Flying is a test for many people, and passengers are always worried that something might go wrong a few thousand meters above the ground. So what actually happens when an engine fails mid-flight? Is it time to panic?
The reasons for engine failure in flight can be a lack of fuel, as well as ingestion of birds and volcanic ash.
Are we going to fall?!
While it may look like the plane will crash if the engine stops working, thankfully, that's not the case at all.
It is not uncommon for pilots to idle an aircraft. The two pilots, who wished to remain anonymous, told the truth to Express.co.uk. "If one engine fails mid-flight, this is not too much of a problem, as modern aircraft they can fly on one engine," one of the pilots told the publication.
Modern aircraft are designed to glide over fairly long distances without the use of engines. Considering a large number of airports in the world, to the landing site, most likely, the ship will fly and be able to land.
If the plane flies with one engine - this is not a reason to panic.
What to do if one engine fails - step by step instructions
The pilot of another airline explained step by step what measures they take when an engine fails. It is necessary to set a certain speed and get the maximum performance from the second running engine.
Should you tell the passengers?
Sitting in the cabin, you may not realize that the engine is out of order. Whether the captain informs the passengers of what has happened "very much depends on the specific situation, as well as on the policy of the airline." It's the captain's decision.
If an engine failure is an obvious fact to the passengers, then the captain should explain the situation to them truthfully. But to avoid panic, if no one notices anything, you can keep silent.
Lucky landings
In 1982, a British Airways flight to Jakarta, Indonesia, was struck by volcanic ash at 11,000 meters and all four engines failed. The pilot managed to hold the plane for 23 minutes, he flew 91 miles in this way and slowly descended from an altitude of 11 km to 3600 m. During this time, the team managed to restart all engines and land safely. And this is not the only happy occasion.
In 2001, while flying over Atlantic Ocean an Air Transat aircraft with 293 passengers and 13 crew on board lost both engines. The ship planned for 19 minutes and flew about 120 kilometers before making a hard landing at Lajes airport (Pico Island). Everyone survived, and the liner received a "gold medal" as the aircraft that covered the longest distance at idle.
Decided to put it in one post. The topic is scary, but it may be interesting for someone to read in one post. For possible jambs, I ask you not to hit hard, I will try to fix it immediately.
Human fear of flying is irrational. But often it is reinforced by poor awareness of the achievements of modern aviation.
For example engine failures. It seems to be well known that a modern aircraft is able to continue flying if one of the engines fails. But what is much less known is that the failure of ALL engines in flight does not necessarily lead to disaster. In the view of many, a modern liner is such an iron that is able to fly only using engine thrust.
However, it is not. Liners have a fairly high aerodynamic quality - for example, for the Tu-204 it reaches 18. In fact, this means that the loss of a kilometer of altitude in a non-motorized flight, the aircraft is able to fly 18 km. If we take into account that the typical altitude for mainline flights is 9-10 km (and for the Tu-154 in some conditions it can reach up to 12 km), we get that the crew has 150-180 kilometers of range to the nearest airport. This is quite a lot - after all, they try to lay air routes over airports (http://aviaforum.ru/showpost.php?p=231385&postcount=3 - here you can take the track of the real flight Ulan-Ude - Moscow). The issue of power supply to the most important systems of the aircraft when the engines are not running is solved by the emergency turbine advanced into the stream.
Naturally, landing an aircraft with a completely failed power plant requires tremendous skill and luck from the crew. The margin in height and range for planning on the airport runway is not enough - the pilots need to very accurately land at a jewelry-calculated height. At the same time, they do not have the right to make a mistake - during a flight or short distance, the plane will be outside the runway - and far from everywhere this is an open field - at many airports there are buildings or even residential buildings behind / in front of the runway. In a normal situation, the liner will simply go to the second circle - in an emergency there is no such chance. At the same time, the landing can also take place in bad weather conditions with insufficient visibility - left without thrust, the liner is forced to land where it can plan - regardless of the weather and the crew's permission. In this case, it is often not possible to release the landing gear and the aircraft has to be landed on the fuselage. If the chassis managed to be released, then when braking, it remains only to rely on the brakes - and their capabilities in this situation are usually insufficient ...
Despite the reliability of technology, cases of failure of all engines are still not isolated. This happens for a number of reasons, often due to personnel errors when servicing the liner. Accordingly, cases of successful landings in such situations are also known.
The civil aviation of the USSR / RF did not pass such incidents. From recent:
- Landing in January 2002 Tu-204 AK Siberia with idle engines. The reason is the complete depletion of fuel.
landing at Sheremetyevo Falcon. The reason is a malfunction in the fuel system
But the most fantastic story happened in 1963. The Tu-124 of the Tallinn-Moscow flight did not remove the nose landing gear. It was decided to land at Pulkovo. Due to the second malfunction - a malfunction of the fuel gauges, one of the engines stopped on one of the laps. The controllers gave permission for the emergency aircraft to pass over the city - and at an altitude of 450 m above Leningrad, the second engine stopped. Nevertheless, in such an extreme situation, the crew masterfully flew the liner over the bridges and landed on the Neva - no one was hurt. IMHO - this landing is much more difficult than the Chkalovsky spans under bridges.
Under the cut - a photo of the Gimli Glider after landing. According to the text of the link to the articles - there are more details about aircraft and incidents.
Gimli Glider is the unofficial name of one of the Boeing 767 aircraft. airlines Air Canada received by him after an unusual aviation accident on July 23, 1983. This aircraft operated flight AC143 from Montreal to Edmonton (with an intermediate stop in Ottawa). During the flight, he suddenly ran out of fuel and the engines stopped. After lengthy planning, the aircraft successfully landed at the closed Gimli military base. All 69 people on board - 61 passengers and 8 crew members - survived.
AIRPLANE
Boeing 767-233 ( registration number C-GAUN, factory 22520, serial 047) was released in 1983 (the first flight was made on March 10). March 30 of the same year was transferred to Air Canada. Powered by two Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines.
CREW
The aircraft commander is Robert "Bob" Pearson. Robert "Bob" Pearson. Has flown over 15,000 hours.
The co-pilot is Maurice Quintal. Has flown over 7000 hours.
Six flight attendants worked in the cabin of the aircraft.
ENGINE FAILURE
At an altitude of 12,000 meters, a signal suddenly sounded, warning of low pressure in the fuel system of the left engine. The on-board computer showed that there was more than enough fuel, but its readings, as it turned out, were based on erroneous information entered into it. Both pilots decided that the fuel pump was faulty and turned it off. Since the tanks are located above the engines, under the influence of gravity, the fuel had to flow into the engines without pumps, by gravity. But a few minutes later, a similar signal from the right engine sounded, and the pilots decided to change course to Winnipeg (the nearest suitable airport). A few seconds later, the port engine cut out and they began to prepare for landing on one engine.
While the pilots were trying to start the left engine and were negotiating with Winnipeg, the engine failure acoustic signal sounded again, accompanied by another additional horn - a long thumping "boom-mm" sound. Both pilots heard this sound for the first time, since it had not been heard before during their work on simulators. It was a signal "failure of all engines" (for this type of aircraft - two). The aircraft was left without power, and most of the instrument panels on the panel went out. By this time, the plane had already descended to 8500 meters, heading towards Winnipeg.
Like most aircraft, the Boeing 767 gets its electricity from generators driven by engines. The shutdown of both engines led to a complete blackout of the aircraft's electrical system; the pilots were left with only backup devices, autonomously powered from the on-board battery, including the radio station. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the pilots found themselves without a very important device - a variometer that measures vertical speed. In addition, the pressure in the hydraulic system dropped, since the hydraulic pumps were also driven by engines.
However, the design of the aircraft was designed for the failure of both engines. The emergency turbine, driven by the oncoming air flow, started automatically. Theoretically, the electricity generated by it should be enough for the plane to maintain controllability during landing.
The PIC got used to flying the "glider", and the co-pilot immediately began to look in the emergency instructions for a section on piloting an aircraft without engines, but there was no such section. Fortunately, the PIC flew gliders, as a result of which he mastered some piloting techniques that commercial airline pilots do not usually use. He knew that in order to reduce the rate of descent, the optimal gliding rate must be maintained. He maintained a speed of 220 knots (407 km / h), suggesting that the optimal glide speed should be about this. The co-pilot began to calculate whether they would reach Winnipeg. He used the backup mechanical altimeter readings to determine the altitude, and the distance traveled was reported to him by the controller from Winnipeg, determining it by the movement of the aircraft mark on the radar. The liner lost 5,000 feet (1.5 km) of altitude, flying 10 nautical miles (18.5 km), that is, the aerodynamic quality of the glider was approximately 12. The controller and the co-pilot came to the conclusion that flight AC143 would not reach Winnipeg.
Then, as a landing site, the co-pilot chose the Gimli air base, where he had previously served. He did not know that the base had been closed by that time, and the runway number 32L, on which they decided to land, was converted into a car racing track, and a powerful separation barrier was placed in the middle of it. On this day, a "family holiday" of the local car club was held there, races were held on the former runway and there were many people. In the beginning twilight, the runway was illuminated by lights.
The air turbine did not provide enough pressure in the hydraulic system for a regular landing gear extension, so the pilots tried to extend the landing gear in an emergency. The main landing gear came out normally, but the nose gear came out, but did not lock.
Shortly before landing, the commander realized that the plane was flying too high and too fast. He dropped the aircraft's speed to 180 knots, and to lose altitude he undertook a maneuver atypical for commercial airliners - sliding onto the wing (the pilot presses the left pedal and turns the steering wheel to the right or vice versa, while the aircraft quickly loses speed and altitude). However, this maneuver reduced the speed of rotation of the emergency turbine, and the pressure in the hydraulic control system dropped even more. Pearson was able to withdraw the aircraft from the maneuver almost at the last moment.
The plane descended onto the runway, the riders and spectators began to scatter from it. When the landing gear wheels touched the runway, the commander applied the brakes. The tires instantly overheated, the emergency valves bled air out of them, the unsecured nose landing gear collapsed, the nose touched the concrete, spewing a trail of sparks, the starboard engine nacelle caught on the ground. People managed to leave the strip, and the commander did not have to roll out the plane from it, saving people on the ground. The plane came to a stop less than 30 meters from the audience.
A small fire started in the nose of the aircraft, and the command was given to begin the evacuation of passengers. Due to the fact that the tail was raised, the slope of the inflatable ladder in the rear emergency exit was too large, several people received minor injuries, but no one was seriously injured. The fire was soon extinguished by motorists with dozens of hand-held fire extinguishers.
Two days later, the plane was repaired on the spot and was able to fly from Gimli. After an additional repair costing about $ 1 million, the aircraft was returned to service. On January 24, 2008, the aircraft was sent to a storage base in the Mojave Desert.
CIRCUMSTANCES
Information about the amount of fuel in the Boeing 767 tanks is calculated by the Fuel Quantity Indicator System (FQIS) and displayed on indicators in the cockpit. FQIS on this aircraft consisted of two channels that calculated the amount of fuel independently and compared the results. It was allowed to operate the aircraft with only one serviceable channel in the event of a failure of one of them, however, in this case, the displayed number had to be checked by a float indicator before departure. In the event of a failure of both channels, the amount of fuel in the cab would not be displayed; the aircraft should have been declared defective and not allowed to fly.
Following the discovery of FQIS malfunctions on other 767 aircraft, Boeing Corporation issued a service announcement on the routine FQIS inspection procedure. An engineer in Edmonton performed this procedure after the arrival of C-GAUN from Toronto the day before the accident. During this test, the FQIS completely failed and the cockpit fuel gauges stopped working. Earlier in the month, the engineer encountered the same problem on the same aircraft. Then he discovered that turning off the second channel with the circuit breaker restores the fuel quantity indicators, although now their readings are based on data from only one channel. Due to the lack of spare parts, the engineer simply reproduced the temporary solution he had found earlier: he pressed and marked the circuit breaker switch with a special label, turning off the second channel.
On the day of the incident, the plane was flying from Edmonton to Montreal with an intermediate stop in Ottawa. Before take-off, the engineer informed the crew commander of the problem and indicated that the amount of fuel indicated by the FQIS system should be checked with a float indicator. The pilot misunderstood the engineer and believed that the plane had already flown yesterday from Toronto with this defect. The flight went well, the fuel gauges worked on the data of one channel.
In Montreal, the crews changed, Pearson and Quintal were supposed to fly back to Edmonton via Ottawa. The replacement pilot informed them of the problem with FQIS, passing on to them his delusion that the plane was flying with this problem yesterday as well. In addition, FQ Pearson also misunderstood his predecessor: he believed that he was told that FQIS had not worked at all since that time.
In preparation for the flight to Edmonton, the technician decided to investigate a problem with the FQIS. To test the system, he turned on the second FQIS channel - the indicators in the cockpit stopped working. At that moment, he was called to measure the amount of fuel in the tanks with a float indicator. Being distracted, he forgot to turn off the second channel, but he did not remove the label from the switch. The switch remained marked, and it was now imperceptible that the circuit was closed. From that moment on, FQIS did not work at all, and the indicators in the cockpit did not show anything.
The aircraft maintenance log kept a record of all actions. There was also the entry “SERVICE CHK - FOUND FUEL QTY IND BLANK - FUEL QTY #2 C/B PULLED & TAGGED…” Of course, this reflected a malfunction (the indicators stopped showing the amount of fuel) and the action taken (turning off the second FQIS channel), but it was not clearly indicated that the action corrected the malfunction.
Upon entering the cockpit, PIC Pearson saw exactly what he expected: inoperative fuel gauges and a tagged switch. He consulted the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) and found out that the aircraft was not fit to fly in this condition. However, at that time, the Boeing 767, which made its first flight only in September 1981, was a very new aircraft. The C-GAUN was the 47th Boeing 767 produced; Air Canada received it less than 4 months ago. During this time, 55 corrections had already been made to the list of minimum required equipment, and some pages were still empty, because the corresponding procedures had not yet been developed. Due to the unreliability of the list information, a procedure for the approval of each Boeing 767 flight by technical personnel was introduced into practice. In addition to misconceptions about the condition of the aircraft on previous flights, exacerbated by what Pearson saw in the cockpit with his own eyes, he had a signed maintenance log clearing the flight—and in practice, the technicians' clearance took precedence over list requirements.
The incident happened at a time when Canada was switching to the metric system. As part of this transition, all Boeing 767s received by Air Canada were the first aircraft to use the metric system and operate in liters and kilograms rather than gallons and pounds. All other aircraft used the same system of weights and measures. According to the pilot's calculations, the flight to Edmonton required 22,300 kg of fuel. A measurement with a float indicator showed that there were 7682 liters of fuel in the aircraft's tanks. To determine the amount of fuel to refuel, it was necessary to convert the volume of fuel into mass, subtract the result from 22,300, and convert the answer back to liters. According to the instructions of Air Canada for aircraft of other types, this action should have been performed by a flight engineer, but there was no one on the Boeing 767 crew: the representative aircraft of the new generation was controlled by only two pilots. Air Canada's job descriptions have not delegated responsibility for this task to anyone.
A liter of aviation kerosene weighs 0.803 kilograms, that is, the correct calculation looks like this:
7682 l × 0.803 kg/l = 6169 kg
22 300 kg - 6169 kg = 16 131 kg
16,131 kg ÷ 0.803 kg/l = 20,089 l
However, neither the crew of Flight 143 nor the ground crew knew this. As a result of the discussion, it was decided to use a factor of 1.77 - the mass of a liter of fuel in pounds. It was this coefficient that was recorded in the tanker's handbook and was always used on all other aircraft. So the calculations were:
7682 l × 1.77 "kg" / l \u003d 13,597 "kg"
22,300 kg - 13,597 "kg" = 8703 kg
8703 kg ÷ 1.77 "kg" / l = 4916 l
Instead of the required 20,089 liters (which would correspond to 16,131 kilograms) of fuel, 4916 liters (3948 kg) entered the tanks, that is, more than four times less than necessary. Taking into account the fuel on board, its amount was enough for 40-45% of the journey. Since FQIS was not working, the commander checked the calculation, but used the same factor and, of course, got the same result.
The flight control computer (FCC) measures fuel consumption, allowing the crew to keep track of the amount of fuel burned in flight. Under normal circumstances, the PMC receives data from the FQIS, but in the event of a failure of the FQIS, the initial value can be entered manually. The PIC was sure that there were 22,300 kg of fuel on board, and entered exactly this number.
Since the FMC was reset during the stop in Ottawa, the PIC again measured the amount of fuel in the tanks with a float indicator. When converting liters to kilograms, the wrong factor was again used. The crew believed that there were 20,400 kg of fuel in the tanks, while in fact the fuel was still less than half the required amount.
wikipedia
was flying in the skies over Indonesia. A few hours later, the plane, which had 263 passengers, was supposed to land in Perth (Australia). Passengers dozed peacefully or read books.
Passenger: We have already flown through two time zones. I was tired and couldn't sleep. The night was very dark, even gouge out the eye.
Passenger: The flight went well. Everything was great. It has been a long time since we left London. The children wanted to get home as soon as possible.
Many of the passengers on the plane started their journey a day ago. But the crew was new. The pilots went to work at the last stop in Kuala Lumpur. The captain was Eric Moody. He started flying at the age of 16. He was also one of the first pilots to learn how to fly a Boeing 747. Co-pilot Roger Greaves has been in this position for six years. Also in the cockpit was flight engineer Bari Tauli-Freeman.
When the plane flew over Jakarta, its cruising altitude was 11,000 meters. An hour and a half had passed since the last landing. Captain Moody checked the weather on the radar. Favorable conditions were expected for the next 500 kilometers. In the cabin, many passengers fell asleep. But an ominous haze began to appear over their heads. In 1982 in passenger aircraft still allowed to smoke. But the flight attendants thought the smoke was thicker than usual. They began to worry that somewhere on the plane there was a fire. Fire at an altitude of 11 kilometers is scary. The crew tried to locate the fire. Trouble began in the cockpit too.
Co-pilot: We just sat and watched the flight. The night was very dark. And suddenly, lights began to appear on the windshield. We assumed that these were the fires of St. Elmo.
Saint Elmo's fire
Saint Elmo's fire- it a natural phenomenon, which occurs when flying through thunderclouds. But that night there were no thunderclouds, everything was clear on the radar. The pilots found with apprehension that the plane was surrounded by a light haze.
Passenger: I was reading a book. When I looked out the window, I saw that the wing of the plane was covered in blindingly white, shimmering light. That was incredible!
Meanwhile, the smoke in the cabin began to thicken. The stewards could not understand where he came from.
Passenger: I noticed how thick smoke poured into the cabin through the fans above the windows. The sight was very disturbing.
A few minutes later, flames began to erupt from the first and fourth engines. But the instruments in the cockpit did not record the fire. The pilots were perplexed. They had never seen anything like it before.
Co-pilot: The so-called light show has become even brighter. Instead of windshields, we had two walls of shimmering white light.
The chief conductor quietly organized a thorough search for the source of ignition in the cabin. But the situation worsened very quickly. The acrid smoke was already everywhere. It got very hot. The passengers found it difficult to breathe. In the cockpit, the flight engineer checked all the instruments. He smelled smoke, but the instruments showed no fire in any part of the aircraft. Soon the crew faced a new problem. All engines caught fire.
Passenger: Huge flames were blasting right out of the engines. It reached more than 6 meters in length.
The fire covered all the engines. Suddenly, one of them, momentarily increasing the speed, stalled. The pilots immediately turned it off. The Boeing 747 was at an altitude of 11,000 meters. But in less than a few minutes, the other three engines also died out.
Captain: The other three engines shut down almost instantly. The situation became very serious. We had four working engines and in a minute and a half there was not one left.
The plane had a large supply of fuel, but for some unknown reason, all engines stalled. The crew began to send out a distress signal. The engines failed to provide thrust, and Flight 9 began to fall from the sky. The co-pilot tried to report the emergency to Jakarta, but the controllers barely heard him.
Co-Pilot: Mission control in Jakarta had a hard time understanding what we were talking about.
It wasn't until another aircraft nearby relayed a distress call that mission control realized what was going on. The crew did not remember that the Boeing 747 failed all four engines. They speculated about why this might have happened.
Captain: I was concerned that we did something wrong. We sat and blamed ourselves because things like this shouldn't happen at all.
Although the Boeing 747 was not designed as a glider, it could move 15 kilometers forward for every kilometer of descent. Left without engines, Flight 9 began to slowly fall. The team had half an hour before hitting the sea. There was another feature. In simulations, when all engines are turned off, the autopilot is also turned off. But high above Indian Ocean the captain saw that the autopilot was on. With the heat of the situation, they didn't have time to figure out why the autopilot was on. The pilots began the procedure for restarting the engines. This procedure took 3 minutes. With a rapid fall from the sky, the crew had less than 10 chances to start the engines before the crash. At an altitude of 10,000 meters, Captain Eric Moody decided to turn the plane towards the nearest airport, Halim, near Jakarta. But even to him the distance was too great if the engines did not work. On top of that, for some reason Halima Airport couldn't find Flight 9 on its radar.
With the engines turned off, the cabin became very quiet. Some of the passengers felt the decline. They could only guess what was happening.
Passenger: Some people just sat straight up like they didn't notice. At first it was fear, but after a while it turned into humility. We knew we would die.
Chief Steward: I think that if I sat down and really thought about what was going on, I would never get up.
Captain Moody could not restart the engines until the aircraft's speed was in the range of 250-270 knots. But the speed sensors didn't work. They needed to bring the plane to the desired speed. The captain varied the speed. To do this, he turned off the autopilot and pulled the steering wheel up and then down. Such a "roller coaster" further increased the panic in the cabin. The pilots hoped that at some point, when we would supply fuel to the engines, the speed would be just right for a restart.
Another problem suddenly appeared. The pressure sensor has tripped. The fact is that in addition to electric power, the engines helped maintain normal pressure in the cabin. Since they did not work, the pressure gradually began to drop. Due to the lack of oxygen, the passengers began to suffocate. The pilots wanted to put on oxygen masks, but the co-pilot's mask was broken. The captain himself had to increase the rate of descent in order to quickly move to a lower altitude. So everyone could breathe easy. However, the problem has not been resolved. If the engines did not start, it was necessary to land the plane in the open ocean. The co-pilot and flight engineer shortened the standard restart sequence. So they had more chances to start the engines.
Co-pilot: We repeated the same thing over and over again. But despite our best efforts, there was no progress. However, we stuck to this scenario. I can't even imagine how many times we restarted them. Most likely about 50 times.
The plane fell lower and lower, and stood in front of the captain Difficult choice. Between the plane and the airport was Mountain chain islands of Java. To fly it, it was necessary to be at an altitude of no less than 3500 meters. Without engines it was impossible to fly to the airport. The captain decided that if the situation did not change, he would land on the water.
Captain: I knew how difficult it is to land a plane on the water even with the engines running. Besides, I've never done it.
The pilots had very little chance of starting the engines. It was already necessary to turn the plane towards the ocean in order to land on the water. Suddenly, the fourth engine roared and started up as suddenly as it turned off. The passengers had the feeling that someone had thrown the plane up from the bottom.
Co-pilot: You know, such a low rumble; sound when you start the engineRolls Royce". It was wonderful to hear this!
The Boeing 747 could fly with one engine, but it was not enough to fly over the mountains. Luckily, another engine sneezed to life. The other two quickly followed. The crash was almost inevitable. But the plane was working again at full capacity.
Passenger: Then I realized that we could fly. Maybe not to Perth, but to some airport. That's all we wanted: to land on the ground.
The pilots understood that the plane needed to be landed as quickly as possible and directed it to Halim. The captain began to climb so that there was enough space between the airliner and the mountains. Suddenly, strange lights began to flicker in front of the plane again - harbingers of a crisis. The speed was good, and the pilots hoped that they would have time to fly to runway. But, the plane was again under attack. The second engine failed. A fiery tail trailed behind him. The captain had to turn it off again.
Captain: I'm not a coward, but when 4 engines are working, then suddenly not, and then working again - it's a nightmare. Yes, any pilot will quickly turn it off, because it's scary!
The plane was approaching the airport. The co-pilot thought that the windshield was fogged up, because nothing could be seen through it. They turned on the fans. It didn't work. Then the pilots used the wipers. There was still no effect. Somehow the glass itself was damaged.
Captain: I looked at the corner of the windshield. Through a thin strip, about 5 centimeters wide, I saw everything much more clearly. But I couldn't see anything from the front.
The crew was waiting for the last unpleasant news. The ground equipment that helped them descend at the right angle was not working. After all the problems that had to be experienced, the pilots had to land the plane manually. With maximum effort, the crew did it. The plane softly touched the runway and soon came to a stop.
Captain: The plane seemed to land on its own. He seemed to kiss the ground. It was wonderful.
The passengers cheered. When the plane landed at the airport, they began to celebrate the end of the ordeal. But they were wondering what happened. The fire was never found. Where did the smoke in the cabin come from? And how could all the engines fail at the same time? The crew also breathed a sigh of relief, but they were troubled by the thought that they were somehow to blame.
Captain: After we drove the plane to the parking lot and turned off everything, we began to check all the documents. I wanted to find at least something that could warn us of problems.
The Boeing 747 was badly damaged. The crew realized that their glass was scratched on the outside. They also saw bare metal where the paint had worn off. After a sleepless night in Jakarta, the pilots returned to the airport to inspect the aircraft.
Co-pilot: We looked at the airliner in the daylight. It has lost its metallic sheen. Some places were scratched by sand. Peeled paint and stickers. There was nothing to see until the engines were removed.
The engines were made by Rolls Royce. They were removed from the plane and sent to London. Already in England, the experts began their work. Soon the investigators were amazed at what they saw. The engines were very badly scratched. Experts found that they were clogged with fine dust, particles of stones and sand. After careful examination, it was determined that it was volcanic ash. A few days later, everyone learned that on the night of the flight, the Galunggung volcano had erupted. It was located just 160 kilometers southeast of Jakarta. In the 80s, this volcano erupted quite often. The eruptions were very large. Just as a plane was flying in the sky, the volcano exploded again. The ash cloud rose to a height of 15 kilometers, and the winds drove it to the southwest, directly towards British Airways Flight 9. Prior to this incident, volcanoes had not seriously interfered with aircraft. Did volcanic ash really cause the accident?
Expert: Unlike regular ash, this is not a soft material at all. These are highly crushed pieces of rocks and minerals. This is a very abrasive material, it has many sharp corners. This caused numerous scratches.
In addition to the effect on the glass and paint of the aircraft, the ash cloud caused other strange accidents with Flight 9. Friction electrification appeared at altitude. Hence the lights we call St. Elmo's lights. The electrification also caused malfunctions in the aircraft's communications systems. The same particles of ash fell into the cabin of the aircraft and caused suffocation among passengers.
As for the engines, the ashes also played a fatal role here. The molten ash penetrated deep into the engine and clogged it. There is a severe disturbance of the air flow inside the engine. The composition of the fuel was violated: there was too much fuel and not enough air. This provoked the appearance of flames behind the turbines, and later their failure. Suffocated by a cloud of ash, the engines aboard the Boeing 747 stalled. The plane was saved by natural processes.
Expert: As soon as the plane left the ash cloud, everything gradually cooled down. This was enough for the hardened particles to fall off, and the engines started up again.
When the engines were sufficiently cleared of molten ash, the frantic attempts by the pilots to start the plane were successful.
Expert: We have learned a lot. Later, this knowledge became part of pilot training. Pilots now know what signs indicate they are in an ash cloud. Among these signs is the smell of sulfur in the cabin, dust, and at night you can see the fires of St. Elmo. Also civil Aviation began to work more closely with geologists who study volcanoes.
A few months after the incredible night, the crew of Flight 9 was showered with awards and commendations. All crew members showed unprecedented professionalism. They managed to save the plane superbly. Just fantastic! The surviving passengers of Flight 9 still communicate with each other.
20.02.2018, 09:35 17513
Engines provide the thrust needed to fly aircraft. What happens when engines fail and stop?
In 2001, Air Transat's Airbus A330 operated scheduled flight TSC236 on the Toronto-Lisbon route. There were 293 passengers and 13 crew members on board. 5 hours 34 minutes after takeoff over the Atlantic Ocean, he suddenly ran out of jet fuel and turned off one engine. Commander Robert Peach declared an emergency and announced to the control center his intention to get off the route and land at the nearest airport in the Azores. After 10 minutes, the second engine stopped.
Pick and his first officer, Dirk De Jaeger, with over 20,000 hours of flying experience, continued to skim the sky without any thrust for 19 minutes. With their engines not running, they traveled about 75 miles, while at Lajes airbase making several turns and one full circle to descend to the required height. The landing was hard, but luckily all 360 survived.
This story with a happy ending serves as a reminder that even if both engines fail, there is a chance to get to the ground and make a safe landing.
How can an airplane fly without a thrust-producing engine?
Surprisingly, despite the fact that the engine is not producing thrust, pilots call this state of the engines “idle”, it continues to perform some functions in the “zero thrust state,” says pilot and author Patrick Smith in his book Cockpit Confidential. “They are still working and powering important systems, but they are not giving a boost. In fact, it happens on about every flight, only the passengers don't know about it."
By inertia, the aircraft can fly a certain distance, i.e. glide. This can be compared to a car rolling downhill at neutral speed. It does not stop when the engine is turned off, but continues to move.
Different aircraft have different glide ratios, which means they will lose altitude at different rates. This affects how far they can fly without engine power. For example, if an aircraft has a lift ratio of up to 10:1, then this means that every 10 miles (16.1 km) of flight it loses one mile (1.6 km) in altitude. Flying at a typical altitude of 36,000 feet (about 11 km), an aircraft that loses both engines will be able to travel another 70 miles (112.6 km) before reaching the ground.
Can engines fail? modern aircraft?
Yes they can. Given that an aircraft can fly without any engine power, it goes without saying that if only one engine shuts down during flight, there is very little risk of tragedy.
Indeed, as Smith reminds us, airliners are designed in such a way that when an engine is pushed out during takeoff, a single engine will be enough to bring the aircraft into a phase that requires more thrust than just cruising.
Thus, when the engines fail, the pilots, while looking for the problem that caused the engine malfunction, calculate the possible slip and look for the nearest airport to land. In most cases, the landing is successful with the timely and correct decision of the pilots.
