Onur Air Engine Failure Manchester [Archive]

Oblaaspop

11th Jun 2007, 11:17

Sorry gents, I actually agree with hetfield (although don't tell anyone I've agreed with an Aussie!)

Just had a catastrophic engine failure (debris on runway), down to 1 engine, you are most definately in an emergency situation!

I think its unlikely that MAN's runway isn't long enough for a medium twin to re-land a MTOW. The only reason it wouldn't be long enough, is if he also had severe hydraulic problems.

Our SOP is to land a twin ASAP at the nearest suitable airfield and only dump if necessary for landing performance reasons ie either approach climb gradient requirements (not a prob at MAN) or if you're likely to go off the end (again unlikely at MAN).

So in short, while I don't know the full circumstances (there may have been good reason) here, I think it would be sheer folly to hold.

flash2002

11th Jun 2007, 11:22

The thomson b757 had debris on the runway, heard nobody complaining when that happened. He didn't do the visual for 06. Was no rush either.

The engine wasn't on fire. Its unlikely the wing was damaged since the airplane has the engines tailmounted. So where is the full blown emergency?

The guys landed safely, so they mad the right decision. Rushing into an approach can lead to disaster as well.

gatbusdriver

11th Jun 2007, 11:24

Nothing wrong with taking up the hold single engine. I know where I am, I know my MSA, very safe place to secure the engine that has failed, NITS, and prepare for the subsequent landing.

Different story if i've fired 2 bottles and fire light still on.

Oblaaspop

11th Jun 2007, 11:30

Agreed, nothing wrong with taking up the hold to complete checklists, brief, NITS etc!

However, the original post stated he was holding to burn off fuel......for what exactly??

That to me seems like an uneccessary reason to hold SE.

And to those who say that an engine failure that leaves cogs all over the RW isn't an emergency situation (or being SE for that matter) must be on another planet or very inexperienced!:E

Ian Brooks

11th Jun 2007, 11:34

This sounds a totally different kettle of fish from the Thomson

1 The Thomson engine did not leave debris on runway as it ingested a bird or 2 as I believe they were incinerated

2 The Onur MD-80 had an engine failure on rotation in that something major failed leaving debris on runway, I don`t know wether the small grass fire at side of runway was caused by something hot landing on grass from plane or something totally different

The aircraft was over weight for a landing and made a few large orbits to west/north of airfield at a low altitude 3000/4000 feet
He was asked if he wanted 7000 but declined as he stated he would rather stay low to burn more fuel quickly

Ian

flash2002

11th Jun 2007, 11:38

So you would take up the hold then with an engine burning???? To complete NITS etc... Cause that´s defenitely an emergency.:ugh:

As you may recall from the thomson flight, It took minutes for them to hear there was debris on the runway. Those werent only bird remains if you listen to the video.

Their plan was already made, the airplane was flying fine!
Why would they or the onur crew suddenly reckon they need to make an overweight emergency landing. Which can be dangerous as well.

I agree with you that debris on the runway might be an emergency, but the symptoms in the aircraft will tell you this. Not the controller who after 3 minutes says they found debris.

These guys did what they thougt was the safest action at that time. And from what I see i don´t think they did a n-1 sightseeing tour just for fun.

757manipulator

11th Jun 2007, 11:53

It is clear that a few on here have NO concept of operating a large twin engine turbofan aircraft.
No one on here are operating the aircraft nor involved with its operation, therefore I would suggest to the armchair experts, please keep your ill informed opinions to yourselves:=

Oblaaspop, it would appear you are suggesting the crew should rush their return purely on the basis of a post on here. You may be interested to learn that many many airline SOP's actually allow a crew discretion in this situation, and that it is viewed as more of a risk to rush or feel pressured to commence an approach before it is deemed appropriate by the commander.

Oblaaspop

11th Jun 2007, 12:16

757 Man. If you actually bothered to read my second post, you will note that I am in agreement of holding to complete checks, briefs, securing etc ie I would never advocate rushing.

You are indeed correct, I have no working knowlege of MD-80 aircraft, however I would be surprised if a 'light twin' like that couldn't make a landing at or close to MTOW (all modern Airbus' and most Boeing A/C can and those that can't have fuel dumping systems installed for that very reason).

Quote: ""It is clear that a few on here have NO concept of operating a large twin engine turbofan aircraft.""

On the contrary, the fuel alone in the A330 I operate weighs more than your B757 (I won't even mention the A340-500 I also fly)!

All I will suggest is that next time you're in the sim, once you've finished all your checks and other good stuff, that you suggest taking up the hold for an hour or so to burn fuel (despite the fact there is a 10,000' runway available) for no good reason (and I'm not refering to today's incident, as there may well have been other reasons), and just see what the trainer says in the de-brief!:=

Remember, the ECAM/EICAS/ and QRH all say LAND ASAP for good reason (but then I guess you'll now suggest that the manufacturers don't know what they are talking about?)

hetfield

11th Jun 2007, 12:28

I fully agree. My 175.ooo kg, mostly two engine powered, like the same way of treatment.

flash2002

11th Jun 2007, 12:37

Oblaaspop I wouldn´t know for your aircraft, but the 737 just states plan to land at the nearest suitable airport. NOT land asap. This is in the engine fire/severe damage/separation checklist.

This doesn´t mean we should fly around in the holding for an hour. But it does mean we have/can make time.
It also doesn´t mean we should not use our brain!

You must agree that making an overweight landing can have a risk as well.
One day it might be best to land asap, the other day it might not be. Just stay flexible!

For the situation you describe I wouldn´t see a problem in making an overweight landing at MCT. But then again we don´t know anything about the md80. And maybe they did their checks while burning off fuel.
Maybe he still landed overweight but just wanted too burn off as much as possible.

wee one

11th Jun 2007, 12:49

Great tangent guys. Just to encourage more curvature.... Hatfield insinuated that it was wrong to hold after an engine failure. I insinuated that he wasnt what he claimed to be based on that statement.

If no geater emergency exists (read that again ) It is common proceedure and philosophy to request a hold or delaying vectors to complete checks as mentioned here. Based on that fact alone hetfields claims to be an Airline Capt (profile) would be dubious as he presented an inference that a twin needs to be on the ground asap ...a la light aircraft or to be generous non perf A certified aircraft.

There we have it. No mention of specifics of this case MLW?SEVERE DAMAGE ETC ETC. just the fundamental lack of knowledge of the philosphy of handling an EFATO. THIS CHAP HELD FOR WHATEVER HE NEEDED and probably as mentioned above in keeping with his sop and the conditions at the time. No ones dead he followed his training (something you might get one day hatfield).WELL DONE THAT CREW

OOBS . Just had a similar conversation recently. I fly two types as well, some with dump some not. And one of the two types has two sub varients. Further to that Each airframe in each type has a different equipment fit .Now I'm holding on one with fuel dump in the sim dumping fuel. Well done says mister checker. Next day I'm getting my ldg wgt down on a non dump same type ( in fact same everything but dump) aircraft with the same problem and the checker says ...oh why didnt you land straight away. Same Aircraft same wgt same efato, same reaction, two ( of an infinite amount) different critiques.
You do the math

Bottom line you do not rush a return unless its fallin to bits and that should be included as a buggeration factor in your brief.
Therefore Mr Hatfield is a spotter. I rest my case:ok:

flash2002

11th Jun 2007, 12:57

Well said wee one.

A thousand pilots = a thousand opinions.
2 checkers = even more opinions

PA38

11th Jun 2007, 13:26

Are we all missing the main point, an Onur air engine letting go after all the maintenance problems in the past :eek:

toro01

11th Jun 2007, 13:27

I fully agree with taking the holding to evaluate the situation, checklists, ECAM , RWY performance and so on.

However, an overweight landing is acceptable at least on the Airbus as long as you land within a certain rate(300-500fpm). Anyway, they landed the aircraft perfectly safe and they were there to evaluate the time and options they had

Tee Emm

11th Jun 2007, 13:33

best to make the turns with the working engine low.

Really. Never heard of that before. In any case seems a bit strange when the MD 80 has its engines close together in the tail...

flash2002

11th Jun 2007, 13:56

Never heard that??? Missed something during ATPL training. Vmca ring a bell??
Anyhow was one of the first lessons I learned on twin engine flying.

Very true that on the md80 / any tailmounted jet this is less of an issue. And Isaid if you can choose it is best. I did not say you can't turn with the dead engine low.

Nov71

11th Jun 2007, 15:22

If the time stamps on the first 2 posts are accurate then only 15 mins elapsed between t/o & safe landing
Suggests a go-around to check controls, run check list etc. Chose 3,000 to burn max fuel in time avail, not to achieve min landing weight?
Also if 23R was closed, presmably gave ATC more time to create safe gap on remaining runway, assuming he didn't land 23R to pick up his litter.
IMO good call
PS Any herons reported missing?

nbairlines

11th Jun 2007, 17:05

Flash has a good point.

757manipulator

11th Jun 2007, 17:40

Oh dear Oblaspoop..
You are indeed correct, I have no working knowlege of MD-80 aircraft, however I would be surprised if a 'light twin' like that couldn't make a landing at or close to MTOW (all modern Airbus' and most Boeing A/C can and those that can't have fuel dumping systems installed for that very reason).

Except it's neither..and you've CLEARLY stated, you have NO working knowledge of the MD-80

then...
On the contrary, the fuel alone in the A330 I operate weighs more than your B757 (I won't even mention the A340-500 I also fly)!

I didn't realise this was a measuring contest....or are you suggesting that because you fly REALLY big aeroplanes, you have a big...um opinion of your own opinion?

Then the peach..
All I will suggest is that next time you're in the sim, once you've finished all your checks and other good stuff, that you suggest taking up the hold for an hour or so to burn fuel
Why should I take advice from someone who clearly views the size of his machine, as the pertinent point to make? and for what its worth, my plan unless there are OVERIDING safety issues at hand i.e. an uncontrolled fire, is not to rush...but then thats common sense to most people, even I would have thought in an A340-500:hmm:

Finally...
Remember, the ECAM/EICAS/ and QRH all say LAND ASAP for good reason
No they don't...they say on the 757's I've flown "plan to land at the nearest suitable airport"

gatbusdriver

11th Jun 2007, 17:40

A320/A330 will give LAND ASAP and B757 QRH states plan to land at nearest suitable airport.
In my company we were not encouraged to even consider dumping on the A330 for an engine failure, and certainly not encouraged to take up the hold to burn fuel in the A320.
Now recently on B757 and still not encouraged to lower landing weight prior to making approach.
Don't know about Onur SOP's. But maybe he wanted to hold to secure the engine etc.... but rightly thought he would burn more fuel at a lower alt whilst doing so (2 birds with one stone).
Anyhow, looks like job well done.

JW411

11th Jun 2007, 17:53

This is the sort of thread on pprune that makes me want to puke!
We have a set of spotters, unpromising hysterics and aeronautically illiterate persons pontificating upon something they don't know the first thing about.

"Why go into the hold when everyone knows you have to get on the ground as soon as possible" they say. Have you ever heard of completing the QRH? Have you ever heard of the dangers of starting an approach before you are fully ready?

Do you know what a WAT limit is? Have you ever heard of being at such a weight that an emergency go-around would be impossible on one engine?
I have never flown an MD-80 but I am sure that they have such a limitation.

I certainly wouldn't commence an approach unless I knew that I could make a go-around should a further emergency arise.

I would only ever commit myself to an immediate landing if my arse and the rest of the aircraft were seriously on fire.

What really depresses me about these bl**dy amateurs pontificating on pprune is the fact that some of them are already on the "everything the Turks do is bad and everything the Brits do is good" line.

I have spent nearly 50 years of my life flying with pilots from all over the world and I can tell you that I have flown with some Turkish pilots who were excellent in every way and would make a lot of you out there look like a bunch of Boy Scouts!

Please, please, if you don't know what you are talking about then keep quiet and learn from those who do.

Contacttower

11th Jun 2007, 18:02

Does anyone actually know whether the MD-80 has any issues (ie more so than Boeing/Airbus) with landing over weight?

JW411

11th Jun 2007, 18:11

Don't you understand son, it is not a question of landing overweight. All aircraft can do that without serious penalty.

It is a question of being too heavy to make a single-engined go-around if something unthinkable like some pillock in a PA-28 making a runway incursion in front of you for example.

All commercial aircraft are quite capable of making a landing at max take-off weight in an emergency.

Perhaps you should take my advice and keep quiet and learn?

opnot

11th Jun 2007, 19:09

JW411
Dont tar everybody with the same brush. I have had more runway incursions by pillocks in big aeroplanes, who should no better, than a Pa28 driver who is starting out in aviation.
That aside, could not agree more with the rest of your posts on the subject.

JW411

11th Jun 2007, 19:15

opnot:

I am very happy to agree. I too have had more problems with pillocks in large aircraft.

In any event, now that I am semi-retired, I am the proud owner of a PA-28 which is probably why it came to mind!

adverse-bump

11th Jun 2007, 20:06

I dont know everything there is too know about the md-80, but I once recall a captain running over to stop the fueling of one after he realised he would be over weight on landing, during a flight from MAN - EDI on to somewhere else. All this a while back now when I was dispatching. (i am of course not surgesting that a over weight landing due to a mix up of figures is anything like landing over weight after a donkey stops!

at the end of the day, an engine failed as they sometimes do, the crew (who at the moment are the only ones who really now what happenend) did what they thought was required to get the ac back on the ground, remember a captain can break any rule or reg he wants (broadly speaking) if he feels the a/c is an danger.

job well done. :ok:

gatbusdriver

11th Jun 2007, 20:29

Hi JW411

I see where you are coming from, but surely if he has just taken off from MAN they can also make an approach and go around.

If they have terrain issues which cause a significant RTOM penalty with a straight climb out they will have an emergency turn which will keep them away from obstacles below 1500'AAl (this probably wouldn't be the case off 23 but we have one off 05). They might not be able to fly the published missed approach but you can always tell ATC your intentions if you go around.

I've probably got the wrong end of the stick.

javelin

11th Jun 2007, 21:15

Part The First

If it has suddenly gone twang on takeoff, you have shut it down, you are not on fire, you are overweight and can't dump - then yes I most certainly would go and hold somewhere. I would want to compose myself, run the checks, talk to the handling agent and lose some weight 'cos you can't dump and maybe can't land overweight without big engineering input - don't forget, the MD is not the latest of creations.

We practise this in the sim every 6 months and I spend plenty of time in a Bus sim swanning round the hold sorting things out before we make the approach - it is good airmanship, good crm and good safety.

History has shown that when people have been hurried into an approach mistakes have been made and the problem has got suddenly worse.

Part The Second

Now, on another tack, I would like to know why MAN went into meltdown from an operational point of view - don't you practise scenarios like this ? After all, there are 2 runways, once the guy taxied in - which I saw, we seemed to be delayed for an inordinate period of time with loads of confusion on the radio.

It smacked of the 'Airport' saying one thing and the guys in ATC being frustrated by not being allowed to deal with it in a practical manner - (comments welcome offline). I think ATC worked extremely hard, just disappointed that the 'Airport' didn't seem to be able to cope - again :(

TURIN

11th Jun 2007, 21:45

Where did this "catastrophic engine failure" come from?

I had a little wander around said a/c today, no sign of a fire, no big holes in the nacelle. All very civilised really.

The reason it all went pear shaped on the ground is because at the busiest hour of the day they closed a runway! Couple that with the work in progress on the taxiway and you have a right royal mess.

Well done to all concerned, no one died not even a Heron/Crow etc etc etc.....:ok:

Ian Brooks

11th Jun 2007, 21:51

I thought it all sounded quite orderley
The main problem was that there was debris on the runway that could not be moved therefore closing 23L for quite dome considerable time.
The problem was that quite a large number of aircraft were on the southside and could not get back very easily while a large number of aircraft were put in the holds while the Onur Air made up his decision on what to do and of course now only 1 runway ( at least we have 2 ) otherwise the airport would have been closed for a couple of hours

Ian

AeroMANC

11th Jun 2007, 22:01

Javelin,

As I understand it, Manchester did not have two runways at their disposal. 23L became sterile due to to extensive FOD contamination, pending arrival of AAIB. The aircraft then returned on RWY23R (the only available runway). As you would expect, the Authority inspected the runway before allowing operations to resume. Several aircraft which had already crossed RWY23R for a departure from RWY23L were repositioned to HZ. I too listened to the RTF transmissions on 118.625 and did not here any confusion?????? I was actually quite impressed by the response by ATC/Airport/Fire Service etc.

Airport operations will always suffer during an incident, recovery will always depend on external factors such as AAIB requirements, AFS Cover and so on. Perhaps we all need to be a little more patient otherwise "mistakes will happen and suddenly get worse".

Ian Brooks

11th Jun 2007, 22:24

AeroManc
I never said there was any confusion, just that it was difficult to get aircraft back Yes I agree ATC were very good as always
What I meant by 2 runways that if we had only one the airport would have to close and the airport would have come to a halt for 3 hours AND the Onur would have to have gone somewhere else
Anyway to end on a happy note pax got way not too late on replacement aircraft this eveing

Good night all and I look forward to reading the AIB report when it is released

Ian

javelin

11th Jun 2007, 22:31

The 'confusion' was on delivery/ground due to the high volume of aeroplanes asking what was going on, where they were in the queue, etc.

In hindsight - a better coordination of who has the tug, who has a slot, who can push and park - hey Brussels, we need to launch out of sequence etc etc would have launched and landed more aeroplanes.

We always learn - hopefully, a practical outcome can be achieved - I don't criticise the ATC, I do however have issues with the Airport who have demonstrated spectacularly dull decisions in the past.

Perhaps it is they who should visit the ATC and come on Fam Flights :E

lomapaseo

11th Jun 2007, 23:43

I don't trust rumors, but holding a runway inoperative for the AAIB to have a look doesn't sound right.

The only runways that I have come across that were held inoperative awaiting an investigation, had burning aircraft at the end of them and not just for a ho hum engine failure.

In all my experience the airport operator simply cleans up the bits, perhaps with a photo or two and does his best to avoid placing other aircraft in a pressure cooker situation. It's really not a big deal for an investigator to arrive later and have a look at the bits still lying in the grass alongside the runway as well as the runway sweepings. For the more serious stuff a later look at gouge marks can also be made.

portquartercv67

12th Jun 2007, 07:08

Some of these posts are just another example of:

"pilots are our own worst enemies"

Oblaaspop

12th Jun 2007, 08:18

757 Man, YOU are the one that mentioned size first (just remember mine's bigger than yours:ok:)

JW411

I refer you to my post of (oh, 20 posts back) which clearly mentions approach climb gradient considerations(which I think is the technical term you were struggling to remember)!

JW411

12th Jun 2007, 13:45

gatbusdriver:

If you are telling me that you can take-off at MTOW for a given day on a given runway in your A330, lose an engine and then go straight round the pattern and make a single-engined go-around then I am very happy to accept that and may I say that this a nice position to be in.

Now then, I will make a confession. Since 1962 I haven't flown a twin (except for fun). Until I retired last year I have been fortunate enough to have had four engines to play with apart from nearly 8 years on the three-engined DC-10.

I am therefore guilty of extrapolating a four-engined aircraft on two engines (50% power) as being the same as a twin on one engine (50% power). It is certainly the case that not all four-engined aeroplanes can immediately make a two-engined approach and go around after losing two engines.

I am now retired but I teach BAe146 part time in the simulator. After losing two engines the QRH refers the reader to Card 7A which is entitled "Maximum Weight for Go-Around With Two Engines Inoperative". This is in graph form. You enter with the airfield altitude, go across to the temperature condition and then emerge with a max possible weight at the bottom.

If that is not a WAT limit graph then I don't what else it could be. Certainly a go-around at MTOW even at S.L. and 0°C would apparently not meet with much success. Of course, nowhere does it say that you can't land at MTOW if your ar*e is on fire.

I apologise if I have misled you with my suppositions.

oblaaspop:

You are obviously looking for someone to have a fight with and it is not going to be me. I actually didn't have any particular issues with your contributions apart from your statement that "I think it would be sheer folly to hold".

You didn't help your case very much when you decided to throw your toys out of your pram with the "mine is bigger than yours" statement. On reflection, don't you think that maybe this was a bit childish and did nothing to reinforce your views?

I suppose you also think that the crew of the 757 that swallowed a heron took far too long to get back on the ground?

The trouble is that none of us can give a precise definition of "ASAP". I am grateful that I have never had to operate to ETOPS rules but I suppose being up there for 3 hours after a catastrophic engine failure also constitutes "landing at the nearest suitable airfield ASAP"?

However, none of us so far seems to know much about the MD-80.

gatbusdriver

12th Jun 2007, 14:14

JW411

Hope no offence was caused.

Not on the Bus anymore, lucky to get command on 757 recently. Having only ever flown Bus and now Boeing, I haven't come accross this issue. Therefore I quite wrongly assumed all aircraft are the same in that respect.

The B757 at 115,000kg can still give 2.7% climb gradient at 30C at S/L single engine.

Back at NH

12th Jun 2007, 14:31

Pardon me for being just a mere ops manager, but basic language interpretation does suggest that "land as soon as possible" is not "land immediately". It implies land as soon as what needs to be sorted in order to land SAFELY. Personally, if I was SLF on that flight, crew taking the time to sort things out on a heavy aeroplane with one out rather than rushing into an ill judged approach would get my vote anyday.

SAFE SAFE SAFE not TIME TIME TIME

Oblaaspop

12th Jun 2007, 16:15

JW,

Not looking for a fight mate, just trying to put a point of view accross......

Indeed a 2 eng GA on a 4 pod would be damn near impossible at MTOW, tried it in the A340-300 sim and it wasn't pretty (mind you the A343 performance isn't pretty with all 4 running:bored:), which is why engines on 2 engined A/C are generally much more powerful than those on a 4 eng A/C.

Cheers

BTW the "Mine's bigger than yours" quip was just that, a joke of the 'manhood' variety:ok:

AeroMANC

12th Jun 2007, 17:46

Ian Boorks,

Thanks - I wholeheartedly agree with your posts, as you will see, my comments were intended to discuss the points raised by JAVELIN.

Javelins suggestion that the Airport should spend more time with ATC/Fam Flights etc. is a great idea - equally I'd be interested to know if any pilots have taken the time to 'shadow' the Airport Authority/Airfield Ops? I have, on one occasion, and found it surprisingly enlightening.

Spoke to an Airfield Ops rep today and he stated that some of the debris on the runway was on fire on arrival at the scene, he also said the AAIB were very specific about how debris should be collected and recorded, this slowed down the clear-up process somewhat.

mack3630

12th Jun 2007, 18:52

Just picking up on the suggestion of familiarisation flights and spending more time with people in the industry but from different backgrounds.

Does anyone have any points of contact to suggest, based at Manchester, to possibly arrange tagging along on a flight as an observer ?
I know a little about the procedures and methods for flight and navigation but it would be a terrific learning experience to see it in action.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

On another note ... is my first post here so hello all:)

Helen49

12th Jun 2007, 18:52

The majority of flight crew take little or no interest in the business of Airfield Operations. They don't visit airfield ops, know little about the procedures and constraints imposed by Licensing Regulations and then have the audacity to criticise the poor beggars!! Come to think of it.....reminds of too many of the contributors to this thread......lots of comments and even criticisms without knowing the facts by people who insinuate that they reside at the pointy end......worrying!!
H49

A-3TWENTY

12th Jun 2007, 19:11

Oblaaspop,

Despite I don`t agree with some of your positions , I would like to remember you that an eng.failure on the airbus is considered an abnormal , not an emergency.

When you say that the turkish pilot should have come back mediately and you compare this with the airbus , you are wrong two times.

1.You weren`t sat on that cockpit to judge what he should have done.
2.In the airbus (despite my nickname I´ve flown A-330 as well) , despie on the ECAM you hava LAND ASAP, this is an AMBER LAND ASAP.
So you don`t have urgency to return.Actually , the only one predictable emergency which shows a RED LAND ASAP that could obligate you to return immediately is a fire.

Cheers

757manipulator

12th Jun 2007, 19:13

The majority of flight crew take little or no interest in the business of Airfield Operations. They don't visit airfield ops, know little about the procedures and constraints imposed by Licensing Regulations and then have the audacity to criticise the poor beggars!!

On the contrary Helen, most of us have to be reasonably familiar with specific airfield procedures relating to the operation of aircraft, we even have a few very detailed pages to refer too.

Ian Brooks

12th Jun 2007, 19:34

Aeromanc
Thank you for the nice comments
you have now confirmed what I thought had happened re the fire

Ian

Ignition Override

13th Jun 2007, 04:11

I've only read a few posts on this incident, but if this was not already stated, keep in mind that if you depart an airport that has only short runways and another airport is just a few minutes away with a much longer (suitable) runway, you might decide to go there instead. You would/should not be criticized for going to a nearby military base with a long runway in this situation. In the US, after you "declare an emergency" as a precaution, you can do whatever you need to (except in one part of Nevada...).

You can call for your "Engine Failure" or Eng Fire" procedures, and have these done, in about the same time as you would flying a fairly long downwind at the departure airport, while the Non-Flying Pilot goes through all 'clean-up' items, (and quickly briefs ATC and the cabin, then reviews the instr. procedure) prepares to land at the other nearby airport.

mikeyuk

16th Jun 2007, 19:35

Well all the engine tests were done today and the new engines fine, Now all they need to do is fix the wing where a forklift hit it today :ugh:

RoyHudd

16th Jun 2007, 20:57

Manchester Airport???

tommyb1967

23rd Jun 2007, 10:33

I am not a pilot so my view is purely from being a passenger on the Onur Air flight OHY 380 which blew an engine on take off 11/06/07 which was not a pleasant experience but in the same way i have to commend the flight crew for their professionalism and calmness with which they handled the situation.

From reading the many comments posted by yourselves i think the main fact is that the pilots got the aircraft safely down without any further damage to the aircraft and more importantly to their passengers.

I have flown many times and this was the first time i have experienced a situation of this nature and i'm sure nobody does,but the crewkept the passengers informed of the situation and their plans.

So once again well done to your colleagues for their sterling work.:ok:

Paradism

24th Jun 2007, 11:24

First I must declare that I am not a pilot and have no intention of telling pilots how to drive an aircraft so please consider my post with that in mind.
This incident seems to have generated a plethora of views and opinions and that immediately raised a query in my mind. What seems to have caused so much discussion is the question of landing "ASAP". From a QA point of view the use of "ASAP" in a procedure, if indeed it was used, has created an ambiguity that could have disastrous consequences.
If the aircraft constructor and the certifying authority mean "land immediately" that is what the procedures should say. If that it what they mean by "ASAP", they have unintentionally created a situation where the pilot in command may make decisions based incomplete information provided by observable indications and symptoms.
Whilst procedures cannot address every specific event, the constructor has to make his manuals address situations based on his risk assessments of the danger arising from a failure to structure, equipment and services in any particular area.
Let me pose an example. An uncontained engine failure in a heavy twin. The uncontained element being outboard of the engine causing severe damage to the underside and internal structure of the wing. No fuel, hydraulic or electrical failures evident to the pilot or crew. There would be no indication to the pilot that the wing might be in danger of imminent failure. So, in this situation, "land immediately" would be more apt than "ASAP", and that is what the manual should state.
Certainly, the pilot has to make decisions based upon the procedures provided and the situation in which he finds himself, that is his responsibility and is almost infinitely variable, but he does need clear and concise guidance for predictable situations.
Just to round things off, in the UK ambiguities in airworthiness manuals are subject to Mandatory Occurrence Reporting procedures in accordance with CAP 382 as mandated by the Air Navigation Order. As pilots, you folk are in the best position to identify such ambiguities, but a cautionary note, pilots are not necessarily the best people to resolve them.
Finally, I congratulate the subject pilot on a safe conclusion to his incident.