Well, whoever told me that one oil pump failed completely and the other one partially, was wrong then I guess...?
Dear Mr Spray...I guess you are correct in your guess.
BTW what is a partial failure? Anyway, the Norwegian incident you refer to was simply a failure of one pump (or more precisely the vespel spline adapter), which then went into windmill mode producing a pressure of about 5psi. This failure mode now being catered for in the emergency drills (it wasn't when it happened).
I'm with Geoffers when it comes to Engine Fire drills. Some other aircraft RFMs seems to favour the:
fire main/fire reserve..;
still have indications (even if they are false)...;
land immediately drill.
Now if that isn't driven by the lawyers I don't know what is.
Personally I think the "check for signs of fire first" action is sensible. But if you guys want to ditch a serviceable aircraft instead because the manufacturer is covering it's behind then please go ahead....
Geoffers...the argument for standing in the witness stand is one for the company management to face, not the line pilot if he follows company SOPs. I know you are a training professional and have the background to accept that. If not, perhaps you can point to a case where a line pilot followed SOPs but was still deemed negligent?
Outwest, I didn't say the crew were notified that only one pump had failed, just that it was a fact after the event. I think that no pumps = no pressure so it is probably pretty obvious once it does happen.
As I said in a previous post, the S92 compliance with the "run dry" capability requirements of JAR/FAR 29 is a sham. I'm obviously not defending that, in fact it is crap, my last few postings are just trying to balance out the hysterical postings of others.