From: pleavin@HK.Super.NET (Mr Ted Pleavin) Organization: Hong Kong Supernet Date: 12 Jan 95 01:56:04 References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
Robert Dorsett (email@example.com) wrote: : In article <airliners.1994.1799@ohare.Chicago.COM> eph72385@Rosie.UH.EDU writes: : >I am curious how a crew, most notably the pilots, could not : >notice the loss of an engine in flight. : What exactly are you referring to? Of course an engine failure would be : noticed. In one of the previous post descent was mentioned and untill you get the bells ringing it is difficult to know when one has flamed out. Or it may get confussing on descent in high work load terminal areas when the first thing you get is A generator off line or hydraulic failure due to the engine failure. : If you're referring to the media's propensity to report pilots' inability to : determine whether a tail-mounted engine is attached or not, the checklist : items for engine fire, failure, severe damage, and separation are the same. : All that matters is that there is an engine failure. : Once the severity of the damage has been established (i.e., not : a fire), it's not operationally relevant whether it's attached. : It's then up to captain's judgement and operational policy whether to divert : to the nearest suitable airport or continue to destination. Please remember that a contained catastrophic failure is different than a separation. Although the Boing check list is called " fire severe damage or separation ", when an engine leaves an A/C in flight it normally does more damage than a severe failure would. The earliest one I remember was in Toronto in 1970, where the wing fractured and caught fire at the point where the separation occurred and the A/C became uncontrollable. In theory a separation should just shear the pins and detach the fuel, hydraulics, etc therefore pulling the fire handle/switch should contain the damage, however, if the skin of the wing above the pylon is ruptured you can have raw fuel pouring onto the problem area and all you then need is a source of ignition :(. Cheers Ted.