Delta MadDog engine failure this morning!

flyingmoose

flyingmoose

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
1,604
Location
Monroe, Oh
Display Name
Display name:
Flyingmoose
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/…/KDAY-Dec-06-2016-1100Z.…
Delta 2392 out of DAY had an engine failure this morning, it all starts around the 12-minute mark. Happy ending!
Seems that they got quite a bit flustered in the beginning but at least the weather was in their favor :) Overall good job getting it sorted out.
15284080_10211484419530382_5630428546759687734_n.jpg
 
Ok - the INTERESTING thing that I heard was 15 min into the flight they said they had 90 min of fuel left -

So they pushed the gate with 1:45 of fuel.

The flight was scheduled for 1hr 14min about - they had no more than 30 min reserve when they left . . .

is that totally crazy?
 
comanchepilot said:
Ok - the INTERESTING thing that I heard was 15 min into the flight they said they had 90 min of fuel left -

So they pushed the gate with 1:45 of fuel.

The flight was scheduled for 1hr 14min about - they had no more than 30 min reserve when they left . . .

is that totally crazy?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that most jet jets fuel burn down low is ridiculously high compared to cruising in the flight levels. So they may have had plenty of fuel for the planned flight, but a shorter estimated time where the failure occurred.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Keep in mind that most jet jets fuel burn down low is ridiculously high compared to cruising in the flight levels. So they may have had plenty of fuel for the planned flight, but a shorter estimated time where the failure occurred.
Click to expand...
I know that- but they were up for 5 min or less when they declared the E and went back - they suggested that the tower check the take off runway for FOD.

Plus they were only burning one! Even if it was prob 90%N2 - even so.
 
comanchepilot said:
I know that- but they were up for 5 min or less when they declared the E and went back - they suggested that the tower check the take off runway for FOD.

Plus they were only burning one! Even if it was prob 90%N2 - even so.
Click to expand...
True, but I don't know the specifics on the failure or the fuel system on the MD-80. They may not have been able to cross feed all the fuel.

Bottom line, they had a failure and needed to make a quick calculation of how long they could fly around and it wasn't necessarily the same time as if they flew to their planned destination at cruise.

They may very well have had more fuel than they stated.
 
Not only is the burn rate going to be higher down low, but you have one dead engine which produces an enormous amount of drag, which is going to further harm fuel efficiency.
 
comanchepilot said:
Ok - the INTERESTING thing that I heard was 15 min into the flight they said they had 90 min of fuel left -

So they pushed the gate with 1:45 of fuel.

The flight was scheduled for 1hr 14min about - they had no more than 30 min reserve when they left . . .

is that totally crazy?
Click to expand...

IFR? That's not legal. Unless 14 minutes of that is schedule padding.
 
comanchepilot said:
Ok - the INTERESTING thing that I heard was 15 min into the flight they said they had 90 min of fuel left -

So they pushed the gate with 1:45 of fuel.

The flight was scheduled for 1hr 14min about - they had no more than 30 min reserve when they left . . .

is that totally crazy?
Click to expand...
Does the MadDog have fuel dump?? I remember flying the convairs we would brief how long to dump if we had a failure on takeoff.
 
I'm sure the flight was legal at what's called brake release fuel, which is required fuel just prior to taking the runway for takeoff. If they went below this they would have been required to return for more fuel. Checklists are long on jet engine failures, plus it normally includes firing up the APU. So they were busy running checklists. They may have also left device/gear out to burn more fuel to get down to landing weight.
 
Just for clarity, it wasn't an MD-88, but rather an MD-90
 
The single operating engine will be burning roughly the same amount of fuel that two-operating engines would be burning at the same altitude, airspeed, and configuration. At low altitude that would be significantly more than at cruise altitude. Also, on a normal flight the last ~30 minutes includes the descent which is flown at flight-idle which is at a significantly reduced burn rate.

In an engine-failure after takeoff scenario the answer to "Say fuel on board in minutes" is just a wag. On the MD90 they likely used the 6000pph rule of thumb which is to drop the last two digits so 9000 pounds on board is 90 minutes. Actual fuel burn would be less so that's a conservative estimate.

Very few narrow-body airliners have fuel dump. None of the DC9s I flew (-10/-30/-40) did and I don't think any of the later models did. No need for it. You just land overweight and do the overweight landing inspection. The B727 DID have fuel dump as did the DC8. Most of the B767s I flew did NOT have the fuel jettison system though some do. I don't think any of the B757s had it but I'm not sure.
 
How does landing work on one engine, do you still deploy reverse Thrust or roll it out? I would assume it would pull pretty hard with thrusters out on one side.
 
Criitter7 said:
How does landing work on one engine, do you still deploy reverse Thrust or roll it out? I would assume it would pull pretty hard with thrusters out on one side.
Click to expand...
Yea we still deploy the one TR.
 
Criitter7 said:
How does landing work on one engine, do you still deploy reverse Thrust or roll it out? I would assume it would pull pretty hard with thrusters out on one side.
Click to expand...

If you want to you can. Pretty much normal.
 
Larry in TN said:
Very few narrow-body airliners have fuel dump. None of the DC9s I flew (-10/-30/-40) did and I don't think any of the later models did. No need for it. You just land overweight and do the overweight landing inspection. The B727 DID have fuel dump as did the DC8. Most of the B767s I flew did NOT have the fuel jettison system though some do. I don't think any of the B757s had it but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/faqs/fueldump.pdf
 
Criitter7 said:
How does landing work on one engine, do you still deploy reverse Thrust or roll it out? I would assume it would pull pretty hard with thrusters out on one side.
Click to expand...
The yaw from the asymmetric T/R is not significant and is easily controlled with rudder pressure (which includes a small amount of nosewheel steering).

The DC9s, especially the longer ones, had issues with T/Rs blanking the rudder at higher T/R thurst settings which would lead to directional instability on the landing roll. For that reason the amount of reverse thrust used in normal operation was limited--1.4 EPR on the DC9s I flew. On the Boeings that I've flown (B737/757/767) full-reverse was routinely used. You generally start reducing reverse thrust around 80kts, reaching idle-reverse by around 60kts. That may vary by type or airline.
 
Criitter7 said:
How does landing work on one engine, do you still deploy reverse Thrust or roll it out? I would assume it would pull pretty hard with thrusters out on one side.
Click to expand...

Landing distance is figured from no TR usage. Personally I'd leave it stowed and just roll out. But I'm also talking from a tiny jet compare to that guy.

But I'm also not a big TR guy unless I had to. My normal OPS was just to deploy the buckets but not throttle up.
 
Larry in TN said:
The yaw from the asymmetric T/R is not significant and is easily controlled with rudder pressure (which includes a small amount of nosewheel steering).

The DC9s, especially the longer ones, had issues with T/Rs blanking the rudder at higher T/R thurst settings which would lead to directional instability on the landing roll. For that reason the amount of reverse thrust used in normal operation was limited--1.4 EPR on the DC9s
Click to expand...

I've heard this is what caused the Delta MD-88 incident at LGA a few winters ago.
 
ARFlyer said:
Landing distance is figured from no TR usage. Personally I'd leave it stowed and just roll out. But I'm also talking from a tiny jet compare to that guy.

But I'm also not a big TR guy unless I had to. My normal OPS was just to deploy the buckets but not throttle up.
Click to expand...
You must not buy the brakes for the aircraft you fly.
 
ARFlyer said:
I've heard this is what caused the Delta MD-88 incident at LGA a few winters ago.
Click to expand...
PROBABLE CAUSE

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the captain’s inability to maintain directional control of the airplane due to his application of excessive reverse thrust, which degraded the effectiveness of the rudder in controlling the airplane’s heading. Contributing to the accident were the captain’s (1) situational stress resulting from his concern about stopping performance and (2) attentional limitations due to the high workload during the landing, which prevented him from immediately recognizing the use of excessive reverse thrust. factor.
----------
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2016_laguardia_BMG_Abstract.pdf
 
MAKG1 said:
IFR? That's not legal. Unless 14 minutes of that is schedule padding.
Click to expand...

comanchepilot said:
Fire guys should know that . . . even if its not transferrable or useable - it burns in a crash!
Click to expand...

Y'all are overthinking it. The guy eyeballed the time.



GlennAB1 said:
You must not buy the brakes for the aircraft you fly.
Click to expand...


I don't, but my employer actually requests we use brakes more than reverse thrust. The carbon brakes work well when warm and reverse thrust does some wear and tear on the engines. So some bean counter sat down and figured it is cheaper to buy brakes than buy fuel and repair engines.


Reverse thrust is always available if needed. Then again at MGLW the plane I fly (777) can stop in about 3300' (1000' air distance from threshold to touchdown and 2300' of actual stopping) using max braking with no reverse thrust. In fact, max reverse only knocks off 120' of stopping distance in that scenario.

(SL, Standard Day, calm winds, 1% down slope, 1000' air distance, auto spoilers, etc).

Where reverse shines is landing on slick runways. At max manual braking and max reverse thrust, we need about 7800' to stop on a iced up runway. Take away the reverse thrust and there's an additional 4600' needed to stop.
 
Rex Kramer said:
Y'all are overthinking it. The guy eyeballed the time.
Click to expand...
This. They're dealing with emergency. A quick glance at the panel tells them how much the good engine is burning. They take a quick glance at fuel on board. Some quick head math and boom; answer for ATC.
 
Rex Kramer said:
I don't, but my employer actually requests we use brakes more than reverse thrust. The carbon brakes work well when warm and reverse thrust does some wear and tear on the engines. So some bean counter sat down and figured it is cheaper to buy brakes than buy fuel and repair engines.
Click to expand...
I think my airline determined it was better to use thrust reversers and reduce brake changes because they found brake changes to have more adverse affect on schedule.
 
Rex Kramer said:
Then again at MGLW the plane I fly (777) can stop in about 3300' (1000' air distance from threshold to touchdown and 2300' of actual stopping) using max braking with no reverse thrust.
Click to expand...
So why, on a windy day in EWR, are you guys landing in the crosswind on 22L while us in the SuperGuppy are flying the Stadium Visual Rwy 29 with a target of around 165kts! LOL
 
GlennAB1 said:
I think my airline determined it was better to use thrust reversers and reduce brake changes because they found brake changes to have more adverse affect on schedule.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how airlines come up with new ways to fly planes that have been around for decades, eh?


Larry in TN said:
So why, on a windy day in EWR, are you guys landing in the crosswind on 22L while us in the SuperGuppy are flying the Stadium Visual Rwy 29 with a target of around 165kts! LOL
Click to expand...


Cuz those guys are p*ssies :D

Actually if I'm going to the B gates I'll want to land on the 22s. The C Gates and give me 29.

Plus the thing has a 45kt crosswind limitation, so we have a little room to play when it's only gusting into the 30s. ;)
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Just for clarity, it wasn't an MD-88, but rather an MD-90
Click to expand...
To me, that's more surprising to hear if the engine itself was the problem.

Love flying on the -90's... well, love the Maddog in general. Used to hate it.
 
Two weeks ago, I experienced an arrival on Rwy 33 (5200ft) at DCA in a MD90. Before that, the only aircraft I have ever seen landing on that runway were RJs and Q400s. The captain announced that it would be a rather sporty experience and that everyone please tighten their belt and hold on to their stuff. He wasn't kidding. It made quite a racket but he turned off the runway just after the intersection with 1/19.
 
Rex Kramer said:
I don't, but my employer actually requests we use brakes more than reverse thrust.
Click to expand...

Same here when I was flying. But then company policy changes too, so one year use the brakes, next year go easy on the brakes, wash, rinse, repeat.
 
Larry in TN said:
Well, to be fair, you guys get three landings every 90 days, I get three landings every trip! LOL

BigFoot does look nice and stable when landing in those gusty crosswinds, though...
Click to expand...


3 in 90 days? That's being generous!
 
weilke said:
Two weeks ago, I experienced an arrival on Rwy 33 (5200ft) at DCA in a MD90. Before that, the only aircraft I have ever seen landing on that runway were RJs and Q400s.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty rare. Typically you see it when the winds are howling across Rwy 1, which makes 5200' not nearly as much of an issue when landing with a huge headwind.
 
Dad managed to get out of currency flying the 737. All of the instructors were amazed how he did it. Living in base on reserve is a beautiful thing!
 
jordane93 said:
Living in base on reserve is a beautiful thing!
Click to expand...

Damn right! I had a buddy that used to joke about not "breaking guarantee" - less than 76 hours for the entire year. He's my hero. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top