So I was flying my 737NG (-700) from KSNA to KSJC which, for itself, is nice to look at. I flew the other direction with the 737-200, so this time the new bird was active.

 

Now my planned FL was 380 and on my climb up, my right engine failed at around FL330. This did caused the usual reaction of mine, mainly consisting of 'OMG!' screams and some spilled coffee. However, it was actually not much of a trouble for the plane itself.

 

It remained at FL330 and slowly lost speed. I set MCT on the remaining engine and looked up the max ALT and recommended speed in the FMC. After bleeding off some speed, I've reached the value where the drift-down had to start, so I did just that but could establish a pretty stable cruise well above FL300.

 

The FMC value showed a single engine max of FL260, which was well enough to clear all the mountains around.

 

I've fired up the APU in the meantime and took care for the fuel imbalance now arising. So, after a few minutes, she was actually doing fine. The faulty engine was offline, the other one was at MCT and the APU gave me a second power source.

I even removed the seatbelt sign and 'explained' the situation to my virtual passengers, mainly stating that we are still going for KSJC, with slight delay due to the speed loss.

 

Now the QRH recommends to land at the next suitable airport and that's where my question starts. I did not pick a suitable one, but I've decided to go for the planned destination, now being some 180nm out. As said, the plane was stable at some FL315 or so, I had my systems configured, manual thrust and was closing in at some 385 kts GS towards KSJC.

 

 

Would that have been a reasonable decision, to stay on the planned route instead of descending right now and picking an airport in between? What do you think?

 

The later landing went fine, flaps 15 and things, no bad weather or go-around needs at KSJC, just some asymmetric thrust and I later (and lower) had the APU supplying the packs (single actually), so my one engine was free of that load.

Would that have been a reasonable decision, to stay on the planned route instead of descending right now and picking an airport in between? What do you think?

 

What would you think of that decision if the other engine failed?

What would you think of that decision if the other engine failed?

 

Nice reply. I actually was thinking along the lines of "Yeah, that's not a bad decision" but it just pays to remember that anytime you are high above the Earth or deep below the Sea, you never want to depend on just one of anything unless you absolutely have to.

 

By the way, I found it to be a very nice read and a great question; not boring at all.

Well reasonable or not even longer distances than that have been flown in real life with one engine with many suitable airports to divert nearby.

 

Recently Aeroflot A330 had had one engine out situation over Norway. However instead of continuing to many suitable airports such as Tromso 140nm from them they continued 800 nautical miles to their final destination, Moscow. There would have been even three way bigger airports, Oslo, Stockholm Arlanda and Helsinki much nearer.

 

http://avherald.com/h?article=45240339

Well, it (the thread) was set up to trigger different opinions of course. So thanks for those. Feel free to add some more, guys. Nice read so far. :smile:

 

I think the QRH differentiates between land immediately and that 'suitable airport' phrase. But that was not my main drive, I admit. I mainly was, as a sim flyer, happy enough with the one engine and the APU running. Nice weather all the way and stable well above FL300.

 

I had the airport display on and looked for airport in between, being able to ground-handle my virtual passengers. When descending at normal rates (SE), my FL310 would have brought me some 90nm closer to KSJC, so I had that 'so close!' in mind too to be honest.

 

I could add a very pro-ish sentence. I knew the destination, the ground facilities and the approach + terrain. So instead for going for an unknown place, I chose the known one being close. But that would be just an excuse, my landings always look like I know nothing. :unsure:

Sounds like you have a nice career ahead of you as a pilot for Ryanair?

:lol:

Well reasonable or not even longer distances than that have been flown in real life with one engine with many suitable airports to divert nearby.

 

Recently Aeroflot A330 had had one engine out situation over Norway. However instead of continuing to many suitable airports such as Tromso 140nm from them they continued 800 nautical miles to their final destination, Moscow. There would have been even three way bigger airports, Oslo, Stockholm Arlanda and Helsinki much nearer.

 

That is because the A330 is ETOPS-180 and some are ETOPS-240 approved. Meaning it can fly for 180 or 240 minutes on one engine to the diversion airport. ETOPS-240 gives the A330 an approximate 1,700nm diversion range.

 

To the OP as long as you were 60 minutes from an adequate airport you were fine to continue single engine. Non-ETOPS twin jets have to stick with the 60 minute diversion rule between adequate airports. Was it wise, probably not unless you knew the exact reason for the failure. Failures have a tendency to snowball.

I could be wrong, but that ETOPS state mainly is a planning and legal factor. So it applies before I even start my flight concerning if the operator, pilots and the plane are permitted to fly that route they file.

 

 

As a side note on the topic, I think I've 'simulated' some economical factors too. ^_^ That's why the Ryanair comment may not be that far off. However, I didn't stage that flight, I just had the random failures on and it decided to give me the right engine failure around FL330.

 

Last time I had an engine failure was at FL120 out of Sharm el-Sheikh HESH with a lot of fuel for a long trip on board. So the decision to return came fast. I already had the ILS freq on stby so there wasn't much of a trouble, except for my bad flying.

I could be wrong, but that ETOPS state mainly is a planning and legal factor. So it applies before I even start my flight concerning if the operator, pilots and the plane are permitted to fly that route they file.

 

Correct. It is a specific aircraft certification that is used for planning and dispatch. The AFM and CMP are altered to allow the aircraft to fly routes using ETOPS.

 

If you are flying in the US the 60 minute rule rarely comes into play unless you are over large areas of water.

Correct. It is a specific aircraft certification that is used for planning and dispatch. The AFM and CMP are altered to allow the aircraft to fly routes using ETOPS.

 

If you are flying in the US the 60 minute rule rarely comes into play unless you are over large areas of water.

 

True, but the basis for ETOPS is certainly level of reliability of your systems. If your plane has an ETOPS-X certification, it has been proven to be able to fly safely for X minutes with one engine out, based on statistics like engine shut-downs per million flight hours and the like.

 

I could be wrong, but that ETOPS state mainly is a planning and legal factor. So it applies before I even start my flight concerning if the operator, pilots and the plane are permitted to fly that route they file.

 

 

As a side note on the topic, I think I've 'simulated' some economical factors too. ^_^ That's why the Ryanair comment may not be that far off. However, I didn't stage that flight, I just had the random failures on and it decided to give me the right engine failure around FL330.

 

Last time I had an engine failure was at FL120 out of Sharm el-Sheikh HESH with a lot of fuel for a long trip on board. So the decision to return came fast. I already had the ILS freq on stby so there wasn't much of a trouble, except for my bad flying.

 

Like you said the descent would take you 90 miles in any case. The other 90 miles to your destination would take, what, 10-15 minutes? Well within the capabilities of even a non-ETOPS plane, after all it's certified to be able to fly safely for 60 minutes on only 1 engine. IRL you would factor in many things: probability of remaining engine failing, weather, go-around procedures and terrain at planned destination and alternates, ease of access for the maintenance personnel / available maintenance facilities, effect on passengers, etc. Fortunately you don't need to make a split second decision, you have a couple of minutes at least to think it over.

It has an awful lot of variables.

• Are you over high terrain?
  
• Will you remain within gliding distance of a suitable air field if you really have an unlucky day?
  
• Are their suitable airports nearby anyway (are you over the mid atlantic)?
  
• If you land at an airport will there be fire/medical cover?
  
• Will you be easily able to get your PAX to the final destination?
  
• Are there MRO facilities at the diversion field?
  
• Would you be overweight at the field?
  
• What will your go-around performance be and is it sufficiant for the diversion field?
  
• Is the weather at diversion destination favourable?
  
• Are you familiar with either airport?
  
• Would there be fuel for you to leave at the diversion field?
  

In general though if you were working for a company we'd have suitable diversion fields in the OFP and QRAB and route briefing for us to decide on, and for the most part, it'd be safer to divert IMO than forge on ahead...

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

[*]Are you over high terrain?

[*]Will you remain within gliding distance of a suitable air field if you really have an unlucky day?

[*]Are their suitable airports nearby anyway (are you over the mid atlantic)?

[*]If you land at an airport will there be fire/medical cover?

[*]Will you be easily able to get your PAX to the final destination?

[*]Are there MRO facilities at the diversion field?

[*]Would you be overweight at the field?

[*]What will your go-around performance be and is it sufficiant for the diversion field?

[*]Is the weather at diversion destination favourable?

[*]Are you familiar with either airport?

[*]Would there be fuel for you to leave at the diversion field?

 

If the answer to all of the above questions is no then hope the next answer can be yes - Are you wearing a parachute?

It has an awful lot of variables.

Agreed and I'm actually thankful for the list. Quite some items to consider.

 

for the most part, it'd be safer to divert IMO than forge on ahead...

Agreed again, but, concerning the situation from the first post, how would your decision have looked like?

 

I'm fishing for some opinions of course, so it's always interesting reading about the justification and background factors leading to this or that one. Would this have been a rw case, my guess would also be that safety is just one factor on deciding, the other big one being economical values.

 

Fortunately you don't need to make a split second decision, you have a couple of minutes at least to think it over.

Very true.

 

 

I imagine both options being reasonable. diverting and continuing. What about you folks?

Agreed again, but, concerning the situation from the first post, how would your decision have looked like?

I'm not sure, never flown in that part of the world so I'd be at quite the loss, I'd want to see my route briefing and QRAB and then come to a decision... To make a generic answer though, if there was no danger associated with diverting, then I'd divert...

 

Regards,

Ró.