Another Emergency Landing
- Thread starter skyguy
- Start date
Whether they thought it was a failed engine or a dropped engine, my point was why they continued to the destination airport rather than land at a closer one (unless SAN really was the best choice). I would have thought that procedures would call for a landing ASAP since, the theory is, if the 2nd engine were to suffer a failure there would be little left to do but glide to a long, flat, unobstructed runway/field/road/desert.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #18
I recall that incident, also. Seems like it was caused by leakage of the fwd lav drain valve (although I could be wrong on that part). With 3 or more engines, there is no requirement to land at the nearest suitable airport if only one engine is lost, as long as the PIC determines that proceeding to another airport (including the destination) is as safe as landing.
Jim
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
- Aug 17, 2005
- 2,873
- 18
So someone flushed the toilet and the engine fell off? I remember that. Johnny Carson was still on the air when that happened, I remember him making a few jokes about that. Can laugh no one hurt.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #20
Sort of.....
The leaking valve allowed blue fluid to trickle out, where it froze in the cold air at altitude. When the ice ball got big enough, the airflow broke it loose and it impacted the #3 engine. At least that's my recollection but I could be thinking of another incident.
Jim
slipnutwrench
Member
- Sep 5, 2002
- 51
- 6
Yes, that is how it happened. The #3 engine departed the aircraft (as designed)if this type of impact occurs. The only thing the flight crew lost was thrust and partial AC elec. power. The #3 engine has no Hyd. pump so no loss of hydraulic power. And on the plus side, the 727 JT8D engine weighs about 5000lbs.w/cowlings and TR's. Supposedly, the autopilot trimmed out the aircraft immediately following the engine departing the A/C.
Shortly thereafter, AA seeing that twin-engine aircraft were just as safe as three engined aircraft placed a huge order with McDonnell-Douglas for DC-9-80 (Super 80's).
Just kidding (last paragraph).It's real, and it was in the mid-1980's (April, 1985, to be exact):
AROUND THE NATION, Jet Carrying 89 Loses Engine but Lands Safely
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #23
The 727 will fly reasonably well on one engine (after losing 2). Climb rate is for crap, but otherwise no problem till the gear goes down.
FWIW, we used to do 2-engine maintenance ferries on the 727 (take the plane to the replacement engine instead of vice-versa). Last one I did was LGA-GSO.
Jim
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Jim, was the 727 center engine more powerful then the engines on the side? I was simply wondering that if you had to choose an engine to lose would it be the center one so you didn't get asymetrical thrust, or would it be a side engine to lose less thrust?
allstrike
Veteran
- Oct 12, 2005
- 759
- 4
Uh and whats that controled by.(engine thrust) velocity ( angle of attack ) glide path....lets see 2-1= half power.
Glide ratio of a rock...LOL :down: lets call it a controled crash,incident free hows that.And beer cans bend on landing trust me.No such thing as over weight..haha look at those new creases skippy.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #27
All the same - JT8D's - although at least one of the 727 re-engining mods left the center engine alone and put MD-80 engines in the 1 & 3 position.
Asymetrical thrust was minor compared to the 737 or 320. As someone mentioned, the #3 didn't have a hydraulic pump so losing that one left the A system (IIRC) at 100% capacity.
Jim
Well, since it was a 727 they still had two more to lose before they would really have to worry...
My guess is that the crew, not knowing that the engine had physically departed, figured they didn't want to be stuck at YUM for an unknown amount of time with no company presence and figured it would be perfectly safe to go on the extra half hour or so to SAN. Probably also figured that continuing on wouldn't take much longer than turning around to land at PHX or TUS, and would be a lot less of a hassle.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
I don't have a QRH (Quick Response Handbook) readily available, but I thought the procedure for an A320 with a loss of an engine would be to land ASAP at the nearest suitable airport. It makes perfect sense to take the time to decide on suitability, in this case SDF. I don't recall (and shouldn't need to...that's why we have the QRH) if hanging out to burn off fuel is a worthy consideration if the airplane has the stopping performance needed for an overweight landing on the runway in question.
Years ago, in the mid to late 1980's, a Piedmont 737-200 "lost" an engine near ORD. I believe it was departing and was well into the climbout (cleaned up) when the separation occurred. No one on the ground was injured, and the airplane landed safely.
Years ago, in the mid to late 1980's, a Piedmont 737-200 "lost" an engine near ORD. I believe it was departing and was well into the climbout (cleaned up) when the separation occurred. No one on the ground was injured, and the airplane landed safely.
My misread...I knew the 727 had 3 engines. But forgot that part of the story when I was crafting my response.
