Qantas plane forced back to Sydney

[blueloo]

Qantas plane forced back to Sydney

From Sydney Morning Herald

February 3, 2007 - 12:45PM




A Qantas airliner has suffered a mid-air engine problem forcing it to double back to Sydney airport.
The troubled Qantas 767 plane, loaded with passengers, is yet to reach the airport but a company spokesman has denied it needs to make an emergency landing.
"It is not an emergency landing, but it will be returning to Sydney," the spokesman said.
He also denied reports that an engine on the plane had exploded mid-air.
"No it hasn't exploded at all, so there is an issue with the engine but it hasn't exploded," the spokesman said.
At 12.35pm (AEDT) the plane had not yet landed.
There are also reports the plane was dumping fuel over the Sydney suburb of Frenchs Forest.
AAP

[sosouth]

Walking down at Manly and a Qantas 747 400 made a loud bang a few times. Its was low about 3000 or 4000 feet and looked heavy. Thousands of people looked at the 747 wondering if it was all right. Talk of the beach for a few hours. Sounded like a sonic boom.

[Another Number]

The less reputable media are claiming a 767 with "denials of an explosion!", while the more credible are claiming 747 with "compressor failure".

Perhaps it inhaled a tent on takeoff... ;)

[airsupport]

A B767 dumping fuel, don't think so.

It was a B747 on route LAX.

[Another Number]

Enroute LAX, eh?

:suspect: Secret SIA operatives in action! :p


Deregulate! Deregulate! :}

[Defenestrator]

A B767 dumping fuel, don't think so.


Why not??

D:confused:

[lowerlobe]

Where's Sunfish..I mean Gilligan..

If the aircraft has to return why did it not fly to Mel and so give the Mel tourist economy an injection of needed cash and sales boost .

[noip]

D,

767 can only dump Centre Wing Tank Fuel (depending on options) I seem to remember. Most sectors in a 767 don't use CWT fuel anyway.

In any case, a single-engined 767 is best positioned on the ground in a timely, prompt fashion.

N

[Aussie]

Yeah the report on MSN states its a 747!

Got the types confused...:confused:

[rafterman]

QF149 744 OJM shutdown #3 engine due blade damage.

[airsupport]

Quote:
A B767 dumping fuel, don't think so.

Why not??


Because you need to get back on terra firma ASAP before you run out of noise, same with most twins, not much of a future in wasting time dumping fuel or flying around burning it off.

Anyway it wasn't a 767, but a 747.

[chockchucker]

"Because you need to get back on terra firma ASAP before you run out of noise, same with most twins, not much of a future in wasting time dumping fuel or flying around burning it off."


Not quite so. Seem to remember a SIA 777 losing an engine at V1 out of Melbourne in 2004 that was then vectored over port phillip bay for over an hour in order to dump fuel.


Sounds like the crew on QF149 carried out a completely professional response to perhaps the most practised situation in a simulator. The loss of an engine. Well done to all involved.

[tail wheel]

Must be an awfully slow news day!!! :ugh:

[Icarus2001]

Sounded like a sonic boom. Is there any other kind? Could you describe a non-sonic boom for me?

[Lasiorhinus]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1839606.htm

Passenger Brent Russell says he was shocked when he heard a loud bang.

He says the incident was frightening.

"I was kind of shocked and the stewardess acted like nothing happened and to keep everyone calm I guess and they just sat down, kept everyone calm, didn't really do a whole lot," he said.

"They got on the phone with the pilot and then the pilot came on and said there was a little problem and they're turning back."

Gee, Brent, if the cabin crew act like nothing has happened, theres probably no cause for you to be frightened...

Well done to the crew, though in reality there would have been nothing they hadnt practised every time they got in the simulator.

[Lasiorhinus]

Is there any other kind? Could you describe a non-sonic boom for me?

BOOOOOOOM!!

[ContactMeNow]

Why did they just press on (I hear BA do it all the time over the atlantic :E )

As someone said, slow day for the media

CMN :ok:

[airsupport]

Not quite so. Seem to remember a SIA 777 losing an engine at V1 out of Melbourne in 2004 that was then vectored over port phillip bay for over an hour in order to dump fuel.

Did you even read what I posted. :ugh:

I said MOST twins, maybe SIA have different ways of doing things?

Any 767s or similar types, like A300s, I have seen it is normal to get back on the ground ASAP, one A300-600 even destroyed all the main wheels and brakes doing it, but that was preferable to risking running out of noise while airborne.

[desmotronic]

1. Nautical. any of various more or less horizontal spars or poles for extending the feet of sails, esp. fore-and-aft sails, for handling cargo, suspending mooring lines alongside a vessel, pushing a vessel away from wharves, etc.
2. Aeronautics. a. an outrigger used on certain aircraft for connecting the tail surfaces to the fuselage.
b. a maneuverable and retractable pipe on a tanker aircraft for refueling another aircraft in flight.
c. chord1 (def. 4).
3. a chain, cable, series of connected floating timbers, or the like, serving to obstruct navigation, confine floating timber, etc.
4. the area thus shut off.
5. Machinery. a spar or beam projecting from the mast of a derrick for supporting or guiding the weights to be lifted.
6. (on a motion-picture or television stage) a spar or beam on a mobile crane for holding or manipulating a microphone or camera.
–verb (used with object) 7. to extend or position, as a sail (usually fol. by out or off).
8. to manipulate (an object) by or as by means of a crane or derrick.
–verb (used without object) 9. to sail at full speed.


and of course boom as in boom boom lets go back to my room.:}

[desmotronic]

9. to make a deep, prolonged, resonant sound.
10. to move with a resounding rush or great impetus.
11. to progress, grow, or flourish vigorously, as a business or a city: Her business is booming since she enlarged the store.
–verb (used with object) 4. to give forth with a booming sound (often fol. by out): The clock boomed out nine.
12. to boost; campaign for vigorously: His followers are booming George for mayor.
–noun 6. a deep, prolonged, resonant sound.
13. the resonant cry of a bird or animal.
14. a buzzing, humming, or droning, as of a bee or beetle.
15. a rapid increase in price, development, numbers, etc.: a boom in housing construction.
16. a period of rapid economic growth, prosperity, high wages and prices, and relatively full employment.
17. a rise in popularity, as of a political candidate.
–adjective 12. caused by or characteristic of a boom: boom prices.

[BHMvictim]

Where's Sunfish..I mean Gilligan..

If the aircraft has to return why did it not fly to Mel and so give the Mel tourist economy an injection of needed cash and sales boost .

Yeah... must be a Qantas conspiracy againsed Melbourne!! Baaaad Qantas! Always favouring Sydney :*

[Dehavillanddriver]

Are you blokes for real?

You would "rush" to get the aircraft on the ground, potentially risk wheels and brakes" as one poster put it, but in actuality risk the safety of the whole aircraft just because you lost an engine?

These aircraft are certified for 180 minutes ETOPS or more - rushing is the last thing you want to do.

By all means don't take it for a sightseeing jolly, but why rush and risk stuffing it up?

[chockchucker]

Airsupport,

Gotta back up Devillanddriver here. MOST twins these days operate on 180 min etops. However, by your reckoning, an engine out half way across the Atlantic, or the Tasman for that matter, would require an imediate ditching due to an impending failure of the second engine. Excluding fuel exhaustion, any aircraft operating under 180 min etops can be a max of three hours away from an alternate on one engine.


Your insistance that aircraft land overweight due to a single engine failure alone seems ill-informed.

[an3_bolt]

All the years that I flew jets - I never had an engine failure or shutdown. Birds, cardboard boxes, plastic bags all down the chute and never a failure - I guess mine must be just around the corner!!

But seriously - someone mentioned you would be in a rush to get back on the ground? Why? If you are not on fire and not running out of fuel, or both your engines have not been overhauled or changed at exactly the same time - is there really a rush? What are the chances of 2 engines on a B767 failing within a 45 minute time frame (give or take a bit of time by the time the CRM happens, a bit more gathering and talking and a fluffy hug alround)?

I am open to all comments and suggestions - but there is no hurry to get on the ground in my book. Please convince me otherwise - and then please go and convinve the FAA and JAR to remove the 180 minutes ETOPS for the old dump truck (B767).

As for the 747 - with an engine shutdown or failed and secured - is it not just like a DC10/MD11/L1011?

Thankyou for your sanity and common sense Dehav. I wish there were more like you.

[ozangel]

Apparently a 767 also did an air return yesterday 40mins out of sydney/brisbane (not sure) on its way to perth. Vibrations in the engine. Arrived in perth a couple of hours late.

[airsupport]

The reason most of these aircraft do not have dump systems, someone earlier said there are odd 767s with them, but I have never seen one, is because they can land at their max takeoff weight. The A300-600 incident I mentioned earlier was not technically a weight problem but rather a very short runway.

When we did 767 training at Boeing, they advised immediate return, ETOPS may be okay to sell the aircraft, but as the man at Boeing told us, just remember when you lose one engine, the engine on the other side is exactly the same, possibly even consecutive serial numbers, possibly assembled by the same people on the same day, and it MAY be about to fail for the same reason.

Why on Earth would anyone want to stay airborne any longer than necessary in a 767 or A300 with one engine out when you can land.

[Howard Hughes]

and it MAY be about to fail for the same reason.

Unless the cause of the failure is fuel starvation, the probablilities just do not support your theory!:hmm:

[airsupport]

It was NOT my theory, it was Boeings. :ugh:

And if you have lost one engine due fuel starvation, why would you want to fly around using up fuel?

Surely even more reason to land urgently in your case.

[Howard Hughes]

And if you have lost one engine due fuel starvation, why would you want to fly around using up fuel?
Where does my post say that this is the suggested course of action? :ugh: :ugh:

May I suggest you misinterpreted the boeing representatives intent, as you have mine. :=

I suspect he intended that you would make plans to divert immediately to a suitable aerodrome, this may or may not be the destination/departure point and would probably take into consideration a lot of other factors including, engineering availability, accomodation for passengers , etc...

There is no logical reason to suspect that the second engine will fail even if they are built at the same factory, on the same day, with consecutive serial numbers. Whilst I don't totally discount your theory, I am merely trying to point out that statistical and anecdotal evidence, simply does not support this outcome!

Why would anyone compound the problems by conducting an overweight landing in a hurry up situation? The only exception I could think to this scenario is if you are on fire, with no means of extinguishing the fire.:D

We owe it to ourselves, our families, our passengers and lastly our shareholders to evaluate all options before deciding on a couse of action. Now I will even acknowedge that the possibility of a second failure may even be a factor in the decision making process. But I would stand by the remark that its probability is extremely minimal, you are more likely to have a double engine failure from fuel exhaustion or by ingesting some foreign matter than anything else, the probability of two mechanical failures is miniscule and something I am able to live with.:ok:

[airsupport]

I give up, there are so many here that chose to misread everything. :ugh:

I was there, that is what they said.

IF you bothered to even read this topic you would see, as Boeing told us, that the B767 is DESIGNED to be okay to land back at its departure airport at max takeoff weight, and this was what Boeing recommended.

Re your fuel starvation scenario, IF you were saying NOT to land ASAP, the only other option is to keep flying, that is burn off fuel. :ugh:

[Howard Hughes]

I give up, there are so many here that chose to misread everything. Perhaps you need to be more succint in your comments then it cannot be misinterpreted!

I was there, that is what they said.More importantly what does the QRH say?

IF you bothered to even read this topic you would see, as Boeing told us, that the B767 is DESIGNED to be okay to land back at its departure airport at max takeoff weight, and this was what Boeing recommended.
I have read the entire topic including this post by you.one A300-600 even destroyed all the main wheels and brakes doing it, but that was preferable to risking running out of noise while airborne.Without knowing all the details of this particular incident it sounds like an unsuitable alternate was used! But without knowing how they came to be in the situation in the first place, and I suspect it was not an engine failure/ETOPS scenario, it cannot be used to support an argument either way!!

Re your fuel starvation scenario, IF you were saying NOT to land ASAP, the only other option is to keep flying, that is burn off fuel. What scenario? Where did I say to fly round after a fuel starvation incident?

I simply said that probabilities do not support your theory that there is to be an IMMINENT second failure, unless the initial failure was caused by FUEL STARVATION!! Nothing about flying around, nada zip, zilch!!:hmm:

Time for bed me thinks...:ok:

[Angle of Attack]

Damn the dreaded 3 engine approach!!!

:}

[OPT/MAX]

Has the 74 maintenance been farmed overseas yet? And if so, has this one had anything done to it recently?? :confused:

[The Messiah]

airsupport

It was not even a 767 but a 744 so why argue? If it was a 767 then they would have done as you suggest but it wasn't.

However I don't know of any airline whose SOP's after an engine failure in a twin (330/777) would be to land overweight. If above MLW dumping fuel is normal procedure unless you have an uncontained fire. If fear was our reasoning we would never take off.

[airbusthreetwenty]

Heath Gilmore, Caroline Marcus and Daniel Dasey
February 4, 2007

MORE than 270 Qantas passengers endured a traumatic 90 minutes in the skies over Sydney yesterday after a jumbo jet's engine failed.

Passenger Pedram Danae deduced something was wrong when he heard a loud noise as flames trailed from one of the Boeing 747's engines, forcing flight QF 149 back to Sydney.

Mr Danae, 37, of Greenfield Park in western Sydney, said the plane was shaken by a large bang from the No. 3 engine on the Los Angeles-bound plane carrying 274 passengers.

The aircraft had left Sydney at 11.35am. About 15 minutes into the flight, the aeroplane developed problems.

"We heard a clunk and it didn't feel right," Mr Danae said. "The plane swerved to the left and then to the right.

"The pilot took a few left turns and no right turns and a few minutes later he explained one of the engines on the right-hand side was not working."

Passengers were told that while the aircraft could fly with three of four engines functioning, the pilot was going to make an early landing.

Mr Danae said the mood in the cabin was surprisingly relaxed as the crew handed out snacks and ice-cream to help passengers stay calm.

Peter Morris, a Sydney Morning Herald photographer, was playing at Wakehurst Golf Club on Sydney's northern beaches when he noticed the plane was in trouble.

"I just looked up when the plane flew overhead," he said. "There was a puff of smoke trailing from the starboard engine. Then I heard an explosion, followed by the engine catching alight. The flames were trailing from the engine."

A Qantas spokesman described the problem as an engine surge, similar to a car backfiring. "It's not an explosion. There is an excess amount of air that comes into the engine, which creates a number of loud bangs and a bit of noise," he said. "It's not uncommon to see flames exiting the engine. However, there is no major safety issue."

The spokesman said the pilot shut down the faulty engine and dumped the plane's fuel load so it could land.

The plane landed at 1.20pm and it was expected that the passengers would be kept at the airport until a replacement aircraft was ready about 9pm.

Beau Chenery, from Brisbane, a planespotter who was in Sydney for a meeting of enthusiasts, watched the drama unfold.

"We heard it over the scanner. It was pretty scratchy. When it came in, you could see all the other engines had on their reverse thrusters and I saw the engine cowling moving back. The No. 3 was shut down," he said.
BOEING 747-400

- First flown commercially in 1970, it has held the passenger capacity record for more than 35 years.

- It accommodates between 416 and 524 passengers, depending on its layout.

- It has 6 million parts, half of which are fasteners, 274 kilometres of wiring, eight kilometres of tubing and 66,150 kilograms of high-strength aluminium.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/qantas-engine-emergency/2007/02/03/1169919577563.html

[noip]

With respect to the dueling over 767 capabilities, people just don't seem to be paying attention to what is being written.

What Airsupport has been saying seems pretty well OK to me. "Immediate return" does not mean running down the cabin screaming "we're going to die" (OK, literary licence there) .. It just means - "let's land". As he said, some 767 aircraft don't have dump capability, and as far as I can remember, no 767 has the capability to dump to Max Landing Weight when at its Max Takeoff Weight.

Back to the topic ....

N

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Back in the mid-late 80's when the 767 was brought in at QF, one of the 200's had a similar problem and because the operational experience on twins was low and no-one had really gone into it, the crew circled Townsville for an extended length of time to get below MLW and landed.

Messiah, the policy at QF for all twins is to land above MLW in the engine-out case. The A330 even has a checklist for it. It's not a problem when handled correctly.

This does not mean screaming back to the field at VNE, with an unprepared cabin and checklists incomplete. It means an orderly return, briefed and prepared.

Note that this is only for situations such as loss of a critical system where a further loss would jeopardise the safety of the flight. A few years ago a 767 departed for HKG on an MEL with one pressurisation controller U/S. On climb the second controller failed. The Captain elected to return to SYD but he was well above MLW, He could not justify an overweight landing so he circled off the coast for quite a few hours to get down to MLW. (This was an early build 767 without fuel dump.) It was an inconvenience to the pax and crew but he did exactly the right thing.

In an A330 at MTOW, you would have to wait an awful long time on a single engine to land below MLW. In the worst case you'd have to burn 46 tonnes of fuel.

[The Messiah]

Fair enough

[chemical alli]

it amazes me, that certain posters believe 767,s do not have fuel dump availalibility.i guess the rotary knob and two jettison valve switches on the p5 pnael dont do anything.also the overide jettison pumps in the ctr aux tank just sit there fat dumb and lazy.

[Taildragger67]

From my post on the thread on same subject in the main R&N board:

From an amateur's point of view:

Engine surge near home base where there's lots of engo support, hotels and punters' homes for them to go back to if necessary. And a nice, 13,000'-long strip. Plus the possibility of being able to get another airframe ready reasonably quickly.

Shut down as a precaution rather than suffer a nasty case of press-on-itis.

Dump juice to get under weight, can fly happily on three for as long as you like and no screaming need for an immediate overweight return.

Decent weather.

Keep the punters happy and any nerves to a minimum. Smiles on dials.

Put her down, walk away and put the punters on another aircraft.

Sounds like the planning and training worked well, professionally handled, a good job done by all involved and a bit of a non-event in the end. :ok:

QED.

That said, I can understand why a loud noise and a bit of flame coming from an aircraft's donk would cause a bit of talk on the ground.


Tail wheel,
:ok:

[noip]

it amazes me, that certain posters believe 767,s do not have fuel dump availalibility.

CA

er... no-one has said that that NO 767 can dump fuel. What they have said is .. "some can, some can't".

N

[QF MAINT OUTSOURCED]

why not start a thread about 76 fuel jettison,this is about a 744 that had to retuen due to an engine mulfunction,start your pissing comp there:zzz:

[airsupport]

With respect to the dueling over 767 capabilities, people just don't seem to be paying attention to what is being written.

What Airsupport has been saying seems pretty well OK to me. "Immediate return" does not mean running down the cabin screaming "we're going to die" (OK, literary licence there) .. It just means - "let's land". As he said, some 767 aircraft don't have dump capability, and as far as I can remember, no 767 has the capability to dump to Max Landing Weight when at its Max Takeoff Weight.

Back to the topic ....

N

THANK YOU................ :ok:

[OhForSure]

Has the 74 maintenance been farmed overseas yet? And if so, has this one had anything done to it recently??
Perhaps in future if RB211 MX is shipped offshore, we may hear the commander of an LAX bound 744 advising: "Ladies and Gentlemen, we have suffered a slight problem with one of our engines. Please do not be alarmed, the 747 can fly safely for many hours on less than four engines. I wish to advise you that we are to divert to Mumbai, where hotels are sanitary, runways lack potholes and Qantas engines are overhauled and maintained."
Punters = Happy.
Engineers = Happy.
Crew = Happy.
Shareholders = Elated.

*** In all seriousness, bravo to the crew. Another days work.

[QF MAINT OUTSOURCED]

a 744 2 wks had a problem in flight due to a large banging sound and the cabin filling wlth dust or mist,which had to return back to Sydney due to structual integrity concerns(VH -OED who sister aircraft VH -OEC had a large crack in the crown which was found during a D check in Syd HM),and now another aircraft had to make a return due to an engine malfucntion,this is becoming a concern with Syd HM only being shut down less than a year ago,what nexted.
BA did a similliar thing over ten yrs ago with shutting down it's main base and then returning it's maint back in house,because the outsourcing option didn't work,you would of thought QF would have learned from this mistake:sad:

[Fatter Bastard]

Yeah no doubt we will read an article by Steve Creedy that that particular engines maintenance was outsourced to a russian diesel mechanic somewhere in upper mongolia hence why the engine "exploded" and landed on the beach at manly narrowly missing half of the barmy army, following this the jet was briefly upside down, passengers were screaming and running up and down the aisles, smoke was seen coming from the stricken airliner which "barely" made it back to Sydney.

[LME-400]

OGF (f for fuel) and onwards have a jettison system.
-200's didn't.
ZX series can't remember but probably not.

[Ultergra]

Just saw the news with images of the 744 with some flames coming out of the engines.

The footage began, not as the flames were noticed, but right from the aircraft rolling on the runway to beyond airborne. Here the flames were then noticed.

Let's take a step back for a minute. Qantas have a good case here I think :ok: Here is some bloke, filming the ground roll, rotation, etc etc, however, he is not adhearing to Qantas' safety requirements of being a passenger onboard the aircraft. Whatever happened to, "please ensure all electrical equipment onboard the aircraft, is now switched off"? :ouch:

Just my fiddy cents.

[noip]

Note to self ...

Erase that Kai Tak IGS videotape.

N

[Fatter Bastard]

oh and Steve, stop :mad: press - if you could add to the article that the engine "explosion" was no doubt caused by someone using a hand held video-cam in the cabin prior to the seat belt sign being turned off - just to make sure journalistic integrity is really thriving in the Murdoch empire.

[tail wheel]

I liked the woman witness on Sky News - flames, followed by three "booms".

Air to air missile launches perhaps?? :} :} :}

At least they didn't belabour their viewers with the professional, competent opinion of Joe Average in cattle class and his theory that thousands of lives were in danger! :ugh:

[Nepotisim]

Has the 74 maintenance been farmed overseas yet? And if so, has this one had anything done to it recently??
I don't believe that you can attribute this failure to outsourcing. The engine had been on wing for a while. ie. Eng built at SYD. Boro crew in SYD. Better speak to Derby for the answer to this one.:ooh:

[Quokka]

...from the Bass Strait Times:

"A disgruntled member of the Balmy Army has been arrested on Bondi Beach and charged with offences under the Terrorism Act. Witnesses on the beach reported seeing a man in a white and red shirt firing a shoulder-launched Ground-to-Air missile at a passing QANTAS jet screaming "Warny you :mad: ... :mad: ...how's this for a :mad: Flipper!!".

Bathers at Bondi were screaming hysterically as the QANTAS Airbus exploded in mid-air then turned back for an uncontrolled emergency crash-landing at Sydney Airport. No dead bodies have been recovered from the crash site."

:rolleyes:

[hotnhigh]

Just wonder if this one had the mag plug fitted to the gear box or was it missing on this unit as well?

[VH-Cheer Up]

Quote:

"Walking down at Manly and a Qantas 747 400 made a loud bang a few times. Its was low about 3000 or 4000 feet and looked heavy. "

How does one 747 look more heavy than the next one?

Don't they all look heavy?

Or did it have man-boobs?

[Clipped]

Let's congratulate the Sydney RR Centre of Excellence - a blue ribbon effort.

A fine example of the new engine line standard. Oh .... and of course the maintenance is done in Australia. Maintenance overseen and lead by a management team focused only on quality ....... at a competitive cost. Well, how much did this episode cost?

Anyone have an idea of the kind of costs, direct or indirect, an airline would incur here? Maintenance, staffing, reallocations, hotels, fuel, reactionaries .. etc etc etc?

[VH-Cheer Up]

<calculator>
270 Pax one overnight hotel @ $100 = $27,000
New Crew = 20 ppl * 14 hours @ $80/hour average = $22,400
Fuel 60 tonnes @ .8 density approx =75000 litres @ say 0.90/litre = $67,500
Additional ground services for unscheduled return $2000
landing Fees & Nav charges say $15,000
Inspecting removing replacing engine, say, $12,000
Fixing broken engine, say... $250,000
OK, OK, Say $5,250,000!
Captain's and first officer's underpants replaced $30 nah, $120...if the engines getting that much attention, give 'em a couple pairs, and make 'em Calvins!
Tea & bickies with CP $250
Tech crew time responding to the inevitable enquiry $10,000
PR flack deflection spin doctors $12,000
Brand damage $1M (guess)
... to maybe $100M??
Total: $6,418,270 - $105,418,270 (approx range)

Look on Darth's Face: Priceless. :{
</calculator>

[J430]

Cheerie,

I love the gag, but really $250K to fix a Roller, I am not an expert on this topic but it sounds like just the deposit not the total bill.

Love ya work tho'..........darths face....priceless!:}

[Howard Hughes]

I am not an expert, but I think you may have underestimated the brand damage slightly also.

Still priceless.:ok:

[Bolty McBolt]

Nice work Cheer-up
Priceless.

The effected engine N3 siezed. Compressor rooted
Big bickies and much worse the turbine saw over 900 Deg C for a while whch means hardness testing / fail test of turbine disks.
If you could fix this engine for 250 K you would get a big girlie kiss from the board of directors. :D

[fmgc]

It would seem that the maojority of posters that have commented have interpreted Airsupport as meaning that you rush to get back on the ground as if in a dire emergency.

Because you need to get back on terra firma ASAP before you run out of noise, same with most twins, not much of a future in wasting time dumping fuel or flying around burning it off.

Depends what you mean by ASAP really.

[airsupport]

I just cannot believe anyone disagrees.

In ANY twin, after losing one engine, the best course of action is to get back on the ground ASAP, as soon as practical.

This OF COURSE includes finding a suitable airport (including the departure airport), and doing all the necessary drills etc, but to fly around on one engine just to burn off fuel, when the B767 can safely land at its takeoff weight is crazy.

[fmgc]

ASAP means as soon as "Possible".

get back on the ground ASAP, as soon as practical.

So do you mean as soon as "Possible" or as soon as "practical"? You are contradicting yourself.

I don't think that anybody disagrees that you get back on the ground as soon as practical but I think that what people are saying is that you do not need to be back on the ground as soon possible.

It may be semantics but it is important semantics, ASAP would seem to imply rushing with the potential of making silly but tragic mistakes.

A fine example of that would be the Midland Kegworth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/250959.stm) accident back in the UK. There were many contributing factors but one of the main ones was the rushing to make a decision.

[Agony]

Airsupport,

I can see how the confusion arrives when I see in your last post second sentence you wrote "ASAP, as soon as practical".

ASAP is actually "As soon as possible"

Personnally, I "think" in the follwong terms:

Land Immediately - Put in on the ground now as every minute you stay in the air there is less chance of surviving. This is for absolute critical probs. Means over weight landing, short narrow runway, low PCN etc . All of the uglies.

Land As Soon As Possible. - EXTENDED/PROLONGED flight is not good, indications are that if you prolong flight for to long you may be in trouble. Complete the min number of checklists required, Aviate navigate Communicate and Adminsitrate, enought to get back on suitable runway. This would be an overweight landing checklist if needed.

Land as soon as practicable. means no major drama, may require return, diversion, or overflight to a more suitable airport due company requirements, (engineering accom etc etc) All checklists complete, no overwieight landing etc.

Personnaly, I would think a CONTAINED single eng fail in a 744 would be Lannd as soon as practicable.

Depending on type or company SOP's a CONTAINED single eng fail in 330/767 would probably be gusting between practicable and possible.

Most importantly the departure brief would discuss the situation in detail and the crew would carry out their briefed plan. No need to rush, sit on hands, breathe deep but don't have a board meeting,

My two bobs worth.....;)

[Agony]

Thanks FMGC, you typed faster than I did..........:ok:

[fmgc]

But you were far more eloquent!

[airsupport]

That is the trouble with this site, everyone reads things the way they want to. :ugh:

I have said all along ASAP, which to me is as soon as practical, and I stand by that no matter how much you try to twist what I said. :=

[fmgc]

I have said all along ASAP, which to me is as soon as practicalNot to many others I might suggest, as evidenced by the response that you seem to illicit.

In fact if you thought that ASAP meant practical then why the tautology?

ASAP, as soon as practical

ASAP (http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec=%7B99296A45-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF%7D)

[airsupport]

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

I give up, of course you know what I mean by it, not me. :mad:

[sickofqf]

While I agree with all comments on the "CoE" and all the other crap management of today like to use to 'spin' the 'quality' maintenance they are forcing on QF, I am told this one was caused by a blade failure.
Apparantly, it happens every now and then ( QF have had a few, CX and BA also )and so far RR have been unable to come up with a reason why or a way to predict it !!

Get used to seeing it more though as QFENG slowly dismantles the borescope inspection crews that have kept the unscheduled overseas engine changes to a minimum for the last 15 years and spool up their 'questionably legal' new non-LAME heroes in the spare section!!