EATS 2009 - Prague

Engine Failure Training

Francis Fagegaltier

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 1

EATS 2009 - Prague

Fatal Accidents, Worldwide Commercial Jet Fleet, 1998 Through 2007: Total = 90 Attributed to System/Component Failure or Malfunction (Powerplant) = 2
Source : Boeing Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Operations 1959 2007 (2007 statistical summary, July 2008)

In short, approximately 2% of accidents have an engine failure at the root. Although obviously not the major cause of accidents, as part of the global effort for improving the safety level, it is necessary to reduce the likelihood of such cause of accidents.

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 2

EATS 2009 - Prague

The two main types of engine related accidents are the following:
N1 : uncontained high energy debris (e.g. disk burst).

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 3

EATS 2009 - Prague

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 4

EATS 2009 - Prague

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 5

EATS 2009 - Prague

The two main types of engine related accidents are the following:
N 1 : N2 : Crew uncontained high energy debris (e.g. disk burst). Propulsion System Malfunction + Inappropriate Response (PSM+ICR)

Authorities and Engine Industry (Europe and USA) have worked together to reduce the probability of occurrence of the N1 cause (concept of critical parts).
The N2 cause is then likely to become the new N1 (if not already the N1).

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 6

EATS 2009 - Prague

Obviously, the PSM+ICR cause is not purely technical because human factors play a role in it. Because of the human factors, in order to minimise the probability of occurrence of this cause of accident, training must be considered.
To draw attention on the subject is the first step in such training.

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 7

EATS 2009 - Prague

Following a NTSB recommendation arising from the 13 December 1994 turboprop accident at Raleigh-Durham, FAA requested a report from US Industry (AIA).
The European Industry was associated to this work (AECMA).

As a result, a joint AIA/AECMA report was issued.

Among other possible actions, they identified a need for specific training.

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 8

EATS 2009 - Prague

What is currently the safety level with regard to turbofan engines?

In order to illustrate, let us take the case of one pilot in a twin engine transport aircraft.
Assumptions

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 9

EATS 2009 - Prague

What is currently the safety level with regard to turbofan engines?

In order to illustrate, let us take the case of one pilot in a twin engine transport aircraft.
Assumptions
Engine In-flight shut-down (IFSD) rate : 5 x 10-6 per engine hour.

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 10

EATS 2009 - Prague

What is currently the safety level with regard to turbofan engines?

In order to illustrate, let us take the case of one pilot in a twin engine transport aircraft.
Assumptions
Engine In-flight shut-down (IFSD) rate : 5 x 10-6 per engine hour.
This is 1 IFSD every 200 000 engine hours.

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 11

EATS 2009 - Prague

What is currently the safety level with regard to turbofan engines?

In order to illustrate, let us take the case of one pilot in a twin engine transport aircraft.
Assumptions
Engine In-flight shut-down (IFSD) rate : 5 x 10-6 per engine hour.
This is 1 IFSD every 200 000 engine hours. This translates into 1 IFSD every 100 000 aircraft hours (2 engines).

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 12

EATS 2009 - Prague

What is currently the safety level with regard to turbofan engines?

In order to illustrate, let us take the case of one pilot in a twin engine transport aircraft.
Assumptions
Engine In-flight shut-down (IFSD) rate : 5 x 10-6 per engine hour.
This is 1 IFSD every 200 000 engine hours. This translates into 1 IFSD every 100 000 aircraft hours (2 engines). Pilot flies 1 000 hours per year

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 13

EATS 2009 - Prague

What is currently the safety level with regard to turbofan engines?

In order to illustrate, let us take the case of one pilot in a twin engine transport aircraft.
Assumptions
Engine In-flight shut-down (IFSD) rate : 5 x 10-6 per engine hour.
This is 1 IFSD every 200 000 engine hours. This translates into 1 IFSD every 100 000 aircraft hours (2 engines). Pilot flies 1 000 hours per year

Conclusion :

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 14

EATS 2009 - Prague

What is currently the safety level with regard to turbofan engines?

In order to illustrate, let us take the case of one pilot in a twin engine transport aircraft.
Assumptions
Engine In-flight shut-down (IFSD) rate : 5 x 10-6 per engine hour.
This is 1 IFSD every 200 000 engine hours. This translates into 1 IFSD every 100 000 aircraft hours (2 engines). Pilot flies 1 000 hours per year

Conclusion :
Statistically, this pilot would experience only 1 IFSD in . 100 years !

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 15

EATS 2009 - Prague

The IFSD rate of 5 x 10-6 per flight hour is based on all events, engine caused or not. Hazardous engine events (e.g. disk burst) represent a very limited part of this rate.

Some other events, not classified as hazardous, may be impressive, e.g. bird strikes or fan blade failures.
With effects such as engine surge (flames becoming visible), vibrations, noise,

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 16

EATS 2009 - Prague

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 17

EATS 2009 - Prague

With a so low IFSD rate, how can a pilot be prepared for the effect of a major engine failure ?
What kind of training could compensate for the lack of practical experience ?
Can a simulator reproduce the effects of a fan blade failure (of course, as experienced in the cockpit through the aircraft structure) ?

The first training tool is to provide basic information for awareness raising.
FAA has published a video with a clear message to the pilots: fly the aircraft, deal with the engine event later, when flight is controlled.
Air Transport Association and FAA training aid entitled Airplane Turbofan Engine Malfunction Recognition and Response

Engine Failure Training

Pl. 18