Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The melted engine is the one that relit at altitude when they followed the memory item and selected continuous ignition to ON. They are very lucky that both didn't re-light. They got the other engine started later and it functioned properly and got them safely to the ground.
I didn't follow that. Maintaining sufficient airflow (not selecting ignition) would keep the spools turning, enabling a restart at lower altitude.
Ignition is used initially to "relight" a flameout.
A seized engine with no airflow, ignition, and fuel cock open....
Perhaps that's what you were referring to.
The memory item in the CRJ-100/200 for a dual engine flameout is:
Continuous Ignition....ON
Airspeed....240kts Minimum
That's it and it's not dependent upon altitude even though the engine relight envelope doesn't begin until 21,000'.
I can't tell you why airspeed is second and ignition is first, but it is. Maybe Bombardier will change that now.
A stall recovery involves max thrust which its likely the thrust levers were near the firewall anyway.
The engines may or may not have compressor stalled. They could have just flamed out from the interrupted airflow. I'm guessing that the engines flamed out and the stick *pusher* occurred nearly simultaneously. I could see the scenario unfolding where a stall recovery was then initiated my pushing the T/L's to the stops and when there was no response glancing at the engine instruments then reaching up and selecting the Cont. Ign to ON.
Again, they were very lucky that only one engine relit.
The dual engine flame out procedure assumes you started in the normal flight envelope. In this case they didn't. Early in the life of the CL-600 they had a problem with engines flaming out above FL400.
In the CRJ the only time the auto ignition comes on is for high angle of attack. When it does come on there is no manual override to turn it off.
As the compressor stalls reverse airflow develops. The engine starts to spool down so the ECU adds fuel to maintain fan speed. The turbine cools so the ITT is no longer an accurate reflection of the temp in the burner, etc. Since the crew cannot select the ignition off the fuel in the burner continues to burn as long as there is air. The only thing the crew can do to save the engine is to bring the thrust levers to idle to get them out of the ECU governing range and into manual HMU control.
Remember - the only reason you select max thrust in a stall recovery is to minimize the altitude loss. In a number of approach to stall instances max thrust will not help you avoid a stall, you are going to sacrifice altitude.
High altitude stall recovery is something that needs to be trained far better than it currently is. At least now the stall recovery does not emphasize zero altitude loss like it used to.
That engine did not relight. I've seen engines like that before. That slag you see is the turbine blades. When they fail, they melt and it happens without stalling the plane.
A likely scenario here is that they were in cruise at Fl340 and that engine cored out on them. Possibly, before they took appropriate action and descended to drift down altitude the airspeed bled off and flamed out the other engine.
Fuel flow is always a function of compressor speed/ outlet pressure and thrust lever. When an engine flames out, fuel flow drops accordingly. A flow reversal/ engine stall can cause an over temp, but not usually to the degree that you melt the turbine. I have seen fan blades damaged by stalls, but never the turbine.
Until I hear the final report, I'm giving these guys the benefit of the doubt here in that they were probably operating near the max altitude for their weight and were perhaps at ECON cruise so their airspeed was already slow. The engine cores, airspeed rapidly bleeds off and the other engine flames out.
Let's wait and see.
You are wrong.
I may very well be. I'll wait for the report rather than condemn based on rumors.
I'll wait for the report rather than condemn based on rumors.
why isn this in the media? it sounds like the pax were in for a ride...
There have been a number of cruise shakers lately. Long legs, long days, short nights, no auto-throttles? I heard they stalled at F340, they fought the pusher three times and on the third they flamed out. Trying a relight without sufficient airflow could core-lock the engine.
Actually, there are (very few) personlities that are addicted to the RJ left seat, and can't fathom leaving that to go to a major to be somebody's FO. It's mentally impossible for these few to actually be FOs again. Their ego and attitude wouldn't allow it.I don't think anyone dreams of being a 20 year TP capt. Nobody dreams of being a 20 year RJ capt either...so I still don't get your point.
Actually, there are (very few) personlities that are addicted to the RJ left seat, and can't fathom leaving that to go to a major to be somebody's FO. It's mentally impossible for these few to actually be FOs again. Their ego and attitude wouldn't allow it.
Actually, there are (very few) personlities that are addicted to the RJ left seat, and can't fathom leaving that to go to a major to be somebody's FO. It's mentally impossible for these few to actually be FOs again. Their ego and attitude wouldn't allow it.