I hope they filed a flight plan...

GlennAB1 said:
Pulling the fire handle shuts down the engine.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. But in our procedure, that is the 4th step right after placing the start seitch/lever into idle cutoff. So it is sort of a redundancy thing.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I know that. But it isn't the best way to shut the engine down quickly.

To shut down the engine as quickly as possible, you should use the fuel control switch, then pull the fire handle. The fire handle usually shuts the fuel off at the spar valve, way upstream from the engine, whereas the fuel control switch shuts off the fuel valve right at the engine. If you just pulled the fire switch, that engine would run for a while as it burned all the fuel in the line between the spar valve and the engine itself. To shut it down the quickest... use the fuel control switch, then pull the fire switch to shut off the hydraulics, pneumatics, electrical, etc. to that engine.

I don't know about the 737. Never flew it. But this is the Engine Fire, Severe Damage or Separation checkist from a B757. I'm sure the 737 is similar.
757%20Engine%20Fire.jpg
Click to expand...
Exactly the same for the 737.
 
NoHeat said:
These days, when some cars have blindspot cameras that display on the panel, why don't airliners?

It seems like it would not be hard to add a camera, behind the landing-light window, that's pointed sideways, at the engine.

View attachment 47426
Click to expand...
From that vantage point you couldn't see the outboard wing, how many cameras would be needed to cover the whole aircraft?
 
Are there any "engine coming from together sensors" for something like this? In this case, it was part of the nacelle that broke loose. Other than a lot of noise, vibration, and extra drag, as long as the engine is still delivering thrust, would the several hundred Mk1 Eyeballs mounted in the cabin be the fault detection system?

If this was night IMC and nobody were able to see the engine, would there be any cockpit alarms other than "something doesn't feel right"? Latch sensors, for example?
 
Even night IMC you would be able to see the engines. And no sensors that I am aware of that would indicate a cowl coming off except maybe a vibration monitor.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Doesn't change the fact that the manufacturer's system description states pulling the fire switch will "close engine fuel shut-off valve"
Click to expand...
Doesn't change the fact that at least two airline's procedures are to put the start lever/switch to idle cutoff before pulling the fire handle.
 
upstateny said:
Oddly enough, "Engine will come from together" was listed in the Remarks section of their flight plan.
Click to expand...

Since it was the nacelle/cowl and not the engine that came from together, will the NTSB cite this improper filing of a flight plan as a contributing factor?

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
Since it was the nacelle/cowl and not the engine that came from together, will the NTSB cite this improper filing of a flight plan as a contributing factor?

Cheers
Click to expand...
Definitely an inlet or nose cowl, not a nacelle, the engine was still contained inside the nacelle.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the inlet/cowl is part of the nacelle in this instance which is the whole dingus hanging off the pylon. That's what we called it in the aircraft design group where I worked.

Cheers
 
Sluggo63 said:
I know that. But it isn't the best way to shut the engine down quickly.

To shut down the engine as quickly as possible, you should use the fuel control switch, then pull the fire handle. The fire handle usually shuts the fuel off at the spar valve, way upstream from the engine, whereas the fuel control switch shuts off the fuel valve right at the engine. If you just pulled the fire switch, that engine would run for a while as it burned all the fuel in the line between the spar valve and the engine itself. To shut it down the quickest... use the fuel control switch, then pull the fire switch to shut off the hydraulics, pneumatics, electrical, etc. to that engine.

I don't know about the 737. Never flew it. But this is the Engine Fire, Severe Damage or Separation checkist from a B757. I'm sure the 737 is similar.
Click to expand...


If I recall correctly, on both the 737 and 757 the fire handle shuts down both valves (engine and spar). It has been a few years though since I have worked on them so my memory might be deficient. When I did work on them , I was run/taxi qualified on both so I did know at one time... or should have!
 
GLMS_NC said:
Not a cheap repair by any means. Plus new seats for those who soiled their shorty-shorts.
Click to expand...

You overestimate the industry. Those seats will just be steam cleaned and a little disinfectant sprayed on them, and won't be replaced. LOL!

ircphoenix said:
I've heard that one before.

Me: "Hey... That thing you designed just exploded in a giant ball of flame."

Engineer: "...well that's not supposed to be true."
Click to expand...

Best Christmas Party EVER: Breaking up a heated discussion that almost turned into a drunken brawl between an F-15 driver who had to punch out at low level because his engine bit it, and one of the engineers of said same engine type. Former F-15 driver was my boss... Figured he didn't need the trouble he'd cause himself. But I empathized with him. The engineer was being a dick. We all worked for the same company, but I rarely saw those two in any rooms together after that year's party nor did they work on many teams or projects that crossed paths.
 
X3 Skier said:
Actually, the inlet/cowl is part of the nacelle in this instance which is the whole dingus hanging off the pylon. That's what we called it in the aircraft design group where I worked.
Cheers
Click to expand...
Yes, the inlet/nose cowl is part of the nacelle, but you wrote: "nacelle/cowl" which are not synonymous. And while we're at it, actually, the Boeing 757 SRM lists the pylon as part of the nacelle, also. 737?
Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top