Travel

AC837 to attempt emergency landing in Madrid

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 5th, 2020 9:35 pm
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Feb 15, 2005
5578 posts
1163 upvotes

AC837 to attempt emergency landing in Madrid

If anyone in YYZ is expecting to pickup passengers from AC837 coming from Madrid, they're going to be late.
Spanish pilots union SEPLA said on Twitter, without citing any sources, that part of the plane’s landing gear had fallen off and gone into one of the engines.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spai ... SKBN1ZX23S

Right now, they're circling to get rid of some fuel.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA ... /LEMD/CYYZ
⬆⬆⬇⬇⬅➡⬅➡BA

「上上下下左右左右BA」
37 replies
Deal Addict
May 16, 2017
1052 posts
1186 upvotes
Reports suggest one blown tire on takeoff with debris ingested by left engine.

Circling to burn-off fuel (this model 767 apparently cannot dump fuel).



Deal Addict
Mar 16, 2007
1005 posts
143 upvotes
He's safely back. AC pilots are some of the most highly skilled and trained in the industry. The 767-300 can fly with one engine, and these guys train for it.
Member
Aug 3, 2017
307 posts
180 upvotes
tripwire wrote: He's safely back. AC pilots are some of the most highly skilled and trained in the industry. The 767-300 can fly with one engine, and these guys train for it.
The picture I saw on another site with the engine fire on takeoff was not great, but it all ended well. Another 763 out of commission for a bit - good thing it is the quiet flying time and they have the China flight cancellations aircraft available.
Deal Addict
Dec 4, 2011
1033 posts
406 upvotes
Montreal
From FT forum...

Weird because this kind of engine damage is usually caused by a nose gear tire blowout since it is in front of the intake, the main bogey is behind so either the debris took a funky route to the engine or they hit something that blew the tire and went into the engine.

Image

Image
Sr. Member
User avatar
Jul 30, 2015
569 posts
401 upvotes
tripwire wrote: He's safely back. AC pilots are some of the most highly skilled and trained in the industry. The 767-300 can fly with one engine, and these guys train for it.
All airline transport category aircraft can fly on one engine only, it's a requirement for certification. AC pilots are trained as per Transport Canada requirements with Boeing or Airbus FCTM, CBT, SOPs, etc. like any other major canadian airline, they also have lots of experience which shows during emergencies.

They did a fantastic job. Fuel jettison system is not standard on many aircraft model but sure is helpful to reduce actual GW to MLW in a short period of time, rather than holding for 4 hours.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Jun 12, 2007
14954 posts
4186 upvotes
London
admiralackbar wrote: From FT forum...

Weird because this kind of engine damage is usually caused by a nose gear tire blowout since it is in front of the intake, the main bogey is behind so either the debris took a funky route to the engine or they hit something that blew the tire and went into the engine. ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spai ... SKBN1ZX1NQ


According to the news, the airport was shutdown earlier in the day due to a drone sighting. Maybe the plane hit the drone ?
Deal Addict
Dec 4, 2011
1033 posts
406 upvotes
Montreal
Your guess is as good as mine, which is now that that strip of metal missing inside the engine cowling ripped off, went through the engine (the inlet is undamaged whereas you see fan blade damage) and hit the main bogey shredding the tire. But I am just making stuff up, will have to wait until investigation results.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
34622 posts
8506 upvotes
Ottawa
Latitude57 wrote: All airline transport category aircraft can fly on one engine only, it's a requirement for certification. AC pilots are trained as per Transport Canada requirements with Boeing or Airbus FCTM, CBT, SOPs, etc. like any other major canadian airline, they also have lots of experience which shows during emergencies.

They did a fantastic job. Fuel jettison system is not standard on many aircraft model but sure is helpful to reduce actual GW to MLW in a short period of time, rather than holding for 4 hours.
Fuel jettison capability is a requirement for all passenger aircraft.
Thing is, they need permission to jettison by the air traffic authorities. They probably did not get it as the situation (engine out) was not deemed critical.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Member
Aug 3, 2017
307 posts
180 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote: Fuel jettison capability is a requirement for all passenger aircraft.
Thing is, they need permission to jettison by the air traffic authorities. They probably did not get it as the situation (engine out) was not deemed critical.
Older 763s like these were not manufactured with fuel dumping capability and AC did not have it added when it did become available. That’s likely why there was no fuel dumped. The hold time also allowed time for the fighter jet to go do a visual inspection.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
34622 posts
8506 upvotes
Ottawa
dolfan1980 wrote: Older 763s like these were not manufactured with fuel dumping capability and AC did not have it added when it did become available. That’s likely why there was no fuel dumped. The hold time also allowed time for the fighter jet to go do a visual inspection.
I believe that an aircraft without fuel dump capability must be able to land with full fuel load. You are right that on some older 767, fuel dump was not required but, that was when the aircraft was below certain weights and had shorter range. When the aircraft was increased to a higher Max Take Off Weight for extended range (ETOPS), the Max Landing Weight remained the same and fuel dump was required.
The fighter jet was launched to fly around the aircraft to inspect for any damage that cannot be seen by the crew (underside as a result of a blown tire, aft section as a result of engine FOD ingress). The fighter was available to do this, they can also launch other types of aircraft or do several low fly overs to allow inspection from the ground.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything that the Government does not first take from somebody else.
Member
Aug 3, 2017
307 posts
180 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote: I believe that an aircraft without fuel dump capability must be able to land with full fuel load. You are right that on some older 767, fuel dump was not required but, that was when the aircraft was below certain weights and had shorter range. When the aircraft was increased to a higher Max Take Off Weight for extended range (ETOPS), the Max Landing Weight remained the same and fuel dump was required.
The fighter jet was launched to fly around the aircraft to inspect for any damage that cannot be seen by the crew (underside as a result of a blown tire, aft section as a result of engine FOD ingress). The fighter was available to do this, they can also launch other types of aircraft or do several low fly overs to allow inspection from the ground.
I can try to find a link from another forum if that is allowed, but am 100% certain this plane did not have that capability. I believe the requirement you mention is that you must be able to dump fuel if you can’t climb full with one engine. Unlike the 777/787s, the 763 with fuel dumping capability can still only dump from the Center tank.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Jul 30, 2015
569 posts
401 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote: Fuel jettison capability is a requirement for all passenger aircraft.
Thing is, they need permission to jettison by the air traffic authorities. They probably did not get it as the situation (engine out) was not deemed critical.
No it’s not a requirement. In fact, this 767 did not have fuel jettison system. Even today lots of airliners do not have it.

But you do need permission by ATC to jettison, which you would get without a doubt in any type of emergency that requires a diversion and landing.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Jul 30, 2015
569 posts
401 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote: I believe that an aircraft without fuel dump capability must be able to land with full fuel load. You are right that on some older 767, fuel dump was not required but, that was when the aircraft was below certain weights and had shorter range. When the aircraft was increased to a higher Max Take Off Weight for extended range (ETOPS), the Max Landing Weight remained the same and fuel dump was required.
The fighter jet was launched to fly around the aircraft to inspect for any damage that cannot be seen by the crew (underside as a result of a blown tire, aft section as a result of engine FOD ingress). The fighter was available to do this, they can also launch other types of aircraft or do several low fly overs to allow inspection from the ground.
Thats not true either. You do not need fuel jettison system on ETOPS certified aircraft. God..... I flew some Emirates A330 in the past that do not have the system, and they’re all ETOPS certified to 180mins. ETOPS certification is much more than that, which has to do with fire suppression ability in the cargo section, etc.

It also makes no sense to requires fuel jettison on ETOPS aircraft, as if you lose an engine during an ETOPS section, you will be 2-3-4hours from the nearest airport for diversion, which will give you time to burn fuel. Most of the time (if not all the time) when you are in an ETOPS area, if something happens, you’ll be under max landing weight before getting to your alternate.

Speaking of AC837 emergency, during an engine out with blown tire, they would totally dump fuel instead of holding for 4 hours. Thing is, if you’re overweight with damaged tire, they opted to reduce landing weight by holding for 4hours, which is what I would do as well. But in any case, if you experience an engine failure and damaged tire with an aircraft that has fuel jettison capability, you would dump fuel and come back instead of staying up there for 4hours. Makes no sense to do the opposite. It’s only 2-3 buttons to push and there’s a lot of areas where we can do that.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)