I think you mean, hydraulic.

And the APU is a crapshoot in-flight. (for a lot of reasons, and is not always the first thing to go to)

In this specific incident, the aircrew did not have the knowledge other than what instruments provided, possibly airframe vibration, maybe some yawing and if any report from the cabin crew.

And if the engine instruments still showed good exhaust Pressure, both N1 and N2 temps and rpms, oil pressure and fuel flow all being in the green, and only the "bang" and "smoke in the cabin", they may well have surmised an AC pack failure or other issue and left the engine spooled up.

Things happen fast and the time to analyze, and determine what procedure(s) apply/checklists to run, etc, come behind flying the plane and getting to the destination, then evaluating what is going on. You can cover a lot of sky and use a lot of time really fast in such things.

A lot of my experience was "going along for the ride" and "other duties as required", but I paid attention in briefings, during the (few) "exciting moments" and during debrief and post flights.

And every incident is different and the same. As paradoxically as that may sound.

Professional Flight Management, correct/best application and use of Crew Resources (and no one refuses good luck), all play a part in every E ticket ride.

quote:

Originally posted by wingfoot:

Yes, it does have a max operating ceiling of 37,000 ft. and the aircraft would be typically be flying less than that.

In which aircraft? A start envelope to 37,000 is not standard in most, nor is an operating envelope that high for the APU, and many are restricted on what operations they can provide in flight.

quote:

Originally posted by wingfoot:

Yes, it does have a max operating ceiling of 37,000 ft. and the aircraft would be typically be flying less than that.

Yes, I agree it would depend on the APU working to supply pneumatic and electrical power.

Have you not operated aircraft in which the APU is MEL'd? Perhaps if you haven't been flying long enough to see that, one could see why you'd roll your eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by wingfoot:

Yes, it does have a max operating ceiling of 37,000 ft. and the aircraft would be typically be flying less than that.

In which aircraft? Well, we are talking about the MD88, so that one. A start envelope to 37,000 is not standard in most, nor is an operating envelope that high for the APU, and many are restricted on what operations they can provide in flight. I wouldn't think starting or operating would be considered standard .

quote:

Originally posted by wingfoot:

Yes, it does have a max operating ceiling of 37,000 ft. and the aircraft would be typically be flying less than that.

Yes, I agree it would depend on the APU working to supply pneumatic and electrical power.

Have you not operated aircraft in which the APU is MEL'd? Perhaps if you haven't been flying long enough to see that, one could see why you'd roll your eyes.

I haven't operated an MD88 as far as flying. The roll eyes was because you commented, it depended on if the APU was working, that was more of a no shit comment. I have MEL'd an APU a time or two.

[Letterkenny] It's like two pilots debating if the APU is above MOC or if the APU is MEL'd. Fuck, just whip 'em out and get a ruler.[/Letterkenny]

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
[Letterkenny] It's like two pilots debating if the APU is above MOC or if the APU is MEL'd. Fuck, just whip 'em out and get a ruler.[/Letterkenny]

Yup. Every single thread regarding an aviation or maritime incident will eventually devolve into a cock fight.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
[Letterkenny] It's like two pilots debating if the APU is above MOC or if the APU is MEL'd. Fuck, just whip 'em out and get a ruler.[/Letterkenny]

Yup. Every single thread regarding an aviation or maritime incident will eventually devolve into a cock fight.

A cock fight at 37,000', that's when things get really interesting.

I always enjoy these types of threads as I walk away thinking I've learned so much. Truth is, I'm probably just left more confused than I realize

quote:

Originally posted by wingfoot:
I wouldn't think starting or operating would be considered standard

It isn't within the envelope in most, and operating an APU in flight or getting it to light off, especially if you happen to be an an aircraft that's capable of APU operation at 37,000, is far from a guarantee. The windmill start envelope is 30,000, operation limitation 370, but that's far from guaranteed. APU operation is only available for electrical output; it's not available for pneumatics in flight.

Regarding the rotation shown on the engine in the video, there's no question that the crew was aware of catastrophic damage; between noise and fluctuations and sensor damage, bearing failure and engine damage, it certainly wouldn't be something the crew could overlook or miss.

We light the APU following an engine failure, but only after we're low enough; the top of the envelope for us is 25,000, max operational altitude 30,000.

This Delta MD-88 engine malfunction killed two people back in 1996.

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9607...ident/index.11a.html

Engine that blew apart had been worked on, official says
Probe of fatal Delta accident in full swing

July 8, 1996
Web posted at: 11:00 a.m. EDT

PENSACOLA, Florida (CNN) -- The jet engine that blew apart on a Delta jet Saturday was removed from another aircraft last fall for service work, a National Transportation Safety Board official said Monday.

"The area of failure was part of that work," said George Black on NBC.

Black said that the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-219 engine was pulled from another plane in November, work was done in December, and it was reinstalled in January.

"There could be" a connection between the engine failure and that work, Black said. "We're looking into that."

NBC reported that the engine in question was removed after smoke from it filled the cabin of a Delta flight to Orlando. The network quoted a Delta spokesman denying a connection between Saturday's incident and the earlier one.

Two people were killed on Delta Flight 1288 when the engine disintegrated Saturday afternoon, hurling metal blades through its casing and into the passenger cabin.

Flight 1288's data recorder and cockpit voice recorder have been taken to Washington for review, Black told CNN, and maintenance records for the plane and its failed engine are also being collected for inspection.

The aircraft's crew members were interviewed about the incident Sunday, but officials said there was no indication they did anything improper.

Black said the preliminary investigation showed the fan blades from the failed engine sliced through the plane's skin with tremendous force. A heavy titanium hub from the engine was broken in half, indicating the force of the explosion. One part of the hub was found a quarter of a mile away.

The Pratt & Whitney JT8D is the most widely used type of jet engine in commercial aviation. More than 14,000 JT8D engines have been built since 1964 and most are still in service, powering about 4,000 aircraft around the world, according to Pratt & Whitney spokesman Mark Sullivan.

Engine involved in DC-9 fire last June

CNN has obtained FAA records of Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine failures involving "uncontained" failures, in which metal parts cut through the casing. A computer search revealed 42 such incidents since 1974, when the records database was first computerized.

Saturday's Delta accident, the 43rd such JT8D failure, was apparently the first on record to result in passenger deaths.

A ValuJet flight attendant was burned on June 8, 1995, when a JT8D engine suffered "uncontained engine failure" during a takeoff attempt at Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport. The DC-9 was destroyed by fire as it sat on the runway.

A check of "Airworthiness Directives" issued by the FAA concerning the JT8D-219 engines, the specific series on the Delta MD-88, revealed there were five warnings since 1988, including two in the last two years, concerning the possibility of fan blade failures causing damage to the aircraft.

In November, 1994, the FAA ordered airlines to inspect a certain section of the engine and install a temperature indicator that might prevent overheating and result in engine failure.

In June, 1995, another FAA Airworthiness Directive was issued, ordering special inspections and lubrication of a section of fan blades to prevent engine failure.

On Saturday, a JT8D engine failure forced a TWA jet carrying 126 people from Seattle to St. Louis to make an emergency landing Saturday. No one was injured, according to TWA spokesman Mark Abels.

The right engine on TWA Flight 114 lost power, but there was no violent disintegration of the metal parts, Abels said.

Delta accident victims released from hospital

Anita Saxton, 39, and her 12-year-old son, Nolan, returning to Michigan from a Florida vacation, were killed almost instantly by metal fragments flung from the engine.

Nolan's brother and sister -- 15-year-old Derrick and 9-year-old Spencer -- were released Sunday from Pensacola's Sacred Heart Hospital. Sitting near their mother and brother when the accident occurred, Derrick was slightly burned and Spencer suffered a facial cut and leg fracture. Derrick carried his sister off the jet after the accident.

Indianapolis resident Paul Kervan, a passenger on the plane, said most passengers thought a tire had blown after hearing a loud pop. But after the pop, passengers heard a scream and noticed "an intensely bad smell." (213K AIFF or WAV sound)

"That's when we knew something was wrong," Kervan said.

Kervan, traveling with his wife and three children, said the evacuation of the plane was quick.

"The passengers' reaction I thought was excellent," he said. "The people were of course scared and panicked, but nobody overreacted and we exited the plane fairly orderly."

That "report" is so poorly written.

It has past incidents written in "present form" as well as mixing of information of separate incidents.

To say nothing of insinuations and straw-man comparisons.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Ummm... Yep, a couple free airport meals is certainly just compensation for me being entertained by the engine on the aircraft I am on slowly self destructs. And then being dumped somewhere I had no intention of going and missing my connecting flights is just a minor irritant.
Sorry, 30 bucks doesnt cut it.

I bet the ticket agreement makes it the compensation you agreed upon though.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
[Letterkenny] It's like two pilots debating if the APU is above MOC or if the APU is MEL'd. Fuck, just whip 'em out and get a ruler.[/Letterkenny]

Yup. Every single thread regarding an aviation or maritime incident will eventually devolve into a cock fight.

Very true! I'll just keep my mouth shut during hangar flying events

Call me crazy, but I never take a seat near the engines. Did the same thing in the military on C-130s, that big red stripe denoting where the props were never made me feel good.

Plenty of aircraft do JUST FINE on 1 engine, so much so that they are designed with only 1 engine. So yeah, losing an engine in flight is bad, but that's why airliners have 2 or 4 engines.

^^^^This. There’s something deep down that always makes me choose a seat out of the turbofan’s rotational plane.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Ummm... Yep, a couple free airport meals is certainly just compensation for me being entertained by the engine on the aircraft I am on slowly self destructs. And then being dumped somewhere I had no intention of going and missing my connecting flights is just a minor irritant.
Sorry, 30 bucks doesnt cut it.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Call me crazy, but I never take a seat near the engines. Did the same thing in the military on C-130s, that big red stripe denoting where the props were never made me feel good.

Plenty of aircraft do JUST FINE on 1 engine, so much so that they are designed with only 1 engine. So yeah, losing an engine in flight is bad, but that's why airliners have 2 or 4 engines.

Airliners have multiple engines for redundancy, but chiefly for performance. Speed and altitude take thrust and the mathematical recipe for climb performance is excess thrust over that required for level flight for a given airspeed. To go fast one needs thrust and altitude, and to get to altitude one needs extra thrust.

Most of my oceanic crossings have been in four engine aircraft. I just made one last night in a two engine aircraft, and personally, I like four engines better than two. If one happens to be in a four engine airplane which is down to two engines, however, one's plate is full and performance is very poor. A three engine airplane with two out is particularly dire (especially if those two engines powered critical hydraulic flight control components.

There are very few single engine platforms for charter or airline use, and the few that are must have an additional generator or in some cases like certain Pratt & Whitney twinpac installations, actually two engines in one, with a single prop.

Having been on the losing end of engine failure in single engine airplanes, I think the ramifications are intellectually obvious, but really need to be experienced to be truly appreciated. Especially in aircraft that must be ridden all the way down.

Fun fact; in the 747, fuel burn for a given phase of flight was the same on four, three, or two engines (slightly higher on two).

There's the old saw about two passengers sitting in business class on a transatlantic trip, when a flash and a bang from outside the cabin gets their attention, followed by an announcement from the captain.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have lost our number one engine, but not to worry. This airplane was designed to safely operate on the remaining engines, but we will be about an hour later on our arrival. Not to worry, enjoy the flight."
A while later, another flash and a bang, and the captain came on again.
"Ladies and Gentlement, your captain. We've lost our #2 engine, and to remind you, we're a safe airplane and have plenty of fuel. We shall press on, but plan on being two hours late."
It's not long later that the third bang occurs, and the captain makes his announcement once more.
"Ladies and gentlemen, as youv'e noticed, we've lost our number three engine, but don't worry. You're safe, but will be three hours late.
One man listened carefully, then remarked, "Great. Just great. If we lose another, we'll be up here all day."

I only worked at a company that made parts for GE, Pratt and Rolls Royce for about 12 years. During that time we were occasionally involved with FAA investigations concerning engine failures.

I say this with all due respect and sincerity. You're out of your mind to fly in a jet aircraft.

Gliders. Sailplanes. They are good; you never have to worry about engine failures or fuel management.

quote:

Originally posted by Oldrider:
I only worked at a company that made parts for GE, Pratt and Rolls Royce for about 12 years. During that time we were occasionally involved with FAA investigations concerning engine failures.

I say this with all due respect and sincerity. You're out of your mind to fly in a jet aircraft.

It's all relative. I spent some of my career in radial engine powered aircraft; flying them, working on them, etc. Single engine through four engine; even radial jet engine on the same airframe.

The first time I did a takeoff in an all-turbine airplane was a C-130, and it was so smooth and quiet that I thought something was wrong. I was floored by the performance.

My first turbojet was the Sabreliner 60, and it had more performance on one engine than the other equipment I'd flown, with up to four engines. After a single engine ILS approach in the Sabreliner, I flew a missed approach on one engine and pulled the power back. The instructor pilot on board had a caniption fit; he couldn't understand why someone would retard power on the only good engine. It's all relative.

The modern turbojet engine is a marvel. A lot of minimal beer can parts whirling at very high speed and temperatures, everything a split margin from destruction. The internal temperatures will melt it. The internal pressures will explode it. The internal speed will burst it. It's continually on fire, delicately balanced, and made with the bare minimum of parts size and strength to do the job without excess weight. Very slight variations in thickness, coating, shape, flow, or wear can be catastrophic, and yet they're incredibly reliable.

The glider, of course, relies on an engine-powered airplane to get it to an altitude where it can begin to glide, with the exception of a motorglider, which relies on it's own engine. Even the world's longest range glider, the space shuttle, took a lot of juice to get it into position to start that glide.

Hot air balloons spring to mind...but they require fuel and a burner, too. There's helium in a blimp, but it's a finite resource, very valuable, and irreplaceable in flight, and the flight goes downhill without it. Hydrogen is manufacturable, but...