Bird strike out of Guernsey continues on one Engine to Birmingham
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a non-story. I am confident that the crew assessed the situation, decided on the best course of action and carried it out to a successful conclusion. I'm sure they have had a good chuckle at the scribblings of all you Monday morning quarterbacks out there who think you know better or just enjoy slagging other people off. By all means read and learn but just leave it at that .... please
Agree with Smudger.
England is a small place and the difference in time between going to one airport or another is very little. As I doubt there is a specific checklist on the Q400 for “birdstrike to spinner with part of it coming off”, the crew would have wanted to diagnose the problem(s), get some options together then sort out a plan of action. As it wasn't a time-critical scenario (stabilised, precautionary) expending a little mental effort to make the handling of the incident as easy as possible would have been a great idea. If it’s going to take you X amount of time to prepare the aircraft, crew and passengers for an approach and landing, why not spend those X minutes to get to the airfield that offers the best mix of facilities and weather?
I don’t know what the OEI crosswind limits are for the type but to go somewhere that was gusting 30kts+ across the runway in the wet as opposed to 12kts straight down the strip (and a longer strip as well) would raise my eyebrows far more than a decision to carry on for another 5-10 minutes on one engine. The one shut down had not failed, it is important to note.
From what I see it was an interesting technical issue, handled in a competent manner by the crew. What more do you want?
England is a small place and the difference in time between going to one airport or another is very little. As I doubt there is a specific checklist on the Q400 for “birdstrike to spinner with part of it coming off”, the crew would have wanted to diagnose the problem(s), get some options together then sort out a plan of action. As it wasn't a time-critical scenario (stabilised, precautionary) expending a little mental effort to make the handling of the incident as easy as possible would have been a great idea. If it’s going to take you X amount of time to prepare the aircraft, crew and passengers for an approach and landing, why not spend those X minutes to get to the airfield that offers the best mix of facilities and weather?
I don’t know what the OEI crosswind limits are for the type but to go somewhere that was gusting 30kts+ across the runway in the wet as opposed to 12kts straight down the strip (and a longer strip as well) would raise my eyebrows far more than a decision to carry on for another 5-10 minutes on one engine. The one shut down had not failed, it is important to note.
From what I see it was an interesting technical issue, handled in a competent manner by the crew. What more do you want?
Last edited by FullWings; 14th Nov 2014 at 15:06.
Just a little thought about dispatcher Dan. If I am operating out of GCI with DD assisting on the ground and a tech issue means I have to dispatch under MEL. Will DD then be on the phone to the Daily Mail on the lines of 'Pilot deliberately takes off with a known fault on aircraft!'? All from his expert aviation experience. Methinks I might get a different dispatcher. 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airmanship
The crew displayed good airmanship. They did not act in haste, they allowed themselves ample time to understand and cope with the situation, reduce tension and stress. Their decision to divert was well considered and executed.
Unlike the ill fated Lear 35A G-MURI carrying Coultard to Nice. Unfortunately in that accident the crew paid for their haste with their lives.
The probable cause in the accident report of the Lear 35 accident was:
We should on this forum applaud this crew rather than criticise them and hope that the tabloids learn something from it.
Unlike the ill fated Lear 35A G-MURI carrying Coultard to Nice. Unfortunately in that accident the crew paid for their haste with their lives.
The probable cause in the accident report of the Lear 35 accident was:
"The accident resulted from a loss of yaw and then roll control which appears to be
due to a failure to monitor flight symmetry at the time of the thrust increase on the
right engine.
The hastiness exhibited by the Captain, and his difficulty in coping with the stress
following the engine failure, contributed to this situation."due to a failure to monitor flight symmetry at the time of the thrust increase on the
right engine.
The hastiness exhibited by the Captain, and his difficulty in coping with the stress
We should on this forum applaud this crew rather than criticise them and hope that the tabloids learn something from it.
OK, colour me ignorant, but I'll take the bait on Landflap's CSI question (13th Nov 2014, 18:20).
As I understand Landflap's scenario, you're in cruise - say FL300? - heading east overhead Larnaca, and an engine quits. (Why? The reason could be important.) Your company says go to Damascus, we've got a spare engine there and you've got an 80kt tailwind. (I take it this is before the Syrian civil war and everyone's nice and friendly.)
Now, it seems to me Larnaca to Damascus is about 180nm, well under half an hour even on one engine, with the 80kt tailwind. Starting over water, yes, but you're very high and if the other engine quits (improbably? depends why the first one went out) then I'd guess you're in glide range either turning back to Larnaca or straight ahead to Beirut.
Alternatively, go round in circles descending into Larnaca. Doesn't that take at least as long as continuing straight ahead? And the other engine can still quit on the way down.
What's the proper professional action in this scenario, and why?
As I understand Landflap's scenario, you're in cruise - say FL300? - heading east overhead Larnaca, and an engine quits. (Why? The reason could be important.) Your company says go to Damascus, we've got a spare engine there and you've got an 80kt tailwind. (I take it this is before the Syrian civil war and everyone's nice and friendly.)
Now, it seems to me Larnaca to Damascus is about 180nm, well under half an hour even on one engine, with the 80kt tailwind. Starting over water, yes, but you're very high and if the other engine quits (improbably? depends why the first one went out) then I'd guess you're in glide range either turning back to Larnaca or straight ahead to Beirut.
Alternatively, go round in circles descending into Larnaca. Doesn't that take at least as long as continuing straight ahead? And the other engine can still quit on the way down.
What's the proper professional action in this scenario, and why?
We should on this forum applaud this crew rather than criticise them and hope that the tabloids learn something from it.
The disparities in opinions of the proper response, for what seemed to be a relatively straightforward event, no doubt sim tested etc. Is somewhat disturbing.
It would seem that the more experienced have sided with the chosen option.
The fresher FO's might have pulled the pin earlier, opting to take on the weather at a local field.
Interesting.
It would seem that the more experienced have sided with the chosen option.
The fresher FO's might have pulled the pin earlier, opting to take on the weather at a local field.
Interesting.
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a little thought about dispatcher Dan. If I am operating out of GCI with DD assisting on the ground and a tech issue means I have to dispatch under MEL. Will DD then be on the phone to the Daily Mail on the lines of 'Pilot deliberately takes off with a known fault on aircraft!'? All from his expert aviation experience. Methinks I might get a different dispatcher
You people make me laff.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there can be any genuine professionals or even knowledgeable laymen out there who really think that they are better placed to judged the course of action taken than the operating crew in this incident.
The fact that that this whole thread stems from a Daily Mail article in which they take their 'facts' from an over-dramatic baggage chucker who can smell a paycheck rather than anyone with an iota of professional knowledge says it all. The trouble with 'Dan' and many like him is that he is so stupid, he doesn't realise quite how stupid he is. His opinion and speculation is absoulutely worthless, yet the Mail present it as the testimony of an expert witness. Drivel.
The fact that that this whole thread stems from a Daily Mail article in which they take their 'facts' from an over-dramatic baggage chucker who can smell a paycheck rather than anyone with an iota of professional knowledge says it all. The trouble with 'Dan' and many like him is that he is so stupid, he doesn't realise quite how stupid he is. His opinion and speculation is absoulutely worthless, yet the Mail present it as the testimony of an expert witness. Drivel.
Yes, exactly, this is terrible journalism.
The young dispatcher chap involved is clearly not a pilot and does not understand why an aircraft with a shut-down engine might continue to EGBB instead of turning round and landing back at EGJB. This chap obviously doesn't understand anything about flying twin engined aircraft, ("if the other engine failed we would fall out of the sky"), how the size and orientation of a runway affects landing decisions, what aircraft systems one needs for landing, nor how weather conditions impinge on a landing, etc. etc.
So what does the paper do? It spends the majority of the 'report' focussing on and quoting the OPINIONS of said young chap who is a dispatcher at a small regional airfield, and who has NO experience or knowledge of aircraft operations.
They go and take a picture of the young chap and his girlfriend, who seem to have been told to have suitably serious/scared expressions for the picture.
It would be so much better if the papers had quoted the concerns of the dispatcher chap and then researched the incident and asked BALPA for a general explanation about engine shutdowns. Then the paper could have explained why the Captain and F/O of the Dash did what they did, that they handled the situation really well and professionally, and gone on to say that this is why us pilots undergo extensive training and assessment.
They could have celebrated the fact that experienced professionals do their job very well.
Daily Mail; what exactly are you trying to achieve by making out that everything in our country is crap? I would love to know what your motivations are.
The young dispatcher chap involved is clearly not a pilot and does not understand why an aircraft with a shut-down engine might continue to EGBB instead of turning round and landing back at EGJB. This chap obviously doesn't understand anything about flying twin engined aircraft, ("if the other engine failed we would fall out of the sky"), how the size and orientation of a runway affects landing decisions, what aircraft systems one needs for landing, nor how weather conditions impinge on a landing, etc. etc.
So what does the paper do? It spends the majority of the 'report' focussing on and quoting the OPINIONS of said young chap who is a dispatcher at a small regional airfield, and who has NO experience or knowledge of aircraft operations.
They go and take a picture of the young chap and his girlfriend, who seem to have been told to have suitably serious/scared expressions for the picture.
It would be so much better if the papers had quoted the concerns of the dispatcher chap and then researched the incident and asked BALPA for a general explanation about engine shutdowns. Then the paper could have explained why the Captain and F/O of the Dash did what they did, that they handled the situation really well and professionally, and gone on to say that this is why us pilots undergo extensive training and assessment.
They could have celebrated the fact that experienced professionals do their job very well.
Daily Mail; what exactly are you trying to achieve by making out that everything in our country is crap? I would love to know what your motivations are.
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, who started all of this?
No, no, it was the bird!
OK, actually a good discussion and as we all know cr@p journalism.
No, no, it was the bird!
OK, actually a good discussion and as we all know cr@p journalism.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not directly related to this story but...
When I joined my first airline I was surprised to learn that quite a few of my flight deck colleagues had in their address books the telephone numbers of the news desks of the major newspapers and TV stations no doubt with an eye to making a bob or two for alerting said media organisations to stories of aeronautical interest. (But not if it involved them obviously!). Perhaps Despatcher Dan also had an eye to the main chance and contacted the DM himself.
When I joined my first airline I was surprised to learn that quite a few of my flight deck colleagues had in their address books the telephone numbers of the news desks of the major newspapers and TV stations no doubt with an eye to making a bob or two for alerting said media organisations to stories of aeronautical interest. (But not if it involved them obviously!). Perhaps Despatcher Dan also had an eye to the main chance and contacted the DM himself.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, y'see, our 'expert witness' and survivor, 'Desperate Dan' is now world famous.
Therefore, he should have no trouble finding suitable employment elsewhere (perhaps even as the DM's aviation correspondent).
Therefore, he should have no trouble finding suitable employment elsewhere (perhaps even as the DM's aviation correspondent).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Out West
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This saga reminds me of the HS 748 that caught fire on takeoff from
Stansted some years ago. It seems at the time many pundits and "junior"
pilots castigated the captain for stopping and putting it in the grass. The
AAIB seemed to think he made the right call. I wonder what the outcome
will be here.
Stansted some years ago. It seems at the time many pundits and "junior"
pilots castigated the captain for stopping and putting it in the grass. The
AAIB seemed to think he made the right call. I wonder what the outcome
will be here.