Flying Home Commericially Tonite...

What makes me think it was true was the fact that you continued to your
destination. If it was a malfunction, then it would be hard to justify
continuing (unless of course you're British Airways an have four
engines...). A double compression stall on takeoff would be the absolute
worst time for that to happen.

I had a roomate a while back that was a flight attendant on the Pan Am 747
that lost an engine (as in "fell off" the wing) on takeoff. Still landed
without further incident. And yes, she was quite attractive

Marco Leon

"Wiz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Marco:

Don't know if it's true or not -- just what the pilot said...

Cheers,
Wiz


Marco Leon (at) wrote:
If it's really true that the crosswind caused the compression stall, I
wonder why we don't hear about a double stall very often. Theoretically,
the
wind can be strong enough to affect both engines, no?





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Marco Leon (at) wrote:
If it's really true that the crosswind caused the compression stall, I
wonder why we don't hear about a double stall very often. Theoretically, the
wind can be strong enough to affect both engines, no?


A gusty crosswind is probably the most common cause of compressor
stalls on commercial flights. Of course, that doesn't mean that
anytime there's a crosswind that turbofans will be belching fire left
and right. It's not that common. You have to get just the right
level of disruption in the airflow. With any given crosswind, the
airflow to each engine is going to be different, because of where they
are situated, so it's unlikely that you'd get conditions conducive to
simultaneous compressor stalls.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message

If it's really true that the crosswind caused the compression stall, I
wonder why we don't hear about a double stall very often. Theoretically,
the
wind can be strong enough to affect both engines, no?

Because each engine is in a different place, perhaps masked from crosswind
by the fuselage, etc. Compressor stalls due to crosswind most often occur,
in my experience, at the start of the takeoff run, if you bring the power up
too quickly and one of the engines has a disrupted flow it will pop. Once
you've got speed crosswind compressor stalls are not too common. Another
place you're vulnerable with fans is top of descent. In the 747, if we were
at or over about 370 at start of descent it was real easy to stall them.
We'd have to bring the power back easy and not all the way. Once below 350
you can bring them back to idle.

Wiz wrote:
A few years ago, before I started flying, I was on an American flight
out of Houston with a pretty good crosswind ripping across the runway.
I was seated near the back of the plane. A couple of seconds after
takeoff we heard a VERY loud bang, the left wing dipped momentarily,
and we continued on...

And the plane continued to climb out on one engine?

The Monk

"Flyingmonk" wrote

Wiz wrote:
A few years ago, before I started flying, I was on an American
flight out of Houston with a pretty good crosswind ripping
across the runway. I was seated near the back of the plane. A
couple of seconds after takeoff we heard a VERY loud bang, the
left wing dipped momentarily, and we continued on...

And the plane continued to climb out on one engine?

Of course...ALL jetliners are required to be able to complete the
takeoff roll after V1 and climb out with one engine inoperative.

However, I don't think that the premise in the preceding post was
valid....all of the conditions for a successful relight (if indeed
it had flamed-out) were still present without having to read a
checklist, fuel was ON, ignition was ON, and engine was TURNING.

I personally have never experienced a compressor stall that caused
an engine to flame-out.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

I concede that the pilot's explanation of the 20-minute delay before
explaining what happened to the passengers, that they were "reading the
manual on how to restart it" may not be valid. I know exactly zip
about jet checklists and POHs :-) Just repeating what captain said...


Bob Moore wrote:
"Flyingmonk" wrote

Wiz wrote:
A few years ago, before I started flying, I was on an American
flight out of Houston with a pretty good crosswind ripping
across the runway. I was seated near the back of the plane. A
couple of seconds after takeoff we heard a VERY loud bang, the
left wing dipped momentarily, and we continued on...

And the plane continued to climb out on one engine?

Of course...ALL jetliners are required to be able to complete the
takeoff roll after V1 and climb out with one engine inoperative.

However, I don't think that the premise in the preceding post was
valid....all of the conditions for a successful relight (if indeed
it had flamed-out) were still present without having to read a
checklist, fuel was ON, ignition was ON, and engine was TURNING.

I personally have never experienced a compressor stall that caused
an engine to flame-out.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

Jay Beckman wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that disrupting the airflow into a turbofan engine
sets up a momentarilly over-rich mixture (hence the visible flame?)

The early jets (1940s) were prone to compressor stall. Several books I have
which discuss that period state that the mixture goes rich when this happens. In
something like the Me-262, it would get rich enough for the fire to go out.
'
George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.