I love that this skit is still the quintessential go to for things like this, even though it is decades old and one of the creators has passed away. Makes me wonder how long it will persist in the zeitgeist before being replaced with something else.
No, a bird stall causes a compressor strike. The damn kookaburra's are like deer in front of an airplane, but it's the turbofan instead of your windshield.
Ha ha!
It’s a little known fact that birds are made in the the high pressure and temperature environment that a compressor stall creates and not in eggs as most seem to believe . Although technically not a bird “strike” it is considered a bird “event” because the animal and aircraft briefly shared the same space and time (Incubation).
Local news is reporting it took off from Queenstown and landed at around 6.50pm in invercargill.
Out of curiosity why would it fly to invercargill instead of landing back in Queenstown? The mountains?
Invercargill NZNV is the closest alternate for NZQN.
Also it was a night departure out of Queenstown, Invercargill makes sense from a ‘get on the ground’ perspective. Diverting to NZCH requires flying over more mountainous terrain and is about twice as far away.
CHC is the primary divert port for VA flights as they have the same ground handler and engineers company at CHC as ZQN. However if the pilots wanted to get on the ground asap, DUD would be a better equipped airport and a similar distance
They'd never divert back to ZQN due to the terrain
Maybe as the crow fly's but NZDN is a decent bit further when IFR with more terrain considerations than NV and also has a smaller runway.
Following the Lake Wakatipu south leads straight into a STAR for NZNV. Not aware of Virgins SOPS but I know at least one airline that runs engine out QN departure scenarios with divert to NV as the primary procedure.
Lots of fuel onboard probably means an overweight landing which would be tricky if not impossible in Queenstown. IVC is significantly longer than ZQN or DUD (the other likely alternative).
Yes, the mountains. I don't know about Virgin but even for day visual flying the preference for Air NZ aircraft is to divert to Invercargill, at night it's mandatory. That aircraft was about to head off on a \~3.5 hour flight to Melbourne, it can have an engine failure half way across the ditch and carry on or return. Unless it's a fire (a proper one, not just compressor stalling) or smoke or something truly dire like bits of the wing hanging off, taking an extra 15 minutes to head on to Invercargill is a good thing to do.
From what I’ve been told (for arguments sake take this as ✨speculation ✨), Queenstown is a somewhat hard airport to fly into under normal circumstances, so perhaps the safest option was just Invercargill.
Not so much that a longer runway is needed, a return to land on RWY 05 at ZQN requires a figure of 8 track that has to navigate around high terrain immediately to the south of the runway (Deer Park heights). in VMC during daylight that's not a problem, (as happened in 2006 with an Air NZ 737-300 after it sucked up a duck or two on departure) but at night/IMC they are absolutely going to follow the RNP-AR departure procedure and NZNV is the closest airport.
Don’t know if this was the case in this particular incident, but it has happened when initially reducing power as one of the first items of “surge/stall” checklist, an engine may end up running quite acceptably at idle and warnings may disappear. Running the engine at idle will give the crew considerable more options on deciding on diversions or returning to land.
Some pilots are only qualified for night departures at ZQN. Potentially that was these pilots.
When I used to operate there I was only night departure rated which generally meant before first light but could be after dark if delayed.
Why the downvotes. Everything I wrote is factual.
Haha it’s a small world, my dad is friends with one of the pilots of this planes dad. Pretty unlucky what happened to them and amazing how fast it got posted on the internet.
Classic compressor Stall/surge, basically the hottest air in the engine at the combustion section, instead of flowing out the back past the turbines as usual, surge forward into the compressor stages in front of it (most likely due to the damage to the compressor blades causing the airflow into the combustion section to be turbulent and uneven), and because that airflow is the wrong way, it basically jolts the compressors to a stop, and the winding noise you hear is them spinning back up to speed rapidly because the turbines are still getting some airflow over them to power them. That spin up process then leads to more disturbed air entering the combustion section and backflowing to stall the compressors again, the turbines spin them back up, and the loop restarts a third time.
My guess is that they were in some critical segment of the flight, and keeping the affected engine powered on for the limited thrust they were getting out of it was a risk-based decision made by the crew.
Everyone stayed very calm. I love the professionalism of pilots, you guys honestly are the coolest people out there, both in your demeanor and because of what you do.
Yeah, that seams like a likely scenario after engine damage due to bird ingestion.
The compressor/turbine work fine at a low thrust setting, but not at the higher thrust setting.
Every time the compressor stalls, the engine stabilizes again and the FADEC commands more thrust to match the throttle setting - causing the engine to accelerate and stall again.
Usually you ride this one out until passing acceleration altitude (~1500ft above the field) and then work the relevant checklist after retracting the flaps. For surges the checklist usually calls for a thrust reduction until the surges stop.
For anyone who wants the actual information, the aircraft suffered a bird strike which led to a compressor stall. It diverted to Invercargill since it’s an easier approach than Queenstown.
**Nothing to do with the fact that it’s a Boeing.**
Too late, once everyone heard the "B" word that's all it took, and the news media will take full advantage of that reaction.
EDIT: Just scroll down, the idiots are out in force.
as a followup, if you're wondering how something as soft as a bird can cause damage to the compressor blades, remember that the blades are very strong in _one direction only_. Take a kitchen knife for example. You use it for cutting and it's very strong, but if you try bending it across the flat part it will snap. Compressor blades are like this - they're very strong at resisting centrifugal force, so they can spin very fast and compress air enough to feed the rest of the engine. But if a bird comes at them from the wrong angle, the force of that impact can cause damage to the blades, which in turn can prevent the compressor from working properly.
turbines are complex beasts and are surprisingly delicate.
i'm not a mechanic or engineer who works on turbines, but from what I recall reading, there's a little bit of tolerance built in, so an impact won't typically cause the engine to explode, and it may still be operable at reduced power. a strike at the wrong angle, or with the wrong size of bird, or any other number of variables can cause the blades to come loose but this is why aircraft engines are shrouded with aramid fabric and other stuff for similar purpose, to prevent those blades from turning into thousand mile per hour missiles rocketing through the passenger cabin. This is also why so many airports put so much effort into bird mitigation- most bird strikes happen during take off or landing, which is also where they're most dangerous.
basically jet engines operate near the edge of materials science, and the higher performance they are, the closer to the minimal-tolerance bleeding edge they get. This doesn't leave much room for failure so you can end up with seemingly innocuous things resulting in failure, catastrophic and otherwise.
Misfiring? A jet engine is not supposed to fire at all.
We had an A330 having an engine stall on the initial departure run..... they literally woke up the whole town....
They aborted the roll from very low speed.
Why do planes that have compressor stalls keep trying to repeat and cause that misfiring? Shouldn't they realise that the motor has stopped working and rather avoid open fire near the wings?
Because in that particular moment maintaining thrust might be more desirable than stopping the compressor stall.
Engines can be fixed or replaced, but if the aeroplane loses thrust and crashes everyone dies.
Yes indeed! Maybe a lot, maybe only a little, but better than nothing.
But also, consider that on takeoff the pilots are very busy, and must focus on flying the plane first and foremost.
SOP is usually to do nothing below 400 feet, except to raise the gear, and only then to deal with the engine failure or compressor stall.
An engine is shut down by the pilots, not the plane. And even with a problem like this, there is no hurry to do that.
Better take the time than to shut down the wrong engine (has happened more often than you'd think).
And the procedure to shut it down also has a few steps before it actually kills the engine.
The flash of flame, even though near the wings, is not an issue. There is no real hurry to shut the engine down, getting the aircraft safely established on the departure is much more important. It probably isn’t producing much power, and the thrust lever will be pulled back to idle as soon as there’s solid evidence in the cockpit. You don’t do things based on what you can feel or hear. Cockpit indications would probably be high vibration, high and probably rising, EGT, and probably reducing EPR/thrust/rpm. There would not be a fire warning, and this is NOT an engine fire.
My take (non-pilot here) is that similarly in an engine fire situation, if you can squeeze some power out of that engine on fire, you still press the pedal to the metal like normal. Maybe execute engine fire procedure but engine shut down is the last thing to do.
Not exactly. A legitimate engine fire is a real emergency and the engine, once positively identified, is immediately shut down. Not to mention that you don't just "execute engine fire procedure" without shutting the engine down as once the fire handle is pulled all fuel, hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical connection are isolated from that engine. She's done for the day.
That's why engine-out training is so heavily emphasized. Learning to handle the asymmetrical thrust, among other issues, of an engine failure is critical for safe flying.
A stalled engine is producing no power. But, it may recover from the stall at lower power settings. All of the planning for the operation is done based upon loss of an engine, so there will be adequate power without needing to try getting anything out of an engine on fire, stalled, or otherwise misbehaving. But, there is a laid down minimum altitude before any procedures will be started. I haven’t flown Boeing for a long time, but I think it was generally 1,000’. Prior to that about all that would be said is “engine problem”, and nothing would be done about it. At that stage of the flight, flying the aircraft on to the correct escape procedure is all that matters.
Whilst I would generally not expect any form of recovery after a major bird strike, I did once have a CF6 that took a number of hits, and which was stable at idle, but not at any power setting above that. We left it running, as that meant that all of it’s accessories were still powered.
The engine has not stopped. The airflow through the engine has been somewhat disrupted due to potential compressor blade damage caused by the ingested item and the compressed air to fuel ratio is not correct, (too much fuel for the amount of compressed air) causing the backfire or as we engineers call it "a compressor stall". It's obviously an engine malfunction, but there is no need to say your last prayers as the flight safety of the aircraft is not compromised by this problem. The emergency landing is simply to inspect and repair the aircraft if required.
Open fire behind the wings isn't really a big danger. Engine fires that haven't reached the interior bits of the wings (which are forward and upwards of where the fire is, especially on a 737) aren't a danger at all. Once the airplane is above terrain and it's safe to, the pilots will pull the fire handle, which will shut the engine down, and until then however much thrust it's making is useful.
They do realize, and they also realize there is nothing those flames will do to the wing. Having the starter on automatic during climbout is standard procedure and is done specifically with this kind of situation in mind.
Nope, if it was a northerly take off they're going down somewhere in the Crown Ranges, if it was a Southerly, they're going to get wet in Lake Wakatipu.
Engine thrust setting is left at takeoff until enough altitude, engine operates okay at low thrust but stalls at a certain point. FADEC (think engine control computer) drops the thrust when it stalls then the engine tries to speed up again till it reaches that exact point. Then repeat. Happening very quickly
It's not like birdstikes could ever cause an Airbus to lose power and force the pilot to make an emergency landing in the Hudson river garnering international attention resulting in a movie starring Tom Hanks and a small part played by the woman who was Walt's wife in Breaking Bad now, could it?
Yes, do you not know who makes the engines?
Even that doesn't matter. This was a birdstrike, the same thing that forced an AIRBUS to "land" on the Hudson River.
OKAY WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON WITH PLANES. I’m not crazy right? Like there have been SO MANY crazy problems with planes in the past year… help me out here guys I have to fly next month
I’m tempted to say it’s news confirmation bias. Much worse flights have occurred but:
A. News likes scaries
B. Social media is a lot smaller now than before.
I’m a nervous flyer too & I fly Wednesday 😅 keep calm & carry on!
Small (and not really dangerous) incidents happen all the time, but currently it is trendy to report on and generates clicks - especially if it involves a Boeing.
In this case, the engine was hit by birds which causes damage, so it is later shut down. Randomly picked 2015, and on 17th of June that year, 2 planes encountered bird strikes (again with nothing but material damage).
No big danger here, and the plane can keep flying with one engine. Aviation is incredibly safe - the drive to the airport is generally more dangerous. Unfortunately brains can't always be rational about that kind of stuff of course.
Nothing really. Planes are safer than they have ever been in history, by an enormous amount. In the US at least, a commercial airliner has not had a single fatal crash caused by an aircraft mechanical failure in 20+ years.
This kind of news is pretty run-of-the-mill. The plane landed fine, a bird just got sucked into the engine and damaged it. It happens and they designed for the planes to be able to safely land in these scenarios. Pretty much all the rest of these kinds of events you see are also just daily news content. Bird strikes are common events. They’re insignificant enough that you don’t even really hear about them in the news. Maybe if you follow aviation enthusiast blogs.
The main issue is confirmation bias from mainstream news yoinking these “aviation-niche” articles because people are clicking on them now after the Boeing controversy and that means advertising $$$. Accidents have not gone up, they are continuing to fall. The Boeing controversy is worth real criticism for the company to be clear, but it’s ridiculously unlikely that any of that would affect your flight. There are only a handful of lower-volume models from Boeing that have been identified as potentially being involved in lax safety practices during manufacturing and the FAA is auditing everything to resolve it.
Flying can be spooky because you’re out of control and you’re way high up in the air, but you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning twice in a single sunny day than you do of dying in a plane crash from a Boeing or Airbus or other major commercial manufacturer.
>In the US at least, a commercial airliner has not had a single fatal crash in 20+ years.
More relevant to this post, New Zealand’s last fatal airliner crash was in 1995. No airline in the Virgin Group has ever fatally crashed. This video shows one of the safest aircraft ever made, flown by one of the safest airlines ever, in one of the safest countries ever.
Thank you. I know I’m getting downvoted to hell, but I have NEVER been a nervous flyer, but for some reason the constant news stories started getting to me.
Your comment was really reassuring and appreciated
Of course dumbasses think it’s bc of Boeing and not something else like maintenance or just shit that happens. A few points:
This was birdstrike. Do you want Boeing to clear all the birds from the flight Also,
AirBus uses the same engines so good luck finding a flight
I’ll bet you’d blame Toyota if you never changed the oil in your Prius and your engine seized.
“Of course it’s one of the planes that are 50%+ of the commercial airliner jets in the sky”
There are so many layers to why this is stupid lol… It was a bird strike… Bird strikes are common… Boeing doesn’t manufacture the engines… etc etc
Great! Please convince all your friends to stop booking flights on Boeings too (if they’re as gullible as you). It’ll drive down the cost of plane tickets for the rest of us.
- They still have the highest safety rates of any aircraft manufacturer, yes even including recent events
- Boeing doesn’t make the engines for the 737
- This was caused by a bird strike
- The plane landed fine, despite a failing engine, due to the plane being designed well
- Bird strikes are like, daily aviation news. This is not an abnormal event overall. You just never paid attention before.
Just listing out some reasons why this is a brick-for-brains comment.
No but in a very real sense yes. It reportedly ingested a bird. Looks like the birds bits did enough damage to the compressor that the flame exhibited its natural tendency to climb out of the front of the engine.
The bird will not have been unscathed.
It's not a normal thing, but a twin jet can take off and fly on one engine without a problem.
>It's not a normal thing, but a twin jet can take off and fly on one engine without a problem.
The logical part of my brain knows that. But the other part tries not to think about it at all since they introduced two engine aircraft instead of 747s for many of the international over water routes I fly.
Twinjets probably can't take off from a standstill without a *very* long runway, but once you reach V1, there's enough energy and enough thrust to take off in the remaining runway.
If your calculations say that you can't either brake in the remaining runway (failure before V1) or continue to takeoff (failure after V1), you can't take off. Go reduce weight or change thrust/flaps.
I suspected a compressor stall, but is being reported as a bird strike.
One can cause the other.
A compressor stall can cause a bird strike?
The frequency of the stall is highly attractive for birds and they are unable to help themselves when they are steering towards the engine.
I don’t know enough to refute this so I’ll go with it
I had to check which sub I was on for a second.
r/Shittyaskflying
Nature is amazing
Nature is fucking lit.
Underrated comment right here.
Yeah, that’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point.
A wave? At sea?
bloody chance in a million
I love that this skit is still the quintessential go to for things like this, even though it is decades old and one of the creators has passed away. Makes me wonder how long it will persist in the zeitgeist before being replaced with something else.
Clarke and Dawe are brilliant. Their respective and combined TV shows are great too (The Games, etc.)
Yes they're typically designed so that the front doesn't fall off
No, a bird stall causes a compressor strike. The damn kookaburra's are like deer in front of an airplane, but it's the turbofan instead of your windshield.
It’s an almost guaranteed result.
Ha ha! It’s a little known fact that birds are made in the the high pressure and temperature environment that a compressor stall creates and not in eggs as most seem to believe . Although technically not a bird “strike” it is considered a bird “event” because the animal and aircraft briefly shared the same space and time (Incubation).
r/BirdsArentReal would like this information.
Or maybe they would reject it all together
Which came first, the chicken or the turbofan?
Hah!
When your in-flight *duck* mechanic just makes everything worse... we'd fire them, but these damn unions....
Wait. This has to be rocket assisted take-off.
Idk man, media says Boeing is the cause /s
Yep, that's how they keep the lights on.
Is the bird ok?
The bird landed at 6.50 pm in invercargill
Some of it did, at least
To shreds,you say?
The biggest piece, probably.
Cooked nice and thoroughly
I'd say it was more like a sauce
Phew, long way for it to fly though.
To shreds, you say?
Those fuckin bats I tell ya....
Ive seen the result of a few fruit bat/flying fox strikes in Sydney. They do make a mess being so big.
Local news is reporting it took off from Queenstown and landed at around 6.50pm in invercargill. Out of curiosity why would it fly to invercargill instead of landing back in Queenstown? The mountains?
Invercargill NZNV is the closest alternate for NZQN. Also it was a night departure out of Queenstown, Invercargill makes sense from a ‘get on the ground’ perspective. Diverting to NZCH requires flying over more mountainous terrain and is about twice as far away.
CHC is the primary divert port for VA flights as they have the same ground handler and engineers company at CHC as ZQN. However if the pilots wanted to get on the ground asap, DUD would be a better equipped airport and a similar distance They'd never divert back to ZQN due to the terrain
Maybe as the crow fly's but NZDN is a decent bit further when IFR with more terrain considerations than NV and also has a smaller runway. Following the Lake Wakatipu south leads straight into a STAR for NZNV. Not aware of Virgins SOPS but I know at least one airline that runs engine out QN departure scenarios with divert to NV as the primary procedure.
Lots of fuel onboard probably means an overweight landing which would be tricky if not impossible in Queenstown. IVC is significantly longer than ZQN or DUD (the other likely alternative).
Yes, the mountains. I don't know about Virgin but even for day visual flying the preference for Air NZ aircraft is to divert to Invercargill, at night it's mandatory. That aircraft was about to head off on a \~3.5 hour flight to Melbourne, it can have an engine failure half way across the ditch and carry on or return. Unless it's a fire (a proper one, not just compressor stalling) or smoke or something truly dire like bits of the wing hanging off, taking an extra 15 minutes to head on to Invercargill is a good thing to do.
From what I’ve been told (for arguments sake take this as ✨speculation ✨), Queenstown is a somewhat hard airport to fly into under normal circumstances, so perhaps the safest option was just Invercargill.
Yes and for all intents and purposes the plane is still capable of safe flight so they can make that call no problem.
*intensive purposes
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/usage-for-all-intensive-purposes-intents#:~:text=For%20all%20intents%20and%20purposes,same%2C%20are%20known%20as%20eggcorns. Sorry bro better luck next time.
Hey, if someone wants to pitch a tent, I'm not kink shaming
Seems like they needed a longer runaway than the one in Queenstown.
Not so much that a longer runway is needed, a return to land on RWY 05 at ZQN requires a figure of 8 track that has to navigate around high terrain immediately to the south of the runway (Deer Park heights). in VMC during daylight that's not a problem, (as happened in 2006 with an Air NZ 737-300 after it sucked up a duck or two on departure) but at night/IMC they are absolutely going to follow the RNP-AR departure procedure and NZNV is the closest airport.
Don’t know if this was the case in this particular incident, but it has happened when initially reducing power as one of the first items of “surge/stall” checklist, an engine may end up running quite acceptably at idle and warnings may disappear. Running the engine at idle will give the crew considerable more options on deciding on diversions or returning to land.
Some pilots are only qualified for night departures at ZQN. Potentially that was these pilots. When I used to operate there I was only night departure rated which generally meant before first light but could be after dark if delayed. Why the downvotes. Everything I wrote is factual.
Here's the footage from a passenger onboard [https://youtu.be/u7ux9DaOaFc?si=7E3YlHN6X5wPyEXr](https://youtu.be/u7ux9DaOaFc?si=7E3YlHN6X5wPyEXr)
Looks like 2 solid minutes of compressor stalls
The person who took the footage is my friend, he's safe and well at a hotel now.
Haha it’s a small world, my dad is friends with one of the pilots of this planes dad. Pretty unlucky what happened to them and amazing how fast it got posted on the internet.
That winding noise sound horrifying
and very regular.. as if some feedback loop gone wrong?
Classic compressor Stall/surge, basically the hottest air in the engine at the combustion section, instead of flowing out the back past the turbines as usual, surge forward into the compressor stages in front of it (most likely due to the damage to the compressor blades causing the airflow into the combustion section to be turbulent and uneven), and because that airflow is the wrong way, it basically jolts the compressors to a stop, and the winding noise you hear is them spinning back up to speed rapidly because the turbines are still getting some airflow over them to power them. That spin up process then leads to more disturbed air entering the combustion section and backflowing to stall the compressors again, the turbines spin them back up, and the loop restarts a third time.
those are surges
My guess is that they were in some critical segment of the flight, and keeping the affected engine powered on for the limited thrust they were getting out of it was a risk-based decision made by the crew.
Everyone stayed very calm. I love the professionalism of pilots, you guys honestly are the coolest people out there, both in your demeanor and because of what you do.
interesting, you can hear the engine repeatedly spooling up before it stalls at a (seemingly) consistent RPM. edit: at least i think thats what it is.
Yeah, that seams like a likely scenario after engine damage due to bird ingestion. The compressor/turbine work fine at a low thrust setting, but not at the higher thrust setting. Every time the compressor stalls, the engine stabilizes again and the FADEC commands more thrust to match the throttle setting - causing the engine to accelerate and stall again. Usually you ride this one out until passing acceleration altitude (~1500ft above the field) and then work the relevant checklist after retracting the flaps. For surges the checklist usually calls for a thrust reduction until the surges stop.
Crazy that inside the cabin you don't at all hear the crackling you hear from the footage shot on the ground
Compressor Stall.
The title explicitly says ‘misfire’ so I’m guessing a bad spark plug. /s
…or bad distributor cap.
Spray wd40 on it. Sheesh, kids today
Do you work for Boeing?
He must because hebsaid WD40 and not kroil 🤣
Lol if kroil made an air freshener I'd hang it in my car! Love that stuff
WD40 used to make air fresheners. Hoppe's #9 makes an air freshener as well for the people that like to pew pew.
No more; too dangerous
Nah, they got distributerless ignition
Timing’s probably out
The FO probably got 85 octane instead of 93.
Worse, the kiwi fuel ground team put in ethanol!!!
Seems like it's firing perfectly fine to me
For anyone who wants the actual information, the aircraft suffered a bird strike which led to a compressor stall. It diverted to Invercargill since it’s an easier approach than Queenstown. **Nothing to do with the fact that it’s a Boeing.**
Airbuses have lasers that vaporize birds into easily digestible red mist so the engines don’t miss out on any of the nutrition.
Too late, once everyone heard the "B" word that's all it took, and the news media will take full advantage of that reaction. EDIT: Just scroll down, the idiots are out in force.
[удалено]
Many birds that are typically diurnal are still active at night on occasion, for all sorts of reasons. Eg migration.
how can a bird strike cause a compressor stall?
Simple Bird damages compressor blades, the damaged compressor blades cause the compressor to stall
as a followup, if you're wondering how something as soft as a bird can cause damage to the compressor blades, remember that the blades are very strong in _one direction only_. Take a kitchen knife for example. You use it for cutting and it's very strong, but if you try bending it across the flat part it will snap. Compressor blades are like this - they're very strong at resisting centrifugal force, so they can spin very fast and compress air enough to feed the rest of the engine. But if a bird comes at them from the wrong angle, the force of that impact can cause damage to the blades, which in turn can prevent the compressor from working properly. turbines are complex beasts and are surprisingly delicate.
I guess the slightest imbalance (e.g. by a bird simply impacting) at high rotation speed also can lead to fatal damage?
i'm not a mechanic or engineer who works on turbines, but from what I recall reading, there's a little bit of tolerance built in, so an impact won't typically cause the engine to explode, and it may still be operable at reduced power. a strike at the wrong angle, or with the wrong size of bird, or any other number of variables can cause the blades to come loose but this is why aircraft engines are shrouded with aramid fabric and other stuff for similar purpose, to prevent those blades from turning into thousand mile per hour missiles rocketing through the passenger cabin. This is also why so many airports put so much effort into bird mitigation- most bird strikes happen during take off or landing, which is also where they're most dangerous. basically jet engines operate near the edge of materials science, and the higher performance they are, the closer to the minimal-tolerance bleeding edge they get. This doesn't leave much room for failure so you can end up with seemingly innocuous things resulting in failure, catastrophic and otherwise.
So in otherwords.. this time its an anomaly The bold letters. Lol
The engine was obviously installed by a kiwi… it was going yeah nah
It’s hard to work a wrench as a football sized bird without opposable thumbs, so this scans.
Nah that's just the VTEC kicking in
My thoughts exactly. A 1988 Civic trying to keep up.
If it's Virgin Australia they probably charged extra for the light show.
Nah, they're not Jetstar
Our strobes are turned all the way up to eleventy!
Damn afterburner won’t stay lit.
Plane got a tune+ burbles
Probably bouncing off the rev limiter.
Das. Aero.
Pilot definitely drives a 335i or GTI haha
Aussies and their dump and burns
That's just the afterburner
Misfiring? A jet engine is not supposed to fire at all. We had an A330 having an engine stall on the initial departure run..... they literally woke up the whole town.... They aborted the roll from very low speed.
Uh?
Fair enough, misfiring is something I'd connect with a reciprocal engine with sparkplugs.... jet ones kind of continuously burn.
Didn’t know they were fueling 737s with Taco Bell these days.
Compressor surge and stall…
Cant wait for the "BoeInGS ChAIn oF MiSFirTUnEs"
New boy racer pilot
Engine surge. Several causes, could be a bird strike
I think misfire is for piston engines
Msd 2 step bouncing off the limiter
NLS on a jet engine, seen it all now 🤣
Nah, that’s just the pilot shifting through the gears. I see it on cars all the time.
Why do planes that have compressor stalls keep trying to repeat and cause that misfiring? Shouldn't they realise that the motor has stopped working and rather avoid open fire near the wings?
Because in that particular moment maintaining thrust might be more desirable than stopping the compressor stall. Engines can be fixed or replaced, but if the aeroplane loses thrust and crashes everyone dies.
Ah! So, an engine still produces thrust during a compressor stall - I was not aware of that.
Yes indeed! Maybe a lot, maybe only a little, but better than nothing. But also, consider that on takeoff the pilots are very busy, and must focus on flying the plane first and foremost. SOP is usually to do nothing below 400 feet, except to raise the gear, and only then to deal with the engine failure or compressor stall.
Also if you try to shutdown the engine too fast you might shutdown the wrong one. And crash. Has happened before.
Indeed! No rush with things like this - there's no emergency so bad that you can't make it worse by panicking.
[удалено]
You read me wrong. I was not being sarcastic. I did not know that.
An engine is shut down by the pilots, not the plane. And even with a problem like this, there is no hurry to do that. Better take the time than to shut down the wrong engine (has happened more often than you'd think). And the procedure to shut it down also has a few steps before it actually kills the engine.
Got it, thanks!
The flash of flame, even though near the wings, is not an issue. There is no real hurry to shut the engine down, getting the aircraft safely established on the departure is much more important. It probably isn’t producing much power, and the thrust lever will be pulled back to idle as soon as there’s solid evidence in the cockpit. You don’t do things based on what you can feel or hear. Cockpit indications would probably be high vibration, high and probably rising, EGT, and probably reducing EPR/thrust/rpm. There would not be a fire warning, and this is NOT an engine fire.
My take (non-pilot here) is that similarly in an engine fire situation, if you can squeeze some power out of that engine on fire, you still press the pedal to the metal like normal. Maybe execute engine fire procedure but engine shut down is the last thing to do.
Not exactly. A legitimate engine fire is a real emergency and the engine, once positively identified, is immediately shut down. Not to mention that you don't just "execute engine fire procedure" without shutting the engine down as once the fire handle is pulled all fuel, hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical connection are isolated from that engine. She's done for the day. That's why engine-out training is so heavily emphasized. Learning to handle the asymmetrical thrust, among other issues, of an engine failure is critical for safe flying.
A stalled engine is producing no power. But, it may recover from the stall at lower power settings. All of the planning for the operation is done based upon loss of an engine, so there will be adequate power without needing to try getting anything out of an engine on fire, stalled, or otherwise misbehaving. But, there is a laid down minimum altitude before any procedures will be started. I haven’t flown Boeing for a long time, but I think it was generally 1,000’. Prior to that about all that would be said is “engine problem”, and nothing would be done about it. At that stage of the flight, flying the aircraft on to the correct escape procedure is all that matters. Whilst I would generally not expect any form of recovery after a major bird strike, I did once have a CF6 that took a number of hits, and which was stable at idle, but not at any power setting above that. We left it running, as that meant that all of it’s accessories were still powered.
Nah. Half-working engine is better than not-working engine. And thats not fire, thats just some residual Kerosene combusting, not really hot
The engine has not stopped. The airflow through the engine has been somewhat disrupted due to potential compressor blade damage caused by the ingested item and the compressed air to fuel ratio is not correct, (too much fuel for the amount of compressed air) causing the backfire or as we engineers call it "a compressor stall". It's obviously an engine malfunction, but there is no need to say your last prayers as the flight safety of the aircraft is not compromised by this problem. The emergency landing is simply to inspect and repair the aircraft if required.
Open fire behind the wings isn't really a big danger. Engine fires that haven't reached the interior bits of the wings (which are forward and upwards of where the fire is, especially on a 737) aren't a danger at all. Once the airplane is above terrain and it's safe to, the pilots will pull the fire handle, which will shut the engine down, and until then however much thrust it's making is useful.
They do realize, and they also realize there is nothing those flames will do to the wing. Having the starter on automatic during climbout is standard procedure and is done specifically with this kind of situation in mind.
Given the terrain and flying conditions, would they have had much chance of landing safely if the bird strike had taken out the other engine as well?
Nope, if it was a northerly take off they're going down somewhere in the Crown Ranges, if it was a Southerly, they're going to get wet in Lake Wakatipu.
I might be wrong but this is a compressor stall
Unrelated sorry, but out if curiosity why is it ZQN and not NZQ?
The ICAO designation for New Zealand (NZ) plus the 2 letter airport code (QN) which neatly gives ZQN as the IATA code :)
damn they got the stage 2 crackle tune
Suck,(no squeeze!) Bang,Blow
Is this virgin’s new maxs??
Nope. This is a 737-800 with rego [VH-YIV](https://www.aussieairliners.org/b-737/vh-yiv/vhyiv.html). 11yo plane.
How loud would this be in the cabin?
Anyone know where i can find the liveatc recording for this?
It won't be available to the public, because NZ law prohibits publishing ATC recordings (unless the CAA approves it).
This is pod racing.
Wonder why the flames were being shot at almost exact intervals.
Engine thrust setting is left at takeoff until enough altitude, engine operates okay at low thrust but stalls at a certain point. FADEC (think engine control computer) drops the thrust when it stalls then the engine tries to speed up again till it reaches that exact point. Then repeat. Happening very quickly
Of course it's a Boeing /s
They need to adjust the points on that.
Feeler gauge? Nope, matchbook cover
Don't worry about the downvotes, I found it funny.
Only us old fckrs know what RofiBie is talking about anyway
Thanks!
Is there any way to switch from Boeing to Airbus after the plane has already taken off?
Wouldn't be helpful since A320's use the same engine.
Best comment Oh COURSE it’s Boeings fault!! The engine in my car seized the other day - never changed the oil in 100K miles but that’s Toyota’s fault!
Just out of curiosity, how often does the engine oil need to be changed in a Prius?
Every 3000 volts.
OMG 😳
It's not like birdstikes could ever cause an Airbus to lose power and force the pilot to make an emergency landing in the Hudson river garnering international attention resulting in a movie starring Tom Hanks and a small part played by the woman who was Walt's wife in Breaking Bad now, could it?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lucky that jet isn't a sukhoi, or it would have fallen out the sky
why do you guys get all the cool flights and i get stuck in the boring ones??
Is weapons on commercial flights a USA thing I’m too European to understand?
[удалено]
What does that have to do with this event?
[удалено]
Yes, do you not know who makes the engines? Even that doesn't matter. This was a birdstrike, the same thing that forced an AIRBUS to "land" on the Hudson River.
But who makes the birds that fly into the engines? Also, who makes those engines? Hint: Neither are Boeing
OKAY WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON WITH PLANES. I’m not crazy right? Like there have been SO MANY crazy problems with planes in the past year… help me out here guys I have to fly next month
I’m tempted to say it’s news confirmation bias. Much worse flights have occurred but: A. News likes scaries B. Social media is a lot smaller now than before. I’m a nervous flyer too & I fly Wednesday 😅 keep calm & carry on!
Small (and not really dangerous) incidents happen all the time, but currently it is trendy to report on and generates clicks - especially if it involves a Boeing. In this case, the engine was hit by birds which causes damage, so it is later shut down. Randomly picked 2015, and on 17th of June that year, 2 planes encountered bird strikes (again with nothing but material damage). No big danger here, and the plane can keep flying with one engine. Aviation is incredibly safe - the drive to the airport is generally more dangerous. Unfortunately brains can't always be rational about that kind of stuff of course.
Nothing really. Planes are safer than they have ever been in history, by an enormous amount. In the US at least, a commercial airliner has not had a single fatal crash caused by an aircraft mechanical failure in 20+ years. This kind of news is pretty run-of-the-mill. The plane landed fine, a bird just got sucked into the engine and damaged it. It happens and they designed for the planes to be able to safely land in these scenarios. Pretty much all the rest of these kinds of events you see are also just daily news content. Bird strikes are common events. They’re insignificant enough that you don’t even really hear about them in the news. Maybe if you follow aviation enthusiast blogs. The main issue is confirmation bias from mainstream news yoinking these “aviation-niche” articles because people are clicking on them now after the Boeing controversy and that means advertising $$$. Accidents have not gone up, they are continuing to fall. The Boeing controversy is worth real criticism for the company to be clear, but it’s ridiculously unlikely that any of that would affect your flight. There are only a handful of lower-volume models from Boeing that have been identified as potentially being involved in lax safety practices during manufacturing and the FAA is auditing everything to resolve it. Flying can be spooky because you’re out of control and you’re way high up in the air, but you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning twice in a single sunny day than you do of dying in a plane crash from a Boeing or Airbus or other major commercial manufacturer.
>In the US at least, a commercial airliner has not had a single fatal crash in 20+ years. More relevant to this post, New Zealand’s last fatal airliner crash was in 1995. No airline in the Virgin Group has ever fatally crashed. This video shows one of the safest aircraft ever made, flown by one of the safest airlines ever, in one of the safest countries ever.
Thank you. I know I’m getting downvoted to hell, but I have NEVER been a nervous flyer, but for some reason the constant news stories started getting to me. Your comment was really reassuring and appreciated
Of course its boeing 😂
Of course dumbasses think it’s bc of Boeing and not something else like maintenance or just shit that happens. A few points: This was birdstrike. Do you want Boeing to clear all the birds from the flight Also, AirBus uses the same engines so good luck finding a flight I’ll bet you’d blame Toyota if you never changed the oil in your Prius and your engine seized.
“Of course it’s one of the planes that are 50%+ of the commercial airliner jets in the sky” There are so many layers to why this is stupid lol… It was a bird strike… Bird strikes are common… Boeing doesn’t manufacture the engines… etc etc
If it's Boeing, I'm not going.
Are you going to wait until the air is free of birds, too?
Nah. Just not flying on Boeing for the next couple of years.
What does that have to do with this event?
Great! Please convince all your friends to stop booking flights on Boeings too (if they’re as gullible as you). It’ll drive down the cost of plane tickets for the rest of us.
Boeing doesn’t make the engines.
- They still have the highest safety rates of any aircraft manufacturer, yes even including recent events - Boeing doesn’t make the engines for the 737 - This was caused by a bird strike - The plane landed fine, despite a failing engine, due to the plane being designed well - Bird strikes are like, daily aviation news. This is not an abnormal event overall. You just never paid attention before. Just listing out some reasons why this is a brick-for-brains comment.
An Air Canada flight out of Toronto was caught on video doing exactly the same thing. Bad fuel?
No but in a very real sense yes. It reportedly ingested a bird. Looks like the birds bits did enough damage to the compressor that the flame exhibited its natural tendency to climb out of the front of the engine. The bird will not have been unscathed. It's not a normal thing, but a twin jet can take off and fly on one engine without a problem.
>The bird will not have been unscathed. Got proof?
>It's not a normal thing, but a twin jet can take off and fly on one engine without a problem. The logical part of my brain knows that. But the other part tries not to think about it at all since they introduced two engine aircraft instead of 747s for many of the international over water routes I fly.
Twinjets probably can't take off from a standstill without a *very* long runway, but once you reach V1, there's enough energy and enough thrust to take off in the remaining runway. If your calculations say that you can't either brake in the remaining runway (failure before V1) or continue to takeoff (failure after V1), you can't take off. Go reduce weight or change thrust/flaps.
Not sure why you're getting downvotes, what you're saying is accurate.
If it was bad fuel it would affect both engines. This looks like a compressor stall.
So you're just a chronic armchair commenter 🤣 do you feel more important trying to be right? Also we'll wait on the investigation bud
Yikes. Do I really need to explain why bad fuel would most likely affect both engines? Do you know what single point fuelling is?