First Air - Dec 11 2013 - Norman Wells

[FlyYukon]

Does anybody have information about the engine trouble First Air had?

[Bent wrench]

Read a friend of mines f.b. Status this morning

"Let's start off with getting on the plane in Inuvik.. Land in Norman wells. Take off..about 3 mins into taking off..a huge bang shutters..and# 1 engine throws out a flash of light. Now he engine making some nasty sounds..the whole demeaner of the plane has changed..turns out the engine blew up. Lucky enough the plane was able to continue on to Yellowknife on 1 engine..so time to go clean my shorts."

Must have been what your talking about

[fish4life]

If that's the case good job by the crew

[boxcut]

If that's the case good job by the crew

Distance from CYVQ to CYZF is 370nm

If the engine failed three minutes out of CYVQ, and the flight crew kept on going to CYZF instead of returning to CYVQ provided the weather was good in CYVQ, they should have the book thrown at them.
And I'd also like to know if this was a full on engine failure, why the plane didn't go to a take-off alternate if they couldn't reland at YVQ, since I doubt an airport 370 nm from CYVQ qualifies as a TO Alternate.

My two cents.

[Beach 200]

If that's the case good job by the crew

Distance from CYVQ to CYZF is 370nm

If the engine failed three minutes out of CYVQ, and the flight crew kept on going to CYZF instead of returning to CYVQ provided the weather was good in CYVQ, they should have the book thrown at them.
And I'd also like to know if this was a full on engine failure, why the plane didn't go to a take-off alternate if they couldn't reland at YVQ, since I doubt an airport 370 nm from CYVQ qualifies as a TO Alternate.

My two cents.

Landing Weight issues? Maybe T/O Alt was Yellowknife considering the many runways around that can handle a single engine Boeing. Definitely Weather!

[rigpiggy]

Boxcut spoken like a southerner.

1. how many paved airstrips in the western NWT

2. The LDA/xwind limits may not have met the #'s for SEI landing

3. Many companies have an exemption for T/O alternates in sparsely settled areas

Before you open your mouth, engage your brain.... and yes I am guilty of that sin from time to time as well.

[J31]

Here we go again.......

To complete the QRH checklist in response to the engine problem will take about 20 minutes to be ready for a landing. So the the first decision would be keep going to Yellowknife or circle back to Norman Wells while completing the checklist. The last item may be "proceed to the nearest suitable airport" which is up to the crew to deem suitable based on the engine problem. Many factors to consider a suitable airport.....weather, approaches, landing weight, runway surface condition, emergency services, etc.

With very limited information but knowing the Well's and the 737 I support the crew continuing on to Yellowknife.

They would have been a third of the way there by the time the checklist was complete!

[swordfish]

Actually, Boxcar, your questions are quite valid. However the decision to go to Yellowknife was probably made by Ops, not the crew.

But lets take a look at some of the other crap in this thread:

• It's highly unlikely they would be over the landing weight, with 2½ hours of fuel on board, and half a load of pax. (Beach200)
  All the 200s that fly up here have a gravel kit. It doesn't matter a pinch of coon shit to have a paved runway for a 200, except if the COM requires them to land on a paved strip, single engine. (rigpiggy)
  The wind was pretty well straight down the pipe all day there without knowing the exact time of the event. Crosswind? Hardly. (rigpiggy)
  "Many companies have an exemption for T/O alternates in sparsely settled areas"...??? (rigpiggy) WTF is that? I've lived here for 40 years, and I never heard of ANY operator here being exempt from holding a Take-Off alternate in the NWT or Nunavut. AC Regional and Jazz have exemptions, but only for places in Newfoundland. Anyway, the weather wasn't a factor in that regard.
  20 minutes to do a checklist for a failed engine, and return for S/E landing? What a joke. (J31) Maybe it takes YOU 20 minutes in a Jestream, but it takes most other pilots about 5 minutes, depending on your crew coordination, and how much a problem it is to reconfig, and set up your approach. Most of the time spent in dealing with an emergency is the frickn communications back & forth. But that has nothing to do with getting set up to land again.
  "good job by the crew". (fish4life) And how would you know? A single engine procedure and landing is the most benign of failures, and something the crew has practised in the sim literally dozens of times. It truly is a no-brainer, particularly on a jet with scads of power to climb and fly on the other engine. Now that being said, I actually forget what loss of hydraulics and services you have in a 37 with one engine out. However, this type has undoubtedly survived many single-engine landings, and in places much more foreboding than Norman Wells

.

Yes, I agree with you: 300+ miles on one engine definitely IS a serious decision, and I imagine that caused a certain amount of stress in the cockpit, AND the cabin.

[snoopy]

@swordfish,
Interesting. I would bet your comment about Ops making the decision is correct. If true, how then does it work with a large carrier, if (and assuming it is safely within the aircraft performance envelope to do so) for safety reasons the crew elects to ignore the "recommendation" from Ops and land as is, where is? If S/E ops are a non-issue (and assuming no loss of critical services), does that mean that CFR capability or lack thereof at the landing site bears no significant weight in the decision making process?
Just curious is all.
Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[C-FABH]

Some desperately needed factual info:

A First Air Boeing 737 200 (FAB954) departed Norman Wells, NT (CYVQ) for Yellowknife, NT (CYZF), when the pilot advised Edmonton ACC that his number 1 engine was damaged due to a suspected bird strike on departure. The pilot declared an emergency and continued to Yellowknife, NT where they landed safely at 0015Z. No impact to operations.

UPDATE: TSB Report#A13W0186: The First Air Boeing 737-200, C-FACP, had just departed from Norman Wells, NT for Yellowknife, NT. The flight was climbing through 14 000 feet when a loud bang was heard from the #1 Engine (Pratt and Whitney USA JT8D-17), with an associated loss of thrust. A burning smell was detected but did not persist. The #1 Thrust Lever was retarded to idle and the engine limit or surge or stall checklist was completed. At idle, all engine indications were normal and the smell dissipated. The decision was made to continue to Yellowknife. An emergency was declared to ATC, and the aircraft landed safely on Runway 34. After an inspection by the awaiting ARFF, the aircraft taxied to the ramp without further incident. Maintenance investigation has revealed damage to the power turbine. Engine replacement is in progress.

[Big Pistons Forever]

" Some desperately needed factual info "

Wait for the facts, refrain from making derogatory comments about the action of the crew involved, unless you actually had personal knowledge of the 737 and jet 705 ops so that you could provide intelligent commentary.........

What were you thinking, this is Avcanada

[cncpc]

There are no CFR services at the Wells, possibly not even a phone at the airport.

There is a terminal and FSS.

This is a bit odd.

I did not make the above post.

I did make the post attributed to Boxcut in the quotation, and I don't see that post anywhere above.

So there is a phone.

[tbaylx]

Actually, Boxcar, your questions are quite valid. However the decision to go to Yellowknife was probably made by Ops, not the crew.

But lets take a look at some of the other crap in this thread:

• It's highly unlikely they would be over the landing weight, with 2½ hours of fuel on board, and half a load of pax. (Beach200)
  All the 200s that fly up here have a gravel kit. It doesn't matter a pinch of coon shit to have a paved runway for a 200, except if the COM requires them to land on a paved strip, single engine. (rigpiggy)
  The wind was pretty well straight down the pipe all day there without knowing the exact time of the event. Crosswind? Hardly. (rigpiggy)
  "Many companies have an exemption for T/O alternates in sparsely settled areas"...??? (rigpiggy) WTF is that? I've lived here for 40 years, and I never heard of ANY operator here being exempt from holding a Take-Off alternate in the NWT or Nunavut. AC Regional and Jazz have exemptions, but only for places in Newfoundland. Anyway, the weather wasn't a factor in that regard.
  20 minutes to do a checklist for a failed engine, and return for S/E landing? What a joke. (J31) Maybe it takes YOU 20 minutes in a Jestream, but it takes most other pilots about 5 minutes, depending on your crew coordination, and how much a problem it is to reconfig, and set up your approach. Most of the time spent in dealing with an emergency is the frickn communications back & forth. But that has nothing to do with getting set up to land again.
  "good job by the crew". (fish4life) And how would you know? A single engine procedure and landing is the most benign of failures, and something the crew has practised in the sim literally dozens of times. It truly is a no-brainer, particularly on a jet with scads of power to climb and fly on the other engine. Now that being said, I actually forget what loss of hydraulics and services you have in a 37 with one engine out. However, this type has undoubtedly survived many single-engine landings, and in places much more foreboding than Norman Wells

.

Yes, I agree with you: 300+ miles on one engine definitely IS a serious decision, and I imagine that caused a certain amount of stress in the cockpit, AND the cabin.

Actually not that they did the S/E checklist (it was a surge, limit, stall) but doing a Severe Damage checklist followed by a single engine landing checklist and all associated performance etc in a B737 will take at least 20 min, if not more. You wouldn't even get through the Severe Damage checklist in 5 min. Also Norman Wells isn't exactly a long runway, and the s/e landing requires Flap 15 so depending on the runway conditions and weights involved YZF may very well have been the closest suitable.

Also not all the -200's have gravel kits, most at First Air on the valley don't have kits, and you'd have to be slightly insane to take a -200 into 99% of the northern gravel strips one one engine unless it was on fire and you couldn't put it out.

An engine failure is never a "no brainer". You may practice it in the sim hundreds of times, but it still requires well trained professional pilots working well together to make it look like a no brainer.

[J31]

Well swordfish your lack of experience in the 737 is showing.

This aircraft does not have a gravel kit.

To get things sorted out and return for a landing in 5 minutes with a engine problem in the 73.........ya right. Sure you can run the checklist quick but as you say....all the other details take time to do it right.

Furthermore they did not shut the engine down.

[boxcut]

Boxcut spoken like a southerner.
1. how many paved airstrips in the western NWT
2. The LDA/xwind limits may not have met the #'s for SEI landing
3. Many companies have an exemption for T/O alternates in sparsely settled areas
Before you open your mouth, engage your brain.... and yes I am guilty of that sin from time to time as well.

Landing Weight issues? Maybe T/O Alt was Yellowknife considering the many runways around that can handle a single engine Boeing. Definitely Weather!

CYEV is closer to CYVQ then CYZF, and they have a paved runway.
I would love to see what exemption any 705 carrier has that lets them operate without a take off alternate within 1 hour flying time of the departure airport. At 370 nm, I can't see CYZF being an appropriate t/o alternate for a 737. Even with a killer tailwind, single engine speed would limit a 737 to around 300 nm distance for a 1 hour flight.

Wait for the facts, refrain from making derogatory comments about the action of the crew involved, unless you actually had personal knowledge of the 737 and jet 705 ops so that you could provide intelligent commentary.........

Well I have both the personal knowledge and the 705 knowledge...

However the decision to go to Yellowknife was probably made by Ops, not the crew.

This is the part that burns me. Ops has NO LEGAL RIGHT to do this. This entire incident of continuing to YZF smacks of an operational decision to put the plane back in YZF because that would be the best commercial decision rather then risk a grounded aircraft in the wells. The pilot in command has full authority if they are in the air, and the dispatcher can make reccomendations, but the OPS personnell (not the dispatcher who is operational control) can't put commercial pressure on the pilot. That's part of how Dryden happened in '89.

Now, that being said, IF the wx was bad in YVQ, or a crappy runway, and IF it was determined a safer approach could be made in YZF and IF the flight crew agreed that this was the most conservative course of action rather then trying to reland in in YVQ, then this was handled correctly. I don't want to critique a flight crew too heavily for an emergency situation where the time to think about it is limited rather then our 20/20 hindsight, but if a commercial imperative compelled the crew to operate on a riskier course of action then I have a huge issue with the Operations department at 7F.

[ahramin]

I would love to see what exemption any 705 carrier has that lets them operate without a take off alternate within 1 hour flying time of the departure airport.

This is a common ops spec for ETOPS airlines. Takeoff alternates up to 120 minutes away.

[Liquid Charlie]

Contrary to what some think -- it was not a bad decision -- we were trained to make a definite plan to go some where immediately - by the time all the house keeping is done it would be a difference of minutes one going to YK or returning to the wells -- so for a few minutes of air time in stable flight -- go to the most suitable airport which means a lot more than runway length -- what about emergency support and even hospitals -- lets face it YK is a lot better equipped to handle this -- ILS approach -- radar coverage and rescue vehicles (trained firefighters at the airport) -- I know I would have made the same choices - even though operations/SOC would have been advised the captain has the final word -- he would be crazy and showing poor skills if he did not to use all the resources available - to consult dispatch and maintenance is SOP

Well done lads !!!!

[tbaylx]

I would love to see what exemption any 705 carrier has that lets them operate without a take off alternate within 1 hour flying time of the departure airport.

This is a common ops spec for ETOPS airlines. Takeoff alternates up to 120 minutes away.

Ah the very rare 737-200 ETOPS exemption

[boxcut]

by the time all the house keeping is done it would be a difference of minutes one going to YK or returning to the wells

3~5 minutes out of YVQ, 70 Minutes from YZF...

Yeah, a difference of minutes for sure.

@tabylx: Exactly what I was thinking, a JT8D-9A with etops... Lols.

[ODA]

Contrary to what some think -- it was not a bad decision -- we were trained to make a definite plan to go some where immediately - by the time all the house keeping is done it would be a difference of minutes one going to YK or returning to the wells -- so for a few minutes of air time in stable flight -- go to the most suitable airport which means a lot more than runway length -- what about emergency support and even hospitals -- lets face it YK is a lot better equipped to handle this -- ILS approach -- radar coverage and rescue vehicles (trained firefighters at the airport) -- I know I would have made the same choices - even though operations/SOC would have been advised the captain has the final word -- he would be crazy and showing poor skills if he did not to use all the resources available - to consult dispatch and maintenance is SOP

Well done lads !!!!

+1

YZF has far more emergency services. Unless it was on fire I would have done the same.

[boxcut]

+1
YZF has far more emergency services. Unless it was on fire I would have done the same.

So...
You've lost an engine, there was a smell of burning, and you have passengers on board. Your aircraft has no ETOPS certification, and you can turn around and go to a good strip 10 minutes away, or fly for over an hour on a single engine running hard to keep you airborne, over rugged wilderness, praying it doesn't fail as well.

I'm struggling to see the rationale in continuing on to YZF.

[Diadem]

However the decision to go to Yellowknife was probably made by Ops, not the crew.

This is the part that burns me. Ops has NO LEGAL RIGHT to do this. This entire incident of continuing to YZF smacks of an operational decision to put the plane back in YZF because that would be the best commercial decision rather then risk a grounded aircraft in the wells. The pilot in command has full authority if they are in the air, and the dispatcher can make reccomendations, but the OPS personnell (not the dispatcher who is operational control) can't put commercial pressure on the pilot. That's part of how Dryden happened in '89.

I would like to point out that this piece of "information" comes from nowhere except swordfish; even he said "probably". There's absolutely nothing indicating that ops had any input in this decision, and swordfish's speculation is of no value here. Don't draw strong conclusions from weak, or non-existent, evidence.

[boxcut]

I would like to point out that this piece of "information" comes from nowhere except swordfish; even he said "probably". There's absolutely nothing indicating that ops had any input in this decision, and swordfish's speculation is of no value here. Don't draw strong conclusions from weak, or non-existent, evidence.

It smacks of Commercial Meddling. And it's 7F so it doesn't surprise me too much.

[bmc]

I would love to see what exemption any 705 carrier has that lets them operate without a take off alternate within 1 hour flying time of the departure airport.

This is a common ops spec for ETOPS airlines. Takeoff alternates up to 120 minutes away.

A few years back, Cathay had 193 minutes on the B777. Can't be a comfortable feeling, flying single engine over the Indian Ocean for an hour and a half.

[ahramin]

The single engine doesn't worry me so much. Engines do fail but I haven't heard of any cases where one failed in cruise and then the other failed an hour later while diverting.

It's the fire scenario that has me reviewing the ditching procedures and worrying how realistic they are.