Qantas pilot to passengers: 'We have a technical issue'

[techs]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/qantas.pilot/

After part of an engine fell off a Qantas plane in mid-flight Thursday, a passenger shooting a personal video recorded the pilot announcing, calmly, that the flight was experiencing a "technical issue."

"I do apologize," the pilot begins. "I'm sure you are aware we have a technical issue with our No. 2 engine. We have dealt with the situation. The aircraft is secure at this stage. We're going to have to hold for sometime whilst we do lighten our load by dumping some fuel."




Oops!

 

[gwai lo]

What's with all these Rolls Royces breaking..Trent 1000 is throwing fits for Boeing right now.

edit: rcpratt - yeah..cnn has like three stories on this story. o_0

 

[rcpratt]

Why is this part of the story a story?

 

[Homerboy]

wait.... they actually DUMP fuel? I hope they weren't overland

 

[bruceb]

Looks like Rolls needs to check into what caused the failure. You don't hear of very many Pratt Whitney or GE Jet engines failing. Yes, they do dump fuel, they try to do it over water when possible. This is to lighten the plane and also reduce fire risk in an emergency landing.

 

[Number1]

wait.... they actually DUMP fuel? I hope they weren't overland

The fuel evaporates before reaching the ground.

 

[Homerboy]

The fuel evaporates before reaching the ground.

I thought about that after I posted.

 

[EagleKeeper]

wait.... they actually DUMP fuel? I hope they weren't overland

The fuel evaporates before reaching the ground.

Much depends on the weather and altitude.
They would prefer to dump over water if possible.

 

[DougK62]

Kudos to the pilot. Nice job staying calm and keeping the passengers calm.

 

[BoomerD]

Gotta dump fuel. With only one engine, they're getting more MPG!!

 

[PricklyPete]

Kudos to the pilot. Nice job staying calm and keeping the passengers calm.

Agreed.

 

[bignateyk]

They should have just flown to their destination. I'm sure the plane is more than capable of flying on 3 engines. It could probably fly on 2 if need be.

 

[bignateyk]

Also, this guy has nothing on the pilot of British Airways flight 9, that lost all of its engines in volcanic ash. His announcement:

"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 under control. I trust you are not in too much distress."

LOL. This was his announcement as the plane was plummeting to the ground. He did manage to restart the engines though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

 

[DivideBYZero]

They should have just flown to their destination. I'm sure the plane is more than capable of flying on 3 engines. It could probably fly on 2 if need be.

I'm posting as a record so that no one ever gives you a pilots license.

 

[BoberFett]

On a side note, Isha Sesay is hot, and her accent makes my bits feel all tingly.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm posting as a record so that no one ever gives you a pilots license.

Actually, I believe he's correct. In fact I believe that modern jets are able to function on a single engine. While that may necessitate landing at the nearest strip, losing one of four engines isn't all that big a deal.

 

[ichy]

I'm posting as a record so that no one ever gives you a pilots license.

Actually he's correct. There was at least one case of a 747 losing one of its engines in-flight (I believe it was a BA flight from LA to Heathrow) and they continued on their trip. I suspect the biggest risk in this case was that if it was something like the uncontained failure of a fan-blade the debris could've caused other damage, like in the case of United 232.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_232

 

[ichy]

Actually, I believe he's correct. In fact I believe that modern jets are able to function on a single engine. While that may necessitate landing at the nearest strip, losing one of four engines isn't all that big a deal.

In order to be certified any commercial airliner has to be able to continue its takeoff if it loses an engine after V1 during the takeoff roll. Losing an engine once you've reached cruising altitude isn't a big deal at all on a four-engine airliner.

 

[destrekor]

I'm posting as a record so that no one ever gives you a pilots license.

Technically it is very true.

But there are very few reasons to do so.
The engines are rarely pushed to maximum capacity - they fly slower than the aircraft's maximum speed to up the fuel economy, so the engines are thus definitely capable of pulling greater weight.

But there are numerous risks involved even continuing flight with only 3 engines, because that leaves a chance of zero parity.

Most of this aircraft are capable of maintaining stable, safe flight patterns with 2 engines, as long as that means one engine on each wing.
If the plane were to lose the only other engine on that wing, emergency landing, if not an outright nasty crash, is happening in a few miles, suitable terrain or not.

Without an immediate understanding of why it happened, and without a pressing need to get to that specific location or simply stay in the air... the best decision is to land as soon as possible. No need to lower the risk of safe landing simply because it would be a convenience to the passengers - airlines would rather prefer to keep casualties low... and I thank them for that.

 

[rudder]

wait.... they actually DUMP fuel? I hope they weren't overland

Passenger jets always take off at a weight higher than what they are supposed to land at. Although you can land fully loaded... it is very expensive to send the plane for the required maintenance check afterwards... It is cheaper and safer to dump fuel.

 

[ichy]

Most of this aircraft are capable of maintaining stable, safe flight patterns with 2 engines, as long as that means one engine on each wing.
If the plane were to lose the only other engine on that wing, emergency landing, if not an outright nasty crash, is happening in a few miles, suitable terrain or not.

Not true. Pilots just use the rudder to compensate for asymmetrical thrust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811

United 811 lost both of its right-side engines (and had a big honking hole in the fuselage!) and landed safely.

 

[ViviTheMage]

They should have just flown to their destination. I'm sure the plane is more than capable of flying on 3 engines. It could probably fly on 2 if need be.

yeah, but if it crashes, it's a bigger explosion, my vote would have been for keeping the fuel ... I am no pilot though

 

[rudder]

They should have just flown to their destination. I'm sure the plane is more than capable of flying on 3 engines. It could probably fly on 2 if need be.

As others have said, jets are capable of flying after losing an engine. However, with that big circle thing hanging off the wing there would now be a lot of drag. This would affect the total fuel burn for the trip. On a long flight over the pacific, they may end up with dry tanks. And regulations require them to turn back unless again they are over somewhere like the pacific and are more than halfway through the trip.

 

[Brovane]

Actually he's correct. There was at least one case of a 747 losing one of its engines in-flight (I believe it was a BA flight from LA to Heathrow) and they continued on their trip. I suspect the biggest risk in this case was that if it was something like the uncontained failure of a fan-blade the debris could've caused other damage, like in the case of United 232.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_232

I remember reading about that. Apparently the plane wound up landing in Ireland, somewhere short of its destination because it burned through more fuel with only 3 engines. Usually most airline pilots error on the side of caution and bring the aircraft in after a engine failure. In this case you didn't just have a engine failure you had a engine explosion with damage outside the engine area. I remember after the BA flight there was lots of questions why the pilots didn't divert but basically BA said it was up to the pilots discretion. I could see with Quantas that they might have a policy of automatic diversion in case of engine failure.

 

[skyking]

I remember reading about that. Apparently the plane wound up landing in Ireland, somewhere short of its destination because it burned through more fuel with only 3 engines. Usually most airline pilots error on the side of caution and bring the aircraft in after a engine failure. In this case you didn't just have a engine failure you had a engine explosion with damage outside the engine area. I remember after the BA flight there was lots of questions why the pilots didn't divert but basically BA said it was up to the pilots discretion. I could see with Quantas that they might have a policy of automatic diversion in case of engine failure.

I do believe in that case, the pilot just about had his discretion chewed off for that stunt.
Back to the fuel dumping:
It is all about reducing the weight to the aircraft's certified landing weight.