Engine flameout...restart or no?

[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?