incident on nh0205 (14 Feb 2006)

RB58 · Post by **RB58** » 18 Feb 2006, 12:38

Hello,

I am wondering if somebody could help me to find any information or feedback as to what happened precisely on the flight NH0205 (ANA from Tokyo Narita to Paris CDG) on 14 February 2006. After about one hour flight, the pilot announced that, due to outbreak of fire in the engine number 4 (of our Boeing 747), we must come back to NRT airport. Possibly connected, wreath of white smoke was visible as it escaped from the left wing. At about half-an-hour distance from NRT, the plane began a circular descending motion, then went directly to NRT airport where we landed without additional problem. We moved on another 747 with about six hours delay. I was surprised by 1) the announcement of the pilot (which seemed to deal with a rather serious problem) 2) the complete lack of additional information after that. I searched a bit about small public information but did not find a word on it. So, this should be nice if somebody was aware of any information or report on this incident (at least in order that I can sleep better)...

Thank you.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 18 Feb 2006, 12:42

Hi RB58 and welcome to Luchtzak.

First of all I'm not aware of that particular incident, but a single engine fire is not a "very serious" issue. The "white smoke" you saw coming out of the wing was most probably the pilots who jettisoned some fuel to be able to land quickly again in NRT.

Chris

Jense · Post by **Jense** » 18 Feb 2006, 15:26

You probably saw this, as Chris mentioned:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0691181/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0842786/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0144591/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0864373/L/

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 19 Feb 2006, 02:57

Yes there are specially assigned fuel dumping areas over the houses of people who complain too much about airplane noise.

RB58 · Post by **RB58** » 19 Feb 2006, 10:38

Thank you to Chris, Jense and Earthman for their explanations, particularly for the photos of Jense which correspond exactly to what we saw.

As a non-specialist of the 747 planes, I could not appreciate if the incident was "serious" or not (nor the other passengers of the flight, probably). Is this kind of incident common ? What looks strange for me was the lack of information during this incident (after the only announcement of the trouble with engine 4); the passengers were very calm, waiting for explanation which never came (from a sociological point of view, this was very interesting, but this is not the topics here...). Indeed, the passengers have to trust completely the pilot and the crew, specially when there is a problem, but I guess too that passengers could understand basic explanation of what they could see or feel. And this could probably lower the actual stress of the passengers.

Anyway (since I like to understand my experiences), I thank you again and will continue to take a look to the forums here...

RB58

Avro wrote:Hi RB58 and welcome to Luchtzak.

First of all I'm not aware of that particular incident, but a single engine fire is not a "very serious" issue. The "white smoke" you saw coming out of the wing was most probably the pilots who jettisoned some fuel to be able to land quickly again in NRT.

Chris

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 19 Feb 2006, 17:25

Since you don't mention any emergency evacuation procedures after landing, I think it's safe to assume that this was not a serious incident. I think one of the reason for fuel dumps is to reduce landing weight.

RB58 · Post by **RB58** » 19 Feb 2006, 22:52

Hello Earthman, you are right, and I think I understood (at last) the scenario : with the overheated engine number 4, the pilot decided to cut it and to go back to the departure airport. Just before arriving above the land (about half-an hour from the airport) he adjusted the altitude and released the excess fuel (right off Niigata, above the sea of Japan). Then standard landing (without emergency evacuation) with the lightened plane. All of this seems very reasonable and safe, and could (should) be explained to the passengers. Just one additional question - if the answer is known - : for a given commercial plane (say (at random), a 747), how often such an incident does happen ??

earthman wrote:Since you don't mention any emergency evacuation procedures after landing, I think it's safe to assume that this was not a serious incident. I think one of the reason for fuel dumps is to reduce landing weight.

UltraSonic · Post by **UltraSonic** » 19 Feb 2006, 23:15

I'll throw in a pilots point of view:

First of all, on a 4-engine aircraft loosing one engine is not really a big deal, trim it out and your set to go.
Most commercial jets are designed to fly on half the engine power and/or capability. Read correct, they are designed to FLY on it, not DO A FLIGHT on it.
Some airliners don't even categorize loosing one engine on a multi engine aircraft (depends from type to type but the 747 is one of them) as a high degree emergency. Meaning pilots will not even call out a full emergency, the will however return or take the closest available for them to put it on the ground.
Dumping fuel is NOT a safety mather conserning fire or engine trouble as some think, it's just a mather of getting the aircraft to a safe weight to land. The maximum take-off weight is higher than the maximum landing weight on most heavy jets.
So i think the pilot in this case acted as he should, he didn't act to it as a full emergency and dumped the fuel.
As for the information on it, if we get a story every time an aircraft lands with one engine cut or flamed out we would get several every day.

So to make a long story short, it's just not a big deal, that's why there's no info on it.

Hope this helps.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 20 Feb 2006, 03:20

The pilots did seem to have followed a communications training at the dutch railways... If they even bother to say anything at all, it's something like "as you can see, we are standing still in the middle of a field. We don't know why, and we don't know how long it's going to take." after about half an hour.

RB58 · Post by **RB58** » 20 Feb 2006, 09:59

Thanks to all for complete information !

RB58

UltraSonic wrote:Hope this helps.

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 20 Feb 2006, 10:50

Sometimes 4-engined planes are allowed to make a (empty) ferry flight to a maintenance station or home base

Koen

UltraSonic · Post by **UltraSonic** » 20 Feb 2006, 11:04

earthman wrote:The pilots did seem to have followed a communications training at the dutch railways... If they even bother to say anything at all, it's something like "as you can see, we are standing still in the middle of a field. We don't know why, and we don't know how long it's going to take." after about half an hour.

Mostly the pilots don't know why they are waiting, radio communication is not a cell phone conversation. If they tell you to wait, you wait, it's as simple as that. Then the pilots inform the passengers they have to wait, not knowing why. Would you rather have them to say nothing at all?

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 21 Feb 2006, 04:17

UltraSonic wrote:
earthman wrote:The pilots did seem to have followed a communications training at the dutch railways... If they even bother to say anything at all, it's something like "as you can see, we are standing still in the middle of a field. We don't know why, and we don't know how long it's going to take." after about half an hour.
Mostly the pilots don't know why they are waiting, radio communication is not a cell phone conversation. If they tell you to wait, you wait, it's as simple as that. Then the pilots inform the passengers they have to wait, not knowing why. Would you rather have them to say nothing at all?

I was talking about the railways, not airlines. If a pilot says 'one of our engines is on fire, we're going back' and nothing after that, that's not good communication. It's better then to say that one of the engines has malfunctioned, and as a precaution we are returning to the airport.

And the dutch railways are experts at not communicating with their passengers, although this depends on the crew.