Turbojet engine fire after V1: overweight return decision
You are the flight engineer on a three-engine turbojet departing a 9,200-ft dry runway at pressure altitude 1,000 ft, OAT 32 °C. Takeoff weight is 178,000 lb; V1 is 140, VR 150, V2 158. At 135 kt, the No. 3 engine EGT rises through 900 °C and N2 falls to 55%; a muffled bang is heard and the airframe yaws. The captain continues the takeoff. You call “engine failure,” set maximum power on engines 1 and 2, and the aircraft lifts off. Gear and flaps are retracted on schedule. At 800 ft AFE, the No. 3 fire warning illuminates. The airplane has no fuel jettison. Maximum landing weight is 161,000 lb. The destination is 1 hour 10 minutes away; the departure airport is 12 minutes away.
1. What are your immediate actions, and what do you verify before discharging a fire bottle?
Read the worked answer
The yaw, N2 decay, and EGT rise already identify No. 3; the fire warning now confirms it. I would call the memory items in order: thrust lever to idle/cutoff, start lever to cutoff, firewall shutoff valve closed, and discharge one fire bottle. Before discharging, I would verify the warning is not a single-loop fault by checking the other detector loop if the system provides one, and cross-check EGT, N2, oil pressure, and fuel flow. I would not pull both bottles at once: one bottle now, and preserve the second in case the fire reflashes. I would also confirm the engine bleed and generator are off. The key judgment is that a fire warning at 800 ft is not a “continue and monitor” item; it drives the landing decision. While the captain flies, I would state plainly: engine secured, fire bottle discharged, warning still present or extinguished.
2. The captain asks whether to return or continue. How do you build the decision?
Read the worked answer
With no fuel jettison, landing weight would be about 176,000 lb-178,000 lb minus roughly 2,000 lb burned-or about 15,000 lb above the 161,000-lb maximum landing weight. An overweight landing is still the correct choice if the fire warning persists or the bottle does not clear it, because an overweight landing inspection is a known, manageable risk while an in-flight fire is not. If the first bottle extinguishes the warning, I would still return; a fire that has been extinguished can reflash, and the airplane is now two-engine. I would plan a straight-in approach, brief the cabin, and have emergency equipment standing by. Continuing 70 minutes to destination would be considered only if the fire were confirmed out, there was no smoke, and the nearest airport were unsuitable-none of which is true here.
3. What approach and crew-coordination plan do you recommend for the return?
Read the worked answer
I would brief a flaps-30 landing at Vref plus wind, with the captain flying and the first officer handling ATC and checklists. As flight engineer I would monitor the remaining engines, fuel, pressurization, and the fire warning, and call any reversion or new caution. I would ask for crash-rescue equipment, advise the cabin crew of an overweight landing, and prepare for a possible evacuation only if fire or smoke persists after landing. The approach should be flown without unnecessary configuration changes; a stabilized straight-in is worth more than saving a few minutes. If a second fire bottle is needed, I would use it before landing and report the result. The coordination point is that one person must own the fire-warning status while another flies; otherwise the warning can be missed during the approach.