Cathay Pacific flight 780 got stuck at about 70% N1 and it forced the crew to do an overspeed landing (230knots).
Why didn't they shut it off by turning the fuel pumps off? Is there a backup mechanism if the fuel valve fails like in this scenario?
safety jet-engine accident-investigation fuel-systems airbus-a330
safety jet-engine accident-investigation fuel-systems airbus-a330
edited Jan 23 at 11:47
Notts90
2,10131639
asked Jan 22 at 17:46
xMoooxMooo
136125
edited Jan 23 at 11:47
Notts90
2,10131639
asked Jan 22 at 17:46
xMoooxMooo
136125
edited Jan 23 at 11:47
Notts90
2,10131639
edited Jan 23 at 11:47
Notts90
2,10131639
edited Jan 23 at 11:47
Notts90
2,10131639
2,10131639
asked Jan 22 at 17:46
xMoooxMooo
136125
asked Jan 22 at 17:46
xMoooxMooo
136125
asked Jan 22 at 17:46
xMoooxMooo
136125
136125
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You can find the full incident report here and this topic is touched upon briefly, but in short they had little to no time to entertain any other options but a full speed landing.
It was not until the aircraft [was] on the final descent for landing that
the Commander realised they could not reduce the thrust on the number
1 engine. The speed was not controllable and from that point, there
was no time for the crew to consider other strategy nor procedure to
cope with such emergency situation.
and more in the conclusion section...
t. At that stage, there was no time for the flight crew to consider other
strategy nor procedure to cope with such emergency situation. The
flight crew concentrated on flying the aircraft for a safe landing.
First off, the engine was throwing errors throughout the flight and they were talking to the maintenance team at other points. Ultimately, the proper steps were taken and everything was done by the book. They were prepared for an engine-out landing. When you have a runaway engine malfunction (or throttle stuck at full) shutting down prior to landing may not be the right decision if the running engine provides no immediate safety risk. If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again.
Considering that most airports have a bit (or a lot) of extra runway, EMAS systems and often land at the end of the runway, coming in overspeed and burning through your tires and brakes may be safer than cutting the engine and potentially falling short of the runway.
edited Jan 22 at 22:57
CJ Dennis
1073
answered Jan 22 at 18:16
DaveDave
66.6k4125240
$endgroup$
22
$begingroup$
Regarding the last paragraph... Any landing you can walk away from, and all that, huh?
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Jan 22 at 21:28
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua - "If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again." - What if you hit a sudden crosswind and have to abort the landing? I'd assume 'doing it by the book' never shuts down an engine that isn't e.g., on fire.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Jan 23 at 0:35
9
$begingroup$
@Joshua … and if things are really screwed, you can't be 100% sure you are going to shut down either the engine you intended, or the correct one. We only know this was a "stuck valve because of contaminated fuel" with hindsight. The whole thing could have been caused by an electrical or computer problem, in which case the result of any control action is unknown until you try it and see what happens!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jan 23 at 0:58
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua if you are on a 3 deg glideslope at reference speed with full flaps, if all the thrust is removed you are landing short in the housing development across the highway, unless you are already across the airport boundary, in which case you are landing in the approach lights or maybe if you're lucky you can stretch the glide to the runway and just land really hard.
$endgroup$
– John K
Jan 23 at 1:31
6
$begingroup$
@Joshua part of the point is that you avoid shutting down an engine unless absolutely necessary - it's safe to do an overspeed landing to a certain point, so why unnecessarily risk? Take British Midland Flight 92 as an example - an engine shed a turbine blade. The crew diverted and shut the engine down. Only they shut the wrong one down, and their actions in doing so just happened to mask the effect (turned off autothrottle, which throttled back the duff engine as well), until they were on approach and throttled back up, which caused a complete failure and a crash just short of the runway.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Jan 25 at 4:43
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Engine #2 wasn't doing its job either
Had the situation just been engine #1 stuck at high thrust, with engine 2 normally controllable, than what you describe would be a reasonable response to the situation. However, that was not the case with CX780 -- during approach, Engine #2 was stuck at 17% N1 (or rather below idle) and thus delivering effectively nil thrust.
As a result, the pilots dared not shut down engine #1 until they were safely stopped on the ground.
edited Jan 23 at 7:40
Federico♦
25.6k16101153
answered Jan 23 at 0:54
UnrecognizedFallingObjectUnrecognizedFallingObject
8,76432484
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
All this talk of engine #1 and #2 I assumed that #3 and #4 were functioning normally for quite a while whilst reading here.
$endgroup$
– Flexo
Jan 24 at 17:51
6
$begingroup$
@Flexo -- nope, only two engines to be had here!
$endgroup$
– UnrecognizedFallingObject
Jan 24 at 23:37
$begingroup$
@Flexo By #3 and #4 you mean the pilots taking paddles and paddling the air through an open cockpit window? :)
$endgroup$
– yo'
Jan 26 at 14:13
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From the incident report section 1.1.4:
a. At 0519 hrs during the descent to a cleared level of FL230, ECAM
messages “ENG 1 CTL SYS FAULT” and “ENG 2 STALL” were annunciated
within a short period of time. According to the Commander, a light
“pop” sound was heard and some “ozone” and “burning” smell was
detected shortly before the ECAM message “ENG 2 STALL”
Then later:
e. At 0530 hrs, when the aircraft was approximately 45 nm southeast
from VHHH and was about to level off at 8,000 ft AMSL, ECAM message
“ENG 1 STALL” was annunciated.
So now both engines are out, they started the APU and successfully managed to restart #1:
h. The crew moved the thrust levers to check the engine control but
there was no direct response from the engines. The No. 1 engine speed
eventually increased to about 74% N1 with the No. 1 thrust lever in
the CLB (climb) detent position. The No. 2 engine speed remained at
sub-idle about 17% N1, with the No. 2 t hrust lever at the IDLE
position.
Engine 2 was out of action, producing no power, engine 1 had failed, but was temporarily working although they couldn't adjust power, if they'd shut that down too they'd have been gliding and probably would have crashed with total loss of life. They didn't have the power to climb and had one shot at landing, so they made damn sure they got it on the runway, not a bad landing considering the circumstances.
On a humorous note, another example of pilot understatement:
l. At 0539 hrs, the Commander made another PA advising the passengers
of having “small problem with the engines” with small vibrations and
requesting them to remain seated and follow the directions from the
cabin crew.
answered Jan 23 at 9:53
GdDGdD
32k383133
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's only a "small problem" unless the engine is completely missing.
$endgroup$
– Jacob Krall
Jan 24 at 15:26
5
$begingroup$
To be fair, he was technically correct. The actual problem was microscopic...
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
Jan 24 at 20:45
3
$begingroup$
The captain was channeling Eric Moody, captain of BA009, a 747 which had lost all 4 engines after flying through a cloud of volcanic ash: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.” They got just enough engine power to get to Jakarta.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 12:32
$begingroup$
Was any explanation given why both engines were malfunctioning at the same time?
$endgroup$
– Faheem Mitha
Jan 25 at 13:43
3
$begingroup$
Yes @FaheemMitha, the fuel delivery system at the departure airport had gotten contaminated with salt water, this had caused the fuel filter material to gel and turn into tiny spheres. These spheres gummed up the fuel management valves in the engines to the point where they seized up. #2 seized on idle, #1 finally seized on 70% throttle, which is why they couldn't change the throttle settings.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Aside from what Unrec. and GdD point out, even if the other engine had been running perfectly...
A frequent problem with twin engine airplanes is shutting down the wrong engine. Nobody ever expects or plans to shut down the wrong engine, but it happens anyway.
So a crew is very cautious to shutdown an engine that is working.
answered Jan 23 at 19:34
HarperHarper
3,223620
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
A fascinating point.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Jan 25 at 10:59
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59303%2fwhy-didn-t-the-captain-of-cathay-pacific-flight-780-shut-down-engine-1-and-land%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You can find the full incident report here and this topic is touched upon briefly, but in short they had little to no time to entertain any other options but a full speed landing.
It was not until the aircraft [was] on the final descent for landing that
the Commander realised they could not reduce the thrust on the number
1 engine. The speed was not controllable and from that point, there
was no time for the crew to consider other strategy nor procedure to
cope with such emergency situation.
and more in the conclusion section...
t. At that stage, there was no time for the flight crew to consider other
strategy nor procedure to cope with such emergency situation. The
flight crew concentrated on flying the aircraft for a safe landing.
First off, the engine was throwing errors throughout the flight and they were talking to the maintenance team at other points. Ultimately, the proper steps were taken and everything was done by the book. They were prepared for an engine-out landing. When you have a runaway engine malfunction (or throttle stuck at full) shutting down prior to landing may not be the right decision if the running engine provides no immediate safety risk. If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again.
Considering that most airports have a bit (or a lot) of extra runway, EMAS systems and often land at the end of the runway, coming in overspeed and burning through your tires and brakes may be safer than cutting the engine and potentially falling short of the runway.
edited Jan 22 at 22:57
CJ Dennis
1073
answered Jan 22 at 18:16
DaveDave
66.6k4125240
$endgroup$
22
$begingroup$
Regarding the last paragraph... Any landing you can walk away from, and all that, huh?
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Jan 22 at 21:28
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua - "If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again." - What if you hit a sudden crosswind and have to abort the landing? I'd assume 'doing it by the book' never shuts down an engine that isn't e.g., on fire.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Jan 23 at 0:35
9
$begingroup$
@Joshua … and if things are really screwed, you can't be 100% sure you are going to shut down either the engine you intended, or the correct one. We only know this was a "stuck valve because of contaminated fuel" with hindsight. The whole thing could have been caused by an electrical or computer problem, in which case the result of any control action is unknown until you try it and see what happens!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jan 23 at 0:58
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua if you are on a 3 deg glideslope at reference speed with full flaps, if all the thrust is removed you are landing short in the housing development across the highway, unless you are already across the airport boundary, in which case you are landing in the approach lights or maybe if you're lucky you can stretch the glide to the runway and just land really hard.
$endgroup$
– John K
Jan 23 at 1:31
6
$begingroup$
@Joshua part of the point is that you avoid shutting down an engine unless absolutely necessary - it's safe to do an overspeed landing to a certain point, so why unnecessarily risk? Take British Midland Flight 92 as an example - an engine shed a turbine blade. The crew diverted and shut the engine down. Only they shut the wrong one down, and their actions in doing so just happened to mask the effect (turned off autothrottle, which throttled back the duff engine as well), until they were on approach and throttled back up, which caused a complete failure and a crash just short of the runway.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Jan 25 at 4:43
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
You can find the full incident report here and this topic is touched upon briefly, but in short they had little to no time to entertain any other options but a full speed landing.
It was not until the aircraft [was] on the final descent for landing that
the Commander realised they could not reduce the thrust on the number
1 engine. The speed was not controllable and from that point, there
was no time for the crew to consider other strategy nor procedure to
cope with such emergency situation.
and more in the conclusion section...
t. At that stage, there was no time for the flight crew to consider other
strategy nor procedure to cope with such emergency situation. The
flight crew concentrated on flying the aircraft for a safe landing.
First off, the engine was throwing errors throughout the flight and they were talking to the maintenance team at other points. Ultimately, the proper steps were taken and everything was done by the book. They were prepared for an engine-out landing. When you have a runaway engine malfunction (or throttle stuck at full) shutting down prior to landing may not be the right decision if the running engine provides no immediate safety risk. If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again.
Considering that most airports have a bit (or a lot) of extra runway, EMAS systems and often land at the end of the runway, coming in overspeed and burning through your tires and brakes may be safer than cutting the engine and potentially falling short of the runway.
edited Jan 22 at 22:57
CJ Dennis
1073
answered Jan 22 at 18:16
DaveDave
66.6k4125240
$endgroup$
22
$begingroup$
Regarding the last paragraph... Any landing you can walk away from, and all that, huh?
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Jan 22 at 21:28
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua - "If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again." - What if you hit a sudden crosswind and have to abort the landing? I'd assume 'doing it by the book' never shuts down an engine that isn't e.g., on fire.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Jan 23 at 0:35
9
$begingroup$
@Joshua … and if things are really screwed, you can't be 100% sure you are going to shut down either the engine you intended, or the correct one. We only know this was a "stuck valve because of contaminated fuel" with hindsight. The whole thing could have been caused by an electrical or computer problem, in which case the result of any control action is unknown until you try it and see what happens!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jan 23 at 0:58
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua if you are on a 3 deg glideslope at reference speed with full flaps, if all the thrust is removed you are landing short in the housing development across the highway, unless you are already across the airport boundary, in which case you are landing in the approach lights or maybe if you're lucky you can stretch the glide to the runway and just land really hard.
$endgroup$
– John K
Jan 23 at 1:31
6
$begingroup$
@Joshua part of the point is that you avoid shutting down an engine unless absolutely necessary - it's safe to do an overspeed landing to a certain point, so why unnecessarily risk? Take British Midland Flight 92 as an example - an engine shed a turbine blade. The crew diverted and shut the engine down. Only they shut the wrong one down, and their actions in doing so just happened to mask the effect (turned off autothrottle, which throttled back the duff engine as well), until they were on approach and throttled back up, which caused a complete failure and a crash just short of the runway.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Jan 25 at 4:43
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
You can find the full incident report here and this topic is touched upon briefly, but in short they had little to no time to entertain any other options but a full speed landing.
It was not until the aircraft [was] on the final descent for landing that
the Commander realised they could not reduce the thrust on the number
1 engine. The speed was not controllable and from that point, there
was no time for the crew to consider other strategy nor procedure to
cope with such emergency situation.
and more in the conclusion section...
t. At that stage, there was no time for the flight crew to consider other
strategy nor procedure to cope with such emergency situation. The
flight crew concentrated on flying the aircraft for a safe landing.
First off, the engine was throwing errors throughout the flight and they were talking to the maintenance team at other points. Ultimately, the proper steps were taken and everything was done by the book. They were prepared for an engine-out landing. When you have a runaway engine malfunction (or throttle stuck at full) shutting down prior to landing may not be the right decision if the running engine provides no immediate safety risk. If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again.
Considering that most airports have a bit (or a lot) of extra runway, EMAS systems and often land at the end of the runway, coming in overspeed and burning through your tires and brakes may be safer than cutting the engine and potentially falling short of the runway.
edited Jan 22 at 22:57
CJ Dennis
1073
answered Jan 22 at 18:16
DaveDave
66.6k4125240
$endgroup$
You can find the full incident report here and this topic is touched upon briefly, but in short they had little to no time to entertain any other options but a full speed landing.
It was not until the aircraft [was] on the final descent for landing that
the Commander realised they could not reduce the thrust on the number
1 engine. The speed was not controllable and from that point, there
was no time for the crew to consider other strategy nor procedure to
cope with such emergency situation.
and more in the conclusion section...
t. At that stage, there was no time for the flight crew to consider other
strategy nor procedure to cope with such emergency situation. The
flight crew concentrated on flying the aircraft for a safe landing.
First off, the engine was throwing errors throughout the flight and they were talking to the maintenance team at other points. Ultimately, the proper steps were taken and everything was done by the book. They were prepared for an engine-out landing. When you have a runaway engine malfunction (or throttle stuck at full) shutting down prior to landing may not be the right decision if the running engine provides no immediate safety risk. If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again.
Considering that most airports have a bit (or a lot) of extra runway, EMAS systems and often land at the end of the runway, coming in overspeed and burning through your tires and brakes may be safer than cutting the engine and potentially falling short of the runway.
edited Jan 22 at 22:57
CJ Dennis
1073
answered Jan 22 at 18:16
DaveDave
66.6k4125240
edited Jan 22 at 22:57
CJ Dennis
1073
edited Jan 22 at 22:57
CJ Dennis
1073
edited Jan 22 at 22:57
CJ Dennis
1073
1073
answered Jan 22 at 18:16
DaveDave
66.6k4125240
answered Jan 22 at 18:16
DaveDave
66.6k4125240
answered Jan 22 at 18:16
DaveDave
66.6k4125240
66.6k4125240
22
$begingroup$
Regarding the last paragraph... Any landing you can walk away from, and all that, huh?
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Jan 22 at 21:28
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua - "If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again." - What if you hit a sudden crosswind and have to abort the landing? I'd assume 'doing it by the book' never shuts down an engine that isn't e.g., on fire.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Jan 23 at 0:35
9
$begingroup$
@Joshua … and if things are really screwed, you can't be 100% sure you are going to shut down either the engine you intended, or the correct one. We only know this was a "stuck valve because of contaminated fuel" with hindsight. The whole thing could have been caused by an electrical or computer problem, in which case the result of any control action is unknown until you try it and see what happens!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jan 23 at 0:58
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua if you are on a 3 deg glideslope at reference speed with full flaps, if all the thrust is removed you are landing short in the housing development across the highway, unless you are already across the airport boundary, in which case you are landing in the approach lights or maybe if you're lucky you can stretch the glide to the runway and just land really hard.
$endgroup$
– John K
Jan 23 at 1:31
6
$begingroup$
@Joshua part of the point is that you avoid shutting down an engine unless absolutely necessary - it's safe to do an overspeed landing to a certain point, so why unnecessarily risk? Take British Midland Flight 92 as an example - an engine shed a turbine blade. The crew diverted and shut the engine down. Only they shut the wrong one down, and their actions in doing so just happened to mask the effect (turned off autothrottle, which throttled back the duff engine as well), until they were on approach and throttled back up, which caused a complete failure and a crash just short of the runway.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Jan 25 at 4:43
|
show 4 more comments
22
$begingroup$
Regarding the last paragraph... Any landing you can walk away from, and all that, huh?
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Jan 22 at 21:28
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua - "If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again." - What if you hit a sudden crosswind and have to abort the landing? I'd assume 'doing it by the book' never shuts down an engine that isn't e.g., on fire.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Jan 23 at 0:35
9
$begingroup$
@Joshua … and if things are really screwed, you can't be 100% sure you are going to shut down either the engine you intended, or the correct one. We only know this was a "stuck valve because of contaminated fuel" with hindsight. The whole thing could have been caused by an electrical or computer problem, in which case the result of any control action is unknown until you try it and see what happens!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jan 23 at 0:58
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua if you are on a 3 deg glideslope at reference speed with full flaps, if all the thrust is removed you are landing short in the housing development across the highway, unless you are already across the airport boundary, in which case you are landing in the approach lights or maybe if you're lucky you can stretch the glide to the runway and just land really hard.
$endgroup$
– John K
Jan 23 at 1:31
6
$begingroup$
@Joshua part of the point is that you avoid shutting down an engine unless absolutely necessary - it's safe to do an overspeed landing to a certain point, so why unnecessarily risk? Take British Midland Flight 92 as an example - an engine shed a turbine blade. The crew diverted and shut the engine down. Only they shut the wrong one down, and their actions in doing so just happened to mask the effect (turned off autothrottle, which throttled back the duff engine as well), until they were on approach and throttled back up, which caused a complete failure and a crash just short of the runway.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Jan 25 at 4:43
22
22
$begingroup$
Regarding the last paragraph... Any landing you can walk away from, and all that, huh?
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Jan 22 at 21:28
$begingroup$
Regarding the last paragraph... Any landing you can walk away from, and all that, huh?
$endgroup$
– T.J.L.
Jan 22 at 21:28
7
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua - "If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again." - What if you hit a sudden crosswind and have to abort the landing? I'd assume 'doing it by the book' never shuts down an engine that isn't e.g., on fire.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Jan 23 at 0:35
$begingroup$
@Joshua - "If you shut down a problematic engine in flight you run the serious risk of not being able to get it started again." - What if you hit a sudden crosswind and have to abort the landing? I'd assume 'doing it by the book' never shuts down an engine that isn't e.g., on fire.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Jan 23 at 0:35
9
9
$begingroup$
@Joshua … and if things are really screwed, you can't be 100% sure you are going to shut down either the engine you intended, or the correct one. We only know this was a "stuck valve because of contaminated fuel" with hindsight. The whole thing could have been caused by an electrical or computer problem, in which case the result of any control action is unknown until you try it and see what happens!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jan 23 at 0:58
$begingroup$
@Joshua … and if things are really screwed, you can't be 100% sure you are going to shut down either the engine you intended, or the correct one. We only know this was a "stuck valve because of contaminated fuel" with hindsight. The whole thing could have been caused by an electrical or computer problem, in which case the result of any control action is unknown until you try it and see what happens!
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jan 23 at 0:58
7
7
$begingroup$
@Joshua if you are on a 3 deg glideslope at reference speed with full flaps, if all the thrust is removed you are landing short in the housing development across the highway, unless you are already across the airport boundary, in which case you are landing in the approach lights or maybe if you're lucky you can stretch the glide to the runway and just land really hard.
$endgroup$
– John K
Jan 23 at 1:31
$begingroup$
@Joshua if you are on a 3 deg glideslope at reference speed with full flaps, if all the thrust is removed you are landing short in the housing development across the highway, unless you are already across the airport boundary, in which case you are landing in the approach lights or maybe if you're lucky you can stretch the glide to the runway and just land really hard.
$endgroup$
– John K
Jan 23 at 1:31
6
6
$begingroup$
@Joshua part of the point is that you avoid shutting down an engine unless absolutely necessary - it's safe to do an overspeed landing to a certain point, so why unnecessarily risk? Take British Midland Flight 92 as an example - an engine shed a turbine blade. The crew diverted and shut the engine down. Only they shut the wrong one down, and their actions in doing so just happened to mask the effect (turned off autothrottle, which throttled back the duff engine as well), until they were on approach and throttled back up, which caused a complete failure and a crash just short of the runway.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Jan 25 at 4:43
$begingroup$
@Joshua part of the point is that you avoid shutting down an engine unless absolutely necessary - it's safe to do an overspeed landing to a certain point, so why unnecessarily risk? Take British Midland Flight 92 as an example - an engine shed a turbine blade. The crew diverted and shut the engine down. Only they shut the wrong one down, and their actions in doing so just happened to mask the effect (turned off autothrottle, which throttled back the duff engine as well), until they were on approach and throttled back up, which caused a complete failure and a crash just short of the runway.
$endgroup$
– Moo
Jan 25 at 4:43
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Engine #2 wasn't doing its job either
Had the situation just been engine #1 stuck at high thrust, with engine 2 normally controllable, than what you describe would be a reasonable response to the situation. However, that was not the case with CX780 -- during approach, Engine #2 was stuck at 17% N1 (or rather below idle) and thus delivering effectively nil thrust.
As a result, the pilots dared not shut down engine #1 until they were safely stopped on the ground.
edited Jan 23 at 7:40
Federico♦
25.6k16101153
answered Jan 23 at 0:54
UnrecognizedFallingObjectUnrecognizedFallingObject
8,76432484
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
All this talk of engine #1 and #2 I assumed that #3 and #4 were functioning normally for quite a while whilst reading here.
$endgroup$
– Flexo
Jan 24 at 17:51
6
$begingroup$
@Flexo -- nope, only two engines to be had here!
$endgroup$
– UnrecognizedFallingObject
Jan 24 at 23:37
$begingroup$
@Flexo By #3 and #4 you mean the pilots taking paddles and paddling the air through an open cockpit window? :)
$endgroup$
– yo'
Jan 26 at 14:13
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Engine #2 wasn't doing its job either
Had the situation just been engine #1 stuck at high thrust, with engine 2 normally controllable, than what you describe would be a reasonable response to the situation. However, that was not the case with CX780 -- during approach, Engine #2 was stuck at 17% N1 (or rather below idle) and thus delivering effectively nil thrust.
As a result, the pilots dared not shut down engine #1 until they were safely stopped on the ground.
edited Jan 23 at 7:40
Federico♦
25.6k16101153
answered Jan 23 at 0:54
UnrecognizedFallingObjectUnrecognizedFallingObject
8,76432484
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
All this talk of engine #1 and #2 I assumed that #3 and #4 were functioning normally for quite a while whilst reading here.
$endgroup$
– Flexo
Jan 24 at 17:51
6
$begingroup$
@Flexo -- nope, only two engines to be had here!
$endgroup$
– UnrecognizedFallingObject
Jan 24 at 23:37
$begingroup$
@Flexo By #3 and #4 you mean the pilots taking paddles and paddling the air through an open cockpit window? :)
$endgroup$
– yo'
Jan 26 at 14:13
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Engine #2 wasn't doing its job either
Had the situation just been engine #1 stuck at high thrust, with engine 2 normally controllable, than what you describe would be a reasonable response to the situation. However, that was not the case with CX780 -- during approach, Engine #2 was stuck at 17% N1 (or rather below idle) and thus delivering effectively nil thrust.
As a result, the pilots dared not shut down engine #1 until they were safely stopped on the ground.
edited Jan 23 at 7:40
Federico♦
25.6k16101153
answered Jan 23 at 0:54
UnrecognizedFallingObjectUnrecognizedFallingObject
8,76432484
$endgroup$
Engine #2 wasn't doing its job either
Had the situation just been engine #1 stuck at high thrust, with engine 2 normally controllable, than what you describe would be a reasonable response to the situation. However, that was not the case with CX780 -- during approach, Engine #2 was stuck at 17% N1 (or rather below idle) and thus delivering effectively nil thrust.
As a result, the pilots dared not shut down engine #1 until they were safely stopped on the ground.
edited Jan 23 at 7:40
Federico♦
25.6k16101153
answered Jan 23 at 0:54
UnrecognizedFallingObjectUnrecognizedFallingObject
8,76432484
edited Jan 23 at 7:40
Federico♦
25.6k16101153
edited Jan 23 at 7:40
Federico♦
25.6k16101153
edited Jan 23 at 7:40
Federico♦
25.6k16101153
25.6k16101153
answered Jan 23 at 0:54
UnrecognizedFallingObjectUnrecognizedFallingObject
8,76432484
answered Jan 23 at 0:54
UnrecognizedFallingObjectUnrecognizedFallingObject
8,76432484
answered Jan 23 at 0:54
UnrecognizedFallingObjectUnrecognizedFallingObject
8,76432484
8,76432484
1
$begingroup$
All this talk of engine #1 and #2 I assumed that #3 and #4 were functioning normally for quite a while whilst reading here.
$endgroup$
– Flexo
Jan 24 at 17:51
6
$begingroup$
@Flexo -- nope, only two engines to be had here!
$endgroup$
– UnrecognizedFallingObject
Jan 24 at 23:37
$begingroup$
@Flexo By #3 and #4 you mean the pilots taking paddles and paddling the air through an open cockpit window? :)
$endgroup$
– yo'
Jan 26 at 14:13
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
All this talk of engine #1 and #2 I assumed that #3 and #4 were functioning normally for quite a while whilst reading here.
$endgroup$
– Flexo
Jan 24 at 17:51
6
$begingroup$
@Flexo -- nope, only two engines to be had here!
$endgroup$
– UnrecognizedFallingObject
Jan 24 at 23:37
$begingroup$
@Flexo By #3 and #4 you mean the pilots taking paddles and paddling the air through an open cockpit window? :)
$endgroup$
– yo'
Jan 26 at 14:13
1
1
$begingroup$
All this talk of engine #1 and #2 I assumed that #3 and #4 were functioning normally for quite a while whilst reading here.
$endgroup$
– Flexo
Jan 24 at 17:51
$begingroup$
All this talk of engine #1 and #2 I assumed that #3 and #4 were functioning normally for quite a while whilst reading here.
$endgroup$
– Flexo
Jan 24 at 17:51
6
6
$begingroup$
@Flexo -- nope, only two engines to be had here!
$endgroup$
– UnrecognizedFallingObject
Jan 24 at 23:37
$begingroup$
@Flexo -- nope, only two engines to be had here!
$endgroup$
– UnrecognizedFallingObject
Jan 24 at 23:37
$begingroup$
@Flexo By #3 and #4 you mean the pilots taking paddles and paddling the air through an open cockpit window? :)
$endgroup$
– yo'
Jan 26 at 14:13
$begingroup$
@Flexo By #3 and #4 you mean the pilots taking paddles and paddling the air through an open cockpit window? :)
$endgroup$
– yo'
Jan 26 at 14:13
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From the incident report section 1.1.4:
a. At 0519 hrs during the descent to a cleared level of FL230, ECAM
messages “ENG 1 CTL SYS FAULT” and “ENG 2 STALL” were annunciated
within a short period of time. According to the Commander, a light
“pop” sound was heard and some “ozone” and “burning” smell was
detected shortly before the ECAM message “ENG 2 STALL”
Then later:
e. At 0530 hrs, when the aircraft was approximately 45 nm southeast
from VHHH and was about to level off at 8,000 ft AMSL, ECAM message
“ENG 1 STALL” was annunciated.
So now both engines are out, they started the APU and successfully managed to restart #1:
h. The crew moved the thrust levers to check the engine control but
there was no direct response from the engines. The No. 1 engine speed
eventually increased to about 74% N1 with the No. 1 thrust lever in
the CLB (climb) detent position. The No. 2 engine speed remained at
sub-idle about 17% N1, with the No. 2 t hrust lever at the IDLE
position.
Engine 2 was out of action, producing no power, engine 1 had failed, but was temporarily working although they couldn't adjust power, if they'd shut that down too they'd have been gliding and probably would have crashed with total loss of life. They didn't have the power to climb and had one shot at landing, so they made damn sure they got it on the runway, not a bad landing considering the circumstances.
On a humorous note, another example of pilot understatement:
l. At 0539 hrs, the Commander made another PA advising the passengers
of having “small problem with the engines” with small vibrations and
requesting them to remain seated and follow the directions from the
cabin crew.
answered Jan 23 at 9:53
GdDGdD
32k383133
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's only a "small problem" unless the engine is completely missing.
$endgroup$
– Jacob Krall
Jan 24 at 15:26
5
$begingroup$
To be fair, he was technically correct. The actual problem was microscopic...
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
Jan 24 at 20:45
3
$begingroup$
The captain was channeling Eric Moody, captain of BA009, a 747 which had lost all 4 engines after flying through a cloud of volcanic ash: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.” They got just enough engine power to get to Jakarta.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 12:32
$begingroup$
Was any explanation given why both engines were malfunctioning at the same time?
$endgroup$
– Faheem Mitha
Jan 25 at 13:43
3
$begingroup$
Yes @FaheemMitha, the fuel delivery system at the departure airport had gotten contaminated with salt water, this had caused the fuel filter material to gel and turn into tiny spheres. These spheres gummed up the fuel management valves in the engines to the point where they seized up. #2 seized on idle, #1 finally seized on 70% throttle, which is why they couldn't change the throttle settings.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
From the incident report section 1.1.4:
a. At 0519 hrs during the descent to a cleared level of FL230, ECAM
messages “ENG 1 CTL SYS FAULT” and “ENG 2 STALL” were annunciated
within a short period of time. According to the Commander, a light
“pop” sound was heard and some “ozone” and “burning” smell was
detected shortly before the ECAM message “ENG 2 STALL”
Then later:
e. At 0530 hrs, when the aircraft was approximately 45 nm southeast
from VHHH and was about to level off at 8,000 ft AMSL, ECAM message
“ENG 1 STALL” was annunciated.
So now both engines are out, they started the APU and successfully managed to restart #1:
h. The crew moved the thrust levers to check the engine control but
there was no direct response from the engines. The No. 1 engine speed
eventually increased to about 74% N1 with the No. 1 thrust lever in
the CLB (climb) detent position. The No. 2 engine speed remained at
sub-idle about 17% N1, with the No. 2 t hrust lever at the IDLE
position.
Engine 2 was out of action, producing no power, engine 1 had failed, but was temporarily working although they couldn't adjust power, if they'd shut that down too they'd have been gliding and probably would have crashed with total loss of life. They didn't have the power to climb and had one shot at landing, so they made damn sure they got it on the runway, not a bad landing considering the circumstances.
On a humorous note, another example of pilot understatement:
l. At 0539 hrs, the Commander made another PA advising the passengers
of having “small problem with the engines” with small vibrations and
requesting them to remain seated and follow the directions from the
cabin crew.
answered Jan 23 at 9:53
GdDGdD
32k383133
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's only a "small problem" unless the engine is completely missing.
$endgroup$
– Jacob Krall
Jan 24 at 15:26
5
$begingroup$
To be fair, he was technically correct. The actual problem was microscopic...
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
Jan 24 at 20:45
3
$begingroup$
The captain was channeling Eric Moody, captain of BA009, a 747 which had lost all 4 engines after flying through a cloud of volcanic ash: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.” They got just enough engine power to get to Jakarta.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 12:32
$begingroup$
Was any explanation given why both engines were malfunctioning at the same time?
$endgroup$
– Faheem Mitha
Jan 25 at 13:43
3
$begingroup$
Yes @FaheemMitha, the fuel delivery system at the departure airport had gotten contaminated with salt water, this had caused the fuel filter material to gel and turn into tiny spheres. These spheres gummed up the fuel management valves in the engines to the point where they seized up. #2 seized on idle, #1 finally seized on 70% throttle, which is why they couldn't change the throttle settings.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
From the incident report section 1.1.4:
a. At 0519 hrs during the descent to a cleared level of FL230, ECAM
messages “ENG 1 CTL SYS FAULT” and “ENG 2 STALL” were annunciated
within a short period of time. According to the Commander, a light
“pop” sound was heard and some “ozone” and “burning” smell was
detected shortly before the ECAM message “ENG 2 STALL”
Then later:
e. At 0530 hrs, when the aircraft was approximately 45 nm southeast
from VHHH and was about to level off at 8,000 ft AMSL, ECAM message
“ENG 1 STALL” was annunciated.
So now both engines are out, they started the APU and successfully managed to restart #1:
h. The crew moved the thrust levers to check the engine control but
there was no direct response from the engines. The No. 1 engine speed
eventually increased to about 74% N1 with the No. 1 thrust lever in
the CLB (climb) detent position. The No. 2 engine speed remained at
sub-idle about 17% N1, with the No. 2 t hrust lever at the IDLE
position.
Engine 2 was out of action, producing no power, engine 1 had failed, but was temporarily working although they couldn't adjust power, if they'd shut that down too they'd have been gliding and probably would have crashed with total loss of life. They didn't have the power to climb and had one shot at landing, so they made damn sure they got it on the runway, not a bad landing considering the circumstances.
On a humorous note, another example of pilot understatement:
l. At 0539 hrs, the Commander made another PA advising the passengers
of having “small problem with the engines” with small vibrations and
requesting them to remain seated and follow the directions from the
cabin crew.
answered Jan 23 at 9:53
GdDGdD
32k383133
$endgroup$
From the incident report section 1.1.4:
a. At 0519 hrs during the descent to a cleared level of FL230, ECAM
messages “ENG 1 CTL SYS FAULT” and “ENG 2 STALL” were annunciated
within a short period of time. According to the Commander, a light
“pop” sound was heard and some “ozone” and “burning” smell was
detected shortly before the ECAM message “ENG 2 STALL”
Then later:
e. At 0530 hrs, when the aircraft was approximately 45 nm southeast
from VHHH and was about to level off at 8,000 ft AMSL, ECAM message
“ENG 1 STALL” was annunciated.
So now both engines are out, they started the APU and successfully managed to restart #1:
h. The crew moved the thrust levers to check the engine control but
there was no direct response from the engines. The No. 1 engine speed
eventually increased to about 74% N1 with the No. 1 thrust lever in
the CLB (climb) detent position. The No. 2 engine speed remained at
sub-idle about 17% N1, with the No. 2 t hrust lever at the IDLE
position.
Engine 2 was out of action, producing no power, engine 1 had failed, but was temporarily working although they couldn't adjust power, if they'd shut that down too they'd have been gliding and probably would have crashed with total loss of life. They didn't have the power to climb and had one shot at landing, so they made damn sure they got it on the runway, not a bad landing considering the circumstances.
On a humorous note, another example of pilot understatement:
l. At 0539 hrs, the Commander made another PA advising the passengers
of having “small problem with the engines” with small vibrations and
requesting them to remain seated and follow the directions from the
cabin crew.
answered Jan 23 at 9:53
GdDGdD
32k383133
edited Jan 23 at 9:59
answered Jan 23 at 9:53
GdDGdD
32k383133
answered Jan 23 at 9:53
GdDGdD
32k383133
answered Jan 23 at 9:53
GdDGdD
32k383133
32k383133
$begingroup$
It's only a "small problem" unless the engine is completely missing.
$endgroup$
– Jacob Krall
Jan 24 at 15:26
5
$begingroup$
To be fair, he was technically correct. The actual problem was microscopic...
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
Jan 24 at 20:45
3
$begingroup$
The captain was channeling Eric Moody, captain of BA009, a 747 which had lost all 4 engines after flying through a cloud of volcanic ash: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.” They got just enough engine power to get to Jakarta.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 12:32
$begingroup$
Was any explanation given why both engines were malfunctioning at the same time?
$endgroup$
– Faheem Mitha
Jan 25 at 13:43
3
$begingroup$
Yes @FaheemMitha, the fuel delivery system at the departure airport had gotten contaminated with salt water, this had caused the fuel filter material to gel and turn into tiny spheres. These spheres gummed up the fuel management valves in the engines to the point where they seized up. #2 seized on idle, #1 finally seized on 70% throttle, which is why they couldn't change the throttle settings.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
It's only a "small problem" unless the engine is completely missing.
$endgroup$
– Jacob Krall
Jan 24 at 15:26
5
$begingroup$
To be fair, he was technically correct. The actual problem was microscopic...
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
Jan 24 at 20:45
3
$begingroup$
The captain was channeling Eric Moody, captain of BA009, a 747 which had lost all 4 engines after flying through a cloud of volcanic ash: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.” They got just enough engine power to get to Jakarta.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 12:32
$begingroup$
Was any explanation given why both engines were malfunctioning at the same time?
$endgroup$
– Faheem Mitha
Jan 25 at 13:43
3
$begingroup$
Yes @FaheemMitha, the fuel delivery system at the departure airport had gotten contaminated with salt water, this had caused the fuel filter material to gel and turn into tiny spheres. These spheres gummed up the fuel management valves in the engines to the point where they seized up. #2 seized on idle, #1 finally seized on 70% throttle, which is why they couldn't change the throttle settings.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 13:48
$begingroup$
It's only a "small problem" unless the engine is completely missing.
$endgroup$
– Jacob Krall
Jan 24 at 15:26
$begingroup$
It's only a "small problem" unless the engine is completely missing.
$endgroup$
– Jacob Krall
Jan 24 at 15:26
5
5
$begingroup$
To be fair, he was technically correct. The actual problem was microscopic...
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
Jan 24 at 20:45
$begingroup$
To be fair, he was technically correct. The actual problem was microscopic...
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
Jan 24 at 20:45
3
3
$begingroup$
The captain was channeling Eric Moody, captain of BA009, a 747 which had lost all 4 engines after flying through a cloud of volcanic ash: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.” They got just enough engine power to get to Jakarta.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 12:32
$begingroup$
The captain was channeling Eric Moody, captain of BA009, a 747 which had lost all 4 engines after flying through a cloud of volcanic ash: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.” They got just enough engine power to get to Jakarta.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 12:32
$begingroup$
Was any explanation given why both engines were malfunctioning at the same time?
$endgroup$
– Faheem Mitha
Jan 25 at 13:43
$begingroup$
Was any explanation given why both engines were malfunctioning at the same time?
$endgroup$
– Faheem Mitha
Jan 25 at 13:43
3
3
$begingroup$
Yes @FaheemMitha, the fuel delivery system at the departure airport had gotten contaminated with salt water, this had caused the fuel filter material to gel and turn into tiny spheres. These spheres gummed up the fuel management valves in the engines to the point where they seized up. #2 seized on idle, #1 finally seized on 70% throttle, which is why they couldn't change the throttle settings.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 13:48
$begingroup$
Yes @FaheemMitha, the fuel delivery system at the departure airport had gotten contaminated with salt water, this had caused the fuel filter material to gel and turn into tiny spheres. These spheres gummed up the fuel management valves in the engines to the point where they seized up. #2 seized on idle, #1 finally seized on 70% throttle, which is why they couldn't change the throttle settings.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Jan 25 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Aside from what Unrec. and GdD point out, even if the other engine had been running perfectly...
A frequent problem with twin engine airplanes is shutting down the wrong engine. Nobody ever expects or plans to shut down the wrong engine, but it happens anyway.
So a crew is very cautious to shutdown an engine that is working.
answered Jan 23 at 19:34
HarperHarper
3,223620
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
A fascinating point.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Jan 25 at 10:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Aside from what Unrec. and GdD point out, even if the other engine had been running perfectly...
A frequent problem with twin engine airplanes is shutting down the wrong engine. Nobody ever expects or plans to shut down the wrong engine, but it happens anyway.
So a crew is very cautious to shutdown an engine that is working.
answered Jan 23 at 19:34
HarperHarper
3,223620
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
A fascinating point.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Jan 25 at 10:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Aside from what Unrec. and GdD point out, even if the other engine had been running perfectly...
A frequent problem with twin engine airplanes is shutting down the wrong engine. Nobody ever expects or plans to shut down the wrong engine, but it happens anyway.
So a crew is very cautious to shutdown an engine that is working.
answered Jan 23 at 19:34
HarperHarper
3,223620
$endgroup$
Aside from what Unrec. and GdD point out, even if the other engine had been running perfectly...
A frequent problem with twin engine airplanes is shutting down the wrong engine. Nobody ever expects or plans to shut down the wrong engine, but it happens anyway.
So a crew is very cautious to shutdown an engine that is working.
answered Jan 23 at 19:34
HarperHarper
3,223620
answered Jan 23 at 19:34
HarperHarper
3,223620
answered Jan 23 at 19:34
HarperHarper
3,223620
answered Jan 23 at 19:34
HarperHarper
3,223620
3,223620
$begingroup$
A fascinating point.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Jan 25 at 10:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A fascinating point.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Jan 25 at 10:59
$begingroup$
A fascinating point.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Jan 25 at 10:59
$begingroup$
A fascinating point.
$endgroup$
– Fattie
Jan 25 at 10:59
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59303%2fwhy-didn-t-the-captain-of-cathay-pacific-flight-780-shut-down-engine-1-and-land%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
