Air Astana Birdstrike

[LowNSlow]

An Air Astana 757 taking off from Atyrau, Kazakhstan had a birdstrike (unconfirmed so far) in one of it's engines today and had to land back at Atyrau. Safe landing, only casualties were 200+ pairs of ex-pat's underwear.

As there is no other way out today profits in the local bars are forecast to increase.

Anybody got any more details?

[eal401]

Keep an eye out here:

http://www.khabar.kz/index.php3?parent_id=1007539556&lang=eng

The Kazakh equivalent to the tabloids for these type of events!

[Aksai Oiler]

Interesting......:}

Makes me look forward to next weeks flights with Air Astana

[behind_the_second_midland]

Safe landing, only casualties were 200+ pairs of ex-pat's underwear.

Trained by the best, BA !

BHSM

[LowNSlow]

Apparently Atyrau Airport staff have confirmed that they saw the 757 hit the bird(s) so there's no question of a coverup as has been suggested in certain areas. In fairness to Air Astana they brought the newly acquired "spare" 757 in and got all the passengers to Amsterdam.

I've been assured that there will be no interruptions to the schedule and my pint of Murphy's in Schipol airport on Wednesday morning is guaranteed.

Behind_t_s_m all the training captains I've seen were either Dutch or South African?

Edited to add:

BBC monitored news report:


ALERT-KAZAKH-AIRCRAFT
International airliner makes emergency landing in Kazakh west

Text of report by Kazakh Khabar TV on 1 October

Passengers of an Atyrau-Amsterdam flight experienced two desperate hours this morning. One hundred and fifty eight passengers and 11 crew members were on board a Boeing 757.

While taking off from the airport in Atyrau [the administrative centre of western Atyrau Region] at 0714 local time [0514 gmt], the aircraft flew into a flock of seagulls. Several seagulls hit the right engine. The crew decided to return to the airport in line with the rules. However, it had to fly around Atyrau for over two hours to use up excess fuel to reduce the fire risk.

Rescue, fire-fighting and first-aid services were put on alert on land. The aircraft made a safe landing at 0950 [0450 gmt].

Mukhit Kubayev, the executive director of Atyrau international airport, said that the passengers were provided with another aircraft. A special commission was set up today to investigate the case.

Atyrau airport is located in an area exposed to seagulls and other birds. Several emergency situations have been registered there since the beginning of 2004. However, this was the first incident involving birds over the past two years.

[Video shows aircraft, birds]

Source: Khabar Television, Almaty, in Russian 1400 gmt 1 Oct 04

BBC Mon Alert CAU 011004 cb/nb

[3Greens]

Nope, ALL 757 sim and line training completed by BA. There were other nationalities out in ALA to cover the flying programme when AA were short of pilots. on both 757 and F50.
Well done to the boys in this case, guess all my ranting and raving got through eventually!!

[Dumbledore]

Transavia Airlines of The Netherlands has 2 or 3 crews on loan with Air Astana right now doing the back and forth to Amsterdam.
It was most probably two cloggies flying that 757.

[LowNSlow]

The crews I have flown behind recently have been Kazakh with a third, Dutch, overseer / training Captain. Whatever their nationalities the lads done good!

I heard, from a chap, who has seen the aircraft, that it was a large flock of seagulls that was hit. There were birds stuck in the undercarriage and red dents on the starboard wing leading edge / slat. Apparently there was a large wing drop and yaw before recovery which suggests, to me at least, that the engine lost a lot of power very quickly. Well done chaps to the crew.

It doesn't bear thinking about what the consequences would have been if they had hit a bigger flock and lost BOTH engines. At least it's very flat and unpopulated around Atyrau airport.........

[LowNSlow]

Air Astana astounded everybody on board by a) having the replacement aircraft at Atyrau quickly and b) re-booking everybody's onward flights from Schipol. Well done to the people on the ground as well as well as the flight crew. For a fledgling airline they have learnt fast.

[Aksai Oiler]

I am very surprised to read they got a replacement plane so fast, I was under the impression they were still strapped for A/C.

If they are getting much better, can they please do something about getting me a cup of coffee on those Fokker "Budgies".

:E

Poka

[jmc-man]

Hang on a sec...am I reading this correctly?

These "heroes" had a major bird strike on take-off followed by an engine failure.

They then "held" for TWO HOURS AND 40 MINUTES to burn fuel?????????????

Are they nuts????????????

In my book, losing an engine on a twin means LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT................NOW

An overweight landing check on a 757 takes about 20 minutes..and there'll be plenty of time available while they change an engine.

I sincerely hope this is NOT a reflection of BA Training.

[lomapaseo]

JMC-MAN

Why pray tell would you land immediately vs holding for weight reduction?

Granted you are on single engine performance regardless of what decision you make, but the airport isn't exactly moving away from you.

[B737NG]

What is wrong on that single engine holding? reduce weight and
avoid overweight if possible. I am shure if they would seen it as
a threat of saftey they would have landed immidiatly. Nothing
wrong in the judgement. Why do you allways look for a reason
to blame somebody? They had a failure and then they landed at
the NEXT SUITABLE AIRPORT. It does not say WHEN in any of
the Boeings QRH. If theire Chiefpilot - Fleetmanager was happy
and agreed, why not ? More diapers needed indeed.
Important is what is right and not who is right. If they all agree
what they did there. Innovative for a new outfit.

NG

[toon]

lomapaseo, since the damage is 'assumed' to be limited to one engine, this cannot be 100% confirmed, as jmc says, an overweight landing check is no problem, and having had an engine fail on a 757, flying around on the other one for 2 hours is not something i would do, but thats me.
All due respect to the crew for a safe end.

[Devils Advocate]

lomapaseo wrote: 'Why pray tell would you land immediately vs holding for weight reduction? Granted you are on single engine performance regardless of what decision you make, but the airport isn't exactly moving away from you. '

You're surely not advocating that a 'dead-stick' landing is acceptable, just because the airport is close by, are you ?

Imho one might hold to reduce landing weight for, say, an air-conditioning problem ( e.g. outlow valve stuck open, etc ) but with suspected engine damage to one or even both engines ?!
E.g. How were the crew to know that they hadn't ingested birds in to both engines and / or in what condition either engine might be in - it's not like you can get out and have a look at them, is it ?

In this instance the crew had reason to suspect they might have engine damage - indeed this was the reason behind them wanting to return to ATA - and so, would it not seem safer to want to get the aircraft on the ground ASAP ?!

As jmc-man says above, with suspected engine damage, why delay getting back on the deck for the sake of a check that takes 20'ish minutes ? Was safety or cost at the forefront of the thinking here, or was it just 'muddled thinking' ?

B737NG you seem to be advocating 'flying by commitee' - wherein, as a gentle reminder, the PIC is just that and, as such at the end of the day, the decission making rest on the PIC's shoulders ( regardless of what the Chief Pilot or Fleet Manager have to say - they will not be standing next to you in the dock, if / when you're called to account at any subsequent Board of Enquiry...... You: "but the chief pilot said it was ok" ..... Judge: "Send him down" :rolleyes: ).

[320DRIVER]

Luckily the Airbus makes it an "easier" call... ECAM puts out a LAND ASAP message so no arguments about fa*ting around holding with an engine down.

That's the whole point behind the LANDING OVERWEIGHT checklist.

[normal_nigel]

BA'a training does not advocate holding to reduce landing weight on one engine.

All single engine ops are "land at nearest suitable airport".

Always take the overwieght landing unless of course the runway is insufficient to take the weight (back of the QRH) in which case the airfiled is then "unsuitable" for that weight. You would then divert to a "suitable airfield" or reduce weight to one that the runway distance can accomodate.

NN

[LowNSlow]

As I understand it the 757 is cleared to land at MTOW so I assume the runaway at Atyrau was deemed unsuitable for a MTOW landing. The nearest alternative is Aktau which is slightly longer but no stronger and is around an hour's flying time away. The facilities for handling the landing are better at Atyrau I think and the logistics of getting 200 passengers sorted out afterwards in the absence of another aircraft are far better. Maybe Boeing should have fitted a fuel dump to the 757 after all.