PDA

View Full Version : Jet Engine Scare


Hawk777
14th Jul 2007, 04:52
From the West Australian Sat 14th July 2007

JET ENGINE SCARE

"Emergency services in Newman were mobilised yesterday in case a jet carrying 93 people would crash-land after a part of its engine blew up in mid-air. A bearing in one engine blew up just 30minutes into the Nation Jet flight from Newman to Perth about 2pm. Firefighters were backed up by mining emergency response teams as the Boeing 717 returned to Newman aerodrome to make an emergency landing. The plane circled to burn up fuel before landing safely. No one was hurt."

You guys / gals at NJ are really taking the work to rule strategy seriously.

gmallard
14th Jul 2007, 09:56
From what I hear sounds like they did a good job. Keep up the good work guys

topend3
15th Jul 2007, 11:50
they certainly did. it should also be noted that the crew advised they did not require emergency services. they were dispatched only as a precautionary measure and at no stage was there a concern that the aircraft would crash land.

Peter Fanelli
15th Jul 2007, 12:24
They just didn't want the company to be billed for "calling" the emergency services out. That's what it amounts to these days.

F/O Bloggs
15th Jul 2007, 12:36
What a load of crap Fanelli,

I know the crew, they are extremely professional and I can assure you that being "billed" for emergency services would not have been a factor for these guys.

It might be how it is in yankee land with your outfit but not with this captain.


:mad:

galdian
15th Jul 2007, 13:05
OK gotta ask the question (NOT shitstirring, trust me!), although not stated I assume the engine was shut down.

The pro's and con's of hanging in the air on one engine to burn off fuel (on an engine that MAY have been overhauled at the same time :E) rather than getting the beast back on the ground in the shortest time (allowing for all required/suitable drills etc.)

Maybe no absolute rights or wrongs but interested in any thoughts.

Capt Claret
15th Jul 2007, 13:08
They just didn't want the company to be billed for "calling" the emergency services out. That's what it amounts to these days.
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.
Assuming all systems are operating normally, save the failed engine, why does a single engine approach require emergency services?

Capt Claret
15th Jul 2007, 13:18
galdian

Armchair answer here because I haven't been to Newman for a while and I don't have access to performance data but in general:
There's not much point landing overweight and possibly not having sufficient LDA for the weight.
Even if both engines were overhauled at the same time, it doesn't follow that because one engine has failed the other will.
In the absence of contrary indications it is not unreasonable to expect the other engine will continue to operate normally to the adequate (60 mins @ SE TAS).
In the absence of contrary indications, I don't know of any operator that expects a Transport Category aircraft to land overweight, simply because one engine has failed or been shut down.

Capn Bloggs
16th Jul 2007, 04:42
In a twin, there are only two things stopping you from crashing. When one of them stops, there's only one left...
That flight TERMINATED early! :}

pakeha-boy
16th Jul 2007, 04:58
Quote Capt Claret....Assuming all systems are operating normally, save the failed engine, why does a single engine approach require emergency services?

....because the crew may have felt that the outcome was unknown!!...for this type of equipment etc...if the services are availble why would you not use them...:confused:..

and fanelli...I know Ive said some dangerous stuff..:{but that statement beats all my stuff hands down(combined)...

F/O Bloggs...its not that way at all....these services are provided by airports,that have them,and you would be a fool not to use them.....fees paid by airlines pay for these services.....and you lose by not using them....it does not "cost" you more if you use the service..it is a flat fee...hope that clears it up.....not sure where fanelli is coming from

Trashed Aviator
16th Jul 2007, 05:55
But the aircraft is certified for single engine ops its a normal abnormal condition.

pakeha-boy
16th Jul 2007, 06:12
Quote..But the aircraft is certified for single engine ops its a normal abnormal condition


..very true and nobody here would argue that.....

from what Ive read this engine was not shut down as a precautionary measure..it was shut down because it had to be,due to the fact it was coming apart...which now puts it in an"abnormal abnormal condition"........because when one comes apart.....you may know the engine has gone,but what of other damage due to debris damage

....most two engine aircraft are designed to T/O and land with all engines running:p...a little sarcastic for sure........but my point relates to the use of emergency euipment,its use,why and when we should use it......

for me....my company(and I agree)that anytime an engine is shutdown,whether it be "us" shutting it down to "save it" or it shuts down by itself(and there is a big difference)....we a required to have and request emergency vehicles availble.......I know some will disagree...... but its no money out of my pocket and no skin off my nose......

...unless you have climbed out the window,inspected,and know the true extent of the damage...you are dealing with unknowns...it would be my preference to have services avaible just in case the situation turns to custard......dont really think thats asking a lot ...PB

piston broke again
16th Jul 2007, 06:13
Capt Claret -
For me, if I didn't know what the cause of the failure was (ie. could be fuel starvation, mechanical problems, bird strike etc) I would probably land overweight so long as by doing so isn't going to put myself, the occupants or the aircraft at a greater risk. But on the most part LDA is not an overriding concern for turboprops whereas for most jets it is. Why float around on one engine if you don't know why the other engine failed? Thats my thinking anyway.
The Reg's will always back a pilot in an emergency too. Following a situation such as this, they can break reg's if it is in aid of the safe conduct of the flight. That being said, if staying on one engine is safer in this aircraft, then the crew did the right thing.

Capt Claret
16th Jul 2007, 06:35
The operative word in my post (#7) was require, maybe I should have made it bold. I have no problem either way, it's the crew's call.

The only time I've had emergency services on standby in a multi was after an unscheduled auto-feather in a DH8 ex Broome.

Having called them out for various reasons, we circled Broome airfield for what seemed an eternity (about 30+ mins as I recall) before they were in position, whereas we could have landed fairly soon after the event.

In hind sight, I believe that in that instance I would have been better off not asking for them as I had no reason to believe that the landing would be anything other than normal. If placed in a similar position tomorrow, I wouldn't be asking for, or waiting for emergency services.

ForkTailedDrKiller
16th Jul 2007, 09:19
I have had the emergency services turn out for me on two occassions.

1) Townsville - unexplained vibration after TO in a C402 - 6 POB.

Me: XXX request immediate return to RWY YY due vibration
Tower: Do you wish to declare an emergency?
Me: Negative
Tower: Well I'm going to get the appliances out to meet you anyway

Landed uneventfully with an escort of fire appliances - lights ablaze ! I guess it can get really boring being an airport firey!

2) Enroute VFR in a C210 (2 POB) YBTL - YRED. Diverted to Gladstone after total electrical failure. I rang Briefing on my mobile phone to ask if they could arrange for someone on the ground to take a look at my nosewheel to confirm it was down before landing. Went through the usual "Do you wish to declare an emergency" / "No - not at this time" routine.

Imagine my surprise when I arrived over the top of YGLA to see flashing lights everywhere! Fire brigade, ambulance, police !!!!!

Imagine my embarassment when I pulled the power back to slow down prior to pumping the wheels down - and my electrical power was miraculously restored (loose wire on the alternator - power reduction moved the engine slightly - wire made a connection - alternator functioned again). Wheels went down normally - three greens lit up!

Interestingly, the emergency services could not access the tarmac cause nobody had a key to the gates. They had had an exercise only a few weeks earlier that had gone really well - someone had unlocked the gates in preparation for the exercise.

The fire brigade guys assurred me that had I crashed they would have knocked the gates over with the fire truck !!!!

Dr:cool:

topend3
16th Jul 2007, 10:09
an interesting debate. the facts for this one are :

1. the crew were asked on CTAF if emergency services were required, to which they advised negative.

2. the services were activated not from newman but from njs operations who called them as this is one of their procedures.

3. fully agree with bloggs, to suggest some bill is generated as the result of calling the services out is crap. in newman, the BHP service, and volunteer fire and ambulance services responded, and the police. No-one gets a bill.

Capn Bloggs
16th Jul 2007, 10:20
the services were activated not from newman but from njs operations who called them as this is one of their procedures.

Well that's interesting...

Capt Basil Brush
16th Jul 2007, 11:59
Can any 717 drivers help with these few questions?

1. What is the engine-inop landing flap setting for the 717?

2. What would be the ref speed + wind additives for the above, at near max landing weight?

3. Any systems degraded with an engine out? (flight controls, anti-skid etc) This may be an issue on a 30m wide, 2000m runway, elev 1700'.

4. Was the runway wet? Windy?

A combination of some of these might make EMS's on standby a good descision?

I am not saying what is right or wrong, but I would not like to be the one sitting in front of the enquiry if things didn't go to plan, and then trying to answer the question as to why were EMS's not requested/required when they were available?

Food for thought.

JetRacer
16th Jul 2007, 12:27
A bearing in one engine blew up just 30minutes into the National Jet flight from Newman to Perth about 2pm.
Maybe about 12 minutes after off blocks .... :ugh:
part of its engine blew up in mid-air.
OOOhhhh, sounds sooo dramatic!! :rolleyes:
The plane circled to burn up fuel before landing safely.
If joining upwind and flying a circuit equals "circled to burn up fuel", then I s'pose that is correct. :{:ugh:
the services were activated not from newman but from njs operations
At last some correct reporting.... :D:suspect:
As with most newspaper articles, don't believe everything you read...
I'd hate to see what people on pprune would write after having read a full report, with all the information they contain, as opposed to a newspaper snippet which gives very little facts... :eek:

arkmark
16th Jul 2007, 12:34
Hi Capt Clarret,

You posed a hypothesis that can't occur and ALL pilots need to know it.

Under airline systems of maintenance, the same critical system on two engines may not be maintained concurrently.

This means that you can't change a fuel control unit on two engines at once.

The reason for this is that it eliminates the possibility of duplication of errors, as where an error is made the separation between the original task on system 1 and the duplication of that task on subsequent systems, will highlight the original error.

Airlines normally schedule AD's for multiple systems, even when the systems are non-essential or multiply redundant, across multiple shifts because of this.

Your original hypothesis that it is unlikely for two engines to fail is therefore correct, unless the cause of the failure is fuel, which is the only thing common to both engines.

Capt Claret
16th Jul 2007, 18:04
arkmark

I didn't know that, thanks.

As a matter of interest, when the aircraft is built is there any similar procedure WRT engines that may have been manufactured and fitted concurrently, or is it only for subsequent maintenance?

pakeha-boy
16th Jul 2007, 19:10
...QUOTE....before they were in position, whereas we could have landed fairly soon after the event.

Capt C... mate....wasnt trying to split hairs or mix words...I,m in agreement with you....but as the captain,which I presume you are....you call the shots....did someone make you wait for the euipment to be in place?? or did you do it out of professional courtesy???...I,m sure in a dire straights emergency you would have landed regardless of their positions???........seems a little strange(maybe) I,m reading it wrong)...but for emergency euipment to be in place taking 30 mins seems like a "dads army "job

WA-CEET
17th Jul 2007, 00:01
Pakeha quote: "seems a little strange(maybe) I,m reading it wrong)...but for emergency euipment to be in place taking 30 mins seems like a "dads army "job"


This pretty normal as the emergency services in Newman are mostly volunteers. So by the time you mobilize to site can take 30 mins.

Most towns in WA don't have full time emergency services and all volunteer based.

cunninglinguist
17th Jul 2007, 05:55
The way certain individuals landed that baby ( i have no idea who the Captain on the day was ) I would certainly advise certain pilots AGAINST landing overweight. :ouch:

Basil, cant remeber exactly But I would think there would be a definite increase in Vref, NWN is'nt exactly a long runway either.
No one could ever give me a straight answer in NJS wether a straight cut justified an overweight landing, you know the story, thats why we pay you the big bucks blah blah blah :zzz:

pakeha-boy
17th Jul 2007, 09:29
WA-CEET....no disrespect meant at all....NOT familiar with the airport.....nice to know there are at least volunteers availible for such events......have now figured out the post...thanks..PB

doorstop
17th Jul 2007, 10:13
It will be an interesting logistics exercise to get the aircraft airworthy again.
Newman is 1100 km by road from Perth. The time required to truck a replacement engine and find a suitable crane to do the job (the hire rates just doubled.....) not to mention engineers.
The 146 for all it's faults wpuld have been ferried out at first light the next morning and a servicable engine fitted within 3 hours of arrival in Perth.

topend3
17th Jul 2007, 12:40
replacement engine arrived today. engine stands and gear to arrive tomorrow ex ADL on a 146 freighter. Engine change slated for thursday, testing friday and a/c flown back to PER on the weekend.

Capn Bloggs
17th Jul 2007, 14:00
146 freighter
= BRV.:E:}

Capt Claret
18th Jul 2007, 09:31
pakeha-boy
No one made me wait but having called them out one would look silly landing before they got there unless there was some urgency. There was no urgency to land.

There was no emergency response team based at the airfield back then ('95 or '96, donít know about now), so, one assumes the town firies and ambos had to be called in.


Basil
1. What is the engine-inop landing flap setting for the 717?
Flap 25.

2. What would be the ref speed + wind additives for the above, at near max landing weight?
Vref ~ 141 KIAS at MLW (149 KIAS Vref @ MBR, both approximate as info from not for operational use document), plus 5 KIAS for Vapp usually. Wind additives are:
Half the steady state wind > 20 Kts or,
All of the gust component
Max additive 20 KIAS
When both steady state wind additive and gust additive are considered, only the greater of the two is added.

3. Any systems degraded with an engine out? (flight controls, anti-skid etc) This may be an issue on a 30m wide, 2000m runway, elev 1700'.
If the failed engine didnít take any systems out, hydraulic fluid leak for example, there would be no degradation of any system save the failed engine and its reverser. Hydraulic pump/transfer pump redundancy would maintain hydraulic pressure as long as fluid wasnít lost.

4. Was the runway wet? Windy?
Donít know.


Note: I know no more of this incident save what is on this thread.

topend3
18th Jul 2007, 10:59
the runway was not wet. there was minimal wind

aulglarse
19th Jul 2007, 12:15
Capt Claret, having had an engine "let-go", part of the procedure is to fire a bottle into the affected engine (after cross-checking instruments we knew the engine was damaged let alone the 'bang'). The firing of a bottle ensures any damage to fuel lines etc decreases the chance of further problems that may develop!

Any pan call at a controlled airport usually constitutes local services on standby( ready alert). Well done to the crew, PM me if you like.

Capt Claret
19th Jul 2007, 15:43
aulglarse

Sorry I'm confused. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Why do you want me to PM you?

pakeha-boy
20th Jul 2007, 14:32
...I think he "WANTS'' you;).........know what I mean

remoak
20th Jul 2007, 18:37
Yeah I'm confused now as well...

The firing of a bottle ensures any damage to fuel lines etc decreases the chance of further problems that may develop!How did you work that one out? All firing a bottle will do is put an existing fire out. Ten seconds after you have fired it, the extingluishant is gone and/or useless (which is why you generally have two of them).

Also, AFAIK no transport-category, twin-engined aircraft is "certified" to fly around on one donk... it has to meet a certification requirement that it can do so in an emergency, which is what an engine failure is in a twin. That's why the procedure for dealing with an engine failure is an emergency procedure, not an abnormal procedure. Anyone who does not make full use of whatever emergency services are on offer when experiencing and emergency, needs their head read.

Or maybe the old "real men don't need the emergency services" thought process is making a comeback... :rolleyes:

Capn Bloggs
20th Jul 2007, 23:30
Twaddle. It may be an emergency if the other one then fails, but if one is just shutdown or otherwise stops, that doesn't necessarily mean the subsequent landing will be any less-safe than normal, and therefore may not require full emergency services.

Icarus2001
21st Jul 2007, 10:13
Which section of the AFM or MOM is OEI in a twin discussed?

Which checklist do you use when operating OEI in a twin?

Not bloody abnormal or normal that is for sure and certain.:sad:

Capt Claret
21st Jul 2007, 13:05
The QRH doesn't say "land as soon as possible" for an in-flight shutdown. If landing overweight is so high on the agenda, what's going to happen on an ETOPS run with an engine failure over the ocean? Ditch?? :rolleyes:

The Mr Fixit
21st Jul 2007, 15:29
A classic example of you get what you pay for

You choose to fly with these clowns don't expect champagne on arrival

My only concern is for the cabin cleaners imagine all the seat cover changes :eek: but then again why change them, the pax that pornstar fly wouldn't even notice the smell or the stains be just like home oh my

Capn Bloggs
22nd Jul 2007, 00:35
Fixit,
You choose to fly with these clowns don't expect champagne on arrival

The captain of this flight has forgotten more about aviation that you'll ever know, you moron.

topend3
22nd Jul 2007, 01:21
mr fixit seems confused, the a/c in question actually operates as part of the qflink fleet...

remoak
22nd Jul 2007, 01:58
Twaddle. It may be an emergency if the other one then fails, but if one is just shutdown or otherwise stops, that doesn't necessarily mean the subsequent landing will be any less-safe than normalWay too many PPLs on this forum... :rolleyes:

But no, maybe he is right. From now on, it should be SOP that all twins must shut an engine down on finals. Saves fuel, saves wear on the engine, and of course asymmetric landings are just as safe as ones with all engines operating, right? :D:D:D

I mean, who needs that extra generator... that extra hydraulic pump... just a waste, really. And the loss of reverse isn't even a consideration.

And, of course, single-engine go-arounds at heavy weights are just as safe as normal go-arounds, right?

And just because the QRH doesn't say "land as soon as possible", doesn't mean you shouldn't do so. The danger might not be as iminent as an engine fire or a loss of anti-icing (the usual reasons for a "land as soon as possible"), but it is still danger, n'est pas? Burning off fuel is fine, but I bet you wouldn't do it far away from a suitable runway.

And unless somebody can show me a checklist for a transport-category aircraft that doesn't include an engine failure as an "emergency", it IS one. The aircraft manufacturer thinks so, airlines think so, airports and their fire services think so, and the public think so.

The only group who don't think so are a minority of idiot pilots who have egos ten times the size of their seldom-used brains...

cunninglinguist
22nd Jul 2007, 02:45
Not quite sure where to start with your post Remoak.

1) dead right, too many ppls and non pilots on this forum, from ur comments you either r in that category or should be

2) Bloggs, as with the captain in question, has forgotten more about Jet flying ( inc military ) than u could ever hope to know, come to think of it, I probably have too. The reason I say that is that someone with our sort of experience would'nt make the comments that you have.

3) If memory serves me, there are no recall memeory items for an engine failure in a 717. Definitely none for A320, and a good buddy of mine currently doing 737 command tells me that Boeing consider an engine failure to be a non normal. Engine fire/severe damage is obviously an emergency, I cant recall anyone here saying otherwise ( correct me if i'm wrong )

4) I think you contradict yourself, you said sarcastically " of course, single-engine go-arounds at heavy weights are just as safe as normal go-arounds, right? "
Yet I beleive you would have landed straight away, putting you in a situation of a possible S/E G/A at high weight? have I missed something ?

5) Danger of engine fire or anti icing, you put thses 2 things in a similar catagory :confused: Engine antice can be MELd to fly around the country with for a week ( avoiding icing conditions of course ) I'm pretty sure an engine fire is in a slightly different MEL catagory :uhoh:

6) QUOTE : And unless somebody can show me a checklist for a transport-category aircraft that doesn't include an engine failure as an "emergency", it IS one. The aircraft manufacturer thinks so, airlines think so, airports and their fire services think so, and the public think so.
Again, you show ur ignorance, the 2 major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus ( not too mention McD douglas ) do not consider a straight engine failure to b in the same class as engine fire
As I pointed out above, Boeing and Airbus consider an engine failure an abnormal, you obviously think you know better than them, or you are comparing it to your cessna 402. ( or your flight sim 2000 )

Towering Q
22nd Jul 2007, 03:28
Hey! Leave 402 drivers out of this!:*:}

cunninglinguist
22nd Jul 2007, 03:53
Apologies, I was one too :ouch:

remoak
23rd Jul 2007, 14:51
Not sure where to start with YOUR post there, cunninglinguist.

Bloggs, as with the captain in question, has forgotten more about Jet flying ( inc military ) than u could ever hope to knowAs you have absolutely no idea what I know or what I have done, that is a somewhat foolish statement for someone claiming to be a cunninglinguist. Let's just say that my cockpit experience goes from Tridents to Boeings, and includes one or two military types in a civilian setting. Not that I really want to get into a pissing contest...

If memory serves me, there are no recall memeory items for an engine failure in a 717.I don't recall mentioning memory items.

Yet I beleive you would have landed straight away, putting you in a situation of a possible S/E G/A at high weight? have I missed something ?Indeed you have. No, I wouldn't necessarily have landed straight away. Every emergency/non-normal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it situation requires judgement, that is what captains get paid for. It depends on the particular circumstances. If I had time, no weather issues and no pressing need to land, I'd spend some time in the hold making sure I had everything covered, and getting rid of some fuel. But life isn't always that easy. The last time this happened to me, I was holding over an airport that was rapidly approaching landing minima (fog), with all alternates SNOCLO. Landing was the least dangerous thing to do, overweight or not. Bit of a long story, that one.

Danger of engine fire or anti icing, you put thses 2 things in a similar catagory :confused: Engine antice can be MELd to fly around the country with for a week ( avoiding icing conditions of course ) I'm pretty sure an engine fire is in a slightly different MEL catagorySee, this what happens when you look at the problem from an Aussie perspective. There are many countries in the world where having no anti-icing will stop you flying for weeks. In Europe, and again I speak from experience, if you lose an engine anti-icing system, you may well lose the engine shortly thereafter (depending on the severity of the icing, and trust me, it can be pretty severe in Europe). Had that happen to me in a 146 once - lost an anti-icing valve (to the splitter), 3 mins later, engine ran down. Couldn't get out of the icing layer quickly enough.

Again, you show ur ignorance, the 2 major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus ( not too mention McD douglas ) do not consider a straight engine failure to b in the same class as engine fire
As I pointed out above, Boeing and Airbus consider an engine failure an abnormalOh goody, let's play semantics... :rolleyes:

Boeing used to call engine failures "emergencies" until it was decided to separate the checklists into "normal" and "non-normal". Non-normal has the same meaning as emergency - or would you announce an engine fire to ATC by saying "I wish to declare a non-normal"? It is interesting that Boeing does still have Emergency checklists (MD11, not sure about 717/MD80), and then of course there was the emergency procedure for that pesky rudder on the 737.

Not everybody puts an engine fire and an engine failure in the same category - they are both "non-normal" are they not? But hey, if you want to consider flying around on one engine as a perfectly normal, acceptable procedure with no particular risk or added danger over flying will all your engines operating, then be my guest. It is a particularly scary viewpoint, but hey, it's a free country...

As far as Airbus is concerned, I'm not sure that you can compare ECAM to the Boeing system as they have quite different philosophies.

you obviously think you know better than them, or you are comparing it to your cessna 402. ( or your flight sim 2000 )Ah yes, the standard Aussie tactic of playing the man and not the ball. How very small of you.

Turns out you aren't so cunning after all.

pakeha-boy
23rd Jul 2007, 15:49
Quote cunning......."Again, you show ur ignorance, the 2 major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus ( not too mention McD douglas ) do not consider a straight engine failure to b in the same class as engine fire
As I pointed out above, Boeing and Airbus consider an engine failure an abnormal, you obviously think you know better than them,"

Cunning ...not sure what you fly but I currently FLY the A-321....but have flown the Boeings....I really dont care what Airbus or Boeing call it.....when Im
flying as Captain....I call it, what I want to call it!!!..and whether its an engine failure or fire,it nows becomes an abnormal problem that makes it an emergency and I want priority.....in the 12yrs of flying the bus Ive had 3 shutdowns(initiated by me) and 2 due to fuel and oil.......let me make it clear,they have all been emergencies....if you want to play mind games,this is the wrong subject

remoak....he,lost the plot and spit the dummy for sure:rolleyes:....ditto

remoak
23rd Jul 2007, 20:56
Yep... like I said, all ego and no brains is common around here...

Lord Flashhart
24th Jul 2007, 09:05
and includes one or two military types in a civilian setting

Ha, so you are not ex military then. LMAO military types in a civilian setting. Funny

Spotlight
24th Jul 2007, 10:37
Remoak and anors should take some time to reflect!

After these, "there I was" situations, Remoak did you just state the plain facts and go home for a good nights sleep with the comfort of knowing that you did the right thing, considering all the circumstances of the day?

Or, are you so twisted up in knots over god know's what that you need to fight on the internet over what somebody should have done in a remote area of a big country.

ScottyDoo
24th Jul 2007, 10:46
First, I agreed with remoak.

Then I agreed with the cunnilinguist.

Then I agreed with remoak.

Finally, I laughed my guts out at:

LMAO military types in a civilian setting. Funny

The Lord has it!

cunninglinguist
24th Jul 2007, 14:06
Hey I got nothing better to do..................................

quote: " Way too many PPLs on this forum... "

and then this gem

quote " As you have absolutely no idea what I know or what I have done, that is a somewhat foolish statement for someone claiming to be a cunninglinguist. Let's just say that my cockpit experience goes from Tridents to Boeings, and includes one or two military types in a civilian setting. Not that I really want to get into a pissing contest... "

So its alright for you to assume peoples experience etc, eh mr.hipocrit

You've flown one OR two military types, what, your memory that bad? You cant remember if its 1 or 2 ?
I have flown precisely 3 military types and Bloggs atleast that inc the Mirage.
So frigging what ?

Quote " See, this what happens when you look at the problem from an Aussie perspective. There are many countries in the world where having no anti-icing will stop you flying for weeks "

Oh really, thankyou for telling me captain obvious, because no Aussie has ever flown overseas for another airline and there are no Aussie airlines that fly longhaul, inc the one I work for.


Quote: " Let's just say that my cockpit experience goes from Tridents to Boeings, and includes one or two military types in a civilian setting. Not that I really want to get into a pissing contest...'

Really, so why'd you mention all that then ?

quote : " It is a particularly scary viewpoint, but hey, it's a free country..."

Yeh, and its one thats killed no pax in a jet, hows yours ? ( oops, playing the man again :rolleyes: )


I fly The 320, fudgepakeha boy, but i am just in awe of you guys ( especially since ur not getting into a pissing contest ), after 20 years of jet flying I have had a miniscule amount of failures/incidents/ emergencies, compared to you guys, I'm obviously not trying hard enough.
Keep up the good work chaps, and just remember the common enemy....damn Jerrys !!!

pakeha-boy
24th Jul 2007, 17:23
qUOTE cunning...."I fly The 320, fudgepakeha boy, but i am just in awe of you guys ( especially since ur not getting into a pissing contest ), after 20 years of jet flying I have had a miniscule amount of failures/incidents/ emergencies, compared to you guys, I'm obviously not trying hard enough.
Keep up the good work chaps, and just remember the common enemy....damn Jerrys !!!"

.....words spoken from a very professional pilot!!!!

...and cunning...that would be ...SIR fudgepackerpakeha-boy...if you please

get it right mate,if your going to start namecalling.... just trying to have a decent discussion

remoak
24th Jul 2007, 22:08
Not-particularly-cunninglinguist

So its alright for you to assume peoples experience etc, eh mr.hipocrit

As any real cunninglinguist would know, there is a big difference between a general comment (me) and a specific attack (you). You really should use the spellchecker old bean.

You've flown one OR two military types, what, your memory that bad?

It's an EXPRESSION... like "I've had one or two beers"... but if you must know, it's two. One doesn't like to brag.

I have flown precisely 3 military types and Bloggs atleast that inc the Mirage.
So frigging what ?

Dunno. You started the "my mate is better than you" stupidity, not me. Your guy Bloggs flew a Mirage? Wow. I am stupefied with envy and admiration... (well no not really...)

Really, so why'd you mention all that then ?

See above.

Spotlight

After these, "there I was" situations, Remoak did you just state the plain facts and go home for a good nights sleep with the comfort of knowing that you did the right thing, considering all the circumstances of the day?

I think I had a beer before bed (sometimes a whisky), but, basically, yes.

Or, are you so twisted up in knots over god know's what that you need to fight on the internet over what somebody should have done in a remote area of a big country.

Lol you are MUCH funnier than not-so-cunninglinguist. No, not really interested in what some 717 driver did or didn't do. However, it is quite fun to come home from a long days flying and do some halfwit-baiting on the topic of emergencies...

Lord Flash

Ha, so you are not ex military then

No (thank God). Wanna see some big egos, hang around at your local officers mess...

haughtney1
24th Jul 2007, 22:40
Just came in here for a quick read....
Cunning......stop with the ego trip and accept that there are more ways than one to skin a cat for gawds sake.
Would all the other spotters...PPL's...and those with too much cheiftain and baron time, please limit your comments to what you ACTUALLY have some relevant experience with?
And to the subject at hand........on a Boeing an engine failure is considered a "non normal", in the same sense that electrical/air-con smoke is, various instrument mode failures, along with half a hundred other non-normals. In the case of an engine failure/rundown/severe damage/fire/surge etc etc etc....a Boeing QRH SPECIFICALLY STATES "Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport" which to any competant commander means sort the problem and then land with no delay.
It is an emergency, no ifs, no buts:= It therefore requires a commensurate amount of urgency.
If anyone else feels the need to minimise the loss of 50% of the aircrafts ability to generate thrust...may I suggest you are in need of a course in basic airmanship:=

Capn Bloggs
24th Jul 2007, 23:23
stop with the ego trip and accept that there are more ways than one to skin a cat for gawds sake.

And that also applies to Remoak.

The central point is the declaration of whatever that would require the attendance of full emergency services. It's got little to do with the colour of the page or the naming of the a FCOM procedure.

Those of you who say a engine failure demands full services every time just because it's in the red section are taking a simplistic view, IMO. How dangerous or hard is it to do a single engine landing for goodness sake? Would you automatically declare a full emergency after a Cabin Hi Alt just because it's in the red section? Of course not.

greybeard
24th Jul 2007, 23:28
There certainly are a lot of non expert experts out there.
Reading from a current QRH, and sorting my old mind out as to what from all the C$ap written before as well as some good guts, the following seems to be the situation.

Engine failure-complete the required presented actions from the electronic and written checklists, and the statement usually says "land as soon as PRACTICAL

Engine failure with DAMAGE-complete the checklists which usually(type specific) contain the instruction to pull the fire shut off and fire ONE of the bottles as a PRECAUTION.
The manufactures and the relevent approving authority make this part of the certification of the type.
Then the phrase is LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Quite a different set of rules.

The local Airport Authority may have an emergency plan which requires the attendance of all or some of the equipment to be in place for such a situation, regardless of the call from the crew that it is so called "not needed", bearing in mind the crew have the call to ask for ALL and ANYTHING they consider needed above and beyond what the locals may consider adequate. Newman will take 30 mins to get it all out and organised, simple logistics, if you have an UNPLANNED emegency, they will also take 30 mins to get there while it bubbles and possibly burns.
If you want Airport Stand-by, pay the fees and the airfare to support the process.
The rescue of the Aircraft is a long and logistical process in Australia as there are very limited facilities in most of our RPT ports for engine changes, not like Europe etc.

Cheers :ok::ok:

topend3
24th Jul 2007, 23:30
Bloggs,

The decision rests with the airport operator to dispatch the services, and the crew as to whether they are declaring an emergency. Regardless, it's far better to get the services there and then downgrade once a/c safely on ground, than have something go wrong and have to upgrade the response. Particularly in places like Newman where the airport is a reasonable distance from town and volunteer services can take up to 30 minutes to fully respond, once they leave their main jobs etc.

In any case I guess 3 ambulances and a couple of fire tenders wouldn't be much good to a fuilly loaded B717 crashed and burnt off the runway end but at least we could say we tried...!!!

pakeha-boy
25th Jul 2007, 02:58
QUOTE...."Those of you who say a engine failure demands full services every time just because it's in the red section are taking a simplistic view, IMO. How dangerous or hard is it to do a single engine landing for goodness"

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate.....its not,you make a valid point for sure and I dont argue it.....the fact is .....many on that A/C will see it very differently and so it becomes a CYA...."cover your arse"...so the point is ......call everyone you can..no one in there right mind is going to argue it ,for the very fact that you took every precaution...it may be overkill..I dont argure that...in fact I agree.....but people are people...and we live in a world where you must CYA......

is it right? ..maybe not...but you cant in a court of law(and that is another discussion) argue the fact that those involved tried to do there very best...I,m not trying to degend every action ...I,m trying to defend whats best or right at the time

...for those of us that have been in those situations,it has a good and bad side...it tells you how you are able to handle those situations and it shows you your weakneses.....in the quiet moments,you certainly reflect...cant be a bad thing.......there is no perfect pilot..there are those that do there best..

remoak
25th Jul 2007, 10:35
How dangerous or hard is it to do a single engine landing for goodness sake?

It isn't hard at all - the dangerous bit is the go-around (should it be necessary), or if there is some other limiting factor (slippery runway, difficult wx, etc).

I don't think anybody is saying that you should ALWAYS call the emergency services for every little thing. The thinking that I was challenging, is the idea that you always avoid calling them if you possibly can, on the basis that pilots are god-like and don't require any assistance from external services; that to ask for the emergency services is somehow an admission of failure; and that is somehow an assault on one's man/womanhood if you ask for help. All ideas that have long since been put to bed in professional circles, but which are still rampant in the GA/wannabe/charter pilot/instructor world.

Just read some of the earlier posts...

Capn Bloggs
25th Jul 2007, 14:12
pilots are god-like
I'm not god-like, I'm god. Claret will attest to that. :D

remoak
25th Jul 2007, 22:56
I'm not god-like, I'm god.

Well you didn't answer any of my prayers, so you clearly need some time in the god-sim... ;)

Capt Claret
26th Jul 2007, 00:15
Pig's @rse he will. :=

Cart_tart
27th Jul 2007, 18:38
Know what? Regardless of what should or shouldn't have been done all the crew did a bloody good job! I've seen pics of the inside of that engine taken with the borascope and it was F****D!