[A NOAA P-3 on the ground in Washington, D.C.]
This is a subject I've been meaning to do some reporting on for some time, but with the move and all my other obligations, I just haven't gotten the chance. So I've decided simply to blog about it (even though blogging is just a "hobby," and not a real job--right?).
You may or may not be aware that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration flies regular missions into hurricanes using instrumented aircraft. Two of the planes they use are Orion WP-3Ds, or P-3s for short, and they're nicknamed "Kermit" and "Miss Piggy."
Well, it has recently come to my attention that we very nearly lost Kermit--to say nothing of his talented crew--back in February. As an internal (and to my knowledge not yet public) NOAA report (PDF) relates, the plane had been detailed to fly a research mission into a non-tropical low pressure system in the North Atlantic off of Newfoundland as part of the Ocean Winds Experiment. On February 9, something seemingly unprecedented and nearly deadly occurred.
.jpg)
[Kermit in flight, with all four engines firing.]
Flying at night and in unusually dry and very windy conditions, the plane suffered the failure of no less than three out of four engines. The apparent cause? Accumulation of sea salt aerosols--an obvious by-product of seawater evaporation, but never thought to be a risk at the flight's altitude level--on the engines.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like this particular combination of dryness, high winds, and night flying was a novel one even for a very experienced flight crew. And it was very nearly deadly: With only one engine running, the plane was going down, and only luck and quick thinking seems to have saved the day. Notably, Kermit flew through some precipitation just before disaster might have occurred, and this may have helped wash some of the salt off the engines--which subsequently restarted at the last minute.
It sounds like the crew performed admirably in this case, and that they simply encountered new and unknown meteorological conditions--a danger no one knew was lurking out there in the atmosphere. In any event, it's a stunning and frightening story. Indeed, when comparing it to another near-crash tale involving a P-3--see Jeff Masters' account of "Flying into Hurricane Hugo" in 1989--I note that in that case the plane only lost one engine and sustained damage to a second. In contrast, and to repeat, this latest 2007 case saw the failure of three out of four engines!
So thank goodness the plane and the crew were all right. As for more general conclusions that may be drawn--does this incident say anything about safety measures or funding levels for instrumented aircraft research, or was it simply a freak event--I leave that to those more expert in the subject matter. I don't have enough background knowledge about this highly specialized form of aviation to jump to any conclusions.
P.S.: Unbeknownst to me, there was a previous public mention of this incident, see here.
- Log in to post comments
I'm going to have this in mind when I take a flight to long distance. Particularly when flying over the sea.
------------
Catherine
newfoundland drug rehab
I'm going to venture a WAG and say that this event could probably have been predicted or prevented. I do not know the details, nor am I an expert in the marine atmospheric environment, but after all the accumulated hours of flight of airplanes over the ocean, and all the atmospheric research I have to think that this phenomenon is not new.
Just a detail you might follow up on with an expert if you intend to report on this further: I believe that P-3 aircraft are designed to be able to fly with only one of four engines operating. In fact I have seen one do it at an air show at the now defunct Moffett Naval Air Station where sub-hunting P-3s used to fly every day. Now I haven't looked at the report to which you have linked, and I suppose that the particular conditions they encountered or perhaps the modifications to the aircraft for research may have prevented the safe operation with only one engine.
Hi Eric,
Dunno, but to quote from the report, "The aircraft began a descent at about 700 feet per minute, unable to hold altitude on the power of one engine."
Hi Mark P,
Also, if you check the report, it sounds like there was an incident with some similarities in 2003, but that it either wasn't known or wasn't discussed by the crew of this flight.
I'm sure this has happened before, but it was probably not recognized precisely what caused it. Very few flights have a crew (including support and maintenance) much less the equipment to diagnose the conditions. Hell, it probably wouldn't even be considered a possible cause.
Lets have a stirring round of applause and thanks to these and other explorers. In a very real sense they are routinely going 'where no man has gone before' on a regular basis. In the days of high tech equipment, satellites, and remote sensing, it is important to remember that all these tools view the world through relatively narrow windows and there is still a lot undiscovered.
I am reminded of a CFC causes ozone depletion denialist who once claimed that, "Being heavier than air, it is impossible for CFCs to reach the stratospheric altitudes they are reported to attain."
My son ,William Olney ,was on the plane that almost went down in February. He is a NOAA technition that measures the pressure inside the hurricane. He and the other Hurricane Hunters on that flight will be awarded a Gold Medal tomorrow in Washington DC by the Secy of Commerce for that incident. They do risk thier lives to try to gather info that can warn and save the rest of us from death by Hurricane . I am very proud of the risk they take and I thank them. Shannon