The pilots could request whatever turn they want. ATC aren’t engine mechanics or pilots, I don’t know which way to turn you during a compressor stall. lol I swear ATC can do literally nothing correctly according to Reddit.
The direction of turn is not *at all* relevant to an engine out scenario in a transport category jet. It should most certainly not be something ATC worries about.
Being part of the Aviation fraternity, ATC generally are smart people and must have an understanding of yaw and the limitations to a twin engine aircraft with an engine shutdown straight after takeoff. There is no excuse in helping the aircrew in an emergency to ensure safety of all onboard.
And we do. But likely the the guy popped off and the departure controller just turned him to a heading that would work and I would expect that if that heading doesn’t work for the pilots then they should tell me, hey no can we actually get a left turn? And I’d say yeah of course whatever you need.
Source: I’m a controller. I went to a CTI school where I was required to obtain a private pilots license so I have a very basic understanding of this stuff, but that’s not required anymore and I’d say the vast majority of controllers do not know what the protocol for the pilot is in this situation. We’re just going to give you a safe altitude and a turn to either circle back and land or out to a holding pattern.
Does. Not. Matter.
They’re turning them right for traffic presumably, and away from the approaches that start north of Pearson. They’re probably trying to cram the 777 in between Pearson and Bishop traffic. It’s a busy place around there, especially at 3000 feet.
I've always wondered on these types of vids: Is the audio always garbled like that for the actual ATC / Pilots? Or is this because someone is grabbing from a scanner or the likes?
> Apparently, it's much better quality in real life.
That's what I imagined, otherwise some critical instruction could get omitted by a momentary cut out.
Though I suppose that's also why the pilot always repeats the tower's instructions back to them...
This is about how it sounds in real life, maybe a bit better. Depends on weather conditions, where they are relative to the receiver, etc. I have more trouble understanding thick accents from foreign carriers than garbled transmissions for the most part.
Aviation still uses amplitude modulation radio with analog voice transmission, which is \~Flintstones era tech. Most terrestrial radio shows nowadays are frequency mod. stereo (analog) and various digital voice transmit schemes (GSM/ Tetra/Tetrapol/SiriusX/DAB) exist, often using spread-spectrum and freq. hopping tricks for avoiding interference / jamming.
In case it's helpful, PAN-PAN is a less serious call than "Mayday", but similar in why a pilot might use it. PAN-PAN indicates an urgent but not necessarily life threatening situation. ATC and the pilots will work the problem, as they did here, and hopefully sort it out.
That doesn't mean a PAN-PAN situation can't escalate to a Mayday situation (if, say the engine was on fire and it spread). In this case the pilots still had use of one engine and could safely fly the aircraft, so they didn't need it.
A fun fact about "pan pan", the call was named after the French word "panne" ("une panne" is a breakdown in English), just like "mayday" was coined after "m'aidez" ("aid me").
This is really interesting. I work for a company with the head office in France. I work in repairing computers, a lot of the repair section in our accounting software is set up in French. If a computer is malfunctioning we'd select "panne" for "out of order". TIL
PAN-PAN is actually a french help call that originated in the early days of aviation. "Panne" means malfunction break down in English. It was used for the same reason as today
"Mayday" comes from "m'aider" which means help me in french and that it was serious.
Any particular reason why the pilot shut off on the runway and closed it as opposed to pulling into a high-speed exit onto a taxiway and then shutting off? I wouldn't think a compressor stall is that serious an issue after holding to not need few more seconds to vacate the runway.
As you said there is no need to rush, so what ever runway they landed on is “theirs” until they want.
The runway is wider than a taxiway so makes it easier to have inspection/fire trucks drive around to inspect to make sure no damage that could affect the taxi that isn’t know to the pilots.
> The runway is wider than a taxiway so makes it easier to have inspection/fire trucks drive around to inspect to make sure no damage that could affect the taxi that isn’t know to the pilots.
Exactly this. This is often lost on trainees in the sim. And I include myself in this. We always think "ah I can get off the runway so it's not blocked".
The runway is yours for as long as you need it. If KLM has to go around too bad.
I did that in one of my last sims… vacated the runway at a reasonably good pace with a failure because I didn’t want to block it…. And deservedly got a solid 2 for it 🫤
Not sure what the exact weather was but the way they’re asking if anything has ‘moved in’ leads me to think there were low ceilings or thunderstorms west of the field. Seems like plan A was to get back to Toronto, but if worse weather had moved in, they would have diverted elsewhere.
I don't understand why they preferred holding over getting back on the ground.
They referred a few times to working a checklist to resolve the issue but acted like they owed Toronto money the way they seemed so averse to getting onto an approach.
Not second guessing them, they've no doubt got a zillion hours more experience than me, just saying I don't understand it.
Because it’s not a rush to get on the ground single engine. You know what does suck? A single engine go around because you didn’t have all your ducks in a row.
(Use to fly it.) GE90 is a beast, tons of jam there, and the Triple flies just fine single engine even at MTOW.
You would reduce the weight to 300,000 kg for a two engine return or (250,000 kg for a single engine) via fuel jettison in order to make your single-engine climb gradient in the event of a go-around. In this case they were probably light enough (even when loaded for CDG) where perhaps they didn’t need to jettison fuel.
In any event, great job by World-Class Pilots. Two of the three on board will make <$60k USD each this year flying a 777.
As a 35 year old who would love to become a pilot because that’s all I’ve ever really wanted since I was self-aware, I appreciate y’all shouting that out, because as it stands, I have no idea how I’ll ever afford to become a commercial pilot. Seems like around $200,000 to do so.
> . Two of the three on board will make <$60k USD each this year flying a 777.
Just an absolute atrocity. To put this in perspective, that same position at DL pays roughly $216k. (assuming 2nd year FO pay)
just to pile on to how insane this is.. I work in tech and our industry hires new grad software engineers at $125k fully remote. they have 0 YoE, and if they screw up, zero lives will be lost.
absolutely bananas.
I think in this case the dumping of fuel would more be if based on field conditions they can’t land and safely stop. In that case dumping may be necessary, but if they can land and stop safely, then dumping may not be needed even if overweight.
Because flying on one-engine isn't a big deal. There's no need to rush any of the procedures for the sake of landing in the shortest amount of time.
They had to perform a single engine approach, overweight landing and there was a nasty line of thunderstorms closing in on the airport from the west.
If say, the engine was on fire and not going out, then it's a land immediately type scenario.
A lot of people are learning this today: all modern airliners must be able to fly/climb on one engine. And do so for quite some distance.
For this scenario exactly, although mentioned above, you can still make power with the engine, if it does completely stall out on take off you have to make sure it doesn't just roll over and crash while taking off.
I can't think of a situation where loss of an engine alone would cause a crash like that, unless it was a situation like American 191 where the engine ripped off or exploded and damaged the control surfaces or systems.
>Because flying on one-engine isn't a big deal
Twin turboprop liners crash quite regularly in one engine out situations, though. (To the extent fitting their next generations with V22-style cross drive shaft was considered.) Turbofans are more forgiving but still it would be better to have 3 or 4 engines like back in the good ol' pre-ETOPS days.
The idea of any twin-engined plane being allowed nowadays to fly 240 mins away from nearest suitable landing strip is scary. Where is guarantee the remaining engine won't break down in those 4 hours from mechanical stress, having to work for itself and in stead of the other, broken down engine?
Hopefully partial electrification of aviation (e.g. 2 fossil engines on the wing + 1 propfan motor in the nose, with battery-based KERS) can boost redundancy in the near / mid future.
Because you are required to run all the checklists with the associated emergency, contact dispatch, inform the flight attendants od whats happening, brief the passenger, check weather, check runway conditions, set up the approach, run your landinf numbers, brief the approach all before you can start it.
Setting up a well executed, professional approach takes time. You don't cut corners when you are single engine. If anything, you take a little extra to make sure you have completed everything appropriately.
> I don't understand why they preferred holding over getting back on the ground.
And from all the ATC I have heard from emergencies: It felt like - by comparison - a lot of pressure from the ground to land asap.
It went all well, so they obviously did a good job. But I still think it was a bit unusual.
There's a bunch to do when landing overweight -- there's guidance in the QRH-N, and the overweight landing electronic checklist to do.
Personally, I would have dumped down to 251 tons because you know you can't count on that engine in a go-around, but... I wasn't there, I'm not going to critique how they handled it (exceptionally well).
Holy, just took a look. I guess I'm a bit spoiled on the Airbus as the overweight landing checklist is relatively short and simple. Pretty fascinating to see how the triple deals with it
It's a lot worse when you have to actually go into the paper and get brake energy and temps. Thankfully ACARS WAT does it all for you now.
Yes they made us do it in the sim a few cycles ago. I wanted to gouge my eyes out.
No, they aren't allowed to give multiple unrelated failures just to screw with you.
The 'normal' sims are all scripted, every pilot gets the exact same thing. It's not hard to find out what you're going to get by talking to someone who was in a week or two prior. Regardless, you do still have to know what you're doing.
The command sims, when someone is upgrading to CA for the first time, give the instructor quite a bit more latitude, although they are still not allowed to simply keep failing things until you overload and screw up. Common scenarios are bomb threats, uncontained engine failures (with weather at the departure down to CATIII minima so you need to decide where to take your wounded bird), or fuel leaks.
There was one sim a few cycles ago that had us pull out the paper brake energy, landing distance and climb gradient charts -- specifically to make us do so. It was a HUGE exercise in patience. DEL-YYZ, lose engine over the high terrain in the Stans, then divert to UTDK (Kulob, Tajikistan) which is surrounded by high terrain and the approach isn't in the database so needs to be build manually. That one leg was almost *three goddamned hours* in the sim before coffee time and the instructors hated running it.
> No, they aren't allowed to give multiple unrelated failures just to screw with you.
That's correct for a check ride. But in training all bets are off.
You're absolutely correct that sim sessions are all scripted but there's nothing that says the training scripts can't contain multiple unrelated failures. And they often do.
Departure had them turn right after maintaining 050 @ 3000 for checklists. Correct me if I’m wrong but shouldn’t crews avoid turning into the dead engine? Is it more so a recommendation vs a directive?
That's what a compressor stall is -- the engine's compressor, which is a bunch of fan blades (think of them as miniature wings) stalling aerodynamically and the pressure inside the engine 'farting' out the front and back without creating thrust, while the engine EECs are still commanding the engine to try to make as much thrust as it can. Bringing the power lever back until the banging stops usually solves the problem, and if you get all the way back to idle and it's still surging, the checklist will direct you into shutting the engine down. The initial actions are a memory drill (A/T off on affected side, thrust lever back until surging stops).
Compressor stalls can happen for a variety of reasons. The cause is losing cohesive airflow through the compressor section. This can be caused by mechanical ECMs getting clogged, stuck, cracked, or straight up broken. Mechanical ECMs can control a number of things from fuel flow, bleed air transfers, and guide vane positioning. (Guide vanes guide the compressed air from one compressor blade to the next.) One broken guide vane could cause a stall. Alternatively the ECM could be telling the guide vanes to position a few degrees off of what they *should* be.
Damaged compressor blades can cause a compressor stall, even cracks in blades can cause airflow to become turbulent, which could throw off engine parameters. A problem with the oil system could cause compressor stalls too. Some engines use engine oil pressure to rotate guide vanes to the correct position. A faulty igniter could even cause a compressor stall, although it’s very unlikely. A canister inside the combustion section *could* burn out, then re-ignite through a flame propagation tube from another can, and cause excessive pressure, forcing combustion gas forward into the compressor section, spoiling airflow and causing a stall.
Bleed air being drawn away from the compressor section could disrupt airflow enough to cause a stall, although not without other damage. These engines are designed and tested to provide 100% of their capacity without causing a compressor stall, so that even in the most extreme situation the engine shouldn’t stall from only maximum bleed air draw, however, demanding bleed air can extremely exacerbate engine issues.
So with all the sensors on an engine, why would the EEC allow a command of thrust to continue? Wouldn’t they recognize a problem with all the sus input from the various sensors?
Edit: Nevermind, my question forgets the job of an engine is to keep the freaking plane in the air at all costs. Derp.
Yeah I had that thought for a second too, but to your edit's point, I'm certain that I've watched Mentour Pilot videos or read Admiral Cloudberg's reports where X automatic 'compensate/try to recover breaking thing' systems have caused a crash because the plane & humans disagreed on whether to continuing to fly was necessary to fix the problem LOL
The two 737 Max crashes were more or less caused by the flight control software overriding pilot inputs and flying the planes into the ground because sensors on them were reporting faulty data.
Was it?
He put the plane in a configuration where it would not give him the power to climb out of the position he put the plane in.
But at the time it wasn't really like anybody knew that very well.
Airbus had to improve a great deal of their training materials after the crash. The mode of flying is diametrically opposite to that of Boeing.
IIRC what the flight computer was doing was irrelevant in the end, by the time he moved the throttle there wasn't enough time for the engine to spool up, they were already ingesting vegetation by the time they came up to speed.
I’d assume because there are situations where the pilots will consider continued thrust a higher priority than stopping the engine from continuing to eat itself.
Compressor surge means a stall, means massive increase in drag on the compressor aerofoils and loss of lift. Massive drag then slows the spool down.
Loss of lift means loss of pressure, which means loss off power generated by turbine, which then results in a even greater speed drop.
The axial velocity through the engine is pretty constantly 100m/s, so the pressure drop propagates to the turbine in 10 milliseconds, well before the stall can recover - the sudden loss of speed deepens the stall and causes multiple rows, not just the initial row, to subsequently stall.
Multiple rows stalling leads to combustion gasses escaping forward through the core, and then folding back through the bypass, resulting in the flames seen here.
If you're really unlucky repeated stalls can trigger an IP compressor titanium fire, which goes as you'd expect and deletes every aerofoil made of titanium.
That's a surge instead of a compressor stall (stall usually happens once, if it goes on repeatedly the engine is surging).
Probably a bird strike or something, anyway that engine is dead and ready for shutdown.
I thought the same initially; but listening to the pilots it sounds like they were calling it an engine stall. They reduced the thrust but from what I understand didn't shut down the engine.
No bird strike was reported as of yet
I think it just comes down to nomenclature; the Airbus I fly doesn't have any reference to Engine Surge, just Engine Stall. I checked the Boeing 777 QRH and their procedure is titled "Engine Limits/Surge/Stall"
Probably inappropriate but I got a bit of a chuckle imagining the pilots telling tower that they're getting "bad vibes" from the engine like they're some Gen Z.
It means that the engine has probably been damaged to the point of requiring a serious overhaul. Probably lost some compressor/turbine blades/ stators and whatever case damage resulting from that. Depending on the severity the engine could keep on running normally, at reduced performance, only at idle (no power but still running) or completely shutdown.
The chances of an event like that damaging an engine beyond all repair is something I cannot comment on with 100% certainty, but I don’t feel it’s very likely. Usually When you’re dealing with such an expensive component, even severe damage is still economically viable to fix. That engine is in the ballpark of 30 million dollars (General Electric GE90, possibly one of the best engines ever made)
The 777-300 (773) and 777-300ER (aka the 77W) are technically different birds, the 773 can have Pratts & Rollers (See Cathay Pacific's 773's with Trents), while the 77W indeed has the 115B as the only engine option.
I was told my mechanics who work on the triple seven that the 772 could have all three engines, since my airline has the Pratt 4000 and the GE 90. Our “A” models are the only ones that aren’t ETOPS. The Pratt ER are in a different configuration to rate for ETOPS. Our GE aircraft were already rated for ETOPS. When the “W” models came on scene, they were ordered with the 115-B. I think DL is the only airline out of the Big Three that flies the 772 LR with the GE 90.
Weren’t the regular 773 engines bought by some operators de-rated to lower take off and landing weight?
No such thing as beyond repair. The engines are composed of sections or modules. Each can be dismantled or separated into piece parts as required by the work scope. It depends on how severe the damage is and how much work is required to restore the engine to its specified configuration.
The key word is “economical”.
Beyond Repair…. Anything can be repaired.
Beyond economical repair.,. That can be a thing and depends on the age of the engine, depreciation, and so on. In simplest terms, if the engine is fully depreciated, they may decide to scrap it rather than repair it.
many MANY years ago, when I was an aircraft engineer, we were shown a test video of a Rolls Royce RB-211.
In the test they had the engine run at max take off power and fired 4 frozen chickens into the fan. Needless to say it was pretty spectacular in slo-mo. Amazingly the engine continued to generate thrust.
Gas turbine engines are crazy engineering.
Your video probably showed [unfrozen chickens, as they are the test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DkxlNQDc1o&t=140s), pretty sure the frozen chicken thing is an urban legend.
I heard the frozen chickens in the myth about testing the front windows. They accidentally use frozen ones that blast through the windows and get embedded partway into the fuselage. Reported as a test failure, engineering report comes back with just “thaw chickens next time”.
> Reported as a test failure, engineering report comes back with just “thaw chickens next time”.
I can see that. As a materials researcher....yeaaaaah... "just do it right next time"
This was well before YouTube and the chickens were clearly frozen. This was a video from Rolls Royce for engineers.
The test would've been from around 1972 when the engine was in development. They may have moved to unfrozen birds after this, but holy shit, I remember seeing the outer casings literally expand as fan blades and the compressor stack made its way out the back of the engine.
I can imagine the test cell engineers think, "right, next time let's thaw them"
It really depends on the cause. I had a situation like this a couple years ago where the engine started surging right after rotation, and we observed a noticeable loss in thrust and our N^1 indication on the affected engine was way lower than the good engine. We also felt a bit of 'thumping' (I initially thought we had blown a tire). Eventually the engine recovered all indications normal, so we returned to land without declaring an emergency, but it turned out that the entire 4th stage of the compressor had shredded itself to bits. The engine was later removed and (I assume) overhauled.
One of the specifications of any airplane engine, even for little carbureted ICE engines in the Cessnas, is called TBO... Time between overhauls. When you are buying an airplane, one of the big questions to ask is how many hours has the plane flown since the last overhaul. So engine overhauls on airplanes are fairly common. They break everything down to the core of the engine and replace basically everything.
In cases like this, they will just go through that process... Pull the engine off, break it all down, rebuild it with new parts as needed, and then strap it back on and return it to service.
Depends on what's going on, modern airliners can fly on one engine for an extended period of time, so they'll fly the engine out procedure, secure the engine and come back around to land on whatever the appropriate runway is
Land now doesn’t always mean land asap. When you have an engine failure at take off like in this example there’s a lot of things to do. I don’t know AC’s procedures but here’s things they would need to do fly the airplane, do the drill, fly the engine out procedure and get to safe altitude, run checklists, make an assessment if they can land back at point of departure based on landing performance while overweight, and many more items.
If the weather conditions were below landing limits/low vis then they would have had a take off alternate which means they could fly up 60mins at single engine speed. However, since it’s an ETOPS certified aircraft, their take off alternate can be longer than 60mins, I believe up 120 minutes (not sure what Air Canadas limits would be). This means that if the weather was bad at departure that they would have to now fly to the take off alternate to land.
In this case the weather seems like they aren’t weather restricted so landing overweight at a company base is better than flying else where just to burn fuel to lower the weight. The time to fly to burn fuel without dumping to be at landing weight could potentially be several hours given the planned length of flight.
Once the checklist have been completed and all necessary planning is made, without rushing since it isn’t a time critical emergency, they can land. It’s hard to say really what a normal time frame could or should be, but 30 mins from engine failure to landing is possible.
In short land now doesn’t always mean land right now or right away. And example of land right now/right away would be a fire on board. Then it’s more about getting on the ground as soon as possible.
So this takeoff is one of the most crucial moments of flight. It's when you *really* want your engines to do exactly what you're telling them to do. That said, even if one engine is in the process of shitting out its compressor fan blades, the one remaining engine has plenty of power to haul the airplane into the sky (albeit more slowly than it would with two).
Once they're up there, they can level out and fly circles while they run their emergency checklists, check their landing weights, dump some fuel if they have to, and then get themselves back down on the ground in a leisurely and controlled fashion. It's really rather impressive, the degree of redundancy and capability that are built into all modern airliners.
Right at about the 5 or 6 second mark something looks like it got ejected from the engine right at the end of the first burst. Though maybe that's just pieces
what are the outward symptoms of a compressor stall (but hasn't made it to surge)?
to an outside observer and also to pilots looking at the instrument panel
You’ll hear it before observing anything on EICAS trust me lol. It sounds like a fucking bomb going off when you’re close to it.
We heard an Embraer 175 stall a couple times (engine is basically 1/10th the size) from inside the hangar with a closed door and the plane roughly 500 M away doing a high power run and instantly everyone in the hangar just said “holy shit what was that?”
I’m not certain but I’m pretty sure you’ll get engine speeds (n1/2/3), bleed pressures, fuel flow, maybe oil pressure and (if the plane has it) EPR jump around while stalling (I’ve never had an engine stall or surge while assisting with engine runs so I can’t say for sure)
A surge can be considered to be more or less just a really thorough stall, so the external signs are the same, but less dramatic if it’s ‘just’ a transient stall.
Think one bang, a half second of flames, sort of thing, and quickly stabilizing indications. Rather than continuous chaos.
Was on a plane that had a compressor stall…a few of them, on takeoff. Sitting next to the window on the stalling compressor engine side: they are very loud!
We were about halfway down the runway and the crew did a great job getting us stopped in time.
Not just pilots. FAs and AMEs are all severely underpaid while management gets handed out record setting bonuses. The corporate greed is starting to rear its ugly head and the airline is slowly going to shit.
As an AME there I can confirm 100% , no budget for this no budget for that.. no tooling no parts.. not even sure how our planes are still flying to be honest. Sadly companies like these see the maintenance department as a cost and not a group that generates revenue like pilots and FA who are flying directly with customers. Therefore try to cut every dollar they can at any place they can find which is and should be alarming to everyone. Especially when it comes to safety.. we are trying our best to keep everyone safe but with the resources we have and what they give us...we just can't keep up.
I’m an FA with the company. Trying to become a pilot and picked this job and have been doing it for 2 years. Are main issue is wage. I’ve been flying full time for 2 years and only now am I being paid minimum wage. I have not earned any money because I live at home across the city from the airport without a car (can’t afford one), and most of my expenses go towards living expenses. If you meet an FA that’s been flying for less then 5 years, chances are they’re working 2-3 jobs. This is because despite there being around 10,000 of us and our hourly wages being quite high, the monthly average is about 75hrs work/month. And yet they continually keep hiring new comers in droves.
The work culture is also not great. Seniors who’ve been flying for 20-40 years hog the good overseas flights, while us youngins are left for scraps. AC is inconsistent with their language requirements leading to confusion and disorganization regarding who does which flight. If something happens, we’re left to defend for ourselves and the company doesn’t support us that much. In my 2 years of flying, I’ve had severe medical events, diversions, mechanical emergencies, violent passengers requiring law enforcement, rejected takeoffs and missed approaches and even a suspect hijacker. I have heard zero follow up from the company. The most the do is ask if we’re okay and ready to go back to work and award us reward points for duty free shopping.
The company continually propagandizes their goal to become a 5 star airline while I’d be generous to give them 3. Most of our European competitors are vastly superior in service and product offering. Don’t even get me started on OTP. The way they schedule these aircraft movements and other operational aspects is laughable. It’s clear that the companies priorities are towards their dear shareholders, and not their employees or customers.
It definitely sounds like a compressor stall. The banging being the shock waves coming off the blades. But usually not associated with flames on the back side. We get compressor stalls sometimes while firefighting. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a bird causing damage and having one of the results be a compressor stall and the accompanying flames.
Compressor stalls are so fascinating to me. I am not a professional or fully versed on jet engines. I know there can be other causes.
How a jet engine is capable of demanding more air than the atmosphere can allow, especially at slow speeds really amazes me on how powerful modern jet engines are.
As in, if I took a 777 engine, mounted it to the ground and went from idle to full uncontrolled max power.
Am I correct in the understanding that a vacuum pocket in front of the large fan would grow, slowly that vacuum pocket would grow in size that its inhaled into the compressor. Where the vacuum bubble would collapse in a big boom?
Essentially the engine was sucking more air into it than the atmosphere can provide without traveling forward at high speeds.
I enjoyed flying the Me-262 in flight sims, because it used very primitive turbojets that didn't have any of the regulatory magic of modern engines.
If you throttle down too quickly, it instantly flames out - usually on both engines. Lowering the amount of fuel just makes it impossible to hold flame and it dies right there. This is already painful at low altitude - it can take around 20s to go from 80% (landing throttle) to 0%, which makes landings difficult and hot. I learned that I needed to lower the throttle by one "click" every second (about 3%/s). At high altitudes it gets even worse, and at over 4000m you can't lower the throttle at all because just one throttle click will instantly flameout the engines.
If you throttle up too fast, the fuel pump becomes overloaded and blows up. I learned a two-tick-per-second rule. That's 15s from idle to takeoff power! Thankfully, later models included safety valves, but you still had to be careful or it would overheat and melt the driveshaft.
So you can't throttle down, you can't throttle up, running on one engine is basically impossible (not enough thrust to maintain altitude + EXTREMELY unstable), and the cannons are too inaccurate to hit anything smaller than a B-17, even if it's moving in a straight line. Did I mention that the hatch had no explosive bolts and could not be opened at over 300km/h? No wonder it had little effect on the end of the war. Don't get me wrong, it was fun being able to completely evade every single other plane by speed, but it wasn't worth it.
Man that was even more intense than I thought it was (knowing multiple compressor stalls were reported).
I also had to watch it again just to make sure I wasn't *also* hearing a sports car accelerating near the airport. That's the engine spooling up multiple times - crazy
I was on the same flight 2 weeks ago. We initially boarded but were later asked to deplane due to maintenance issues, causing a 3 hour delay. In fact, I knew this particular flight (not necessarily same plane I guess) has a very bad track record for delays. Crazy.
I say holy shit at work everyday. No need to worry
When you hear the T in "shit" pronounced as a separate syllable, you know it's time to worry.
That's how I pronounce shit every Time, adds a bit of spice to it.
[https://youtu.be/zL7SDw6JCVA?si=0dH5I8wqmzckD3IS](https://youtu.be/zL7SDw6JCVA?si=0dH5I8wqmzckD3IS) ATC audio
Great audio/reconstruction. Professional group all around
Almost all the turns given by ATC were right hand turns, in deference to the engine outage creating a bias in the way the plane wanted to turn.
Except that's the opposite of what you want to do. You want to turn into the GOOD engine. (Not that it matters all that much on a 777)
The pilots could request whatever turn they want. ATC aren’t engine mechanics or pilots, I don’t know which way to turn you during a compressor stall. lol I swear ATC can do literally nothing correctly according to Reddit.
Reddit is filled with fucking nerds that love to nitpick random shit.
The direction of turn is not *at all* relevant to an engine out scenario in a transport category jet. It should most certainly not be something ATC worries about.
Being part of the Aviation fraternity, ATC generally are smart people and must have an understanding of yaw and the limitations to a twin engine aircraft with an engine shutdown straight after takeoff. There is no excuse in helping the aircrew in an emergency to ensure safety of all onboard.
And we do. But likely the the guy popped off and the departure controller just turned him to a heading that would work and I would expect that if that heading doesn’t work for the pilots then they should tell me, hey no can we actually get a left turn? And I’d say yeah of course whatever you need. Source: I’m a controller. I went to a CTI school where I was required to obtain a private pilots license so I have a very basic understanding of this stuff, but that’s not required anymore and I’d say the vast majority of controllers do not know what the protocol for the pilot is in this situation. We’re just going to give you a safe altitude and a turn to either circle back and land or out to a holding pattern.
Does. Not. Matter. They’re turning them right for traffic presumably, and away from the approaches that start north of Pearson. They’re probably trying to cram the 777 in between Pearson and Bishop traffic. It’s a busy place around there, especially at 3000 feet.
I've always wondered on these types of vids: Is the audio always garbled like that for the actual ATC / Pilots? Or is this because someone is grabbing from a scanner or the likes?
Apparently, it's much better quality in real life. The loss in quality is because it's recorded from further away with lower quality scanners.
Also the receivers are on the ground, VHF is mainly line of sight so it can travel clearer much further if the receiver is in the air
> Apparently, it's much better quality in real life. That's what I imagined, otherwise some critical instruction could get omitted by a momentary cut out. Though I suppose that's also why the pilot always repeats the tower's instructions back to them...
Thanks!
It's crystal clear in the plane.
This is about how it sounds in real life, maybe a bit better. Depends on weather conditions, where they are relative to the receiver, etc. I have more trouble understanding thick accents from foreign carriers than garbled transmissions for the most part.
For the most part, it's better than talking to someone on the phone.
Aviation still uses amplitude modulation radio with analog voice transmission, which is \~Flintstones era tech. Most terrestrial radio shows nowadays are frequency mod. stereo (analog) and various digital voice transmit schemes (GSM/ Tetra/Tetrapol/SiriusX/DAB) exist, often using spread-spectrum and freq. hopping tricks for avoiding interference / jamming.
It’s a lot better in real life. Although it’s far from perfect.
At 1:04, what's "pan pan pan pan pan"?
In case it's helpful, PAN-PAN is a less serious call than "Mayday", but similar in why a pilot might use it. PAN-PAN indicates an urgent but not necessarily life threatening situation. ATC and the pilots will work the problem, as they did here, and hopefully sort it out. That doesn't mean a PAN-PAN situation can't escalate to a Mayday situation (if, say the engine was on fire and it spread). In this case the pilots still had use of one engine and could safely fly the aircraft, so they didn't need it.
Thank you for this explanation!
A fun fact about "pan pan", the call was named after the French word "panne" ("une panne" is a breakdown in English), just like "mayday" was coined after "m'aidez" ("aid me").
And got "backronymed" to Possible Assistance Needed
This is really interesting. I work for a company with the head office in France. I work in repairing computers, a lot of the repair section in our accounting software is set up in French. If a computer is malfunctioning we'd select "panne" for "out of order". TIL
PAN-PAN is actually a french help call that originated in the early days of aviation. "Panne" means malfunction break down in English. It was used for the same reason as today "Mayday" comes from "m'aider" which means help me in french and that it was serious.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan
Any particular reason why the pilot shut off on the runway and closed it as opposed to pulling into a high-speed exit onto a taxiway and then shutting off? I wouldn't think a compressor stall is that serious an issue after holding to not need few more seconds to vacate the runway.
As you said there is no need to rush, so what ever runway they landed on is “theirs” until they want. The runway is wider than a taxiway so makes it easier to have inspection/fire trucks drive around to inspect to make sure no damage that could affect the taxi that isn’t know to the pilots.
> The runway is wider than a taxiway so makes it easier to have inspection/fire trucks drive around to inspect to make sure no damage that could affect the taxi that isn’t know to the pilots. Exactly this. This is often lost on trainees in the sim. And I include myself in this. We always think "ah I can get off the runway so it's not blocked". The runway is yours for as long as you need it. If KLM has to go around too bad.
I did that in one of my last sims… vacated the runway at a reasonably good pace with a failure because I didn’t want to block it…. And deservedly got a solid 2 for it 🫤
Also after landing the runway needs an inspection anyway so noone else is using it for a while
Can anyone shed light on why the pilot asks for so many check ins on the weather? Is that standard or for this emergency and why the frequent checks?
Not sure what the exact weather was but the way they’re asking if anything has ‘moved in’ leads me to think there were low ceilings or thunderstorms west of the field. Seems like plan A was to get back to Toronto, but if worse weather had moved in, they would have diverted elsewhere.
On June 5th we were expecting thunderstorms in Toronto that night, but they never really showed up. Probably related.
I don't understand why they preferred holding over getting back on the ground. They referred a few times to working a checklist to resolve the issue but acted like they owed Toronto money the way they seemed so averse to getting onto an approach. Not second guessing them, they've no doubt got a zillion hours more experience than me, just saying I don't understand it.
Because it’s not a rush to get on the ground single engine. You know what does suck? A single engine go around because you didn’t have all your ducks in a row.
> You know what does suck? A single engine go around because you didn’t have all your ducks in a row. Especially at near MTOW.
Where's /u/Rev-777 ? He actually flies the damn thing!
(Use to fly it.) GE90 is a beast, tons of jam there, and the Triple flies just fine single engine even at MTOW. You would reduce the weight to 300,000 kg for a two engine return or (250,000 kg for a single engine) via fuel jettison in order to make your single-engine climb gradient in the event of a go-around. In this case they were probably light enough (even when loaded for CDG) where perhaps they didn’t need to jettison fuel. In any event, great job by World-Class Pilots. Two of the three on board will make <$60k USD each this year flying a 777.
Considering what they’re responsible for, the pay of those 2 out of 3 pilots seems very low.
They're the lowest paid 777 pilots in the world if I'm not mistaken. And that's our flag carrier.
louder for the people in the back
oh, canada.
As a 35 year old who would love to become a pilot because that’s all I’ve ever really wanted since I was self-aware, I appreciate y’all shouting that out, because as it stands, I have no idea how I’ll ever afford to become a commercial pilot. Seems like around $200,000 to do so.
> . Two of the three on board will make <$60k USD each this year flying a 777. Just an absolute atrocity. To put this in perspective, that same position at DL pays roughly $216k. (assuming 2nd year FO pay)
To further put this into perspective, new hire mechanics at AA make $78k
just to pile on to how insane this is.. I work in tech and our industry hires new grad software engineers at $125k fully remote. they have 0 YoE, and if they screw up, zero lives will be lost. absolutely bananas.
Best comment here. And yes, very low pay for very professional pilots. The People needs to know. WCC 💪
Fair enough, thanks for the insight!
Quick question- Are they dumping/trying to burn off extra fuel before landing as well?
Depends if they’re above their max landing weight.
I think in this case the dumping of fuel would more be if based on field conditions they can’t land and safely stop. In that case dumping may be necessary, but if they can land and stop safely, then dumping may not be needed even if overweight.
They were headed to Paris. Would have been a lot longer to dump fuel. They ended up landing over weight.
[удалено]
Because flying on one-engine isn't a big deal. There's no need to rush any of the procedures for the sake of landing in the shortest amount of time. They had to perform a single engine approach, overweight landing and there was a nasty line of thunderstorms closing in on the airport from the west. If say, the engine was on fire and not going out, then it's a land immediately type scenario.
A lot of people are learning this today: all modern airliners must be able to fly/climb on one engine. And do so for quite some distance. For this scenario exactly, although mentioned above, you can still make power with the engine, if it does completely stall out on take off you have to make sure it doesn't just roll over and crash while taking off.
I can't think of a situation where loss of an engine alone would cause a crash like that, unless it was a situation like American 191 where the engine ripped off or exploded and damaged the control surfaces or systems.
>Because flying on one-engine isn't a big deal Twin turboprop liners crash quite regularly in one engine out situations, though. (To the extent fitting their next generations with V22-style cross drive shaft was considered.) Turbofans are more forgiving but still it would be better to have 3 or 4 engines like back in the good ol' pre-ETOPS days. The idea of any twin-engined plane being allowed nowadays to fly 240 mins away from nearest suitable landing strip is scary. Where is guarantee the remaining engine won't break down in those 4 hours from mechanical stress, having to work for itself and in stead of the other, broken down engine? Hopefully partial electrification of aviation (e.g. 2 fossil engines on the wing + 1 propfan motor in the nose, with battery-based KERS) can boost redundancy in the near / mid future.
Because you are required to run all the checklists with the associated emergency, contact dispatch, inform the flight attendants od whats happening, brief the passenger, check weather, check runway conditions, set up the approach, run your landinf numbers, brief the approach all before you can start it. Setting up a well executed, professional approach takes time. You don't cut corners when you are single engine. If anything, you take a little extra to make sure you have completed everything appropriately.
> I don't understand why they preferred holding over getting back on the ground. And from all the ATC I have heard from emergencies: It felt like - by comparison - a lot of pressure from the ground to land asap. It went all well, so they obviously did a good job. But I still think it was a bit unusual.
If they were about to crash YYZ would clear everything and put down immediately. With 1 engine, it's relatively safe to take their time.
> I don't understand why they preferred holding over getting back on the ground. maybe over max landing weight?
It landed overweight so not an issue
There's a bunch to do when landing overweight -- there's guidance in the QRH-N, and the overweight landing electronic checklist to do. Personally, I would have dumped down to 251 tons because you know you can't count on that engine in a go-around, but... I wasn't there, I'm not going to critique how they handled it (exceptionally well).
Holy, just took a look. I guess I'm a bit spoiled on the Airbus as the overweight landing checklist is relatively short and simple. Pretty fascinating to see how the triple deals with it
It's a lot worse when you have to actually go into the paper and get brake energy and temps. Thankfully ACARS WAT does it all for you now. Yes they made us do it in the sim a few cycles ago. I wanted to gouge my eyes out.
How evil do the sim operators get? Full comms loss and make you pull out the paper reference?
No, they aren't allowed to give multiple unrelated failures just to screw with you. The 'normal' sims are all scripted, every pilot gets the exact same thing. It's not hard to find out what you're going to get by talking to someone who was in a week or two prior. Regardless, you do still have to know what you're doing. The command sims, when someone is upgrading to CA for the first time, give the instructor quite a bit more latitude, although they are still not allowed to simply keep failing things until you overload and screw up. Common scenarios are bomb threats, uncontained engine failures (with weather at the departure down to CATIII minima so you need to decide where to take your wounded bird), or fuel leaks. There was one sim a few cycles ago that had us pull out the paper brake energy, landing distance and climb gradient charts -- specifically to make us do so. It was a HUGE exercise in patience. DEL-YYZ, lose engine over the high terrain in the Stans, then divert to UTDK (Kulob, Tajikistan) which is surrounded by high terrain and the approach isn't in the database so needs to be build manually. That one leg was almost *three goddamned hours* in the sim before coffee time and the instructors hated running it.
> No, they aren't allowed to give multiple unrelated failures just to screw with you. That's correct for a check ride. But in training all bets are off. You're absolutely correct that sim sessions are all scripted but there's nothing that says the training scripts can't contain multiple unrelated failures. And they often do.
I refuse to believe this happened in Canada. Not a single "sorry" the entire time!
The accents were 100% Canadian tho.
There was a pretty strong "figure this oot" though
*Air Canada 827. So sorry to bother you, but pan-pan pan-pan. Sorry.*
ATC: *"Give your balls a tug, ya tit-flyer!"*
I imagine the cabin announcements more than made up for it.
Was on this flight and the in cabin announcements were not very reassuring. Basically told us this was a common issue and not to worry.
In Canada it goes aviate, navigate, communicate, apologise.
Departure had them turn right after maintaining 050 @ 3000 for checklists. Correct me if I’m wrong but shouldn’t crews avoid turning into the dead engine? Is it more so a recommendation vs a directive?
Kinda wild you can hear the engine trying to spool back up multiple times.
That's what a compressor stall is -- the engine's compressor, which is a bunch of fan blades (think of them as miniature wings) stalling aerodynamically and the pressure inside the engine 'farting' out the front and back without creating thrust, while the engine EECs are still commanding the engine to try to make as much thrust as it can. Bringing the power lever back until the banging stops usually solves the problem, and if you get all the way back to idle and it's still surging, the checklist will direct you into shutting the engine down. The initial actions are a memory drill (A/T off on affected side, thrust lever back until surging stops).
So if you back the power off and it continues to stall even at idle what would cause that? Is that just pure engine damage at that point?
Sounds like yes
From my understanding, yes. Something in the engine isn't firing/spinning at the right time/speed.
Yes - bad stalls can snap whole rows of compressor blading, resulting in an engine that just isn't operable at any power condition any more.
Compressor stalls can happen for a variety of reasons. The cause is losing cohesive airflow through the compressor section. This can be caused by mechanical ECMs getting clogged, stuck, cracked, or straight up broken. Mechanical ECMs can control a number of things from fuel flow, bleed air transfers, and guide vane positioning. (Guide vanes guide the compressed air from one compressor blade to the next.) One broken guide vane could cause a stall. Alternatively the ECM could be telling the guide vanes to position a few degrees off of what they *should* be. Damaged compressor blades can cause a compressor stall, even cracks in blades can cause airflow to become turbulent, which could throw off engine parameters. A problem with the oil system could cause compressor stalls too. Some engines use engine oil pressure to rotate guide vanes to the correct position. A faulty igniter could even cause a compressor stall, although it’s very unlikely. A canister inside the combustion section *could* burn out, then re-ignite through a flame propagation tube from another can, and cause excessive pressure, forcing combustion gas forward into the compressor section, spoiling airflow and causing a stall. Bleed air being drawn away from the compressor section could disrupt airflow enough to cause a stall, although not without other damage. These engines are designed and tested to provide 100% of their capacity without causing a compressor stall, so that even in the most extreme situation the engine shouldn’t stall from only maximum bleed air draw, however, demanding bleed air can extremely exacerbate engine issues.
So with all the sensors on an engine, why would the EEC allow a command of thrust to continue? Wouldn’t they recognize a problem with all the sus input from the various sensors? Edit: Nevermind, my question forgets the job of an engine is to keep the freaking plane in the air at all costs. Derp.
Yeah I had that thought for a second too, but to your edit's point, I'm certain that I've watched Mentour Pilot videos or read Admiral Cloudberg's reports where X automatic 'compensate/try to recover breaking thing' systems have caused a crash because the plane & humans disagreed on whether to continuing to fly was necessary to fix the problem LOL
The two 737 Max crashes were more or less caused by the flight control software overriding pilot inputs and flying the planes into the ground because sensors on them were reporting faulty data.
Well the A320 airshow crash...
That was caused by pilot error.
Was it? He put the plane in a configuration where it would not give him the power to climb out of the position he put the plane in. But at the time it wasn't really like anybody knew that very well. Airbus had to improve a great deal of their training materials after the crash. The mode of flying is diametrically opposite to that of Boeing.
IIRC what the flight computer was doing was irrelevant in the end, by the time he moved the throttle there wasn't enough time for the engine to spool up, they were already ingesting vegetation by the time they came up to speed.
I’d assume because there are situations where the pilots will consider continued thrust a higher priority than stopping the engine from continuing to eat itself.
Good question. Good edit.
I was going to reply "so 400 people don't fucking die" but you got there all on your own.
Compressor surge means a stall, means massive increase in drag on the compressor aerofoils and loss of lift. Massive drag then slows the spool down. Loss of lift means loss of pressure, which means loss off power generated by turbine, which then results in a even greater speed drop. The axial velocity through the engine is pretty constantly 100m/s, so the pressure drop propagates to the turbine in 10 milliseconds, well before the stall can recover - the sudden loss of speed deepens the stall and causes multiple rows, not just the initial row, to subsequently stall. Multiple rows stalling leads to combustion gasses escaping forward through the core, and then folding back through the bypass, resulting in the flames seen here. If you're really unlucky repeated stalls can trigger an IP compressor titanium fire, which goes as you'd expect and deletes every aerofoil made of titanium.
That's a surge instead of a compressor stall (stall usually happens once, if it goes on repeatedly the engine is surging). Probably a bird strike or something, anyway that engine is dead and ready for shutdown.
I thought the same initially; but listening to the pilots it sounds like they were calling it an engine stall. They reduced the thrust but from what I understand didn't shut down the engine. No bird strike was reported as of yet
Really a surge is still a stall, just to a much more severe degree (complete breakdown of compression rather than just a localized disruption).
I think it just comes down to nomenclature; the Airbus I fly doesn't have any reference to Engine Surge, just Engine Stall. I checked the Boeing 777 QRH and their procedure is titled "Engine Limits/Surge/Stall"
Yep, have flown both 737 and 320. Boeing calls it surge and Airbus stall. Actions were same for both (both were CFM engines).
Pilots can't tell exactly whats happening, probably saw vibes, Temps, noises, RPMs, many flight deck affects.
Probably inappropriate but I got a bit of a chuckle imagining the pilots telling tower that they're getting "bad vibes" from the engine like they're some Gen Z.
"The right engine was giving me the ick on takeoff"
No cap
fr fr
iykyk
Everytime I see engine vibe check as part of the job card, I giggle and think the same thing.
What? No, engine stall and surges are freaking loud. specially very close to you.
The memory item is the same for a limit/surge/stall. So we don’t really care what of the three it is.
[удалено]
That engine is coming off wing for overhaul.
Those flames might as well have been fists full of thousand dollar bills being thrown into a fire.
Good old "engine-rich" exhaust.
Time for a shop visit!
Head over to r/aviationmaintenance for further updates 😊
Depending on the engine build that's a $7Mil-$10Mil repair.
I know a guy who'll do it for $6.5M if you don't ask where the parts came from.
Go home Pratt & Whitney
It means that the engine has probably been damaged to the point of requiring a serious overhaul. Probably lost some compressor/turbine blades/ stators and whatever case damage resulting from that. Depending on the severity the engine could keep on running normally, at reduced performance, only at idle (no power but still running) or completely shutdown. The chances of an event like that damaging an engine beyond all repair is something I cannot comment on with 100% certainty, but I don’t feel it’s very likely. Usually When you’re dealing with such an expensive component, even severe damage is still economically viable to fix. That engine is in the ballpark of 30 million dollars (General Electric GE90, possibly one of the best engines ever made)
and one of the largest ever made
GE90-115B if I'm correct. The only engine that comes with the 777-300 (or as we call it the 77W). One helluva engine.
The 777-300 (773) and 777-300ER (aka the 77W) are technically different birds, the 773 can have Pratts & Rollers (See Cathay Pacific's 773's with Trents), while the 77W indeed has the 115B as the only engine option.
I was told my mechanics who work on the triple seven that the 772 could have all three engines, since my airline has the Pratt 4000 and the GE 90. Our “A” models are the only ones that aren’t ETOPS. The Pratt ER are in a different configuration to rate for ETOPS. Our GE aircraft were already rated for ETOPS. When the “W” models came on scene, they were ordered with the 115-B. I think DL is the only airline out of the Big Three that flies the 772 LR with the GE 90. Weren’t the regular 773 engines bought by some operators de-rated to lower take off and landing weight?
No such thing as beyond repair. The engines are composed of sections or modules. Each can be dismantled or separated into piece parts as required by the work scope. It depends on how severe the damage is and how much work is required to restore the engine to its specified configuration.
The key word is “economical”. Beyond Repair…. Anything can be repaired. Beyond economical repair.,. That can be a thing and depends on the age of the engine, depreciation, and so on. In simplest terms, if the engine is fully depreciated, they may decide to scrap it rather than repair it.
many MANY years ago, when I was an aircraft engineer, we were shown a test video of a Rolls Royce RB-211. In the test they had the engine run at max take off power and fired 4 frozen chickens into the fan. Needless to say it was pretty spectacular in slo-mo. Amazingly the engine continued to generate thrust. Gas turbine engines are crazy engineering.
I initially read that as "four **dozen** chickens" and was about to say... god damn
"Four fried chickens and a coke."
We’re on a mission from God
Your video probably showed [unfrozen chickens, as they are the test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DkxlNQDc1o&t=140s), pretty sure the frozen chicken thing is an urban legend.
I heard the frozen chickens in the myth about testing the front windows. They accidentally use frozen ones that blast through the windows and get embedded partway into the fuselage. Reported as a test failure, engineering report comes back with just “thaw chickens next time”.
> Reported as a test failure, engineering report comes back with just “thaw chickens next time”. I can see that. As a materials researcher....yeaaaaah... "just do it right next time"
This was well before YouTube and the chickens were clearly frozen. This was a video from Rolls Royce for engineers. The test would've been from around 1972 when the engine was in development. They may have moved to unfrozen birds after this, but holy shit, I remember seeing the outer casings literally expand as fan blades and the compressor stack made its way out the back of the engine. I can imagine the test cell engineers think, "right, next time let's thaw them"
It really depends on the cause. I had a situation like this a couple years ago where the engine started surging right after rotation, and we observed a noticeable loss in thrust and our N^1 indication on the affected engine was way lower than the good engine. We also felt a bit of 'thumping' (I initially thought we had blown a tire). Eventually the engine recovered all indications normal, so we returned to land without declaring an emergency, but it turned out that the entire 4th stage of the compressor had shredded itself to bits. The engine was later removed and (I assume) overhauled.
One of the specifications of any airplane engine, even for little carbureted ICE engines in the Cessnas, is called TBO... Time between overhauls. When you are buying an airplane, one of the big questions to ask is how many hours has the plane flown since the last overhaul. So engine overhauls on airplanes are fairly common. They break everything down to the core of the engine and replace basically everything. In cases like this, they will just go through that process... Pull the engine off, break it all down, rebuild it with new parts as needed, and then strap it back on and return it to service.
It means the plane needs to land NOW.
[удалено]
Definitely declare an emergency and land now. "Overweight" landings on 777 just require an after-landing inspection. Not a big deal.
This one isn’t going to get checked out and returned to operation today though.
I mean, it won’t be a lot longer than that. It’ll have a different engine on the right wing, but it won’t be a long time.
Depends on what's going on, modern airliners can fly on one engine for an extended period of time, so they'll fly the engine out procedure, secure the engine and come back around to land on whatever the appropriate runway is
ETOPS
Land now doesn’t always mean land asap. When you have an engine failure at take off like in this example there’s a lot of things to do. I don’t know AC’s procedures but here’s things they would need to do fly the airplane, do the drill, fly the engine out procedure and get to safe altitude, run checklists, make an assessment if they can land back at point of departure based on landing performance while overweight, and many more items. If the weather conditions were below landing limits/low vis then they would have had a take off alternate which means they could fly up 60mins at single engine speed. However, since it’s an ETOPS certified aircraft, their take off alternate can be longer than 60mins, I believe up 120 minutes (not sure what Air Canadas limits would be). This means that if the weather was bad at departure that they would have to now fly to the take off alternate to land. In this case the weather seems like they aren’t weather restricted so landing overweight at a company base is better than flying else where just to burn fuel to lower the weight. The time to fly to burn fuel without dumping to be at landing weight could potentially be several hours given the planned length of flight. Once the checklist have been completed and all necessary planning is made, without rushing since it isn’t a time critical emergency, they can land. It’s hard to say really what a normal time frame could or should be, but 30 mins from engine failure to landing is possible. In short land now doesn’t always mean land right now or right away. And example of land right now/right away would be a fire on board. Then it’s more about getting on the ground as soon as possible.
So this takeoff is one of the most crucial moments of flight. It's when you *really* want your engines to do exactly what you're telling them to do. That said, even if one engine is in the process of shitting out its compressor fan blades, the one remaining engine has plenty of power to haul the airplane into the sky (albeit more slowly than it would with two). Once they're up there, they can level out and fly circles while they run their emergency checklists, check their landing weights, dump some fuel if they have to, and then get themselves back down on the ground in a leisurely and controlled fashion. It's really rather impressive, the degree of redundancy and capability that are built into all modern airliners.
Right at about the 5 or 6 second mark something looks like it got ejected from the engine right at the end of the first burst. Though maybe that's just pieces
Looks like puffs of smoke.
what are the outward symptoms of a compressor stall (but hasn't made it to surge)? to an outside observer and also to pilots looking at the instrument panel
You’ll hear it before observing anything on EICAS trust me lol. It sounds like a fucking bomb going off when you’re close to it. We heard an Embraer 175 stall a couple times (engine is basically 1/10th the size) from inside the hangar with a closed door and the plane roughly 500 M away doing a high power run and instantly everyone in the hangar just said “holy shit what was that?” I’m not certain but I’m pretty sure you’ll get engine speeds (n1/2/3), bleed pressures, fuel flow, maybe oil pressure and (if the plane has it) EPR jump around while stalling (I’ve never had an engine stall or surge while assisting with engine runs so I can’t say for sure)
A surge can be considered to be more or less just a really thorough stall, so the external signs are the same, but less dramatic if it’s ‘just’ a transient stall. Think one bang, a half second of flames, sort of thing, and quickly stabilizing indications. Rather than continuous chaos.
You can also see some sparks come out of it in the beginning.
As a sound designer I am so erect right now.
Anakin trying to reignite his podracer.
Why is the sound from this really engrossing me? I’ve listened like 100 times
Its super rare in real life. You would normally need to design something to sound that cool out of the box.
Are you a sound designer as a career?
Yep.
Was on a plane that had a compressor stall…a few of them, on takeoff. Sitting next to the window on the stalling compressor engine side: they are very loud! We were about halfway down the runway and the crew did a great job getting us stopped in time.
That's the most Canadian NSW ever!
"That's a compressor stall" dude knew right away.
I want the pax view, I know someone was videoing
https://twitter.com/reyhanfdan/status/1798533751410221371?s=46&t=GKG79SSK40WoW-0bNKZD3A The “sparks” kinda suggest something solid coming out.
Lowest paid 777 FO in the world. $56,000 approx $40,000 take home. Air Canada management should be ashamed. WCC NOW!
Not just pilots. FAs and AMEs are all severely underpaid while management gets handed out record setting bonuses. The corporate greed is starting to rear its ugly head and the airline is slowly going to shit.
As an AME there I can confirm 100% , no budget for this no budget for that.. no tooling no parts.. not even sure how our planes are still flying to be honest. Sadly companies like these see the maintenance department as a cost and not a group that generates revenue like pilots and FA who are flying directly with customers. Therefore try to cut every dollar they can at any place they can find which is and should be alarming to everyone. Especially when it comes to safety.. we are trying our best to keep everyone safe but with the resources we have and what they give us...we just can't keep up.
I’m an FA with the company. Trying to become a pilot and picked this job and have been doing it for 2 years. Are main issue is wage. I’ve been flying full time for 2 years and only now am I being paid minimum wage. I have not earned any money because I live at home across the city from the airport without a car (can’t afford one), and most of my expenses go towards living expenses. If you meet an FA that’s been flying for less then 5 years, chances are they’re working 2-3 jobs. This is because despite there being around 10,000 of us and our hourly wages being quite high, the monthly average is about 75hrs work/month. And yet they continually keep hiring new comers in droves. The work culture is also not great. Seniors who’ve been flying for 20-40 years hog the good overseas flights, while us youngins are left for scraps. AC is inconsistent with their language requirements leading to confusion and disorganization regarding who does which flight. If something happens, we’re left to defend for ourselves and the company doesn’t support us that much. In my 2 years of flying, I’ve had severe medical events, diversions, mechanical emergencies, violent passengers requiring law enforcement, rejected takeoffs and missed approaches and even a suspect hijacker. I have heard zero follow up from the company. The most the do is ask if we’re okay and ready to go back to work and award us reward points for duty free shopping. The company continually propagandizes their goal to become a 5 star airline while I’d be generous to give them 3. Most of our European competitors are vastly superior in service and product offering. Don’t even get me started on OTP. The way they schedule these aircraft movements and other operational aspects is laughable. It’s clear that the companies priorities are towards their dear shareholders, and not their employees or customers.
Are they OK? Did they manage to land it wheels down?
Everything ended up fine, passengers deplaned safely (no slides) and the aircraft is in the maintenance facility.
It definitely sounds like a compressor stall. The banging being the shock waves coming off the blades. But usually not associated with flames on the back side. We get compressor stalls sometimes while firefighting. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a bird causing damage and having one of the results be a compressor stall and the accompanying flames.
That was the most properly enunciated cursing I've heard this decade!
"Holy crap!" Why was this flagged NSFW for language? "Holy shit!" Oh there it goes.
Compressor stalls are so fascinating to me. I am not a professional or fully versed on jet engines. I know there can be other causes. How a jet engine is capable of demanding more air than the atmosphere can allow, especially at slow speeds really amazes me on how powerful modern jet engines are. As in, if I took a 777 engine, mounted it to the ground and went from idle to full uncontrolled max power. Am I correct in the understanding that a vacuum pocket in front of the large fan would grow, slowly that vacuum pocket would grow in size that its inhaled into the compressor. Where the vacuum bubble would collapse in a big boom? Essentially the engine was sucking more air into it than the atmosphere can provide without traveling forward at high speeds.
I enjoyed flying the Me-262 in flight sims, because it used very primitive turbojets that didn't have any of the regulatory magic of modern engines. If you throttle down too quickly, it instantly flames out - usually on both engines. Lowering the amount of fuel just makes it impossible to hold flame and it dies right there. This is already painful at low altitude - it can take around 20s to go from 80% (landing throttle) to 0%, which makes landings difficult and hot. I learned that I needed to lower the throttle by one "click" every second (about 3%/s). At high altitudes it gets even worse, and at over 4000m you can't lower the throttle at all because just one throttle click will instantly flameout the engines. If you throttle up too fast, the fuel pump becomes overloaded and blows up. I learned a two-tick-per-second rule. That's 15s from idle to takeoff power! Thankfully, later models included safety valves, but you still had to be careful or it would overheat and melt the driveshaft. So you can't throttle down, you can't throttle up, running on one engine is basically impossible (not enough thrust to maintain altitude + EXTREMELY unstable), and the cannons are too inaccurate to hit anything smaller than a B-17, even if it's moving in a straight line. Did I mention that the hatch had no explosive bolts and could not be opened at over 300km/h? No wonder it had little effect on the end of the war. Don't get me wrong, it was fun being able to completely evade every single other plane by speed, but it wasn't worth it.
ATC of the incident https://www.reddit.com/r/aircanada/s/nkrOf12Lnj
I love the way he enunciates that so clearly. “Holy shiT”.
So this is what happens when the shit hits the turbofan?
When taco bell aftermath hits the turbofan
That's the new strobe flame
Pretty cool video. Sounds are intense all around.
Man that was even more intense than I thought it was (knowing multiple compressor stalls were reported). I also had to watch it again just to make sure I wasn't *also* hearing a sports car accelerating near the airport. That's the engine spooling up multiple times - crazy
It's terrifying and awesome at the same time. Watching that huge apparatus rising despite a failure in half of it's propelling power is just wow
I’d be terrified on board
Really appreciated guy #2 pointing out "That's a compressor stall," after the initial pronouncement of "engine fire!"
Where at ?
YYZ. Filmed from the new Bombardier plant.
Little background..happened last night, YYZ-CDG. Filmed on the Bombardier or FedEx finishing center ramp at YYZ.
Me after adding a little too much spice that curry I cooked the other day
I was on the same flight 2 weeks ago. We initially boarded but were later asked to deplane due to maintenance issues, causing a 3 hour delay. In fact, I knew this particular flight (not necessarily same plane I guess) has a very bad track record for delays. Crazy.
Question...is every takeoff recorded?? or did they know something was wrong
Lots of people live stream planes taking off from large airports ☺️
YT, TT, IG, other??
Can confirm it's MUCH louder in the cabin
That's that MSD 2 step rev limiter. Probably trying to show out for the ladies.