25 Aug VS301 Engine Problems

[andrewmcharlton]

I was SLF on the VS301 from DEL - LHR yesterday, A340-600.

Somewhere over northern Germany we were advised of an engine problem and a possible shutdown.

Everything was normal and we landed uneventfully at LHR followed by fire crews etc but no problems and taxi to gate seem to be normal and no delays.

A few engineers were pouring over No 1 as soon as we were on stand, anyone have any ideas what happened or what the problem was ?

[Flightman]

Not sure of the cause of the shutdown, but it was a 3 engine landing.

[andrewmcharlton]

The lack of no 1 was not evident in the cabin to most, the only noticeable moment was on touchdown there was a slight slew to port presumeably as the power came off slightly asymetrically, but no big deal and everyone was unperturbed by the event.

Fine work without any drama.

[GK430]

I was about to start a thread elsewhere. I had a feeling that No1 was windmilling and then I heard there had been a local sby followed by the surface inspection. Right aircraft at approx 16:35z?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Emirates/Virgin340.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Emirates/No1.jpg

[andrewmcharlton]

exactly that.....

[Flap62]

Right then!

Would be interested to hear the consensus about telling SLF (as you put it!) about a possible problem that might require shutting down an engine. Why bother telling them (and indeed the cabin crew!). What possible benefit would this have other than worry 250 people un-necessarily for the last hour of the flight. If it was something as inoccuous as a slow oil leak with no need for a diversion ( or any sort of precautionary landing) then I cannot see the need to tell the punters.
Where will we be next - need to do a bit of fuel balancing, hang on I'll just make a quick PA!

[andrewmcharlton]

Well as SLF (and A PPL IR spare time) I think that it was good form to tell everyone.
The airline are in a difficult spot, if they say nothing a PAX finds out it smacks of not being frank etc but the way we were told was very calm, reassuring and nobody was unduly phased by it.
Nobody expects announcements about anything which is a simple operational issue but if there is a perceived impact on safety by the PAX (not by crew) then I think it's fair to tell them, but the delivery manner needs to be right.
I appreciate that everything was hunky dory and no great problem to the crew or any risk of safety to the hull based on the posts here but certain bits of information I think are not required to be disclosed and some are. This one was. Each to their own, if I have same number of landings as take off's it's a result so sure people will be divided on this.
I appreciate the efforts of the crew and it was obviously handled in a textbook way so my appreciation to them AND the cabin crew who as usual just did an immaculate job. Thanks.

[Flap62]

It's not a case of the passengers finding out the crew were not frank - I'm not suggesting lying, they just don't need to know. Yes, you may have been soothed, but what about the nervous flyer who only just got on the aircraft? Would it not be better if they never knew about the problem?
I think this stems in part from the public perception that losing an engine is a problem that was "well handled" by the crew. A precautionary shut-down in the cruise is absolutely no cause for concern. If it did happen over Germany the aircraft may have needed to descend a couple of thousand feet - as a pax you would not think this unusual (if indeed you even notice it). It would have made no appreciable difference to the arrival time and had London been in 100m viz fog, I am sure the aircraft would have continued for a full cat3b no DH autoland. If on arrival the PAN situation was still declared (which would be prudent) then a PA at a late stage to explain the presence of the fire trucks would be sensible.
The decision to tell the pax should be balanced by the probability that for every pax who is consoled by the smooth handling (of the non-event), there will be 10 who are panic striken (by the non-event!).
I would also argue that there is no need to brief the crew in this situation. If there is no requirement for any emergency precautions, the sight of the crew running about whispering to each other will not go un-noticed.

[andrewmcharlton]

I can't argue either way, I was happy to know and equally happy in my own mind it was no big deal.

Different strokes for different folks I guess...

[Rainboe]

the only noticeable moment was on touchdown there was a slight slew to port presumeably as the power came off slightly asymetrically,
You should be careful of the presumptions you make! If we are talking no.1 engine, then right trim would have been in for the approach. So when thrust was taken off, any 'slew' would have been towards the right as the asymetric thrust fell away. All you felt was a common minor yaw on landing- probably wind effect or settling on one side first.

Flying 747s over the years, I had many engine shutdowns. Even outboard ones- totally untraumatic, and nobody needs to feel a thing! Even on touchdown. Might sound unlikely, but these big aeroplanes have a lot of inertia. As I'm here, I'll add my bit- nobody needs to be told. The Cabin Crew will find out anyway- from being told by one of the pilots. But it is so not an emergency the passengers need be told anything more than 'for technical reasons', with an explanation following on the taxi in (largely to explain why we lost 20 minutes on the ETA). The last one I had we pressed on to Chicago after shutting down over Labrador, Canada. There is no need to alarm anyone. ATC only told to advise of possible poorer go-around performance. It is automatic to send emergency vehicles out to aircraft n ground.

[Return to base]

As somebody who has spent the last forty years or so engineering electrical systems into the aircraft you pilots fly I feel as if I know a little about the reliability of today´s modern aircraft. Because of this I must agree with Rainboe.
When a system malfunctions it is not the end of the world and as a passenger the last thing I want to know is if an engine has been shut down. Not just for the fact that my fingernails are short enough already but I do not want to listen to fellow passengers upsetting each other with a "what if" situation. We cannot do anything about the situation, we must trust to the reliability of the remaining engine/system and the judgement of the "front office". The less I know of a problem whilst I´m at 35000ft the better I feel!


rtb.

[Pinkman]

Well, here's another opinion from someone who has both flown, worked in avops, and now spends most of his time sitting on a plane. I agree with Rainboe - I dont need to know the details any more than when I was fuelling aircraft you needed to know that the water content of the Jet-A was higher than I would have liked but still half what was allowed. Coming back from DEL (as it happened) on a BA 747 last year and standing around my favourite 62A chatting to the c/crew while still at IGI, the dispatcher was shuttling backwards and forwards with AD signoffs etc. Whats up? They asked. One of the Generators is U/S he replied. I thought fine, but I wish I hadnt known. Bizarrely, it was in the back of my mind for the rest of the flight. If you trust your flight crew, you don't need to know.

[PAXboy]

I wonder if the Captain thought that they would tell the cabin because the fault (at that time) developing rapidly. If the fault had escalated further, then a divert would be needed. So ... tell the Pax now, just in case? Then all went smoothly.

As a pax of 40 years sitting, I might agree that I don't need to know but I would not be bothered by it. I know that many pax would be. The crew thought it important at that moment.

Flap62
If it did happen over Germany the aircraft may have needed to descend a couple of thousand feet - as a pax you would not think this unusual (if indeed you even notice it).Anyone watching the route progress on the map displayed through the IFE - would have noticed it! However, my guess is that most would indeed not have thought it unusual.

[fmgc]

I am not criticizing this Captains decision, I do not have all the facts to hand and I suspect there is more to it than is reported here.

However for a relatively minor failure my views are thus:

For those pax that were interested (eg spotters, know it all ppls and flight simmers), it would be merely that, interesting.

For those pax that were even only slightly anxious of flying it would be terrifying.

The "interesting" element does not nearly outweigh the "terrifying" element, what is more important, feeding a curiosity or not scaring the crap out of your punters?

Therefore I would not dream of telling the pax about it.

It is not unusual to have technical problems in a flight, and unless it is likely to become apparent to the pax that something is wrong, then probably best not to mention anything about it.

[rotorspin]

boring...:ugh:

Came on this thread thinking it would be discussing the technical issues of the cause of the shut down...

Instead its a load of passengers discussing what the crew did or did not say to the pax... who cares? :hmm:

[fmgc]

Some of us find technical issues dead boring and the human element fascinating!

Touche!

:ugh: