777 Compressor Stall

[HAROLD SCHECKEL JR]

Interesting video by a 777 pilot who explains what happened on Philippine 113 and how the crews have to prepare for this sort of thing. He also explains why the tires didn't blow on landing.


https://youtu.be/c9K9s48glZo

[Jacques]

Thanks for posting this Harold!

Blancolirio channel is really very interesting on the whole. I think it refreshing that an airline professional chooses to address almost every airline incident that happens in a manner that is well considered and professional.

Agent JayZ (mentioned in the video) is also well worth a look if you are interested in the mechanical side of things related to jet engines!

[Adam_NZ]

Thanks for posting this Harold!

+1 from me. Very interesting - with a wonderfully clear delivery. Amazing/reassuring to know just how much preparation goes into every single flight.

Adam.

[Mace]

I like the way Juan Browne (blancolirio channel) delivers these reports. You can tell he's not a pro announcer, but he's a pro pilot.
He owns a Luscombe, too.

[Hobart Escin]

Ok, you've got a compressor stall. Deal with it. Pull the affected engine back to idle and see if you can reset the airflow. If yes, yay. However, no reason to cross the Pacific with a boatload of passengers and an unknown variable (cause of the compressor stall). Hold somewhere and dump fuel, come back in and land. If the engine can't be 'reset' and keeps surging no matter what, shut him down and secure it. Get the aircraft trimmed up and hold until fuel is dumped, come back in and land. If there is no indication of engine fire after shutdown, there is no reason to risk a MTOW landing.

[Adam_NZ]

Ok, you've got a compressor stall. Deal with it. Pull the affected engine back to idle and see if you can reset the airflow. If yes, yay. However, no reason to cross the Pacific with a boatload of passengers and an unknown variable (cause of the compressor stall). Hold somewhere and dump fuel, come back in and land. If the engine can't be 'reset' and keeps surging no matter what, shut him down and secure it. Get the aircraft trimmed up and hold until fuel is dumped, come back in and land. If there is no indication of engine fire after shutdown, there is no reason to risk a MTOW landing.

Hmmmm ... I got the *impression* that the engine continued to misbehave in some way - even after all the usual (trained for) procedures. Does anyone now any more on this?

Are you an airline pilot? I find it hard to put your advice against Juan's - who describes in great detail how all the scenarios are practised (constantly) and even discussed *prior to each and every take-off*. If an aircraft is rated at being able to land above its maximum landing weight (and the runway and conditions allow it) then there's no real risk is there? The tyres didn't "blow" on landing - there were automatically deflated in a controlled way.

I'm not trying to pick an argument - just trying to work out if what you suggest was actually an option. I'm not a pilot, BTW LOL.

Adam.

[Hobart Escin]

Ok, you've got a compressor stall. Deal with it. Pull the affected engine back to idle and see if you can reset the airflow. If yes, yay. However, no reason to cross the Pacific with a boatload of passengers and an unknown variable (cause of the compressor stall). Hold somewhere and dump fuel, come back in and land. If the engine can't be 'reset' and keeps surging no matter what, shut him down and secure it. Get the aircraft trimmed up and hold until fuel is dumped, come back in and land. If there is no indication of engine fire after shutdown, there is no reason to risk a MTOW landing.

Hmmmm ... I got the *impression* that the engine continued to misbehave in some way - even after all the usual (trained for) procedures. Does anyone now any more on this?

Are you an airline pilot? I find it hard to put your advice against Juan's - who describes in great detail how all the scenarios are practised (constantly) and even discussed *prior to each and every take-off*. If an aircraft is rated at being able to land above its maximum landing weight (and the runway and conditions allow it) then there's no real risk is there? The tyres didn't "blow" on landing - there were automatically deflated in a controlled way.

I'm not trying to pick an argument - just trying to work out if what you suggest was actually an option. I'm not a pilot, BTW LOL.

Adam.

Well, yes, the fuse plugs on the tires are designed to deflate the tires under high heat/pressure conditions to prevent outright blowouts. But rolling out on the bare wheel rims risks fire, and rubber is an excellent fuel source for that. Why take the chance if you don't have to? The 777 is perfectly capable of flying and landing safely on one engine. Is it really necessary to rush to land if one engine is shut down and secure with no indication of fire?

[AKar]

Ok, you've got a compressor stall. Deal with it. Pull the affected engine back to idle and see if you can reset the airflow. If yes, yay. However, no reason to cross the Pacific with a boatload of passengers and an unknown variable (cause of the compressor stall). Hold somewhere and dump fuel, come back in and land. If the engine can't be 'reset' and keeps surging no matter what, shut him down and secure it. Get the aircraft trimmed up and hold until fuel is dumped, come back in and land. If there is no indication of engine fire after shutdown, there is no reason to risk a MTOW landing.

Hmmmm ... I got the *impression* that the engine continued to misbehave in some way - even after all the usual (trained for) procedures. Does anyone now any more on this?

Are you an airline pilot? I find it hard to put your advice against Juan's - who describes in great detail how all the scenarios are practised (constantly) and even discussed *prior to each and every take-off*. If an aircraft is rated at being able to land above its maximum landing weight (and the runway and conditions allow it) then there's no real risk is there? The tyres didn't "blow" on landing - there were automatically deflated in a controlled way.

I'm not trying to pick an argument - just trying to work out if what you suggest was actually an option. I'm not a pilot, BTW LOL.

Adam.

Well, yes, the fuse plugs on the tires are designed to deflate the tires under high heat/pressure conditions to prevent outright blowouts. But rolling out on the bare wheel rims risks fire, and rubber is an excellent fuel source for that. Why take the chance if you don't have to? The 777 is perfectly capable of flying and landing safely on one engine. Is it really necessary to rush to land if one engine is shut down and secure with no indication of fire?

No twin is "perfectly capable" of flying on one engine, more like capable of limping around with significantly degraded status. Company procedures likely dictated landing as soon as possible, meaning overweight landing, as long as landing performance was fine. Tires may or may not deflate in such cases. Technically, high-energy overweight landings do result in some extra work, but the airplane is grounded due to that engine regardless.

-Esa

[bladerunner900]

If I was on a plane where one of two engines cut out I would expect the captain to land the aircraft ASAP. It seems to me that there are too many compromised aircraft in the air nowadays. Judging by what I read and hear, safety/construction standards have slipped criminally, in favour of making more and more profit regardless of the consequences. I never used to be, but I think I'd be terrified to fly nowadays.

[Hobart Escin]

No twin is "perfectly capable" of flying on one engine, more like capable of limping around with significantly degraded status. Company procedures likely dictated landing as soon as possible, meaning overweight landing, as long as landing performance was fine. Tires may or may not deflate in such cases. Technically, high-energy overweight landings do result in some extra work, but the airplane is grounded due to that engine regardless.

-Esa

I wasn't suggesting performance wasn't going to be uncompromised with a one engine shutdown. But consider a significant brake/tire/wheel fire after landing with 100,000+ lbs of kerosene sitting on top of the flames and the prospect of having to evac pax on the escape slides.

[AKar]

No twin is "perfectly capable" of flying on one engine, more like capable of limping around with significantly degraded status. Company procedures likely dictated landing as soon as possible, meaning overweight landing, as long as landing performance was fine. Tires may or may not deflate in such cases. Technically, high-energy overweight landings do result in some extra work, but the airplane is grounded due to that engine regardless.

-Esa

I wasn't suggesting performance wasn't going to be uncompromised with a one engine shutdown. But consider a significant brake/tire/wheel fire after landing with 100,000+ lbs of kerosene sitting on top of the flames and the prospect of having to evac pax on the escape slides.

That would be considered already. Overweight emergency landing performance calculation most certainly considers the maximum brake energy. When this is not exceeded, and the performance is otherwise acceptable as well, it is probably in many cases preferable to land overweight than to spend unnecessary time in the air. The airport emergency response is there, should any brake fire occur, for instance. Note, the question is not only about airplane's performance on single engine, but significant loss of systems redundancy comes into play as well. A single added failure can very often disable very important systems in single-engine configuration. Also, in principle, the remaining engine may be subject to an elevated risk of dependent failure, though this "should not happen".

-Esa