Air NZ 737 donk goes pop

[Old 'Un]

It had to happen sooner or later. A 737 en route AKL - WLG lost an engine and diverted to HLZ, landing safely (as we would expect. right?) and as reported in Stuff. Here's the link:

Plane makes emergency landing in Hamilton | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4976317/Plane-makes-emergency-landing-in-Hamilton)

All nice straight, no-nonsense stuff.

BUT, Radio NZ's National news just HAD to go further didn't they.

Radio New Zealand : News : National : 'Huge bang' as plane engine malfunctions mid-flight (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/74678/'huge-bang'-as-plane-engine-malfunctions-mid-flight)


Yep, the good old "I thought we were all gonna die" routine.

Where do they get these reporters from?

Le Vieux

[Fruet Mich]

Ya gotta love how an Air New Zealand 737 has an engine failure and there is nothing on the news.

Qantas has a fuel valve problem and there is a chopper in the air broadcasting it all over the world!!

I've lost count how many people I've heard tell me they won't fly Qantas because they don't trust their aircraft.

[komac2]

YouTube - AIR NEW ZALAND BOEING 737-3U3 EMERGENCY LANDING on ONE ENGINE @ HAMILTON

[27/09]

Well that was a big non event, as you might expect. A lot of frustrated firemen standing around by the looks of it.

[CI300]

It was pretty big on the news I watched.. crap reporting though.

[another superlame]

No way. Surely this stuff on happens to Qantas.

[mattyj]

mustve been something big to go to HN..surely only a few minutes less than going back to AA....?!

[slamer.]

In a twin engine aircraft what do ya reckon the QRH says about actions in the event of an EF.....?

Something bout ... "plan to land at nearest suitable airport"

[Cactusjack]

Yeah it was a pretty big event bro. Lots of smoke and flames and stuff hey. Good thing all onboard the Air New Zulland flight were safe hey.
Cheers bro

[Desert Dingo]

But did it "PLUMMET"?
It's really serious when that happens. :ok:

[haughtney1]

Slamer......just to be pedantic, and cos I am nursing a mild case of alcohol induced headache syndrome...

"plan to land at the nearest suitable airport.." can mean a great deal of things...besides which, suitable is open to interpretation as well:E

[Nose wheel first]

Passenger Brian Childs says about half way into the flight he heard "huge bang" that sounded like the undercarriage had gone.
"The plane just rolled badly to the right then back again to the left and then started dipping."
"I thought this was it, we're gonna die."


Last time my undercarriage "had gone" there was no bang... I feel let down!!!

Strange how even when the engine was shut down by the pilots there was still a "huge bang".... peoples imagination must run into absolute overdrive.

[slamer.]

haugntney ... Agreed, but to fly past an operable port (which HN undoubtedly was) for commercial reasons alone (which is ultimately what it would boil down to) on one engine would be a dubious decision in my books. Based on that logic you may as well continue to destination.

Im sure the intention is to put the A/C on the ground safely for the circumstances ASAP.

I wont go further cause I know you know the rest...! and Ill accept you were being a little pedantic...:E


Disclaimer: I dont actually know where the EF occured or what if any complicating issues they had to contend with. But Ill propose they were closest to HN....!

[Offcut]

"Suitable Airport" is not open to interpretation at all. It is Black in white, at least in Air NZ's manuals. A suitable airport is an "Adequate Airport" (essentially, long enough and strong enough), with weather, atc, and approaches that will allow a safe landing to be carried out on the day. The only real reason to fly to a more distant suitable airport is if the Captain believes it will be safer for some reason. That reason would not include pax convenience, engineering support or a nicer cafe for lunch. Also, it is nearest in terms of time, so if you were at 30 000' over Hamilton, you could argue that Auckland is just as close in terms of time.

As for the stories of "plummeting to our deaths", what else can we expect.

[philipnz]

Yes, it PLUMETTED, it's serious

Passengers shriek and sob as plane plummets | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/new-zealand/4976975/Passengers-shriek-and-sob-as-plane-plummets)

Passengers screamed as an Air New Zealand plane plummeted for several seconds when one of its engines failed during a flight.

[slamer.]

5:30 AM Monday May 9, 2011


http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201120/SCCZEN_A_300506NZHMMAIR1_220x147.JPG

A passenger on an Air New Zealand plane forced to make an emergency landing at Hamilton airport yesterday considered sending his wife a loving text when the plane started rolling and nose-diving.
Brian Childs said he heard a "huge bang" before the plane, flying from Auckland to Wellington, started rolling and nose-diving about halfway into the hour-long flight. "It scared the s*** out of me. I honestly thought that was it and I was going to die."
Mr Childs said passengers on the right-hand side of the plane told him they saw a big flash and smoke start pouring from the engine.
"One of the cabin crew who ran to the back of the plane was as white as a ghost," he said.
"It was pretty scary. I thought that was it. The plane dipped to the right side then swung over to the left before it started diving."
He said the pilot told the passengers that something had gone wrong with the Boeing 737 plane's right engine, which had been shut down. "It felt like the simulation that Air New Zealand released after their plane crashed in France... The woman next to me said she felt as though she were on the 9/11 flight and wanted to call her loved ones."

Another passenger, Simon Hoffman, said a passenger a few seats behind him had an anxiety attack and needed oxygen and others were in tears.
"Some people were visibly upset - they weren't making much noise but you could see it on their faces and they had tears in their eyes."
He said the pilot updated passengers over the intercom and the flight crew were "amazingly professional and calm". Mr Hoffman, who was returning from a 5-month overseas family holiday, said his three children were on edge for the rest of the flight.
The plane turned around to head back to Hamilton airport because it was too windy to land in Wellington with one engine.
Mr Hoffman said there was applause onboard when the plane landed safely at Hamilton airport about 10.20am.
Air New Zealand spokesman Mark Street said the problem was most likely caused by low oil pressure and not an explosion.
"The passengers probably would have seen smoke because of the low oil pressure, which means oil has come out of the engine. That also would have caused the flash."
The 95 passengers were taken via bus back to Auckland and were staggered across a number of flights yesterday afternoon.
The plane has been taken out of service and the Civil Aviation Authority has been informed.

[Iain320]

3news has a very amusing animation of what they believe happened :rolleyes:

Plane scare shakes passengers - National - Video - 3 News (http://www.3news.co.nz/Plane-scare-shakes-passengers/tabid/309/articleID/210267/Default.aspx)

[Led Zeppelin]

Offcut has got it right.

It's a time issue and a more distant airport may indeed be more suitable as the time for descent may be the same as for an airport immediately below the aircraft at the time of the event.

[Morrisman1]

Trust the media to hype it up, they probably waited on the ground to find the stressed mother come screaming into the terminal with her three nagging children because of course she will say "we plummeted to the ground" and "i thought I was going to die". Never mind the rest of the passengers coming out calmly saying "that was a fun bit of excitement"

Someone might be able to shed some light on the engine failure characteristics of a 737 whether they are dramatic of just a yaw and roll (if not fixed soon enough) like in a light twin. Someone mentioned 'shuddering' and I cannot for the life of me think why it would shudder unless the engine tangentially disassembled itself

[Dangnammit]

"Shuddering"??

I think they call it Turbulence.

[Morrisman1]

Stuff has reported on a second engine failure, this time on a b1900 operated by eagle.

Second Air New Zealand engine drama - travel | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/4979496/Second-Air-New-Zealand-engine-drama)

[slamer.]

Offcut

I think you may be confusing EDTO terminology into the mix.

Have a look at RG1 OP's .10 dot points to refresh.

[rreds]

I was on this flight and surprisingly the radio new zealand report is in fact, the more accurate. There was 3 bangs close together, a violent slewing of the aircraft and fine blue smoke inside the cabin. An experience not to be repeated.

[Old 'Un]

Thanks, RReds. Your observation gives me a clue as to what may have happened. I'll keep quiet until the official report(s) come through.

Not a pleasant experience though, even for a seasoned traveller.

Now, where's the third engine failure? Everyone knows that bad luck always runs in threes. Doesn't it?

So which one have our eagle-eyed journos not spotted? :rolleyes:

Another glass of red, garçon.

Le Vieux

[hans66]

The third unfortunate occurence may be my re-entering the wonderful world of GA last weekend, Old One.

[On Guard]

A suitable airport is not black and white. And yes you are getting mixed up with EDTO. Are you telling me if HN was open you must go to HN?

What if HN was max X wind and Min vis. Also short rw that if LDR was factored the a/c could not land. Still technically suitable but is this wise?

AA is CAVOK with better RFF, longer. That is your nearest suitable in my opinion unless it is a dire situation.

Granted on the day HN was fine and well done to the crew, I'm just interested in the debate on nearest suitable not in casting opinions on this event.

[Des Dimona]

It's the nearest SUITABLE airport time wise.

Amongst other factors, weather, aircraft status, pilot experience and familiarity may influence which airport is deemed to be "suitable" on the day.

[A37575]

I can see it now. 737 in cruise everyone relaxed down the back. Two pilots "monitoring" up front - one reading the newspaper the other filling in the tech log. Then a loud bang like a compressor stall which it probably was. And if you haven't seen or heard a compressor stall then believe me the bang is real loud and scary.

Aircraft yaws because the autopilot does not control the rudders. "Wot the f..k"? sez the captain. Both look at the engine instruments. The captain decides to shut down the engine (which by now has probably recovered itself from the compressor stall) and closes the offending engine thrust lever while still on autopilot. Big yaw now occurs because of the closed throttle and someone up front is a bit slow to prevent further yaw.

Someone maybe disconnects the autopilot and instinctively applies rapid aileron and spoilers to get the aircraft on a even keel. Spoilers at high altitude in cruise can cause rapid wing waggling caused by overcontrolling.

By now a couple of hundred few feet of altitude loss is evident, the altitude alerter sounds causing someone up front to exclaim "s..t!" and further overcontrols both ailerons and elevators to get back to cleared level. Finally everything is under control again and the autopilot is carefully re-engaged and a PA is made to the people down the back who were the recipients of the momentary harsh over-controlling made in haste rather than deliberate.

To the startled passengers it felt like the 737 was porpoising and rolling rapidly for maybe 5-10 seconds as the crew got over their own momentary fright. Any dead heading pilot down the back I'm sure would be equally startled as the passengers at the sudden yaw and rolls that occured.

It is not like a planned simulator session where the pilot knows roughly when the instructor will fail an engine and is ready on the rudder. From a smooth cruise to a sudden loud unexpected bang or multiple bangs and yaw would likely cause even the most switched on crew up front to be victim of the startle factor and lose a few seconds before they had things calmly under control up front within the regulatory allowance of +/- 20 degrees in initial yaw to +/- 5 degrees in subsequent heading.

[limitedrisk]

This scenario couldn't of happened in an Airbus from AA to WN.

It would still be in the climb.....;)

[plainmaker]

C'ept it wasn't an Airbus - if we can believe the media. :=
Plainmaker

[Stationair8]

Sure it wasn't a Piper 172?

[tpad]

Okay, I'll admit that after 23 years on the type, I'm still learning, but is it just me, or is A37575's post deeply offensive to anyone else whose qualified ?

I've done sectors as short as 22 minutes, and as long as 6 hours, but I don't recall ever being as slack as this poster insinuates.

It seems, according to A37575, that any sort of formal investigation is not required, he/she has it all completely sussed. Clearly, it was badly handled by the flight crew on the day.

I flew this aircraft for six different operators .... FYI Sir, the flight crew of the airline in question, have a very high standard, to which a lot of other companies aspire.

If you have some " Inside knowledge " that you would like to share, then please go ahead. If you don't then IMHO, you should apologise on this thread.

This response was chardonnay assisted.

Regards Tpad

[Pontius]

Tpad, I'm not offended by the remarks but they are unrealistic as far as an engine surge goes. I had one on a 737 and the thing was banging away like a barn door in a storm. There was, however, certainly no noticeable yaw because the loss of thrust during the actual surges was negligible. The autopilot coped very well with the event and certainly didn't produce the results as described. In diagnosing the problem there was no need to rush and there is nothing in the Boeing manuals that suggests you need to close the thrust lever so quickly that yaw in uncontrollable. We closed the thrust lever slowly and applied rudder because, amazingly, we know the autopilot doesn't do this and, by doing what any reasonable 737 pilots would do (and I certainly include Air NZ pilots in that description) we had no aerobatics as described. The autopilot stayed engaged and we maintained altitude (although started to slow to drift down speed). Again, there's no knee-jerk decisions to shut down the engine because once that thrust lever is closed the surging is reduced to a mere annoyance, if it continues at all (as ours did). So, once again, the dreaded yaw can be anticipated and easily countered by the PF. I have no idea at what stage of the game the Air NZ flight had their problem but mine required a descent as we were above the single-engine cruise altitude. Again, no need for dropping like a stone and/or recovering to the original level, as a quick chat with ATC will sort out that problem.

So, all in all, while I normally like A37575's comments, I think this one is over-the-top and certainly does not describe the actions of a trained 737 crew, even if they were relaxed and not coiled springs.

[waren9]

Tpad

+1

I started a reply to that A3757390210 post the other night but in the end couldn't be bothered.

Every engine failure I've had at altitude (in the sim, anyway) has been a big non event.

This post is O.P Bundy endorsed.

W9.

[Centaurus]

I was on this flight and surprisingly the radio new zealand report is in fact, the more accurate. There was 3 bangs close together, a violent slewing of the aircraft and fine blue smoke inside the cabin. An experience not to be repeated.


From a smooth cruise to a sudden loud unexpected bang or multiple bangs and yaw would likely cause even the most switched on crew up front to be victim of the startle factor and lose a few seconds before they had things calmly under control up front



"A violent slewing of the aircraft". No one is criticising the professionalism of the crew. Sometimes pilots do actually read a newspaper in flight. Others prefer to entertain themselves chatting up a female FA when she visits the flight deck. Nothing wrong with that. Often a pilot will fill in the fuel log in flight. The words "f..k and "s...it" are part of normal crew conversation in flight with some people and a startled oath when faced with an unexpected loud event in flight is entirely normal. The `violent slewing` described by the Pprune correspondent above is either a lie (I don't think so, do you?) or an accurate description of the event as it affected that contributor.

The post by A37575 was light hearted humour and tongue in cheek. Some people take themselves too seriously... lighten, up chaps

[tpad]

Hi Centauras

On the red tonight, so taking myself a lot less seriously.

However, I still feel mildly aggrieved. For 38 years in the business, I watched the profession go down the tube in almost every category you like to name.
I just don't see the point in attacking a flight crew, of whom, the poster has almost certainly no personal or operational knowledge. If the post was made in jest, he/she needs another script writer.

I used to enjoy the fraternity of the game. Clearly that is long gone. In the race to the bottom, some of us just can't wait to bag the next guy.

We are paid not to scratch the paint. Ever !! QED.

They landed safely. Job well done.

What possible good can come of denigrating this crew ?

The customers also read these threads. IMHO the big picture is that it is unnecessary attack on all of us, that has no merit.

Having said that, I'm retired and don't really give a stuff.

Oh well, back to the Pinot

Regards Tpad

[Ejector]

Yep, **** happens, and a well trained crew delt with it without any more troubles.

Good on them. :ok:

[kiwi grey]

Apart from all the other reasons, perhaps a good choice?
Let's think about it ... maybe something is badly broken, and the aircraft could end up blocking its landing runway for some period, perhaps a long period.
What are the practicable choices?


Go on to Wellington: single runway, NZ's busiest airport, hub of the entire Air NZ Domestic network, potential traffic disruption catastrophic;
Go back to Auckland: single runway, NZ's principal international port of entry & exit, hub of trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman operations, potential traffic disruption major; or
Divert to Hamilton: hub of insomnia, a place that makes Palmerston North look exciting, potential traffic disruption negligible or less


No choice, really
:E

[billyt]

You have to be joking right?

As PIC your job is to get the aircraft back on the ground and not worry about any disruption it may cause at the airport you decide to use. Next thing you will be wanting to use airports with cheaper parking or the rail connections are better or some other lame reason.

If it is the closest and suitable then use it.

It appears in this case the engine was contained so a single engine landing is hardly likely to have caused a runway blockage.

You would look a bloody idiot to divert to a more distant airport on one donk and then it gives up the ghost before you get there.

[#1AHRS]

Let's think about it ... maybe something is badly broken, and the aircraft could end up blocking its landing runway for some period, perhaps a long period.
What are the practicable choices?
Go on to Wellington: single runway, NZ's busiest airport, hub of the entire Air NZ Domestic network, potential traffic disruption catastrophic;
Go back to Auckland: single runway, NZ's principal international port of entry & exit, hub of trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman operations, potential traffic disruption major; or
Divert to Hamilton: hub of insomnia, a place that makes Palmerston North look exciting, potential traffic disruption negligible or less
No choice, really

And Hamilton is a suitable place for 737 maintenance at 60 odd miles away from AKL?

Suitable airport, well the only time I had an enroute issue like this, I was flying a November register with a yank copilot over Iran. However we still diverted to a suitable airport, it just took a little longer thats all.