View Full Version : Jetstar Engine Failure?!?!?!

22nd Jul 2007, 22:14
Anybody know anything about the Jetstar Flight that had an Engine Failure, and emergency landing in Asia....... as posted on MSN News...... probably Jetstar Asia?????

22nd Jul 2007, 22:32
JQ30 Bangkok to Melbourne:
JQ30 Denpasar 09:05 14:40 Estimated
JQ30 Bangkok 09:05 04:44 Routed via Denpasar

22nd Jul 2007, 23:33
From SMH
A Jetstar plane has been forced to make an emergency landing at Bali's Denpasar airport after the captain shut down one engine as a precautionary measure.
Flight JQ30 from Bangkok to Melbourne was due to land at Tullamarine at 9am.
The pilot re-routed the plane to Denpasar airport after shutting down one of the two engines on the three-week old Airbus 330-200.
The plane landed at about 6.45am and all 302 passengers and 12 crew were still on board as of 8.30am.
Jetstar management were working with Denpasar airport officials to allow the passengers and crew to alight from the aircraft.
"Our captain did shut down the left-hand engine, number one, as a precautionary measure," said Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway.
"The aircraft has the capability of flying with one engine. It has a very experienced captain and crew on board. There was a fault found and he followed process to the letter and went to the nearest international airport."
Mr Westaway said the flight was at capacity, with 302 passengers, including three infants, on board.
"We're seeking to get the bottom of it. We're working through passenger recovery and aircraft recovery. The aircraft landed without incident."
Mr Westaway said the plane was three weeks' old and had just come off the production line at Toulouse in France.
"We have the youngest fleet in the country," he said.
He said that the passengers and crew would have to be moved into a customs area and onto another flight back to Australia.
"The aircraft isn't going to be moving in the short term," he said.
A passenger known only as Basil said the incident was handled well.
"My daughter actually got up to go to the toilet and about the same time the plane started to descend," he told Southern Cross Radio from the plane on the tarmac at Denpasar.
"There was no noise or anything. The pilot said that (we'd do an) emergency landing and all should go okay and it did."
He said fire engines and ambulances were on standby as the plane landed.
with AAP

tail wheel
23rd Jul 2007, 01:11
"A passenger known only as Basil ......"

Amazing how journos always seem to find an aviation expert on every flight!


B A Lert
23rd Jul 2007, 01:46

To be fair, the journo did not describe Basil as an 'aviation expert'. I would have thought that the spin doctor at Jestar would have been quite pleased with Basil's reported comments, especially as he was said to be a paying punter. Was Basil an airline employee?

On another theme, what is it about Jetstar and the A330? Surely Qantas Mainline didn't experience the same problems as Jetstar or were Jeststar given a fleet of lemons? As for a small fleet, comments elesewhere have highlighted the fact that Australian initially had a fleet of 4, then 5 B767's and they did not have the major difficulties that are apparent at Jetstar. The Australian fleet was also much more aged than the 'new' Jetstar fleet. So, what gives?

23rd Jul 2007, 02:42
A Melbourne filmmaker stranded in Bali by the Jetstar plane's emergency landing said passengers knew from the beginning of the flight that the plane had mechanical problems.

Jonathan Messer, 33, was allowed to disembark two hours after landing at Denpasar airport with hundreds of other passengers on the flight.

Mr Messer said the plane, which had been scheduled to fly from Bangkok to Melbourne, had been 90 minutes late leaving the Thai capital.

"Before we took off the captain explained we had an inoperative auxiliary power unit and that the left engine was compensating for this, running the power of the plane," Messer told The Age. The captain told the passengers a different protocol was being used.

Somewhere is a village sadly in need of its missing idiot.

23rd Jul 2007, 02:53
Obviously Basil should have stopped his daughter from going to the toilet.

23rd Jul 2007, 03:07
Good one AnQrKA! :D

23rd Jul 2007, 03:35
2-1 odds on that Jetstar will before the close of business today put out a press release with the phrase "Qantas Group" or "Qantas Engineering" on it.:}

23rd Jul 2007, 03:39
The APU had a massive internal failure, early on Sunday morning..........

Looks like its a bit of a dud. Must have been built on a Friday afternoon, prior to a long weekend:)


23rd Jul 2007, 03:48
Sounds like it went smoothly. Good news. At least the press did not over dramatise it too much. They made it sound safe and routine. While many say it's just part of the job, as a passenger I think a nice landing after losing 50% of your horse power still deserves a good pat on the back for the guys in the front office. (Now for the B-52 drivers who frequently land with a one cigar not lit... well still an "emergency" but you guys have a bit more to play with!)

When the EK 773 had an uncontained failure departing MEL a few years ago some of the passengers gave some exciting testimony. Amazing how many aeronautical experts wear board shorts and flip-flops. (In fairness, I would have been scared if I saw a 737-width engine shred itself outside my window too).

In terms of QF history with 330 issues I think they have been good except the usual teething problems, especially for a carrier getting used to changes from a traditional flight deck (yoke, etc.) and Boeing systems.

A couple guys who fly Airbuses for JetStar told me they still say "oh $#*$, what's it doing now?!?" a lot, referring to the Airbus super computer flight manager, but they like the airplanes. Would image that just takes some getting used to.

Not a big deal, but Qantas did have a problem with an A330 that was brand new (think it was one of the first -300s) on a flight from MEL or SYD to PER. Had odour of fuel vapours in the cabin and made an emergency landing in Adelaide. I think that was all fine too. Not aware of any shutdowns on the 330.

JetStar had a 717 with an engine failure (believe it was contained) towards the top of the climb out of Tasmania. Big bang and a drop. Crew continued to Melbourne or Avalon (short flight and in a straight line) rather than return to Tasi because the airport at Launceston's fire rescue service had gone home for the evening. Good call for the crew... although the Tasmanian Fire Brigade Commander at Launceston was pretty mad... he said (on the radio interviewed next day) he would have called all the people at home and gotten them back... he felt a bit snubbed! :(

23rd Jul 2007, 04:08
3 weeks old???
I thought "SH#T*" got the hand-me-downs from QF!

23rd Jul 2007, 04:12
Non-ETOPS and without the APU, I guess they'd be down to single generator (or does A330-200 have an HMG?). Doubt it.
Whether the FDR and CVR would be powered by the Ram Air Turbine after the loss of both engines on the 330?
The answer is that "the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) is powered by AC BUS 1 in the A330-200. Hence without engine driven generators or the APU it is inoperative"
It thus would appear (as with the SwissAir 111 crash) that, as with the Air Transat airbus, there can be no data available about the extraordinary last phases of flight for any Jetstar A330-200 dead-stick landings (at Bali or elsewhere).

Going Boeing
23rd Jul 2007, 04:30
It will be interesting if CASA has another look at Jetstar's ETOPS approval. The original approval was given without any operational experience and with the aircraft being flown by pilots sourced from overseas operators. The only common factor that they could claim was QF engineering support.

23rd Jul 2007, 04:51
Sorry to disappoint you boeing types - but the apu being inop has no operational consequance to etops on a 330. This is due to the emergency gen system, a very large static inverter and 2 main batteries.:)

chemical alli
23rd Jul 2007, 05:37
it will definately be a static inverter, if the big noise makers stop,40 min of battery ops hope you have your floaties

23rd Jul 2007, 05:53
Posted by neville_nobody

2-1 odds on that Jetstar will before the close of business today put out a press release with the phrase "Qantas Group" or "Qantas Engineering" on it.

Reported on the AGE website (My Bolding):

Mr Westaway said that the plane landed at Denpasar because it was the closest international airport when the problem was discovered. "Darwin was next," he said. "Qantas has very good coverage in Bali - Qantas and ourselves fly there regularly. We have Qantas engineering staff on the ground."

B A Lert
23rd Jul 2007, 06:05
How fortunate that these bastards can 'trade' on the good name of Qantas? Their spinning is enough to make one want to puke so here goes :yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

I wonder how they'd be travelling without the Qantas expertise and support?

23rd Jul 2007, 07:16
Network Ten news should teach their journalists the basics ; report the facts.
The engine shut itself down, apparently.
<cue footage of a B717 while talking about the Airbus production line>

On a lighter note, even funnier was on the Channel 9 1630 news was a story about the health benefits of male circumcision, <roll interview with expert, Doctor Brian Cock> .... :D

23rd Jul 2007, 07:36
got a grip, try spotting a bit of sarcasm, they are my workmates :zzz::zzz::zzz:

Bolty McBolt
23rd Jul 2007, 07:54
Non-ETOPS and without the APU, I guess they'd be down to single generator (or does A330-200 have an HMG?). Doubt it.

It has a big HMG good for 11 KVa when driven by the EDPs (4KVa off the RAT)
APU was inop due was making metal and airbus are very sensitive about APUs as they tend to fly apart when they fail so any metal found on the magnetic chip detectors on a A330, the APU is immediately inop-ed as it was in this case on the brand new A/C. Dead APU does not effect ETOPS

One engine failed, looks like the same fault that caused QFs and other operators IFSDs. Metering valve resolver failure......
The engines supplied should have had a mod to prevent this from happening as the regulatory authorities tend to get miffed when engines fail on twin engine aircraft but it looks like the problem persisits.

Aircraft landed without drama one engine dead, 1 engine working with its Generator operating fine. I doubt the pax on a non IFE aircraft would know if you had 1 2 or 3 generators operating or available. 1 Gen is more than enough to cope with the loads.

A bit surprised the divert went to DPS. The aircraft could be there a while/days, while parts are sourced and shipped to destination. Looks like the Jet* star crew are going to get a bali layover afterall but at what lengths :O

Capt Kremin
23rd Jul 2007, 07:56
Just saw a CH 7 news ad.

"Emergency landing strands hundreds of J* passengers"

I am not trying to inflame any of the more rabid posters here, but I get the distinct impression that J* Intl is only one or two more bad press incidents away from big trouble.

Yes, we all know that sh!t happens. We all know that this was probably very professionally handled by the crew. But perceptions are everything and if I was a mug punter now looking at booking my overseas holiday, going to the Jetstar website now would be giving me pause.

One more headline saying "Jetstar passengers stranded" and that may be it.

The other consideration here is, with a cruise segment IFSD on a very low base of sectors, how will this affect J* ETOPS?

23rd Jul 2007, 08:02
I doubt it will make any difference. Most people only care about the $ these days.

As for Jetstar failures - well anyone could be next - it may be the the red rat next - (err I mean the fat bunny with the new logo) especially seeing that the fine folk at Singapore engineering seem to be doing such a marvellous job.

crocodile redundee
23rd Jul 2007, 08:11
I bet there was some VERY ashen faced Tech Crew alighting from the flight deck after surviving that little episode!!!! I can tell you that flying around Asia at night on 1 engine on ANY aircraft (let alone a bloody A320) would send shivers down my spine!!!!! Even moreso with the knowledge that the APU is U/S & only having a single engine driven generator to rely on at night !!!!! Everyone knows that the whole ETOPS criterea was invented to allow the aircraft makers to do away with 3 & 4 engined aircraft & bring in these wondrous fuel saving twins!!!!! I reckon that there is lots & lots of fuel saved once BOTH engines cease to run on an A320!!!!!!!!:suspect:

23rd Jul 2007, 08:19
Yes, I just saw the angry snivelling slobbering little Irishman on the news.

"Qantas this.......Qantas that........Qantas Engineering........etc, etc". Not a mention of "Jetstar" anywhere! Especially when skipping over the major complaint of the pax - the information flow and pax handling on the ground.

neville_nobody, your clairvoyancy skills are nothing less than outstanding!;)

23rd Jul 2007, 08:38
Croc man, think u will find it was a 330, has more redundancy than 320.

23rd Jul 2007, 09:18
Joyce really is a revolting creature. Chipped yellow teeth, scruffy hair, half day growth, revolting 1970s 6inch wide tide. Its a bit like watching Jabba the Huts anus talking.

23rd Jul 2007, 09:34
F-Class - suspect you are correct. A/C in question 'EBE' was also delayed the other night (then only a little over a week old) with number 2 engine problems. Engineers had all the cowlings open doing an engine run at the gate.

Brand new dud?

23rd Jul 2007, 09:52
Brand New A/c

Crew handled it well

Airline recovery handled well.

Pax handled as well as possible under the circumstances.

Still, I get the impression that some are desperate to find an angle on this one to stir up anti Jetstar sentiment.

23rd Jul 2007, 10:05
Hi Bolty
If you were being sarcastic/ironic then it's gone over my head and I apologise in advance.
Personally on one engine with no APU I would be looking for the nearest piece of acceptable length bitumen that could safely take me, any problems that may cause for "the company" in terms of recovery would be the lowest consideration.
If everyone walks off and the company has an intact aircraft well can't see anyone can bitch too much! :ok:

The question - were there other options??

Bolty McBolt
23rd Jul 2007, 13:51
If you were being sarcastic/ironic then it's gone over my head and I apologise in advance.
Personally on one engine with no APU I would be looking for the nearest piece of acceptable length bitumen that could safely take me,

Fair cop :ok:

piston broke again
23rd Jul 2007, 14:19
According to the news report they had to find the nearest 'international' airport due to customs. If it's a 50/50 call between a smaller airport and one with customs I know which one I would choose. If they landed elsewhere the pax would probably still be on the aircraft as we speak. Well done to the crew.

23rd Jul 2007, 15:58
Diversion required (ETOPS) if:

- Fuel Leak
- Multiple failures leading to only ONE IDG, APU GEN or EMER GEN remaining available
- Green HYD Circuit LO LVL associated with: 2 IDG failure or APU GEN not available and 1 IDG Failure

Love the airbus! So easy to understand...

23rd Jul 2007, 17:59
aaaah yes...the hyundai of the sky....should have taken those french lessons :\

23rd Jul 2007, 20:49
Slightly off thread but the French lessons reminded me of a joke

How many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris?

No one knows,it's never been tried.

24th Jul 2007, 00:42
Wasn't there an issue with an Asian carrier's Airbus 330 a few months or so ago, shutting down 2 engines and the engine manufacturer put out a computer fix?

Mike McInerney

B A Lert
24th Jul 2007, 00:52
Joyce really is a revolting creature. Chipped yellow teeth, scruffy hair, half day growth, revolting 1970s 6inch wide tide. Its a bit like watching Jabba the Huts anus talking.

Partly right. AJ is a really nice guy but his physical persona is in urgent need of a makeover. However, he is not employed for his looks. If we had half the brain and intelligence he was born with, none of us would be doing what we are doing. Like it or not, the man is brilliant, and that's why he's where he is at such a young age.

24th Jul 2007, 04:57
RedTBar: "Slightly off thread but the French lessons reminded me of a joke
How many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris?

No one knows,it's never been tried."

Reminds me of another great one....http://secure1.mppglobal.com/Preview/204/10113/275667L.jpg

24th Jul 2007, 05:13
mate thats a ripper of a t shirt can you let me know where i can get one.
pm me with the adress if its any better.

24th Jul 2007, 05:20
Continuing the thread drift....

Q: What's the only social function the French can successfully host?

A: An invasion.

Choice bro'!

24th Jul 2007, 06:02
Talking about how Jetstar handle pax, lets talk about Qantas.
4 or 5 weeks ago I was off to NZ when the 767 is pulled awat trom T1 and flight is delayed 4 hours. No word of what is happening or meal or drink ticket. Later on the crew tell me VB had a Melbourne flight cancelled due flight crew problems and Qantas used the 767 to go to Melbourne.
It cost me a fair bit of money that delay, but Qantas made money.
5 hours late to NZ, so some of you Qantas guys should look in your own backyard first.

chemical alli
24th Jul 2007, 06:06
were both the engines running when you got to nz five hours late ?

24th Jul 2007, 06:20
From golow
4 or 5 weeks ago I was off to NZ when the 767 is pulled awat trom T1 and flight is delayed 4 hours. No word of what is happening or meal or drink ticket.

Let me get this straight,you waited at the gate for 4 hours and there was not one PA or any information given for the delay?

Yep I believe that allright.....

24th Jul 2007, 06:34
If it was Brisbane to Auckland then it wasn't a Qantas 767. :hmm:
Read on the other forum that Alan Joyces thinks that it is safe to operate a jet for up to 12 hours on one engine!! One then has to question why they would enforce ETOPs rules then.

The trusty old "Qantas Group" term seems to be popping up again too!!


crocodile redundee
24th Jul 2007, 07:22
I love "Watchdog's" Hyundai of the Sky comment re the Airbus. Love it!!!!!!
Which prompts my Airbus ditty:-
What 2 comments do you Never want to hear on the flight deck of an Airbus???
1. The Captain saying "I wonder what will happen when I do this" !!!

2. The F/O saying " I've been thinking" !!!!

(Minimum Requirements for international flying- "3 Man & 3 Fans" !!!!!!!)

Douglas Mcdonnell
24th Jul 2007, 08:16
Croc nice work!!!. DC10, Tristar, 727. Thats where its at!!!

max autobrakes
24th Jul 2007, 08:39
What was that comment from one of the passengers about a Bang heard after take off, yet the flight continued?
Sounds like the whole Airline game in Australia is becoming General Aviation in Jets.:bored:

24th Jul 2007, 10:58
What was that comment from one of the passengers about a Bang heard after take off, yet the flight continued?

Yeah, that bang on take-off was surely the engine quitting (wouldn't be the noise of the gear retracting or anything would it?).

No doubt the pilots thought they were safe 'cause there's lots and lots of islands through Indo which they could put down on if the other one quit.

Crossing the sea towards Darwin, they got scared and thought they'd better go back to Bali, just in case.

Yep, that's what happened, I read it in the Tele!

Pinky the pilot
24th Jul 2007, 11:03
ABC TV news in Adelaide had a very short interview with a couple of disgruntled pax saying that they were'nt told what was happening etc etc and to top it off, one person said that there were bits falling off the aircraft and so on. I did'nt hear all of what he said but I suspect it was the usual gripes and grizzles that now sadly seem common after such events.

24th Jul 2007, 11:22
It appears that OVERTALK and CHEMICAL ALLI don't know anything about the back up power generation systems in large jet aircraft.

On the A332 there are 2 three phase AC generators driven by each engine. and a third generator powered by the APU which can replace either or both engine driven generators. As correctly stated the APU in this case was inop but this is not an ETOPS issue on the A332. With an engine out, the remaining engine driven generator can supply the entire electrical network.
(115 KVA of three phase 115/200 volt 400 hertz power). In the unlikely event of a subsequent generator failure the EMERG GEN starts which is normally supplied by the green hydraulic circuit. This supplies 8.6 KVA of three phase 115/200 volt 400hertz power. If the green hydraulic circuit was out then a RAM AIR TURBINE would drop out of the port wing flap canoe and supply 3.5 KVA 115/200 volt 400 hertz power.

I hope that armed with the facts you can now engage in sensible debate.

24th Jul 2007, 12:52
Continuing the thread drift...
Seen recently in the trading post
"for sale.. one french army gun, never fired , dropped once"

Capt Fathom
24th Jul 2007, 12:53
You have been silent for a long time Wilber.

Can you convert that to English? Thanks!

24th Jul 2007, 13:30
Hey Fred ( croc redund. ) and Barney ( D McD ) , hopefully one day you guys will fly a modern jet.
Then you can sell the stone tablet and chisel you use when the captain says " give me direct to XXX " :hmm:
Still, if you have no F/E, who are you going to cuddle on an overnight. :}

chemical alli
25th Jul 2007, 00:59
so wilbur did you cut and paste your knowledge straight from your 330 course notes,i mearly stated were both engines running in the previous post ?
if you would like to put your life down to green system hydraulic values,go rite ahead.perspnally i hope i am never sitting on a twin when a rat is deployed

25th Jul 2007, 01:17
From a non pilots point of view all this talk about redundant systems is academic.

Let's look at it from this angle.

We have a brand new aircraft flying from Thailand to Australia at night.

The APU is already unserviceable

The PIC is forced to shut down the number one engine.

Some here have said that there is nothing wrong with flying around on one engine but that is only part of the story.

Not only have we lost half of the available thrust but we also have a great big lump on one wing creating drag.

The PIC is faced with some decisions,he has shut down not one of 4 or even 3 engines but one of two.

Does he know what is the cause of the problem?

Does he know with 100 % certainty that the other engine does not have a problem.

He does know that the APU is stuffed and the aircraft is so new he can still smell the croissants the workers had for lunch before delivering the aircraft.Two out of three engines are of no use and any normal person without ego problems would be wondering about the REMAINING engine.

It does not matter if the drop down turbine could give limited power and hydraulics.

IF the ONLY other engine also goes awry then he is sitting in a very new and expensive French glider..at night.

Personally,I think the crew did a great job and erred on the side of safety because don't forget that on the other side of the flight deck door are nearly 200 people not to mention an expensive aircraft not a raft

25th Jul 2007, 02:12
" IF the ONLY other engine also goes awry then he is sitting in a very new and expensive French glider..at night. "

and they make bluddy good gliders too! already tested and proven, who needs ETOPS when you can just glide her in :}
( i knew the 'bus was the bean counters darling, but thats just ridiculous )

Capt Kremin
25th Jul 2007, 02:15
I don't think anyone is criticising the crew here.

As I said before, Jetstar is facing a major PR problem, the likes of which all airlines face at times when they have a run of incidents. QF have had them, Ansett had them. VB seemed to have escaped unscathed so far.

Jetstar Intl problem is that with 5 airframes it has not achieved critical mass and the press will leap on any incident in the near future. If you think Jetstar gets a hard time here, wait for another incident and see the press bandwagon!

25th Jul 2007, 03:54
And I'm sure that won't be long Captain.

Condition lever
25th Jul 2007, 04:43
RedTBar - perhaps we should look at this from a pilot's point of view.
Do you know anything about ETOPS?
If not allow me to add my 2c worth.
For all A330 aircraft throughout the world a U/S APU is not a critical failure and therefore will not prevent an ETOPS dispatch.
This means that after a critical failure in flight (such as an engine failure) the aircraft can legally and safely fly for a further 180mins to land at an adequate airfield (in this case DPS).
Please by all means go to the Airbus website and have a look at the number of IFSD (inflight shutdowns) that the aircraft/engine type is required to have been proven on.
Straight from the Airbus website on ETOPS:
"Propulsion system reliability is the most vital aspect of ETOPS and must
be sufficient to ensure that the probability of a double engine failure from
independent causes is lower than defined limits (this requirement
establishes a maximum In-Flight Shutdown (IFSD) rate of 0.02/1000
engine hours for 180-minute ETOPS)."
Hope this allays your fears.

crocodile redundee
25th Jul 2007, 04:43
Hey Wilburrrrrr!! You can have all the electricity in the universe buddy- but once that second donk ceases to suck/bang/blow the mighty 'BUS will still only glide for approx 120 miles till it hits the deck!!!!! I suppose the crew would be able to see the demise of themselves at night & sip some freshly brewed coffee with all that wonderful electricity at their disposal!!!!!!!!!!! The ONLY power worth having in an emergency is HORSEPOWER!!!!!!!!

VH-Cheer Up
25th Jul 2007, 04:55
"Propulsion system reliability is the most vital aspect of ETOPS and must be sufficient to ensure that the probability of a double engine failure from independent causes is lower than defined limits (this requirement
establishes a maximum In-Flight Shutdown (IFSD) rate of 0.02/1000
engine hours for 180-minute ETOPS)."

Doesn't the next paragraph in that brochure say something along the lines of "...and if the second engine fails before our fabulous 180 minute warranty period expires, just give us the coordinates of the sunken wreck, and we'll give you a BRAND NEW AIRCRAFT."

crocodile redundee
25th Jul 2007, 04:56
And to "Condition Lever". Most people who hang their hats on statistics & probability are working for the Weather Bureau- and how often are they right????? There is no place in Aviation for the sort of crap that Airbus chortle out to back up their products. I recall they used the same ammunition when they decided to make the A320 a 2 man cockpit design. I suggest rather than digesting the garbage put forward by Airbus you read the book "Fate is the Hunter".

Condition lever
25th Jul 2007, 04:59
Ahhhh... a rocket scientist!
So what would you like to do - remove ETOPS operations from all airlines?

crocodile redundee
25th Jul 2007, 05:23

25th Jul 2007, 05:24
I recall they used the same ammunition when they decided to make the A320 a 2 man cockpit design. And your point being.....?

Boeing designed and built the 767 for a 2 man flight deck, as they have the 777. 3 man cockpits died with the 747 Classics, together with flight engineers.

Condition lever
25th Jul 2007, 05:27
Yep, well its good to see that you are in touch with reality!

Bolty McBolt
25th Jul 2007, 06:13
A Q to the A330 pilots whom know the roots :}

A bit surprised the divert went to DPS. The aircraft could be there a while/days, while parts are sourced and shipped to destination. Looks like the Jet* star crew are going to get a Bali layover after all but at what lengths Sorry for quoting my own quote...

The reason I asked this question is did the crew look for the nearest alternate or the nearest Jet* airport. The aircraft flew for 1 hour on 1 donk.

If you are 1 hour past DPS do you turn round and fly back or is DRW a better alternate..

If you are 1 hour before DPS on the BKK - MEL route do you have better alternates in CGK SIN as both would be better equipped airports for maintenance and emergency landing.

I am not criticizing the crew just wondering if they were thinking outside the square when they chose their diversion port???? Or do they not carry charts for airports not in the Jet * Int network?

Condition lever
25th Jul 2007, 06:18
All charts for all airports carried.
I don't know at what point the failure occurred - and thus what airport would be the best choice, however DPS has QF maint and J* ground handling/reps, and the parts for that aircraft arrived the evening the aircraft landed.

Bolty McBolt
25th Jul 2007, 06:21
wilbur quote:-
If the green hydraulic circuit was out then a RAM AIR TURBINE would drop out of the port wing flap canoe and supply 3.5 KVA 115/200 volt 400 hertz power.

From my boating days red light was port side, green light starboard side.
To help me remember this as a lad the phrase " a little bit of red port left" was taught to me.

The RAT comes out of a flap canoe on the wing with the green light on the end :ok:

25th Jul 2007, 06:43
The ONLY power worth having in an emergency is HORSEPOWER!!!!!!!!

dammit, how can I argue with that, a man after my own heart :}

crocodile redundee
25th Jul 2007, 06:48
For your info HotDog , the 767 was designed as either 3 man or 2 man flight deck, customer choice. Many ,many many debates over 2 versus 3 man up front , which is safer etc etc , all inconclusive..... it boils down to so called "Technological advances" & the endless manufacturer greed to produce products that are supposed to be "better than the last one". Whether its Aircraft or TV sets, its the same end result.
Thats why your new Plasma TV looks so great when you buy it , then its a throw away item after 18 months because it cant be repaired, no parts & nobody around to carry out repairs. Its exactly the same now for Aeroplanes!!!!!!! My own opinion is that Technology changes are getting out of hand, to the point of absurdity!!!!!! Bring back the Golden Years of Aviation- 1960's 1970's & most of 1980's !!!!!!!!! :ugh:

25th Jul 2007, 07:54
As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) the only three man 767 was the Ansett variant. I was in Seattle doing my 747 conversion when the 767 specs were released and there were no 3 man cockpit models envisaged at the time. The only reason Boeing went along with the ridiculous Ansett requirement because they were anxious for the sale. The function of the flight engineer on Ansett's 767s , was extremely limited but it kept the unions happy.

Just found this blog on Airliners Net:

Basically in a NUT shell, the first 5 original 767-277s delivered to Ansett in 1983-84 were delivered with 3 person crewed flight decks, which included an engineers station. These were the only 767s to be delivered this way. When Ansett's 767 order was placed, AFAP (Australian Federation of Air Pilots) and AAFEA (Australian Airline Flight Engineers Association) insisted that their aircraft be operated by two pilots and an engineer. Eventually all 5 were converted into standard a standard two pilot cockpit by the time Ansett went out of business.

25th Jul 2007, 08:59
Condition lever , Thanks for your reply and yes I’m familiar with ETOPS.

The point I was trying to make though is that statistics in certain cases are largely academic.

As Disraeli reportedly said …‘There are lies, damn lies - and statistics.’

In the safety of a warm house and sipping a nice wine statistics are great but as you are gliding down to the water you can make a PA (if you have enough power) and tell the pax how unlucky they are and that they have made the record books.

25th Jul 2007, 13:40
Have only skimmed the last few pages; seems the U/S APU is almost a distraction to the real question of appropriate crew action in the real world.
Firstly we can discard any statistics - this was actually happening so lets deal with real lives rather than theoretical.
One question, one answer: one engine, the largest/longest piece of suitable bitumen with appropriate approach aids as required by WX etc.
IF it happens to be preferential for the company then that's a bonus - that is NOT, and never should be,anything but the lowest basis for the decision.

If the aircraft is in one piece, on the ground somewhere, and you can write reports about it all then not too much to bitch about really!! :D

I will happily acknowledge a substantial fudge factor regarding identifying, dealing with, considering consequences, considering options, advising those who should/need to be advised (it's all about the CRM you idiot!!! ;)) etc that MAY at times allow a better result for all.

Condition Lever - not having a go but could have improved your post by stating/inferring "as a bonus Bali does have support...", the way you worded it sounded like a company/management statement which I'm sure wasn't the intent.

Nice to know about all the electrical backup but as was discussed with a revered training captain many moons ago -" turn off all the electrics you're dark, all the engines you"re f**ked!"
Pretty sensible when you think about it - lots can be achieved with a candle and a standby compass -oh- he did mention something about an operating engine being a bit of a bonus!:eek:

Any Captains/Commanders out there want to disagree about the nearest suitable (as above) strips of bitumen as the ONLY option, other factors incidental??
Cheers :ok:

25th Jul 2007, 14:15
The engine shut down itself, they tried an inflight start with no luck. HMU Fuel metering valve resolver fail. ECU was replaced and engine was serviceable, no big deal.

25th Jul 2007, 21:00
I go along with Red on this.

What happens SUB if the aircraft had continued onto it's destination and the "HMU Fuel metering valve resolver" failed on the ONLY OTHER engine and it shut itself down?

Would that be no big deal?

26th Jul 2007, 04:20
Wibur quote:
If the green hydraulic circuit was out then a RAM AIR TURBINE would drop out of the port wing flap canoe and supply 3.5 KVA 115/200 volt 400 hertz power.
Not quite right - the RAT itself (STBD wing) does not have its own gen on an A330 (unlike the B777:ok:) - just a HYD pump that then runs the HYD powered EMER GEN on the green sys, so complete loss of Green fluid(say, due to that ENG failure being catastophic),along with APU inop and if the remaining engine gen or its drive failed means Batteries only and therefore 30 mins. to live.
BTW, on an A330 when you lose an engine you will always lose a HYD system (Blue in this case, yellow for R. Eng Fail) so some flight control power and ALTN brakes were also lost in this incident.
Also, it seems that in this case, a single further failure i.e. loss of the R. Eng Gen and assuming the EMER GEN started OK would have left them in Emergency Electrical Config. This is a very serious thing in the Bus and includes things like freefalling the gear (no retraction allowed - great on one ENG whilst over max LDG weight!:uhoh:). In EMER ELEC the aircraft would also be in direct law (flying like a normal A/C with all the pitch changes with thrust etc) - something A330 drivers are not very practiced at esp. on one eng:{.
In summary: Landing at the nearest suitable airport is the only thing to do. Suitable means: Open, WX OK, sufficient RWY length for the failure state, approach in the database (esp at night). It would not run to pax handling convenience, spare parts or whether the crew hotel has fluffy towels.
Well that's my two cents worth:}

26th Jul 2007, 14:36
Too many what ifs, 330s wiring defects are a known problem, most often on the engines (CF6) always changing the wiring harnesses.

27th Jul 2007, 01:42
Considering there are not a few Monday morning quarterbacks/ keyboard heros in our midst......here are the facts......
Just spoke to the skipper;
1. He was actually there....sitting in the left seat
2. The ONLY (single/as in one/1) factor in the reasoning/ decision making
process that culminated in Bali being the "nearest suitable", was 2 for 1
drinks at the Sari Club.
3. Much like the commander, the FO was a party boy and so, naturally, he

Just the FACTS.com........gotta love the prune....

28th Jul 2007, 09:47
A330 Green system has failsafes to ensure correct operation of RAT system .

*Reservoir has standpipe for normal system supply.
*Green System Engine Driven Pumps have supplies isolated if reservoir level drops too low.
Just for info ......

29th Jul 2007, 01:36
:D Thanks "Concerned LAME" I do recall talking about the standpipe in groundschool although of course, in our pilot book FCOM1, there is no system diagram that shows the standpipe only an implication it exists:confused::
The RAT automatically deploys, if both engines fail, or if there is low level in the green and yellow
or green and blue reservoirs..
As for the HSMU controlled engine pump isolation valve - the books don't tell us - is it near the pump or up on the pylon i.e. could a catastrophic failure cut the green supply line above the shutoff valve?

29th Jul 2007, 08:15

A few years ago I was given the job of checking a tech librarary for redundant documents. In it I found an original Boeing sales brochure for the B767. At that stage it was most assuredly a 3 man crew.There was nothing in the document about a 2 man crew.

Later I came across at least 2 Asian carriers who had E/Os on their B767s. However they seemed to disappear quickly so I am not sure if the aircraft were actually E/O panel equipped or the E/O was operating the pilot panel.

I suspect the real catalyst for a 2 man crew was the arrival of the
A310, not Boeings wish to suddenly go to a 2 man cockpit in what was at the time a difficult airline environment both commercially and industrially.

29th Jul 2007, 09:06
From http://www.ansettinwa.org/pages/aircraft/gilshistory.htm
The Ansett Boeing 767’s VH-RMD, VH-RME, VH-RMF, VH-RMG and VH-RMH are the only Boeing 767s to be configured for three man crew but if sold can easily be changed to two-man crew configuration.

29th Jul 2007, 21:44
Firstly that is a document written at the time of delivery of Ansett's
767s so nothing to say 3 man crew cockpits weren't built later.

Secondly I met 2 E/Os for an Asian carrier in NRT customs ( they had purple on their shoulders) who told me that they were on the B767 and that at least one other carrrier had 3 man B767s.

30th Jul 2007, 03:11
Wunwing, perhaps you are correct. Hardly worth an argument but for all it's worth, here is a picture of a very expensive and unnecessary option created by union pressure.

30th Jul 2007, 04:23

From my distant memory the AN B767 E/O's panel was a bit more than what is in the photo. Since I am not ex AN I can't say for sure.
It is very easy to "bag out" decisions of an earlier era with knowledge of subsequent events. Much like the real thread here where those who know the A330 seem to view the J* incident differently to those who don't.

At the time of the B767 introduction there was little experience of cockpit screens and electronics and as a result of the methodology a complete distrust of the US 3v2 man crew enquiry which resulted in the 2 crew B767.

Later episodes such as the Gimly? glider accident tended to prove that rapid removal of the E/O was not all that well thought out.Some procedures at the time were set by looking at what the E/O did from the panel operation point of view, but failed to look at other duties such as handling MEL/DDG items, calculating fuel on board via means of sticks etc. and what later became CRM procedures. As a result for the beginning years, in some airlines, a number of former E/O tasks were not covered by anyone.

Capt Fathom
30th Jul 2007, 06:36
That photo is NOT a B767 Engineer's Panel.

It is called an Accessory Panel, and is standard on (shall I suggest probably all!) most B767's.

30th Jul 2007, 06:49
Second the above comment. The only function that panel has (aside from giving any jump-seater an oxy mask and intercom panel) is for pre and post flight stuff which I won't bother going into. And it IS standard on a 767.

Lord Flashhart
30th Jul 2007, 07:12
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about a Jetstar Engine Failure, not about the useless engineer position in an Ansett 767.

30th Jul 2007, 11:16
That FE panel was the original Boeing fit. I believe Ansett retrofitted the FE's panel with a third EICAS display later.
Wunwing, don't get me wrong. I'm a retired flight engineer and all for a three man cockpit. A lot of accidents , caused by technical failures could have been avoided if a flight engineer had been present on that flight deck. However, there was no need for a flight engineers position on the 767. I think it was United who insisted to carry a flight engineer on the 737-200 for a while due to the increased workload on this new jet. 953 767s have been delivered to date and the production line is still open, five out of that definitely had a flight engineer's station, I don't know how many more but not a significant amount for sure. As Lord Flashhart has pointed out, this is a serious thread creep so I'll butt out. Cheers, HD.

Angle of Attack
30th Jul 2007, 11:34
Haha "Union Pressure" bring it damn on and more of it, there's not enough already, much better than Mr Eyebrow's pressure! ..... :ugh:

Condition lever
30th Jul 2007, 15:04
Ahhh.... yeah, good point Lord Flashheart.
Everything I never wanted to know about Ansett B767 ops.

30th Sep 2007, 07:17
Hi All .. dont mind me diggng up an old thread & event but ...

I was a passenger on this flight that diverted to Bali with one engine
... and though not a pilot or in the industry I am a keen commerical aviation follower

Now apparently the likely cause was failure of the Fuel Metering Valve - but the first things that ran through my mind as the cabin lights came on in the dead of night and the captain made the announcement were - what were the chances of the other engine also failing .. ?

I immediately thought 'fuel contamination' - is there a realistic chance of this ever being a problem ? What checks are in place to determine the fuel being pumped into the plane is of a sufficient quality and if not - is there much a modern jet could do to survive on bad gas?

And apparently this FMV failure is common on GE powered A330's - that is pretty worrying in itself they have not yet found the root cause and grounded these aircraft in the interim ???

Excuse the ignorance on these matters but appreciate the feedback ..

Lord Flashhart
30th Sep 2007, 07:48
You wouldnt happen to be a Journo working for "The Age" would you?

30th Sep 2007, 08:58
Completely O/T but there is a pic of the FE panel on the AN 767s. They were all converted back before the collapse
http://www.rosboch.net/aviationmedia/B767-277%20Ansett%20with%20the%20union%20mandated%20flight%20engi neer's%20station.JPG
http://www.rosboch.net/aviationmedia/B767-277%20Ansett%20with%20the%20union%20mandated%20flight%20engi neer's%20station%20after%20conversion.JPG

30th Sep 2007, 09:47
HSMU controlled EDP Supply Shutoffs are located on rear spar behind strut...Sorry for delayed response..

1st Oct 2007, 01:52

Chance of second engine failing. Very remote. It has happened on several occasions to commercial jets but there are much bigger things to worry about. I can only think of 1 or 2 twin jets crashing with fatal results after losing both donks.

Fuel contam. Can happen. Very rare. There are a lot of checks to ensure fuel is of good quality. Jet engines are very forgiving and most problems from mild fuel contam are long term health issues as apposed to short term engines failing issues.

I dont know much about GE donks. FMV problems - could be. The RR engines on 330's were having huge problems too. and the rudder servos on 737's. And the flap tracks on 737's. and centre tanks also. And fairing vibrations on old 320's. The list goes on but there are monitoring process's in place and airworthiness directives and operational bulletins and modified procedures that are all designed to prevent the issue from becoming front page news. Hopefully. The airlines and plane makers are generally conservative with mechanical issues and safety.

Merlins Magic
1st Oct 2007, 02:21
"...most problems from mild fuel contam are long term health issues as apposed to short term engines failing issues.'

Though it should be said that if not handled correctly, the short term engine failure issue could very easily turn into a long term health issue.

1st Oct 2007, 04:35
Interested passenger (or 'The Age')

Problem has been diagnosed as a faulty ECU from the factory.

Each ECU (one per engine) has 2 channels A and B. In this case one channel failed, then as it should have, the other channel took over. However due to a manufactuing defect, the failed channel was still sending a 'closed' signal to the fuel valve which could not be overpowered by the operating channel, therefore disallowing fuel to the engine.

In the many thousands of ECU units produced this is the first such occurence worldwide.

As above, a failure due to fuel contamination in modern day jets would require a very large amount of contaminant, not possible if proper procedures are followed.

Dual engine failure on a modern day twin, the only incidence I can think of is fuel starvation.

There's every reason to trust that if you have enough fuel the 'live' engine will get you down safely.

1st Oct 2007, 04:39
Lord Flashhart: Hah no I dont represent the newspaper I'm afraid .. it's shorthand for Adrian (my real name) .. SLF# 29J on the ill-fated bird ..

AnQrKa: Thanks for the comments .. I guess 2 x FMV failures on the same flight still very remote despite it being a 'common' problem on GE A330's .. ?

Mstr Caution
1st Oct 2007, 12:30
Dual engine failure on a modern day twin, the only incidence I can think of is fuel starvation.

Or perhaps a multiple engine failure as a result of flying on a route with an active volcano.

What's the chance of that though.

Going Boeing
1st Oct 2007, 13:08
Or perhaps a multiple engine failure as a result of flying on a route with an active volcano.

What's the chance of that though.

The way that Jetstar Intl ignore restrictions on air routes that are being affected by volcanic activity, then the chances are higher than an airline that acts more responsibly. :ugh:

2nd Oct 2007, 02:58

There is only one airline that self restricts itself on the route you are talking about. Have seen many others use the same route, which is no longer restricted.;)

Condition lever
2nd Oct 2007, 10:21

Which ICAO route restriction is that?????

Going Boeing
2nd Oct 2007, 23:47

Can't remember the route number but it was the main route used on SYD-HKG & MEL-HKG routes between waypoints Molly, Bonda & Ambon just to the east of Sulawesi. I believe that it was a QF (not ICAO) restriction on its own operations as a result of a risk assessment.


I find it bizarre that as the parent airline has assessed the route to be unsafe for night operations but the subsdiary airline is allowed to still use the route. That would indicate less emphasis on safety at the subsidiary - volcanic ash encounters are very dangerous. Other airlines that have I have heard using the route at night aren't known for putting safety ahead of burning 500kgs more fuel.

3rd Oct 2007, 02:26

I believe the route is A216 and the volcano concerned is Manam.

Jetstar conducts its own assement on this route in real time, not a blanket avoidance. If the risk is increased, say orange, then Jetstar Aircraft will be re-planned.

As mentioned previously there are a number of airlines which adopt a similar appraoch to this route.

I urge you to think a little outside the QF square (no offence intended).

Condition lever
3rd Oct 2007, 04:11
My point being there is no ICAO route restriction.
JJW - well put.
The post on qrewroom (probably by GB) was quite interesting to show that the Sky God mentality is alive and well at QF.

Going Boeing
3rd Oct 2007, 07:30
CL, I happy that Qantas doesn't rely on ICAO to do the risk assessment on route suitability. ICAO has too much on its plate to handle day to day operations issues. surely, you would prefer to operate in the safest manner possible and not just hope that there has been no volcanic activity on the air route that you are about to fly at night.

Your fishing is unsuccessful as it wasn't me who posted this issue on Qrewroom.

Jet Jockey
5th Oct 2007, 01:17
The Big Q can fly miles off track all year round. For those ignorant folk to have a dig a J* is laughable. The routes are monitored 24/7. Yes they are active and puff smoke which is closely monitored by satelite pic plus infrared plus visual reports. Anything of substance and J* aircraft are re-routed.
To be flying off route all year round sounds a little over the top.:=

5th Oct 2007, 03:19
Jet Jockey - I think there is a dedicated volcanic advisory centre where QF get their info from - it provides up to date route restrictions via ACARS/Notam etc.

There are good reasons for it. Others have learnt the hard way. It seems foolish to ignore those leasons.

Going Boeing
5th Oct 2007, 03:35
JJ, a visual report at night may be too late.

The decision to fly 2NM right of track through Indonesian Airspace was because of an unacceptable number of separation breakdowns. I have personally experienced two NMACs (no TCAS on both occasions & one was very close head-on) and I don't ever want to have another one. For you to knock that off track procedure indicates that you are not focused on safety - more a "she'll be right, mate" attitude.

5th Oct 2007, 11:14
Yeee Haaaa little doggy,
GA in Jets here we come!!!:}

Mstr Caution
6th Oct 2007, 00:30
Jet Jockey - Anything of substance and J* aircraft are re-routed.

It's the degree of substance which is open to interpretation, relating to degree of risk & in return profit levels.:8