United 108 IAD-MUC Engine failure at 1,000 feet on takeoff

[wwillson]

I think the criticism of air traffic control in this instance was one of the things that really bothered me about the YouTube comments.

I took the time to read all the comments left about the Youtube video. It is painfully clear that many people commenting have never operated in the National Airspace System or talked to Air Traffic Control. They commented without any knowledge, which is arrogance on display for everyone to see. There were comments that the controller talked too much. No, the controller(s) didn't talk too much. They talked when needed and were very helpful to the pilots to alleviate as much stress as they could by offering helpful information like, "You can go anywhere you need, the airspace is clear", "we cleared a block altitude for you", "let us know anything else you need", "you can land on any runway". Of course the pilots would not make a heading or altitude change without letting ATC know, but taking the mystery out of what is available to them helps a lot in a very stressful situation.

I have operated in the system and thought the pilots and ACT both did a fantastic job. Very professional.

 

[Kira]

I remember as a kid living in a house which was in the final approach of runway 22L at JFK.

I painted an apartment in Lawrence, N.Y., one of the "5 Towns" which dared to complain about noise (Google it).
I could easily discern the purposefully irregular rivet lines in the fuselage and compare tire tread depths.
Glad I didn't get hit with any kero.

 

[Astro14]

From what I understand it's because there may not only be living people on the plane...

This may come as a shock to some - but the pilots and flight attendants are living souls as well…

So, souls on board = total people, not just total passengers.

 

[Astro14]

I assume the plan is to circle at a sufficient altitude and distance to the airport so that if the other engine were to fail at any time, they would be able to glide in.

SOS does not stand for anything. In Morse code it is a special single sequence, since the three short, three long, three short is sent without the proper gap between letters. On a voice radio you would say "Mayday" (which is a contraction of the French words for "Help Me") instead of "S-O-S."

A true dead stick landing is an extraordinarily rare occurrence, happening, perhaps once every couple of decades. We don’t train to glide the airplane in. It’s just so unlikely, that there are much more likely things that are more deserving of our attention in training. Things like windshear, a single engine failure, flap/slat problems, short field landings, etc. that we train to extensively.

So, no, they weren’t holding where they could “glide” in because the airplane isn’t built to glide.

Most modern twins, and certainly the 787, are certified to fly greater than 180 minute ETOPS. That means that the remaining operating engine is deemed to be sufficiently reliable to carry the airplane for at least three more hours. We fly far away from land, so it makes sense that the airplane is certified to operate for hours on one engine.

Here’s a recent flight path. Large parts of that flight were hours away from any runway. So, if we lost an engine at one of those points, there is no altitude at which we could fly that would guarantee a glide to anything. We are counting on the remaining engine providing thrust for as long as we need it to.

The number of “glider” landings is extraordinarily few and far between. Sully on the Hudson, for example, or the 767 in Gimli. Air Transat (a case of terrible fuel management followed by brilliant flying) is another. In 99.999% of cases, the other engine does just fine at getting the airplane safely to a runway. So, training focuses on those things that are likely to happen, not the things that are incredibly unlikely.

For much of this flight below (United 16 EWR LHR on Friday, July 18) the airplane was greater than two hours from a field. LPLA (Lajes, in the Azores) was one of our diverts. It was a very long way from our route of flight.

 

[JimPghPA]

I assume the plan is to circle at a sufficient altitude and distance to the airport so that if the other engine were to fail at any time, they would be able to glide in.

SOS does not stand for anything. In Morse code it is a special single sequence, since the three short, three long, three short is sent without the proper gap between letters. On a voice radio you would say "Mayday" (which is a contraction of the French words for "Help Me") instead of "S-O-S."

Years ago, someone told me SOS meant Save Our Ship, and I've also heard SOS means Save Our Soul(s).

 

[I<3oil]

Do we know what happened as to why the engine failure yet?

 

[Astro14]

Do we know what happened as to why the engine failure yet?

The airplane flew across the ocean the next day - plane spotters will tell you that - so, while the failure is still proprietary, I’m not at liberty to disclose, it wasn’t a big deal - no damage occurred to it, thanks to the quick actions of the crew in getting the power back and the engine shut down.

 

[rstcso]

A true dead stick landing is an extraordinarily rare occurrence, happening, perhaps once every couple of decades. We don’t train to glide the airplane in. It’s just so unlikely, that there are much more likely things that are more deserving of our attention in training. Things like windshear, a single engine failure, flap/slat problems, short field landings, etc. that we train to extensively.

I remember the TACA 737 which went through a hailstorm on approach to New Orleans International and both engines flamed out. They got the APC started and restarted both engines, but they wouldn't produce any thrust, just idle power. When they advanced the throttles, the engines would overheat, so they decided to shut them down to prevent potential fire, setting the plane down on a levy.

My understanding is the pilot was an accomplished glider pilot, not that the glide characteristics are similar in any way.

 

[dwgwater]

I hadn't known some aircraft can't jettison fuel. We were flying from Miami to Chicago, the scheduled aircraft had a mechanical issue, so the airline substituted a different airplane that had already been fueled to fly somewhere else (Denver maybe). We were told the airport didn't have the equipment to offload fuel, so we flew a ? shaped route over eastern Ohio to burn the extra fuel to get down to landing weight. It added 30-45 minutes to the flight. It all seemed rather inefficient, but the airline operations people know their business better than I do.

 

[JHZR2]

Great write up Astro! I remember as a kid living in a house which was in the final approach of runway 22L at JFK. IIRC that was the most used/or one of most used runways in the USA for quite a while. They would often drop fuel which we'd see floating in the swimming pool.

That was probably before the “minimum altitude” days!

I appreciate the kind words.

We, as a profession, and as a company, are very thoughtful about fuel jettison.

This story sticks in everyone’s mind when the subject comes up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_89#:~:text=Flight 89 turned back towards,schools and a high school.

Dousing a half dozen schools with liquid fuel from low altitude is a major screw up in coordination, both inside the cockpit and between cockpit and ATC.

I was going to ask about this… I recall when growing up, once driving on the NJTP near EWR, in a light rain. All of a sudden the wipers got real streaky. Weren’t working right. My friend’s father, who was driving, claimed it was because the aircraft was dumping fuel.

Dousing cars on the turnpike in the rain seemed dubious, but the windshield was horribly streaky. So maybe it was true!?!

 

[Astro14]

I was going to ask about this… I recall when growing up, once driving on the NJTP near EWR, in a light rain. All of a sudden the wipers got real streaky. Weren’t working right. My friend’s father, who was driving, claimed it was because the aircraft was dumping fuel.

Dousing cars on the turnpike in the rain seemed dubious, but the windshield was horribly streaky. So maybe it was true!?!

It’s plausible. It’s also plausible in that area, that you got a bunch of blow off from a nearby refinery. I don’t know when the rule went into effect, but jettisoning fuel over land has always been 5,000 or 6,0000 feet, at least since about 1988, when I first flew an airplane that had that capability.

We don’t jettison fuel lightly. And a lot of airplanes do not have the capability. So a low altitude jettison, by an airplane going into Newark, is very unlikely.

But, as Delta proved, stranger things have happened, crews have failed to turn the jettison off as they got busy and doused entire neighborhoods with fuel. So, that might’ve been it.

Jet fuel is kerosene. If you smelled kerosene when the wipers got streaky, it might’ve been jet fuel.