USMCFLYR

Sorry - I'm confused about two things. First - what was the mission? NATOPS check or FCF? I know the community does NATOPS checks in the airplane but I wouldn't imagine they do one in conjunction with a FCF.
Second - P-3 guys please chime in here (or any heavy pilot) - if you had #1 secure for some reason having to do with either training (NATOPS) or FCF (engine shutdowns) and #2 started to run rough or act up in some way; wouldn't you normally restart #1 before shutting down #2?

USMCFLYR

zab1001

(not an airline guy, 2 tours in P-3s, PPC) no speculation, just rusty NATOPS memories:

The narrative posted with these photos is contradictory. Odds are, they were either on an FCF or a NATOPS check, not some weird mix of the two.

USMC, the engine loiter brief states that if you have one engine shut down (in this case #1) and a malfunction occurs on another engine that requires immediate shutdown (in this case #2), you shut it down (#2) and THEN restart the loitered engine (#1). The concept being that certain malfunctions specifically require immediate shutdown to avoid catastrophic failure that would preclude the time required for a restart on the loitered engine.

If it is a malf that does not require immediate shutdown, then you restart the loitered motor and then address the issue with the malfunction.

The narrative is also open to interpretation, being on just 2 engines is not what caused the stall (if in fact that is what happened, who knows who did that write up and released the pics), the plane flies fine on 2 (when in parameters).

USMCFLYR

Thanks zab. The highlighted part above is where I would be careful; but you guys have been doing this for a long time so I defer. In my community we have been battling the 'fast hands in the cockpit' scenario for a long time obviously. As I say in one of the first single engine briefs new RPs get - the Hornet doesn't have a history of exploding in mid-air. My question is what necessitates an "immediate" engine shutdown - or how long does it takes to get that operative engine (that was shut down for training) back on-line? I agree that it depends on what the problem is with the second; but this story makes it sounds like it started running rough or something else that said that there was a possible problem but not like it exploded or was a raging fire.

I remember a scenario in my sim training for the PMCF qual when I had one engine secured and was slow and he gave me a fire on the other engine. I immedaitely shut down that engine without a second thought - of course losing all power now - talk about fast hands!

I didn't think that being on 2 engines would casue the OCF condition by its' own merit. I figured that two out on one side is much more serious then one on each side.

Whatever the speculation and whatever the real story here - I'm glad the crew got the plane on the ground without further injury.

USMCFLYR

zab1001

Well, as you've noted, the issue is that that the details aren't there, but the training specifies what does and does not warrant an immediate shutdown, as well as mitigating factors to consider if there are any gray areas in the situation.

Sure, depends on the situation, inputs, regime...in a benign environment, it can just be a managable, minor pain in the ass.

Everyone is alive, so a bad day didn't get any worse.

BDGERJMN

My guess is the OCF wasn't a function of being on two right side engines but more a function of holding the nose back as airspeed was decaying and the ensuing stall/departure. Glad they were able to save the crew and the airframe(although from the pictures looks like it may be stricken anyhow)

CenterSeatFE

Hello all!
I just wanted to chime in on your discussion about the mishap as I work with one of the pilots that was on board. Just to clarify things the investigation is still ongoing so a lot of the information you are reading about is not true. However, some of it is true but i'm not going to divulge anything. It is a mystery to a lot of us in the command how the information was disemenated especially the pictures. Well the pictures are not that hard to figure out but someone apparently did not understand the importance of keeping that information to themselves until the investigation was complete. Long story short, nothing in written text is the "final word" so keep that in mind. The good thing is that we still have all crewmembers onboard at the time with us safe and sound.

BDGERJMN

That's easy, someone broke the rules. I dont think anyone in this particular forum was doing anything other than speculating on some information that was passed along this thread. That would include those of us that are on active duty and understand the principles of the AMB and how it works. That said, this is a PUBLIC forum and information on here whether its correct or not is probably free game to comment on.

Raidr17

Marine Herk out of Pax River got the split S check in the box 3 years ago. This was due to liferaft departure inflight. From what I heard it started at FL240 and ended at 9,000'.

OrionFE

Having been part of an accident investigation recently, this day and age of the internet will have to change the way the investigations are conducted. Unfortunately, everybody wants to be the first to be the "reporter"! It actually hurts the investigation process at times.

This incident is not the first time in the P-3 history of this happening.

EWSP

Well...the FEs got two hands, left hand pulling out on the #1 feather button (we'll bypass the PCO pressurizing just this once!), with the right hand pulling the confirmed #2 E-handle.

For me, with #1 shut down, simply an engine vibration nomatter how bad, short of 'whirl-mode' developing on #2, I would restart #1 first!

'nuf said...