Engine shutdown - would passengers be notified?

aquascrotum

Am just off an Easyjet flight from Belfast to Stansted. I think we had an engine shutdown about half way across and landed on a single engine (Airbus A319) but we weren't notified.

Clues were an apparent loss of power coinciding with cabin lighting resetting about half way through the flight. This was about 5mins after we'd levelled out at cruise altitude. There were a few more flickering lights and pings with plenty of cabin crew activity. About 10 mins later I overheard one of the cabin crew advise another member what sounded like they would have to change aircraft after landing as there was an engine fault.

We landed OK but were crabbing on approach (in my head were compensating for power on one side only, there were no cross winds that would cause the angle of approach i could see we were taking) and there was no reverse thrust used for braking on landing. There was also no update from the cockpit on the way over, an surmising this was because they were a bit busy...

Am I over thinking it or does it sound like we had an engine shut down mid flight? Would this normally be notified to passengers or constitute an emergency of any form? I'm a fairly frequent flyer, I sort of knew that even if there had been a shut down we'd be grand (didn't stop some cold sweats though)... Am just wondering what normal protocol is in such an instance?

Skatedude

I dont think they would inform passengers as the plane is designed to fly and land perfectly fine with one engine. It would cause panic for no real reason.
The engines are very complex and it could have been a simple fault so it was shut down as per procedure and not due to an emergency.
It would have been different if it was a more serious fault such as an engine fire etc.

Not using reverse trust is standard for twin engine planes with an engine down. they simply follow a different landing checklist/procedure

Hard to say without knowing more details of the fault.

radar0976

Interesting question.

I suppose it boils down to discretion of the captain. If s/he feels that its not going to impact on passenger / aircraft safety, then there's no need to cause undue concern onboard. Most passengers are going to know little or nothing about aircraft design and safety.

Also with the proliferation of social media these days I guess airlines want to avoid unecessary bad PR, and not end up with an otherwise minor incident being picked up and exaggerated in the tabloids with words like "terror" and "plunge" contained in the report!

Growler!!!

Did you land at your intended destination?

If so then the engine was not shut down. The first line on our checklist for Single Engine Operatiom is LAND ASAP.

Dardania

Maybe the weight of the fuel meant landing ASAP meant continuing to an airport which was the distance away of the intended destination?

It was probably relevant to the captain to let passengers know in this scenario:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9#Accident

But with one engine, they're fully rated for takeoff power in case of birdstrike, so what are the chances of losing the other engine?

aquascrotum

We landed at the intended destination.

I wouldn't necessarily expect to have been told, spose my query is whether a shutdown is so insignificant as to even warrant an incident report or emergency notice, never mind telling the passengers. I'd agree in principle with not telling them tbh, even when I had an inkling what was going on I didn't tell my colleague who was traveling with me... Mentioned it to him after we'd slowed to taxi and you could see the fear!

Growler!!!

Grand so tell us what the MTOW and MLW are of the 319. The difference is the fuel to be burned off before landing. IF the tanks were full. On a short hop like that even with round trip fuel the land asap on the checklist takes priority.

The crab than the OP felt would have been a crosswind not the yaw caused by a single engine. That yaw would be corrected by Rudder Trim. (Winds are stronger and from a different direction at altitude than on the ground)

The case of the BA 747 is not relevant in this discussion as all 4 engines flamed out due to an unusual event and the pax were well aware there was a problem as the aircraft was descending rapidly without power.

flazio

I wonder if we looked back at the Flightradar24 playback, would the plane be squawking different from normal?

BeardySi

I was on an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Dublin a few years back and we lost one along the way. I had noticed that the flight was taking rather longer than it should have but thought nothing of it until shortly before landing the captain announced something along the lines of "you might notice the fire engines by the runway, but don't worry - it's a precaution because we're landing with one engine!"

That was the first we'd heard of it. I'm guessing we must have been far enough East when it happened that continuing to Dublin was quicker than diverting back to Iceland or somewhere...

And yeah, I did think the landing felt different, but that may well have been my imagination...

bkehoe

flazio wrote: »

I wonder if we looked back at the Flightradar24 playback, would the plane be squawking different from normal?

It'd be unlikely the aircraft could maintain its original cruising altitude had there been an in-flight shutdown, so the only thing to look for would be an unusually low cruising altitude (probably around FL250) and a simple engine failure isn't a Mayday so it'd be unlikely that they reset the squawk code unless asked by ATC so as to make the flight more visible to radar controllers.

BFS-STN is such a short hop that if one had a benign engine failure in the cruise and as STN is a base with engineering support, with good weather, and if fuel was sufficient, crew familiar with the airport, flight plan already loaded, etc, that it would totally be an option I'd consider (i.e. continue to destination). By the time they'd run checklists, considered their options, etc, they'd almost be at STN anyway.

cml387

An A319 is well overpowered, so I doubt an IFSD would be a major issue.

No,there'd be no need to inform the passengers. If a diversion was required it would be due to a "small technical problem".

arubex

Presumably G-EZIJ operating EZY63TP at 06:15. Belfast is so quiet on a Wednesday it's not hard to identify candidate flights!

Nothing untoward whilst in range of my receiver, held squawk 5413 until out of range. Per FR24 it peaked at FL350 and commenced descent near Nuneaton, which seems nominal.

Operated 07:55 EZY49FW back to Belfast with a ten minute delay. Hasn't departed again since it returned but that may not be unusual, there's a six-hour gap in the schedule on Wednesdays!

Edit: actually if the previous two weeks are indicative, the aircraft is finished flying for the day!

kona

aquascrotum wrote: »

Am just off an Easyjet flight from Belfast to Stansted. I think we had an engine shutdown about half way across and landed on a single engine (Airbus A319) but we weren't notified.

Clues were an apparent loss of power coinciding with cabin lighting resetting about half way through the flight. This was about 5mins after we'd levelled out at cruise altitude. There were a few more flickering lights and pings with plenty of cabin crew activity. About 10 mins later I overheard one of the cabin crew advise another member what sounded like they would have to change aircraft after landing as there was an engine fault.

We landed OK but were crabbing on approach (in my head were compensating for power on one side only, there were no cross winds that would cause the angle of approach i could see we were taking) and there was no reverse thrust used for braking on landing. There was also no update from the cockpit on the way over, an surmising this was because they were a bit busy...

Am I over thinking it or does it sound like we had an engine shut down mid flight? Would this normally be notified to passengers or constitute an emergency of any form? I'm a fairly frequent flyer, I sort of knew that even if there had been a shut down we'd be grand (didn't stop some cold sweats though)... Am just wondering what normal protocol is in such an instance?

Cabin lighting resetting could be the result of a idg being shutdown inflight...

I don't think the pilot would say were on one engine, I'd imagine he'd inform the passengers of a slight technical issue.

smurfjed

aquascrotum, its quite possible that there was an electrical fault such as the IDG mentioned above. You appear to be reading too much into flickering lights

PinOnTheRight

If you are referring to EZY254 on 21st on G-EZIJ.

No inflight engine shut down.

Landed runway 22... wind at the time of arrival was 120 @ 11kts ie crosswind.

Aircraft departed STN for BFS again just 1 minute late - not maintenance related.

The long stop-over of the aircraft when back in BFS was always planned.

*Kol*

I was on a EI flight before that had an IFSD. The captain informed us that the engine was shutdown and we were diverting, and the landing would be a little faster than usual.

I was on a B737 the other day with one engine shutdown in flight and you would hardly notice the difference. We were descending at the time so it would have been even less noticable.

ProfessorPlum

*Kol* wrote: »

I was on a EI flight before that had an IFSD. The captain informed us that the engine was shutdown and we were diverting, and the landing would be a little faster than usual.

I was on a B737 the other day with one engine shutdown in flight and you would hardly notice the difference. We were descending at the time so it would have been even less noticable.

Two engine shutdowns! Remind me never to let you on any of my flights :eek:

Roar83

Back in 2003 I was on an EI flight from Shannon to New York. They shut down one engine due to overheating. We were off the east coast of Canada when it happened, just east of New Brunswick.
The pilot informed us that we would land at the nearest airport, and that would be Boston! This is indeed what happened too.
There would be other closer airports than Boston close to the route of travel that would allow an A330 to land, such as St Johns, Montreal, Quebec City, so why continue on?
Is Aer lingus having a technical crew and possibly a lot easier to rearrange another crew and plane from Boston been the reason ? (We did in fact change planes and crew and continue to New York a few hours later)
So based on what I thought was procedure and what was previously stated why did we continue to Boston rather than land at the closest airport?

*Kol*

Roar83 wrote: »

Back in 2003 I was on an EI flight from Shannon to New York. They shut down one engine due to overheating. We were off the east coast of Canada when it happened, just east of New Brunswick.
The pilot informed us that we would land at the nearest airport, and that would be Boston! This is indeed what happened too.
There would be other closer airports than Boston close to the route of travel that would allow an A330 to land, such as St Johns, Montreal, Quebec City, so why continue on?
Is Aer lingus having a technical crew and possibly a lot easier to rearrange another crew and plane from Boston been the reason ? (We did in fact change planes and crew and continue to New York a few hours later)
So based on what I thought was procedure and what was previously stated why did we continue to Boston rather than land at the closest airport?

No point in landing at an airfield where you have no line station or replacement aircraft when you can continue to one of your own choice. He probably meant closest that suited. We had the same the other day with a tech issue after takeoff from a station with no support. The aircraft continued on to the next airport when maintenance was available albeit only 10 minutes away.

Flood

*Kol* wrote: »

I was on a EI flight before that had an IFSD. The captain informed us that the engine was shutdown and we were diverting, and the landing would be a little faster than usual.

I was on a B737 the other day with one engine shutdown in flight and you would hardly notice the difference. We were descending at the time so it would have been even less noticable.

You are like a cat with 9 life's.