Safety bureau awaits Jetstar incident report

[blueloo]

From abc news online:

Safety bureau awaits Jetstar incident report

The Air Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating an incident on a Jetstar flight between Launceston and Melbourne last night.

Just after 11:00pm AEDT, crew and passengers heard a loud noise from a right-hand side engine as the plane was travelling over Bass Strait.

A Jetstar spokesman says there was no danger and the flight landed safely at Avalon Airport.

Julian Walsh, from ATSB, says the matter is being investigated.

"We've been in touch with the operator since that time," he said.

"We're now waiting for some further information from their engineers in terms of what they've initially found.

"Once we know that then we'll be in a much better position to know the level of response that we'll make to that."

_____________________________________________



Where are the quotes from terrified passengers?

[126.7]

We heard this loud thud and then saw sparks. I was very terrified, the aircraft shook, I thought, "Oh no, this is it, my times up". I am not very happy.

Oh yeah, I want a ceadit shell for my next flight!


How's that, can anyone beat my terrifying acting/writing skills. Will I make a beaut reporter?

[DJ737]

Obviously Jetstar + Melbourne = Avalon to your average journo :rolleyes:

DJ737

The Roo Rooter :ok: :E

[yowie]

:8 :8 Boeing or Bus :8 :8

[Wirraway]

Sun "Herald Sun"

Explosion rocks Jetstar flight
By CHRIS TINKLER
Herald Sun
20mar05

A MELBOURNE-bound Jetstar airliner plunged 1.2km over Bass Strait after one of its two engines blew up.

The Boeing 717 was about 50km north of Tasmania on a flight from Launceston when passengers and crew heard a massive explosion about 11.30pm on Friday.
"There was a loud bang and the whole cabin shuddered," a passenger said.

In a matter of seconds, the plane dropped from 7300m to 6100m, a Jetstar source said.

Click here for FULL story (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12599190%5E662,00.html/)

===========================================

[Howard Hughes]

My favourites from the story...

The international distress call "Pan Pan Pan" was radioed to Melbourne's tower, with the pilot declaring a "level one" emergency. (Wonder what a mayday call is on this journos "level of distress" scale?)

Now of course you would call Melbourne tower when you are...

The Boeing 717 was about 50km north of Tasmania

And then this gem...

An airline source said there were growing concerns about the safety of Jetstar's 14 Boeing 717 aircraft.

Who? From which airline? Mr Tinkler if you are going to make an accusation like that, you sure as hell want to name your source.

And one more for the road...

Jetstar confirmed the same plane was grounded at Coolangatta earlier on Friday because of an undercarriage problem.

Cause of course these two events are linked, given that these systems are both joined by the hydraulic thingamywhatsit!!

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

PS: Thanks for the link Wirraway, does this mean your making a comeback with a revised format?

[Orville]

HAVE YOUR SAY

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name and suburb/location. We also require a working e-mail address – not for publication, but for verification. The telephone field is optional.
Fill in the form below and click on the submit button.

I hope you took up the option to have your say to the editor, if they continue to publish this tripe and we say nothing then we are guilty of complacency.

I had my say.

[Buckshot]

Here is the Sunday Tasmanian's tarted up version of the Sun article. It includes the obligatory "stricken" "plunged" "massive explosion" "distress" and "molten metal" catch phrases. This must be the most dramatic in flight shutdown in history.


Midair panic over Strait: Engine explodes on Jetstar flight

A JETSTAR airliner plunged 1200m over Bass Strait after one of its two engines blew up -- sparking a midair panic among 102 passengers.

The Boeing 717 was about 50km north of Tasmania on a Launceston-Melbourne flight when passengers and crew heard a massive explosion from the right-hand side of the plane about 11.30pm on Friday.

"There was a loud bang and the whole cabin shuddered," a passenger said.

"It was like going through the worst turbulence you could imagine."

In a matter of seconds the plane dropped from 7300m to 6100m, according to a Jetstar source.

The pilot shut down the fuel supply to the stricken engine and steadied the craft.

The international distress call "Pan-Pan-Pan" was radioed to Melbourne's tower, with the pilot declaring a "level one" emergency to air traffic controllers.

With insufficient emergency services at Launceston, the pilot decided to continue to Melbourne where the airport was put on full alert.

The plane flew to Melbourne on one engine, landed safely and was met by a 60-strong contingent of fire, ambulance and technical teams.

Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway confirmed yesterday one of the plane's two engines had malfunctioned and "lost power", and the distress call had been made.

The damaged engine was being replaced yesterday and the plane would be back in the sky today, he said.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and engine manufacturer Rolls Royce were contacted and an investigation had begun into exactly what happened, he said.

"We are taking it very seriously," Mr Westaway said.

One industry source said the explosion, sparked by a total failure of the Rolls Royce engine, should be a major cause for concern.

"There was molten metal strewn throughout the engine," he said. "These are not big aircraft. The explosion could have penetrated the cabin."

An airline source said there were growing concerns about the safety of Jetstar's 14 Boeing 717s, saying they had been plagued by problems.

And while emotional passengers praised the captain and crew for their handling of the emergency, Jetstar came in for criticism over its lack of support.

Neither the passengers nor the crew were offered counselling after landing, an airline source said.

Earlier in the day, Jetstar confirmed the same plane was grounded at Coolangatta and its flight to Melbourne was delayed because of an under-carriage problem.

But Mr Westaway rejected suggestions that any of its planes were not safe.

"We fly Qantas group safety standards to the tee. Jetstar doesn't operate an aircraft unless it is 100 per cent operable," he said.

A spokesman for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it would do a preliminary investigation over the next two days before beginning a more comprehensive inquiry.

Jetstar was forced to replace another of its Boeing 717 engines in August last year after a flight to Hobart returned to Melbourne with engine trouble.

[rescue 1]

Wirraway!! Good to see you back!!

[MkVIII]

Hang on a minute...

Assuming the distance from Launy is relatively accurate, WTF didn't Captain Nostar return to Launy (inadequate fire fighting is pure shinola!), or divert to Devonport or Bernie, rather than pressing on to "somewhere mainland" (Tulla or Avalon). Launy to Melbourne is around 230 miles...

So, he/she has shut down a catastrophically failed engine (assuming it was catastrophic), and he/she does not know what other systems may be at risk or potentially damaged, yet he/she decides, probably with heavy handed "suggestions" from Ops, to continue for a further 200 odd nm's rather than diverting...

I wasn't there, and we don't know all the facts, and it worked out OK, but the decision made to continue is a good one???

[Douglas Mcdonnell]

MKV111. No you werent there! No problems with continuing to the "Mainland" The distance as you stated between Lt and Ml is around 230nm. 10 mins out of Launy would put you north of DPO. The requirement once airborne is to be with in 380 nm of a suitable aerodrome. Obviously this requirement is well satisfied.
I dare say the decision was made with due regard to the services availble for the return. At that time of night LT is an MBZ. So on one, I think it would be very prudent to continue to a major airport with ample availble services. I dare say your ridiculous summations that ops had a say in events couldnt be further from the truth. And yes you do know what else is damaged.

Technology is good like that.

DM

[The Voice]

MkVIII
probably with heavy handed "suggestions" from Ops, to continue

as if ...

... no-one in their right mind in that position would DARE question a PIC decision to return to a closer strip IF the situation required just that.

AND

I don't think an Ops Controller would be responsible for making possibly such a life or death decision in those circumstances.

BUT

Like you said, I wasn't there, and we don't know all the facts so, like the rest of us, you could speculate, but how dare you question the decision of the PIC.

[fruitbatflyer]

That's right, Mark Ate, you weren't there. Why don't you butt out and wait for the official report? When it comes to aviation the uninformed garbage published in any Press, other than perhaps 'Flight International or other specialist paper, is never taken seriously by anyone other than the great unwashed public and ignorant pollies. Example: "plunging" 1200 metres of altitude in a matter of seconds - now THAT would be one helluva bungy jump, but in civilian aircraft it just ain't likely unless it's already well and truly in little bits.

[Watchdog]

MKIII, (you lost V points for such a poor post) :)

The article is clearly another classic piece of journalistic dramatisation. Accordingly, how could you possibly make any assumptions on such a trashy story?

With regard to involvement by an operations department...i'd think a more credible scenario would have been a quick conference between the skipper & f/o and a radio call to the ground agent to ask them to TELL the ops department where they were going after the decision was made!

[MkVIII]

:ouch: My sincere apologies for the post, but like I said, BASED ON WHAT THE JOURNO IDIOTS HAD WRITTEN.

Sorry DM, but NO, you do NOT know what else may well be damaged by a catastrophic failure, including the all-important sensors attached to instrumentation. There are far to many accounts of incidents and accidents that have proven the falibility of instrumentation. But again, they made it "home" so all of it is academic.

Again, apologies for sinking into the gutterdom of speculation and questioning the PIC's decision.

As Pilots, we all know this happens, but in the mind of the punter's, all this does no good whatsoever for Jetstar's reputation. Keep the tickets low though, and their memories will be very quickly erased... :p

Hopefully, back at least to Mk IV...

[Douglas Mcdonnell]

MK8. If the engine has just been lost and subsequently shut down, with the appropriate QRH checklists completed, the indications you will get are all associated with the initial damage and subsequent shut down.
The "Sensors attatched to instrumentation" that are critical for flight, ie, pitot static sensors are actually on the front of the aircraft. If they were damaged by an in flight engine failure Id reckon that all would be lost anyway. Quite frankly I dont know why Im replying to your posts. Obviously you have very little working knowledge of Jet airline operations.

As for the airlines reputation, Id think you will find that engine failures will always happen when you do a bit of flying.
On the contrary, by all accounts the job was done very well and is a credit to the training system and the gentlemen involved.

As pointed out to you in many previous posts, to question the PICs decision without knowing the facts, is quite pathetic.

Unfortunately your poor attempt at a wind up kind of backfired didnt it?

Checking for engine failure related damage to CRITICAL SENSORS.

DM

[The Voice]

MK8apologies for sinking into the gutterdom of speculation

while you're apologising, how about to the Ops person(s) you just slammed ...

Watchdog .. exactly right .. either a phone call from the ground handler OR the good old company freq. if they have a hand free to flick the switch!

[rockarpee]

I obviously wasn't there but I would imagine the LAST group who had a say at final destination would be ops control. The desicion would have been made pretty well after..."C/L complete.CRM,CRM,CRM,CRM....better lets tell company whats going on......"

[Hempy]

Ahh the Lazy Journalist (http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html) strikes again !!!

Terrified Passengers in Dread Flight


Tasmanian passengers told of their horrific terror aboard a Melbourne bound Jetstar flight which was required to return to Melbourne yesterday due to engine failure.

Some passengers were terrified that the 68 passengers were told few details of the catastrophe.

They said the plane 'Dropped like a stone and leaned over to the left' before turning around.

As a precaution, fire trucks were on standby when the Boeing 717 landed.

Passenger Bruce Goatman last night was still recovering from the ordeal.

'It's a good thing I was wearing the brown underwear', the passenger said.

[Hudson]

Pprune readers will recall the recent case of the BA 747 that lost an engine after lift off from somewhere in USA and following "consultations with Ops" the captain decided to press on to UK several thousand miles across the Atlantic on the three remaining engines.

A small gremlin then gummed up a fuel pump en-route, leading to a serious fuel diversion. There is little doubt that BA was saved a significant amount of dollars by the captain's decision to press on. If there was the civil equivalent of an Air Force Cross for saving the company money, there is no doubt the captain would have been awarded the gong.

Pprune posts indicate that the US FAA have more than a passing interest in the captain's decision. Was it good airmanship? Who knows, because we are not privy yet to the full story. But some pilots may raise their eyebrows just a little.

Now we have a 717 that does an engine during climb out from Launceston at night. A nasty shock for all on board, no doubt. There is an ILS and VOR back at Launceston so no problem with a single engine approach. Fire trucks presumably can drive in from the city and be on guard for the landing? Maybe - I don't know what the arrangements were - if any. CASA can't be too concerned with the fire engine coverage otherwise presumably they would have insisted on firecover for jet RPT years ago. That saved money too.

Presumably the captain of the 717 "conferred with Jetstar Ops" before electing to continue on the remaining engine across the Bass Strait at night to where "facilities" were available for landing at Tullamarine or wherever Jetstar travel. The fact that the departure point was close behind them must have been carefully considered and discarded in favour of going on.

Like the BA case, the captain saved the company a fistful of dollars and the passengers wouldn't have had a clue if they were on a two engine or one engine aircraft anyway. Everyone was happy - the pax and the company.

Was it good airmanship? I guess that the captain would say it certainly was, while an armchair pilot on Pprune might raise an eyebrow - just like the FAA did with the BA 747 incident.

There is no rubbishing meant here. As some erudite reader commented previously we don't know the facts just yet. I am sure however that we will read concise and intelligent discussion between Pprune readers on the pros and cons of each incident. As one would expect from professional pilots of course...

[frangatang]

Regarding the Ba 747,the Faa are talking cr:p as their rules regarding carrying on are the same when it comes to a 4 engined aircraft. the yanks overall dont have many 4 engined aircraft
thats why they think everything has 2! then of course you go to the nearest suitable airfield. .By the way that 717 hardly plumetted out of the sky,it was at FL260 after the failure was sorted,so sayeth my atc friends

[jakethemuss]

"Plan to land at the nearest AVAILABLE AIRPORT" says the checklist.


"We fly Qantas group safety standards to the tee. Jetstar doesn't operate an aircraft unless it is 100 per cent operable,"says the jetstar spruiker

Remind me again jetstar spruiker why jetstar stopped recruiting to the Qantas Group standard that all other groups within Qantas are recruiting to. Couldn't get them through the hoops perhaps????

PLAN TO LAND AT THE NEAREST AVAILABLE AIRPORT pretty simple really.

What would be the headline if No. 2 had given up 40 miles south of Melbourne.

I can see it now:

"Stupid Pilot error causes death of passengers"

A jetstar pilot, after seeking advice from ops control, decided to press on to Melbourne on one engine after losing the other engine to catastrophic engine failure last night. Captain XXX determined that pressing on to melbourne, even though less than 40 miles from Launceston at the time, was the better option in what proved to be an incredible show of poor airmanship last night. On board was Senator XXX who is survived by his wife and four children. Senator XXX's wife was today being counselled by professional medical staff after her devastating loss".


What do you think you would be remembered for as the Pilot?

[mppgf]

Without endorsing or criticising the actions of the crew I can say that the QRH checklist actually states,
Land at nearest SUITABLE airport
There is a difference Jake and if you don't know that than its a wonder how you got through those all important HOOPS !:hmm:

[MkVIII]

Geez Douglas McDonnell, you know a LOT about me. You can think that if you so desire my friend.

Let's see, suitable airport: For an airport to be suitable, it shall have the capabilities, services and facilities necessary to be designated as an adequate airport and have weather conditions and field conditions at the time of the particular operation which provide a high assurance that an approach and landing can be safely completed with an engine and/or systems inoperative, in the event that a diversion to an enroute alternate becomes necessary. For planning purposes, the en route alternate weather minima are higher than the weather minima required to initiate an instrument approach.

Launceston met "Suitable Requirements" last night.

My Boeing manuals (not 717) "Non normal ops" section state that in the event of "Engine severe damage accompanied by high vibration....[reduce vibration by] reducing airspeed and decrease altitude. Once airframe vibration is reduced to acceptable levels, the crew must evaluate the situation and determine a new course of action based on weather, fuel remaining, and available airports" Jetstar obviously did this, but why was the decision made to press-on to the mainland, considering Launceston was SUITABLE AND AVAILABLE???

So, what mitigating circumstances dictated NOT returning to Launceston?

A LOT can go wrong in an hour (Launy - Melbourne, normal ops). Why push it?

The decision I make, or you make in the same circumstance will probably be different. I am NOT slagging off at the decision, just pondering why that decision, and how that decision was made.

[Capt Claret]

Gee they must perform well, FL240 in about 50 track miles.

Perhaps landing weight was a consideration and the PIC on the day thought that a flight on the cleared route, to destination, arriving at or below MLW was a better choice than returning to LT and holding to burn down to MLW.

Wasn't there. Don't know. Just don't see a need to suggest the crew didn't operate safely or prudently.

[frangatang]

Here,here capt claret. There are as many armchair experts on this forum as on the main one. I would also hate to be one of these experts on a 777 going from the caribbean to the uk.A donk goes and you are over 2 hours from a suitable place,as
has happened on a number of occasions(and worse over the pacific).Thats a long time for them to sweat it out in the back.
Perhaps by the time this crew had sorted everything out and gone through their options they were near the half way point anyway.

[balance]

No matter how much you guys castigate the "armchair critics" they are going to have their say regardless.

On that basis, those of you who argue in support of this unfortunate 717 skipper, and tell others to shut up, why not put together a coherent argument rather than use the tired old line of "you don't know, you weren't there!"

For my part, well there but for the crace of God go I. But I CAN learn something here. Claret, I don't fly the 717, but I don't think it is outside the realms of possibilities for a light a/c to reach F240 by 50nm. Which in turn would put it below max LDGW.

And even if it were above max LDGW, personally I think I'd prefer to stay over land rather than water if I were flying an aircraft that has already had one go quiet.

BUT, having said all that, if the engine went quiet at 50nm and F240, then presuming they guys stayed on their flight planned track, by the time they had sorted everything out, chances are they would be on Bracksie's side of the pond anyway?

Just my 2c!:ok:

[Pete Conrad]

In the case of a two engined jet transport aeroplane that suffers an engine failure en route, there should be no objection to the crew continuing to the destination after the crew have assessed the situation and found that being the best and safest option.

What more needs to be said? you guys are arguing bullsh!t

[Douglas Mcdonnell]

Mk8 and Co. I think Pete has summed it up. Probably a good time to re read the BIG RED WARNING at the bottom of the screen. Its fairly obvious from these attitudes as to why so many Aussie pilots throw their collective hands in the air and head overseas.

All I ever wanted to do was come back home. Im wondering why.

DM

[Buckshot]

Just be a little careful what you comment on in this forum. If today's attempt at a news story beat-up (see below) is anything to go by, I reckon there are a few journos in our midst.

Airline backs captain of stricken 717
By NICK CLARK
22mar05

BUDGET airline Jetstar yesterday defended a captain's decision to fly a stricken plane to Melbourne rather than bring it back to Launceston on Friday night.
The flight from Launceston to Melbourne with 102 passengers on board plunged 1200m after an engine on the Boeing 717 blew up.

Jetstar issued a distress call as a result of the explosion in the engine.

The plane flew on one engine and landed without incident in Melbourne.

Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said the aircraft had been about halfway into the journey and that Melbourne was the most appropriate place to fly to.




"It was at the top of its ascent so it was a debating point which was the best place to go to but Melbourne is a 24-hour airport so it was the right decision," he said.

"By the time it had turned around it would not have made a lot of difference in time."

The Rolls Royce engine was replaced in Melbourne on Saturday and the plane was back in service on Sunday.

Mr Westaway said safety had been the major reason for deciding where the plane was taken.

He said that Launceston had the appropriate safety levels but Melbourne had been the right decision.

Deputy director of Aviation Safety Investigation with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau Alan Stray said Jetstar had 72 hours to supply more information on the incident.

Mr Stray said the engine might be disassembled overseas by counterpart agencies to the ATSB.

Air Services Australia spokesman Ben Mitchell said the Aviation Rescue and Firefighting Service in Launceston was more than capable of handling the aircraft.

"The Launceston facilities are based on Civil Aviation Safety Authority standards and the [rescue and firefighting service] has to meet certain categories to service types and size of aircraft," he said.

The rescue and firefighting service would have been available on call for the incident but would not have been at the airport at the time of the incident, Mr Mitchell said.

[The Voice]

How very interesting, an article discussing the very essence of this thread, and without journalstic interpretation.

It shouldn't matter who reads this forum, as long as something is learnt by one, and correctly passed on to others.

[QFinsider]

I make no comment on the incident,
I refer to the the mouthpiece/apologist for J*

Isn't it amazing that he claims they operate to QF group standards. Funny how the maggot Irishman Joyce didn't want "mainline pilots in the company as it would pollute the culture"
I'm sure the culture that our engineers would instill in J* is one reason why the pilots do their own turnarounds....

QF mainline standards are conveniently bought out when needed be they pilot or engineering. The name built up over 80 years that the company doesnt seem to care about is indeed a significant tool when a tu*d of an operation needs it

:mad:

AND IM NOT REFERRING TO THE PILOTS concerned in this incident OR THE RECRUITING STANDARD...That's an entirely different question

[flyingins]

I'm with Pete Conrad on this. You ARE all arguing the proverbial.

And in doing so you're lending credibility to such asinine assertions as; "The plane plunged 1200 metres in a matter of seconds".

It was certainly an unusual incident, but by all accounts the subsequent actions of the crew were textbook and not even a matter of grave concern (hence the "Pan" call).

[amos2]

Strewth!!...no wonder aviation is at an all time low in this country at the moment.

An RPT a/c on climb out of Launceston loses a donk and carries on to Mel/Avalon, whatever, when Launceston is available just over the shoulder, and you turkeys think that's a great decision!

GOD help us all and protect us from you lot!

[The Voice]

at the risk of asking a dumba$$ question,when Launceston is available just over the shoulder somewhere in the darkness of depths of my memory I recall learning that when a problem exists with the/an engine on tkof, that you looked for a place to land that was in front of you, not behind or to the side of you.

Now I realise that LT is obviously behind as it was after tkof from there, the acft was on 1 engine and very obviously vastly different technology from what I've flown, but wouldn't that very basic principle still apply?

[rockarpee]

Just to answer your question,TV, these aircraft climb out VERY well on one donk, part of the cert. rules, so a basic engine failure after t/o (and there are many variables here) would still allow an aircraft a lazy circuit back to land if the airfield is "suitable". and that term of suitable is open to all sorts of definitions depending on company type/aircraft type etc....but remember it is a very dynamic enviroment out there with all sorts of variables and despite all the pilot "hanging" you are reading about on this particular thread none of these guys/gals were actually in the seat at the time.

[Capt Claret]

Voice,

No such thing as a dumba$$ question.

EFATO in a single is definitely a case of look for somewhere close to dead ahead for the inevitable landing.

EFATO in a light twin, one has more options but often only the inevitable touch down, as many light twins won't go too well on only one engine.

EFATO in a transport category aircraft, and the B717 is one, requires a guaranteed level of performance which should guarantee safe flight to a suitable landing point.

The permutations are numerous. Amos2 has suggested that leaving LT was a bad choice. Another perspective might be that the straight line distance LT to ML is 257ish NM. Given that the 717 was about 50nm from LT, the distance to run is 200nm.

I'd guess that it would take about half an hour to run through the QRH, consider any special landing considerations, secure the cabin, contact company, etc. etc.

In this time the aircraft may have travelled close to 200nm (haven't flown one .... yet), so, the crew could assess the problem and decide to either continue on flight planned and cleared track, using the enroute time to prepare for the subsequent single engine landing, or, return to LT which requires a new clearance, a new assessment of traffic, consideration of where to hold, at what level, then, monitor the hold while they fly around in circles preparing.

I guess we know what they chose, no one yet knows why. Personally I place no credence on the press report of an engine explosion, or plummetting out of the sky, given that I've read press reports about incidents that I was closely involved in, an they have had almost no resemblance to the actual event.

[The Voice]

Thanks Clarrie and Rocky,

From my knowledge base I did know that it would have taken sometime for a complete check of equipment to have been completed, including what may or may not have been damaged in an explosion, based on what happened with the Dash v eagle at BM all those years ago, and what info was passed to me by the crew and what actually took place on landing WRT equipment failure on landing ...

.. and you're right of course, there isn't really a dumba$$ Q when it comes to things aviation. All helps me do my job better for my boys (and gals) and their toys.

[Douglas Mcdonnell]

Capt Claret. Single engine TAS is 380kts. The QRH checklist for servere engine damage is about 1 and a half pages. It realy doesnt take that long to complete.

From previous experience Id reckon that Qantas Launy had most likely gone home. This is the last departure out of Launy for the day.

Communications with "Ops" in Melbourne arent available to around 130 nm ML. If the aircraft was lower, this distance will obviously be closer. As I have stated before, Id reckon that the service level available at Launy would be a large consideration. Id be hesitant to return to an MBZ with services driving in from town, and perform a single engine circling approach into a Black hole.

Heading to an airport such as ML with 24/7 services and straight in approaches on the ILS is a very sound option.

The certification of these aircraft require them to be able to fly to a SUITABLE airport within 1 hour single engine TAS distance. Ie, 380 nm. This debate about continuing or returning realy isnt valid considering the certification process involved with high capacity RPT aircraft.

I feel the more valid question is, why the hell do we have to operate jet airliners into and out of non controlled airports. Considering how much federal funding goes into touchy feely projects, couldnt we at least make sure ATC services are available at major airports. No matter what time of day it is?

Cost cutting?

languishing in the top tax bracket. DM

[Spotlight]

Amos you are an erudite and cunning fellow. Too late though the horse has bolted.

[Capt Claret]

Thanks Douglas. You're not suggesting that the ground agent would go home as soon as the last flight has departed, are you? Aren't they required to stay in attendance until ATD + 30? ;)

I guess when the 146 drivers get onto the 71, if it all gets too much they can just shut one down and revert to 146 times! :}

[Sunfish]

It seems the pilots concerned made one assumption that I wonder about - that is that the failure of one engine was not caused by something that would cause the second engine to follow the first and fail later.

I wonder if this assumption is justified?

[Yikes]

Sunny,

Go to the Rotorheads forum and ask a bloke called Nick Lappos about gas turbine reliabilty/failure rates and prepare to be educated.

[Sunfish]

I hear and obey.........

[itchybum]

Then ask about multiple bird-strikes.



"Land at the nearest suitable airport."



Not that I'm saying it was a bird-strike, I don't know why they lost the engine but I can't see anyone eating up 200 track miles in the time it takes to go through the QRH.

Flying over water on one donk having just left a suitable airport seems like something I'd be hard-pressed to explain, myself. But I wasn't there...


By the way, as stated above, during EFATO in a light piston twin, the other engine will usually only serve to take you to the scene of the accident!

[amos2]

Erudite and cunning, Spotlight?... me?

Nah, just a professional pilot for 40 yrs who learnt a bit about airmanship from some good teachers!

Not too many of them around these days, more's the pity!

:rolleyes:

[mppgf]

Without being in posession of the facts about this occurence I would definately hesitate in passing judgement upon actions taken by the crew in this situation.Obviously professional clowns like Amos etc have a far deeper insight into what happened.
Would any of you clowns like to inform us at what point during the flight that the engine problem actually occured.

[Dehavillanddriver]

The questions are - and I don't know the answers cause I wasn't there...

What runway was the wind favouring - ie was it going to be an ILS or an OMNI approach, was the weather crappy - Launy can get some nasty turbulence on final - do you want to do a night single engine go around because the aircraft became unstable late in the approach?

What is the landing performance on 1 engine like - the 737 lands at Flap 15 on one engine - I assume that the 717 is similar - Launy is shortish at around 2000m - with a dip to make life interesting.

I can easily see 200 nm being chewed up doing the engine fire severe damage checklist, the normal after takeoff checklist, communicating with ATC, the Crew and company, completing the approach brief and then the one engine inoperative landing checklist..

What height and distance were they when the engine failed - would they have had to do holding patterns to lose height to make an approach into Launy - if they were 50 nm Launy and 24-26 000 ft they would need more than 50 track miles to get back down.

The captain is permitted under the CAO's to make a determination regarding landing at the nearest suitable airport - he/she obviously exercised that authority when chosing to fly to Melbourne.

As for MKV11's suggestions regarding Burnie or Devonport - I don't think that those particular airports would be suitable for an aircraft like the 717 in this situation - I have not looked closely but that is my gut impression I certainly wouldn't put a 737 into there.

Ultimately we weren't there, so it isn't fair on our fellow professional colleagues to armchair quarterback their decisions - how would you feel if it was YOUR decisions being mulled over by the masses on this forum?

[Pete Conrad]

Read my previous post, what is it that you guys are arguing? It's pretty clear to me and the likes of DM.

[MkVIII]

DHD - Bernie and Devonport were both serviced by the DC-9 in times gone by. They are MORE than suitable in regards to performance factors with the 717. Maybe not as "good" services, firefighting etc, but defintiely a possibilty in times of dire need.

Douglas McDonnell made mention, for some reason, of the pitot and static systems being on the nose, and not affected by an engine problem. Well, I was NOT referring to pitot and static in my response regarding damaged sensors, but rather in regards to engine instrumentation / sensors may be DAMAGED or faulty (particularly in regards to a catastrophic failure) - anyone remember the AN 727 that had an engine fire in No2, where the engine sensors were damaged, and the crew were BLISSFULLY unaware of the problem??? Damaged engine sensors....

Let's wait and see just exactly what WAS the fault with the engine, but it surely does NOT sound like a surge or otherwise, or even an uncommanded shutdown as VH-VQC did out of YMLT in 2002.

Amos2, we must've had the same mentors!

[Buckshot]

I'm not sure there'd be much of a case for diversion to Wynyard or Devonport, Mk VIII.
Notwithstanding the fact you'd have them headed in to an MBZ at night for an approach they have never probably carried out (on one engine no less), a LDA of 1650m and 1830m respectively, no company facilities or agent on the ground and probably even no stairs for B717.
I can't imagine you would find 103 hotel rooms in either of these places either....

[MkVIII]

Wasn't saying they SHOULD have diverted to Bernie or Devonport; just that they were POSSIBILITIES if Launy was not suitable (which it was).

I think finding 103 beds would be the least of my worries in consideration to press on into a dark night over the Tasman on one donk or not...

Let's revise something: Aviate, navigate, Communicate, satisfy accountants.

[Douglas Mcdonnell]

I think you are in way over your head here MK8. As Buckshot pointed out, Bernie and Devonport are last resort bolt holes. The term suitable isnt as good as it sounds.
Your continued use of the term "Catastrophic" leads me to think that you might be sitting in the back?

Diverting to small airports in the middlof the night, especially ones that you dont operate into, only further complicates a trying situation.

DM

[Watchdog]

MKII, (more points off)

What DM says would be indicative of what a good commander, after assessing many factors, would do.

Decisions are not based soley on distance.

Enough said - this post is going nowhere!

[4dogs]

Folks,

The debate is surely about the weight placed upon subparagraph 3.2(d) of CAO 20.6 by the Captain versus the view of the PPRuNe jury. What will be of greater interest is whether the regulator might form a view, once apprised of the facts and circumstances.

DM,

The certification of these aircraft require them to be able to fly to a SUITABLE airport within 1 hour single engine TAS distance. Ie, 380 nm. This debate about continuing or returning realy isnt valid considering the certification process involved with high capacity RPT aircraft.
The certification rules establish certain reliability/redundancy standards and under the EROPs rules potentially allow aeroplanes to fly a long way without intermediate options. The B717 certification may allow that aeroplane to fly even further than your quoted 380nm. But it is the operating rules that establish the 60 minute route distance limitation (75 minutes basically by request) and set out the continuation of flight criteria contained in CAO 20.6.

By your argument, it would be reasonable for B717 that suffered a failure 40 miles out of Newcastle to overfly Sydney enroute to Melbourne, simply because it satisfied in isolation a navigation planning rule.

That would be an interesting discussion....

Stay Alive,

[spinout]

Was Hobart ever considered??

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

I believe a great deal of the protagonist respondees here have no idea how to properly read and comprehend an answer given by someone.

RTFA CORRECTLY, then type the dribble.

Honestly guys, there is still so much of this "Them and US" mentality in Australian aviation. Can we at least CONSIDER contemplating someones alternative suggestion without yelling how wrong they obviously are in YOUR opinion?

Reading ONE particular respondee, I got the distinct impression that HE was either PIC or PNF on THAT flight.

[Douglas Mcdonnell]

I think this thread has suffered a "CATASTROPHIC FAILURE ".

4 Dogs you have missed the point all together. casting doubt on others actions without knowing the facts sounds like the sort of back hanger antics you would find at bankstown.

I think some of you guys need to get out and do some flying overseas. Widen your perspective a little.

Looking for the passport DM

[Three Bars]

I would be interested to know from any Jetstar drivers whether their SOPs conform to mainline SOPs as regards ETOPs/nonETOPs flights.

In QF mainline, domestic flights are usually not flown to ETOPs standards (with the exception of East coast-West coast flights). Therefore, the flights need only be planned to within 60 minutes of an Adequate airport. Under QF nomenclature, an Adequate airport can be planned for use in a contingency, but does not need to be of the same standard as a Main or Alternate airport - those airports which are regularly used by Qantas. Emergency airports are even more rudimentary. Mount Isa is an example of an Adequate airport and Paraburdoo is an example of an Emergency airport (for the 767).

There is a distinction made in QF SOPs between "nearest suitable" and "nearest available". "Nearest available" is essentially any airport that can be used - for example if an uncontrollable fire occurs (or any other dire emergency). "Nearest suitable" is either a Main or Alternate airport that does not itself require an alternate for weather. Therefore, if an engine failure occurs (without any concurrent dire emergency) on the 767, the PIC is not required to divert to the nearest Adequate airport, but can continue to the nearest Main/Alternate airport - similar to the guidance in CAO 20.

To get my own head around this concept (having been a recent convertee to QF twin-engined operations) I once posed a question to the PIC on a Melbourne- Sydney flight. Canberra, which is midway between the two is a "Main/Alternate" airport for the 767. "Therefore", I asked the Captain, "if we were halfway between Melbourne and Sydney and an engine failed, we should divert into Canberra. Is that correct?" "Yes", he replied. Canberra has limited facilities for the 767, so I asked him, "Would you land in Canberra?" "Weeeeellllllll", he said, "I would make sure that by the time I had run the checklists, discussed the problem and weighed up my options that Sydney would be closer than Canberra."

For all of the Monday-morning quarterbacks out there, I offer this information for further consideration.

PS If any Jetstar pilots read this, do your SOPs align with mainline in this regard?

[UFB]

Mk8 Bernie and Devonport were both serviced by the DC-9 in times gone by.
From long memory, WYY and DPO were not serviced by B727 or DC9. BA146 and F28 used to be used for RPT services, and of course, F27

Since the B717 does not normally operate to these locations, so it would have been unfamiliar territory.

spinoutWas Hobart ever considered?? Probably not because at the point the engine problem occurred, the distance to ML was about the same as to HB (allowing for the 180deg turn)

[Chris Higgins]

I have watched this thread for quite a while and hoped it would die a natural death, before some poor crew's livelihoods went up in smoke.

Jetstar seem to be easy fodder right now,and honestly, I think we should be over it by now.

We live in a world now that allows single engine turbines through propellor and reduction drives carry fare-paying passengers. We also have the B-777 that was certified "out of the box" ETOPS with nothing more than computer models supporting catastrophic scenarios.

The leading cause of hull losses continues to be CFIT, and falling prey to a rushed decision to an unfamiliar airport without an awareness of ground based services, seems a lot more serious than cruising along straight and level while it all gets "sorted".

From what I can gather, nobody on this thread was there. As I type this, I'm sure the FEDEX Feeder Cessna 208 has flown near my house from Pittsburgh to Johnstown, as he has done for the last ten years, with an "acceptable", degree of safety. (Whatever that is measured as anymore, who knows?).

I sure hope the regulatory agency does not see straight and level operation followed by an engine out approach with glideslope guidance to an airport that the crew is familiar with, as anything other than rudimentary.

Good job to all concerned!