Engine flameout...restart or no?

[d328pilot]

If you are level in cruise and have a sudden engine flameout with no suspected damage and you are about 30 minutes from a suitable alternate airport, would you elect to attempt a restart or just continue on one engine?

 

[Junkflyer]

Simple answer: restart. Single engine go-arounds are too much work.

 

[FLYLOW22]

Why did it fail? Is there damage suspected?

N1 Rotation?

Fire indications?

Oil pressure?

Loud bang/vibration?

If damage, don't start it.

 

[cargoflyr69]

Why are we posting this in the "majors" forum. Don't we all have established procedures for if/when this happens?

Shooting from the hip, I'd say follow your COM/QRH and do exactly what is says. If unclear consult with your MX control.

If you were not in a 121 environment and didn't have that CRM to fall back on I'd do what the above poster suggested... why did it fail? loud bang, n1 loss, vibration, etc. If no signs of anything bad happened and you are in the relight envelope, then try to light it up! because, like the other guy said, single engine go arounds are no fun!

 

[sstearns2]

You want to be careful about trying a relight at altitude. The CRJ-200 max altitude to try a relight is 21000 feet. Any higher and you'll probably toast the hot section. I think trying to relight the engines too high is one problem that the pinnicle guys had.

Scott

 

[imacdog]

No the Pinnacle guys seized their engines when they stalled, there was no possibility of a restart after that.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Depends. If you can make an airport with one do it. If you need it light it. For ETOPS guys every failed relight goes against your companies ETOPS score card, hence the reason that most operators do not want you to attempt a relight unless it is necessary.

 

[Lebowski]

No the Pinnacle guys seized their engines when they stalled, there was no possibility of a restart after that.

Actually, if memory serves correctly, the Pinnacle crew flamed out both engines during a wing stall after a non-standard climb and non-standard level off at FL410. They tried a conventional restart using APU bleed air, but failed to establish APU bleed air to the engines due to some confusion with APU/LCV interlock switch on that type. They then attempted a windmilling start, but never got the speed required for the relight envelope, and that is when they essentially melted the engine cores or got "core locked." At THAT point, that's when there was no possiblity of a restart.

If I am remember correctly, the 21,000 altitude limitation mentioned by the previous poster is simply part of the windmilling relight envelope, not an absolute limit on attempting a restart. I forget the altitude limit for using APU bleed air for a restart in the CRJ-200, but I think it's higher than that. Nor did the engines seize directly as a result of the wing stall or the engine stall, as you suggest.

Someone else more familiar with the details may correct me or add to this, but I think this is a more accurate summary of what happened with the Pinnacle flight.

And by the way, since this is a sensitve issue, I am not knocking Pinnacle or the flight crew involved in this accident. Just trying to clear it up.

I also agree 100% with the previous posters who said to simply refer to your company's specific procedures. In lieu of those, use common sense. If damage is suspected, why risk a restart? If damage is not suspected, why not?

 

[Colonel Savage]

Core lock occurs at very cold altitudes shortly after the flame out itself, due to uneven cooling of the core components. This contraction causes binding of the components and too much friction to overcome w/start procedures.

Because the PCL crew was in an unpowered decent, there was not enough time at the lower altitudes for the core to warm back up and free itself, so the subsequent start attempts at lower altitudes failed also.

 

[Mach 80]

There is a debate among some of us in re-current training. Basicly we can either fight an engine fire after take-off after we get the plane cleaned up at 1,000' AGL or we have the option that if the plane is well under control, start at 400' AGL. Am curious what other carriers do in this regard. The schools of thought are that by waiting till 1,000 you may be getting some residual thrust from the buring engine versus by starting at 400' you get the fire out earlier.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

I know what my airline would say (the stock answer for everything) : "Captain's discretion!"

 

[pianoman]

There is a debate among some of us in re-current training. Basicly we can either fight an engine fire after take-off after we get the plane cleaned up at 1,000' AGL or we have the option that if the plane is well under control, start at 400' AGL. Am curious what other carriers do in this regard. The schools of thought are that by waiting till 1,000 you may be getting some residual thrust from the buring engine versus by starting at 400' you get the fire out earlier.

Wow. Re-starting an engine at 400' AGL? Maybe if you're blasting off out of someplace in Iowa with nothing to hit, but anywhere else I would think you'd be a little busy trying to avoid obstacles and hold V2 on one engine to be fu*(ing around trying to get it started again that low.

Just my 2 cents. Let the sucker burn to 1000.

Also in the real world, if you're not aware beforehand it's going to happen, you're going to spend at least the first 30 seconds figuring out what to do with the other crewmember.

 

[FatesPawn]

There is a debate among some of us in re-current training. Basicly we can either fight an engine fire after take-off after we get the plane cleaned up at 1,000' AGL or we have the option that if the plane is well under control, start at 400' AGL. Am curious what other carriers do in this regard. The schools of thought are that by waiting till 1,000 you may be getting some residual thrust from the buring engine versus by starting at 400' you get the fire out earlier.

Yeah, that sounds exactly like the type of discussions instructors and checkairmen stay up nights debating to themselves. Then they show up for ground school and start espousing their academia.

400? 1000? Who gives a rats ass? Seriously.

You probably missed both and are totally off profile.

Your engine probably did not fail, but something is burning like a loose fuel line or hydraulics.

Any number of possibilities exist, but this sounds EXACTLY like the type of minutia training departments get wrapped up in, so debate away!!!

-fate

 

[blzr]

If your ignition switch is on and you have a flameout due to WX or turbulance shouln't the engine relight? Doubtful your N2 has gone below 20% and there would still be fuel going to the burner can, it should relight. If it doesn't, fly the plane first and then deal with the problem when you have gotten to a safe altitude.

 

[Mach 80]

>>>Re-starting an engine at 400' AGL? <<<

No. Not re-starting. I don't believe I'd re-start an engine where there was a fire warning. Did you read my post? Doing things like pulling the thrust lever to idle and start lever to cut-off -- the idea to reduce fire damage or possible catastrophic incident sooner than waiting till 1,000' AGL. If you were sitting by the engine seeing a roaring fire raging, maybe you'd prefer something done at 400' rather than 1,000'.

 

[LJDRVR]

I had a Lear 25 flame out once in the middle of the night during descent into Amarillo. Just spooled back to a windmilling state without a single annunciator lighting up. I took the radio and had the FO work his way through the QRH. We got everything secured properly and I asked him:

"Looks like a clean flameout to me. I don't see any fire indications or evidence of a bearing failure or damage, you wanna go for an airstart?"

"Naah...I think we better leave well enough alone."

Was his response. This was the flight I learned CRM is not a democracy. I had him go ahead and restart the motor.

We briefed the bold-face items for engine failure during approach, took a 360 degree turn to make sure we had all our ducks lined up and shot the visual approach.

The mechanic who came out to work on the jet found pieces of the turbine blades broken off, with damage to both the compressor and hot section.

It stayed running long enough for us to shoot the approach.

One can Monday-morning quarterback my decision all day long. One could assert that a secured, single-engine approach would have been more stable and safe than the possibility of another failure close to the ground. But what we did worked out fine. Given the choice between having an engine and not having it - I'll take the motor.

The DO I worked for later patiently explained to me that it wasn't a requirement for me to have declared an emergency. I politely disagreed - I wanted the FO, the controller and myself all on the same sheet of music in regards to what was happening.

The best part?

Our PAX slept through the whole thing! They never knew.

Thank God I don't have to work at a bottom-feeder anymore.

 

[transpac]

I had a Lear 25 flame out once in the middle of the night during descent into Amarillo.

20 series Lears with the engine variable inlet guide vanes a little out of adjustment are guaranteed to flameout occasionally at high mach. It used to be pretty common to hear a Lear ask for a descent to 250 for a restart then climb back to 410 or whatever.

 

[JT12345]

Let's see...

If I am not life threatened by a flameout...

If flameouts don't normally happen...

An engine is worth thousands if not millions of dollars....

maybe I will make a few calls to get others involved,

so I don't have to take full responsibility for possiblie futher damage to a flamedout engine.

Being a Captain allows you the full responsibility, but if you like to keep your job it is better to get others involved when warranted. After all it is not your name on the airworthiness certificate. You don't own the airplane.

 

[Bob_Sacamano]

FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST. But if the checklist allows, and there is no reason to suspect any internal damage, sure I'd try a restart.

 

[LJDRVR]

20 series Lears with the engine variable inlet guide vanes a little out of adjustment are guaranteed to flameout occasionally at high mach. It used to be pretty common to hear a Lear ask for a descent to 250 for a restart then climb back to 410 or whatever.

Yep, the CJ610 and the J85 to an even larger exent are prone to high-altitude problems, but here's the deal on the engine in question. The flame-out occured around FL300, at 80% RPM in the descent. It was due for a hot section, the normal grace period was something like 20 hours. (If I'm remembering correctly) the company had good trend on the engine and asked GE for 100 hours which they granted. We had just flown past the lower grace period when the thing ate istself.

We were fortunate to get a relight considering the damge later found to the engine.

As to the gentlemen who suggested that due to the dollar amouint involved one should get others involved? While I understand your perspective, I'm not sure I agree. I don't care how much the engine costs, if I can keep it running even if it means a huge bill, then as PIC, I'm going to write that check.

Without any indication of damage, there is simply no way for some mechanic on ARINC to provide me with anymore information than what I already had. (Particularly the mechanics at this particular operation.)

I don't care who owns the airplane. When I'm flying it, it belongs to me, and the cost of a repair is not going to enter into my decision-making process or tempt me to incur more risk. I'm not going to increase my exposure by flying around single engine while I get a Director of Maintenance out of bed who has a track record of non-compliance, profit-over-safety-mindset and a lack of anything resembling technical expertise, to ask him what he thinks I should do.

And I'm pretty sure if your family was in back you'd agree too.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Huddle up, guys.

Two different scenarios going on here:

1st post: Do you restart a flame-out in cruise?

2nd post (by mach80): Do you shut down a burning engine on takeoff at 400', or let it (a burning, but thrust-producing engine) get you above the efah (msa, whatever) and then secure it?

Okay, BREAK!

 

[Spooky 2]

Depends. If you can make an airport with one do it. If you need it light it. For ETOPS guys every failed relight goes against your companies ETOPS score card, hence the reason that most operators do not want you to attempt a relight unless it is necessary.

Well that may (?) be so on the 757/767 but as you may already know the B777 will go into a mode where it continues to attempt a restart without any pilot actions.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

2nd post (by mach80): Do you shut down a burning engine on takeoff at 400', or let it (a burning, but thrust-producing engine) get you above the efah (msa, whatever) and then secure it?

Okay, BREAK!

I'd at least wait until FRA / Accel Height and get moving before I give-up that extra thrust. Ideally, that's only about an extra 20 seconds from 400' to 1000' (normal FRA on most of our SE procedures).

 

[pianoman]

There is a debate among some of us in re-current training. Basicly we can either fight an engine fire after take-off after we get the plane cleaned up at 1,000' AGL or we have the option that if the plane is well under control, start at 400' AGL. Am curious what other carriers do in this regard. The schools of thought are that by waiting till 1,000 you may be getting some residual thrust from the buring engine versus by starting at 400' you get the fire out earlier.

Okay- didn't realize your question was different from the original.

I'd still leave it running to 1000' rather than try some half-ass thrust reduction while trying to fly.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Yes, I know about the 777 but I was referring to the fact that the ETOPS certification may be shot to hell if you try to relight it three times and it goes out two or three times. It kills the odds. Better to leave it off and land. If that is not an immediate option then relight it. As it at an ETP near 30W.

 

[Mach 80]

As far as part 121 flying and an enroute flame-out, I would think that if there were no indications of engine damage or an inability to start the engine, that the FAA would prefer that you have two engines operating with passengers on board than one engine i.e. start the flamed out engine.

 

[pipe]

Yep, the CJ610 and the J85 to an even larger exent are prone to high-altitude problems, but here's the deal on the engine in question. The flame-out occured around FL300, at 80% RPM in the descent. It was due for a hot section, the normal grace period was something like 20 hours. (If I'm remembering correctly) the company had good trend on the engine and asked GE for 100 hours which they granted. We had just flown past the lower grace period when the thing ate istself.

We were fortunate to get a relight considering the damge later found to the engine.

As to the gentlemen who suggested that due to the dollar amouint involved one should get others involved? While I understand your perspective, I'm not sure I agree. I don't care how much the engine costs, if I can keep it running even if it means a huge bill, then as PIC, I'm going to write that check.

Without any indication of damage, there is simply no way for some mechanic on ARINC to provide me with anymore information than what I already had. (Particularly the mechanics at this particular operation.)

I don't care who owns the airplane. When I'm flying it, it belongs to me, and the cost of a repair is not going to enter into my decision-making process or tempt me to incur more risk. I'm not going to increase my exposure by flying around single engine while I get a Director of Maintenance out of bed who has a track record of non-compliance, profit-over-safety-mindset and a lack of anything resembling technical expertise, to ask him what he thinks I should do.

And I'm pretty sure if your family was in back you'd agree too.

Not trying trying to Monday morning QB here -- just some food for thought.

What you had was a "nice", calm, contained engine failure where everything worked as it should have. After you got it running, I'd argue that you had a pretty high likelihood of an uncontained failure had you gone to TRT or GA thrust. At that point all bets are off - who knows what systems go down the crapper at that point.

I'm not saying I would have done anything different -- then. But after hearing your story of what was found after landing I think I'd only restart if I felt I really needed it to keep from hitting the ground.

PIPE

 

[McNugget]

If you are level in cruise and have a sudden engine flameout with no suspected damage and you are about 30 minutes from a suitable alternate airport, would you elect to attempt a restart or just continue on one engine?

Embry-Riddle pilots do this during their PC all the time and are highly successful

 

[ACL65PILOT]

funny. Many airlines train to restart a flame out. If there is no suspected damage it does not hurt to try. IE airlines and airplanes that are not in the ETOPS program.
Now with an ETOPS program things change. If you are on a fleet that is ETOPS you know what I am talking about. They actually go in to some detail about it in the FOM and the QRH.

 

[BoilerUP]

If I had one roll back and there were no visible and/or cockpit indications of engine damage then yes, I would attempt a restart per the QRH. If nothing else, you'd have have another generator and have that engine providing idle thrust...both of which are better than pure OEI operations in my book.

If engine damage is found upon landing as LRDRVR had...well, that's what we pay insurance premiums for, isn't it?