Asiana Crew in Trouble

[JanetFlight]

Well, it seems they are not goin' to flying so soon...:bored:

Asiana 767 crew grounded after flying on one engine - 4/28/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/asiana-767-crew-grounded-after-flying-on-one-engine-398636/)

[Intruder]

SAIPAN?!? What were they thinking?!?

[nitpicker330]

No much I would guess.....:{

[LongTimeInCX]

At least they kept the tail of their aircraft attached to the fuselage.

[RAT 5]

Could this be a demo of 'trained monkey syndrome'? They didn't shut down the engine; thus they never reached the point in the QRH which says consider a relight; If unsuccessful land at nearest suitable airport.

There was a similar incident many many years ago of a European based B767 that had an engine vibration indication at TOC out of the Canaries. Reduced thrust reduced the vibration and the a/c continued to its homeland. I don't know if it made destination, but it made it to a home engineering base. The argument was the engine was providing power and thus might have been available in an emergency with the other engine. MIGHT being the operative word.

One wonders if the commercial consideration proved mightier than the airmanship one; the same in this case. Is it that, as an NTSB accident investigator explained, pilots are 'mission orientated'. They want to complete the mission. This can lead to hero-nics and get home-itis. We know the consequences, often. However, in both these events there was a completion of the mission so they could say "what's the fuss?" I guess that's what captains are paid for and the company + XAA will decide.
I wonder what would have happened if it had been a new FBW generation a/c. It would have sent a signal back to base that the a/c was feeling sick and Ops would have got on the phone. Then what? Hm?

[Tomspur]

The SK government will take this very seriously in the wake of the recent ferry disaster. All government companies have been placed on high alert to revise and institute Emergency evacuation plans. There is a large public outcry about the ferry incident so anytime anybody within the Korean workforce now puts another person at risk, there will be heads a rolling......

Sad that something catastrophic had to happen before drastic steps are taken.

[compressor stall]

get home-itis

Not sure of the relevance in this case where they continued from near their departure to a remote island in the Pacific.

[Super VC-10]

Putting it another way...

BA crew fly thousands of miles on -1 engine = no problem.
Asiana crew fly hundreds of miles on -1 engine = deep in the mire

:ooh:

[BANANASBANANAS]

I think the BA situation you are referring to involved a B744. A four engined aircraft which is fully certificated to continue to destination if only 3 engines are working.
But I stand to be corrected.

[ulugbek-pilot]

I wonder what was the fuel endurance upon arrival?

[burgerbun]

Super VC-10


4 engine aircraft as opposed to 2 engine aircraft!!!:=

[Lonewolf_50]

From a risk management standpoint, that flight was going to spend a great deal of time over water/open ocean.
I can see the Chief Pilot calling these gents in and asking: "Guys, what were you thinking?"

Likely no tea and no biscuits during the meeting.

[WillFlyForCheese]

This is clearly Boeing's fault for designing an aircraft that will continue to fly with an engine warning light on. It's confusing - I'm sure - for the aircraft to otherwise perform normally when things aren't just right.

No fault of the pilots here. Nothing to see - move along.

[KAL__Aviator]

I can see the Chief Pilot calling these gents in and asking: "Guys, what were you thinking?"

On the contrary, I'm not surprised at all if that's what the Chief Pilot (or company) wanted.

Ask anyone who has working experience in either KE or OZ will reveal that an important decision to press on to destination lies very much with the company than PIC. Most locals won't even question the decision, and are not capable of doing so due to lack of knowledge and for fear of repercussion.

In this case, some heads will roll due recent events of SFO (did they learn anything?) and ferry incident, but nothing will change. Lip service and boxes ticking will still be the focus, sadly.

[autoflight]

Everything depends on which warning light and the Asiana procedure.

Finally it is up to the captain.

[fox niner]

Actually, the crew is not at fault. They are deeply embedded is an ancient system of cultural peculiarities, unable to speak up or think for themselves due to mandatory respect towards elderly people.
Waiting for the next disaster.
The Korean Air safety issue, and "solutions"of the nineties temporarily made it appear as if the problems were solved, but nope. It runs deeper than that.
Boats, planes, trains, nuclear reactor plants etc. are all at risk as long as it is impossible to speak up as a low ranking individual. The fear of punishment imposed by management is not going to help either.
Do I have a solution then??? No.

[cessnapete]

The incident you are referring to was a B744 which on three engines has more redundancy than a 767 fully serviceable on take off!!
Probably not a course of action most crews would take, but flight safely completed. Crew finger trouble over fuel management at the end of trip marred a text book operation.

[Perrin]

Fox niner you are so right, talking to the suits that don't listen and some them were never in the sharp end. :ugh:

[JABBARA]

What I know, the problem was OIL FILTER CLOG.

In the case A 330 with PW engine, the only ECAM response is "Crew Awarness", nothing else (i.e no LAND ADSAP, STS PAGE etc).

If it would happen to me (A 330) I would continue to destination as well.

What do A 330 Gurus think?

[flyhardmo]

JABBARA

Maintenance personnel in Saipan later discovered “metal particles” – apparently caused by abrasion – blocking an engine oil filter. According to South Korean official news agency Yonhap, a replacement engine had to be flown to Saipan.



It didn't really say what the warning light was and I'm not sure if the 767 has a chip detector indication but it was serious enough to warrant an engine change rather than continue 4hrs over an open ocean. I would understand had they turned around and gone back to ICN passing hundreds of airports within a stones throw away.

Any drivers/engineers with 767/CF6 knowledge can enlighten us on warnings and procedures in this situation?

[Intruder]

On the 744 with the CF6, an ENG OIL FILT light requires an engine shutdown if the light does not go out when thrust is reduced to idle. If the light goes out at reduced thrust, the engine can be kept running.

Dunno 'bout the 767 installation...

[Brenoch]

Same on the 767, light still on warrants shut down.

[aguadalte]

GE CF-6 Engines are required to be shut-down if, at idle, an ENG OIL FILTER CLOG message is still present.
Having in mind that this flight would be an ETOPS one, and that the engine issue came out after 1 hour of flight, rules dictate that the aircraft could not have even entered the ETOPS sector in that condition and that a diversion would have to be made to a suitable airdrome.
It is a stupid thing to do, to fly over water with such warning and it not only puts everyone at jeopardy but will also put at stake the company's ETOPS certification..
It is much better (even much cost effective) to return to the company's facilities, where maintenance have all the required equipment to do the job and where a second aircraft can be scheduled to take the passengers safely to destination, than to take the risk of a worse scenario and get to the destination and find yourself in hands with the problem (and the cost) of having to displace a spare engine and a maintenance crew to do the work outside their base. And remember, mission was not accomplished, because there were certainly passengers waiting to be taken back to Seoul...
I guess people will never learn...

[Smudger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from memory wasn't the BA 744 engine shut down due to a fire warning ? Even a precautionary shutdown demands a landing at the nearest suitable airport. I fly a Boeing twin and if I ever have an engine fire successfully extinguished I am going to LAND at the nearest suitable airport. Any thought of continuing to destination is folly (unless it is the nearest suitable anyway). Having had a fire, how do you know what if any associated damage has been caused and to what system or component, four engines or otherwise ? Just my take on things and I'm sure there will be plenty of armchair experts out there who will be only too willing to shoot me down in flames (ouch). Slightly off thread for which I apologise.

[BOAC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from memory wasn't the BA 744 engine shut down due to a fire warning ? - pretty sure you are!

[barit1]

NOT a fire warning - nothing external to the engine case.

Rather, an internal malfunction - likely a compressor surge, indicated by high turbine gasflow temperature. Typically managed by throttle retard, or simple shutdown. :8

[Brian Abraham]

Crew finger trouble over fuel management at the end of trip marred a text book operationNo finger trouble on the crews part. From the reportAlthough the fuel system was fully described in the aircraft manuals, the operator’s fuel balancing procedures were different from that of the manufacturer.

The crew had been using the override/jettison pumps to maintain fuel balance but these became ineffective towards the end of the flight. Thereafter, there was a reluctance to turn both main pumps off in a tank and a lack of confidence that this would be effective. There was increasing concern that they would not be able to keep the main tanks balanced and that some of the fuel might be unavailable.

A better understanding of the fuel system should have reassured the crew that fuel should have been avialable to all engines even with one tank empty. Nevertheless, the awareness of the apparent problem came at a time when the crew had made the decision to divert, had started the descent to Manchester and was therefore busy. If the crew had been in the habit of utilising the manufacturer’s procedures for balancing fuel by only using the main pumps, it is possible that they would have become more confident with the procedure. Although the problem had not previously been encountered by other company pilots, the potential difficulties might have been foreseen by the operator. After the incident, the operator reverted to the manufacturer’s fuel handling procedures.

The operator has a training programme for pilots who are qualified to carry out planned 3-engined ferry flights, the emphasis of which rightly concentrates on the takeoff. Additionally, all flight crews are subject to regular simulator evaluation of 3-engine handling. However, this later training is necessarily limited in time and crews are not normally subject to an extended period of 3-engine flight with the associated fuel balancing requirements. It is therefore recommended that the operator include relevant instruction on 3-engined fuel handling during initial and recurrent training.

[JimbosJet]

How many more incidents involving major Korean carriers have to occur before they start to see they are doing it wrong. I'm amazed how in this day and age international aviation organisations are unable to enforce a rethink in mentality in that region.

The sad sad thing is nothing is changing there which is why we continually see lives lost to archaic thinking/culture both in the companies concerned and their flight decks. We know a great deal about this crm stuff now, we know a good deal about effective training too. How about we start applying some of this in that region of the World?

[A37575]

Forget it. You will never change 2000 years of crazy culture:ugh:

[Metro man]

Return to base unable to complete the flight which was assigned to you ? No way, too much loss of face.

[PoloJamie]

If anyone wants another good example of the Korean pecking-order culture and reluctance to question elders, then look no further than Korean Air Flight 8509:

Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509 - Bad Attitude - YouTube

[autoflight]

aguadalte, Is Seoul to Saipan ETOPS?

[Chocks Away]

It sure is, that far out there into the Pacific!
What ETOPS/EDTO are they approved for on their B767 with the GE CF-6's?

aguadalte - "...are required to be shut-down if, at idle, an ENG OIL FILTER CLOG message is still present... rules dictate that the aircraft could not have even entered the ETOPS sector in that condition and that a diversion would have to be made to a suitable airdrome."
BINGO! Spot-on Aquadaite and both these are very serious concerns.

Jabbara raises another question with his comments referencing A330's. Sure, different engine type BUT do Asiana operate Airbus and Boeing fleets on a combined single checklist, OR do they follow the individual manufacturer's checklists and procedures? This alone may provide confusion. EK & Brunei tried briefly combined checklists but threw it out as dangerous while SIA remain with it, thinking they know better than the maker.

Rules are rules and types are different.

[VNAV PATH]

http://nsa34.casimages.com/img/2014/05/06/140506033145981682.jpg (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=140506033145981682.jpg)

[fox niner]

According to that map, you can make it to saipan without etops. But they should have landed at the nearest suitable nontheless.

[VNAV PATH]

Indeed fox niner...


Further more and this is not for you, thinking that Asiana is using combined engine/Airbus-Boeing chek list despite 2 radically different engines, indicates that chocks are really away...

[Chocks Away]

Good diagram VNAV thanks. I obviously overlooked Iwo Jima :ugh:
Regarding your second comment I think you misread my question.
Do Asiana have strict Boeing Checklists for their individual Boeing types or is it a combined Airbus-Boeing Asiana "special" like SIA (and just a few others) have?
I ask this because with so much cross-type training going on, with an event like this, in the absence of any real understanding or knowledge (which aguadiate pointed out), some pilots have tended to fall back on their own knowledge or previous type experience instead... hence pushing on.
For me, it's cut-and-dry engine and aircraft type specific, with religious adherence to SOPS... no questions!

[seat 0A]

Fortunately, there will be a 47 man-committee looking into this....