OMG - we're all going to die!

[UnderneathTheRadar]

"Breaking News" on ABC Melbourne Radio. Passenger on board aircraft rings in to announce that a VN flight from Melbourne to Vietnam takeoff was aborted and they were told it was an engine failure on no.2 engine.

[spinex]

Is this the same one reported elsewhere as having blown multiple tyres in the process of pulling up - closing the airport? I'd venture to suggest that would grab the attention of the average SLF.:eek:

[Captain Nomad]

What would said passenger prefer:

(a) Flight to continue with failed engine
(b) Boat trip instead
(c) Perfect world with no mechanical failures

Option (c) doesn't exist... Mechanical things are subject to failure. If SLF don't want to be exposed to said risks the solution is simple - DON'T FLY...

Be grateful your dirt cheap airfare still pays for competent crew who try to do the right thing to preserve the safety of their backsides (and in turn the pax backsides) at all costs.

Oh, and one more thing: I'm sick of hearing "OMG"....

[SimBud]

MEL now closed due VN A330 disabled at intersection of both runways.

[Boeingdream]

Captain Nomad relax, nothing bad has been said. Yet!

[500N]

Not that I believe them but this is what is on the front page of the Age.

"An engine failure has spread fiery debris across a runway at Melbourne Airport, disrupting flights entering and leaving.

There was an engine failure aboard Vietnam Airlines flight 780 to Ho Chi Minh City as it took off on Tuesday morning, a Melbourne Airport spokeswoman said.


Debris and small spot fires were seen coming from one of the engines, the spokeswoman said.


No one was hurt but the aircraft came to a stop at the intersection of two main runways, disrupting flights, she said.
MORE TO COME"

[Chadzat]

Its ALWAYS at the Intersection isnt it!! :ugh:

[TWT]

Flights have resumed.

[EW73]

I heard that the pilot had begun rotation, and put the nosewheels back down to abort!
Was that an echo of "V1/Rotate" I heard?

[FYSTI]

Chadzat, freakishly the one in Darwin last week (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-28/darwin-plane-emergency-belly-landing-pilot/5415914) missed the intersection!
(Photo HERE (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-28/light-plane-rests-on-belly-after-emergency-landing-in-darwin/5416196))

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-28/light-plane-rests-on-belly-after-emergency-landing-in-darwin/5416196
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-28/light-plane-rests-on-belly-after-emergency-landing-in-darwin/5416196

[BlackPrince77]

There's an earlier thread for this already made 10 mins. prior to this.:ugh:

[Chadzat]

FY - Good work that man!

Ive had to hold and nearly divert for one before that decided to come to rest at the intersection. Not the drivers fault by any means just Murphy at work doing his usual.

[ivan ellerbai]

Was it taking off on 16 or 34?


Assuming the wind favoured it and discounting any debris on 34, could it not have been opened to LAHSO ops providing the disabled aircraft had passed the limit line?

[nigf]

Runway fire sparks Melbourne Airport emergency (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/runway-fire-sparks-melbourne-airport-emergency-20140506-37tjn.html)

[hogey74]

ABC is reporting that a passenger stated that the nose had risen before the takeoff was aborted.

[HOOROO]

The same in the NZ herald about the aircraft just rotating however, I don't know what is more likely;

A) Said passenger has no idea what they are talking about
B) Entirely plausible that said airline would reject after V1

Hmmmm.

[Keg]

A passenger ce reported that I did a go around from 20' because there was an aircraft on the runway that was going to collide with us. I put very little faith in anything reported by passengers.

Perhaps the nose came up, perhaps it was simply the acceleration and feeling of the nose being high before the rapid deceleration and feeling of the nose going back down again. Either way, until the facts come out, trust little of what is reported.

[theheadmaster]

ABC is reporting that a passenger stated that the nose had risen before the takeoff was aborted

I would take that with a grain of salt. The acceleration when rolling down the runway gives the inner ear a sense of pitching nose up, particularly if there is not a good visual reference. So it might not have been true.

[500N]

Got to love the reporting in the media - Age, Herald Sun to name a few - NOT.

So far I have read, blown tyre, aircraft on fire, runway and surrounds on fire, possibly caused by engine blowing up, I could go on !

It seems to be a case of "what is the scariest headline we can use" :ugh:

[framer]

How long was the airport closed for. Did anyone have to divert?

[JustJoinedToSearch]

It was taking off from 27. I would be extremely surprised if it had time to rotate, reject and pull up by the intersection.

Conditions did not allow for 34. Debris was all over 27 and the safety vehicle reported finding a fan blade.

It was towed back to the bay for a few hours and then towed to W2 I believe. No visible damage to the N1 fan that I could see.

[Nautilus Blue]

Melbourne Airport said the "disabled" A330 caused flight delays for about 40 minutes around 11:00am (AEST) and eight flights were diverted to Adelaide Airport.

I don't know if it was Melbourne Airport (whoever that is) or the ABC, but apparently the word disabled is such a sensitive issue it has to be put in quotes.

Edited to add - the next paragraph is even better!

An airport spokeswoman said the plane was not on fire and reports elsewhere of sparks and smoke coming from the plane were likely debris from the plane hitting the runway.

Edited further to add - reading it again its unfortunately worded. I think they meant [debris from the plane] [hitting the runway] not [debris] [from the plane hitting the runway] which is how I read it. Maybe is like the inkblot test, what you see says more about you than the inkblot.

[neville_nobody]

Newspapers earlier today had quotes saying they put the nose back on and stopped on the runway but those reports have been subsequently deleted.

[500N]

Nautilus

Some of these writers should go into the comedy festival !

I honestly don't think they read before publishing.

[Sunfish]

i am consistently annoyed at the condescending drivel lambasting reporters and eyewitnesses trying to make sense of aviation emergencies. It is one of the least endearing characteristics of some alleged pilots.

By way of example, I race yachts for sport and some of the events scare the crap out of novices, but do we laugh at them?

[CCA]

http://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/p180x540/10258487_654726221265387_8759856092548175163_n.jpg

[strim]

Hear hear sunfish. If all you have to contribute is disbelief at how laypeople comprehend something as complex as aviation, don't post.

Seems a lot of initial reports are on the money though, high speed reject following a blade failure, one would definitely expect debris, burning tyres etc...

[neville_nobody]

i am consistently annoyed at the condescending drivel lambasting reporters and eyewitnesses trying to make sense of aviation emergencies. It is one of the least endearing characteristics of some alleged pilots.

The issue is why is it published. The reason for the lambasting is the appalling inaccuracy of what is published as fact.

For example in this particular case there is a huge difference between a rejected take-off and a aircraft rotating then putting the nose on the runway and stopping as was reported earlier today.

[standard unit]

i am consistently annoyed at the condescending drivel lambasting reporters and eyewitnesses trying to make sense of aviation emergencies. It is one of the least endearing characteristics of some alleged pilots.

Makes them all sound like a bunch of self important wankers doesn't it.

Surely not ? :rolleyes:

[George Glass]

Sunfish, save your outrage. Sprog reporters are sent out by a sub-editor to find a breaking story to 1. provide copy and 2. get the jump on the opposition. Accuracy is secondary. Reporters rarely have any idea about what they are talking about and in the case of complicated subjects like aviation never get the initial reports right. Dont feel sorry for them.

[George Glass]

Whats the problem standard unit? Fail the interview?

[standard unit]

No, just get bored with self important wankers. I'm obviously not alone.....

[Wally Mk2]

An A/C had a mech problem whilst taking off, Capt decided to abort (his sole right to do so when he sees fit), A/C came to a stop on the rwy, no injures (known) some disruption to services & the media got some mileage out of it, did I miss anything??


Wmk2

[George Glass]

Yeah right, so you did fail the interview.

[standard unit]

Stop it George.

Your response is doing nothing but reinforcing the stereotype.

Are so so stupid that you cannot see it.......?

[500N]

I understand one media outlet want so get the jump on the competition
And sprog reporter wants to impress his editor.

Why should Quality suffer ? Not just this report but most others on anything aircraft incident related.

It takes 30 seconds to look up and cross check something but even that seems too hard for them. "A 747 is find o the photo, even though it was a DC10 in the incident" as an example.

[ANCPER]

NN,

I'm guessing that to the average joe it means naught whether the A/C rotated or not prior to the RTO. I doubt many joes who hear that will be thinking......"****, the idiot rejected after V1, wtf!":eek:

[Wally Mk2]

With regards to the V1 decision it's still up to the Capt to continue with the T/off even after V1 as there could be an issue that would result in a far greater risk if the A/C was taken into the air as against putting it back on the ground & accepting a major overrun. The trouble is that split second decision is subjective.
Great photo BTW CCA:-)


Wmk2

[George Glass]

Like kicking puppies....

[34R]

What Sunfish said

:D

[adsyj]

What Sunfish said:ok:

My bet is that most of the condescending drivel is not from pilots at all.

[Compylot]

I agree also with the OP the standard of journalism regarding the facts about an aviation incident is decidedly poor.
I've mentioned before that we pilots should put together a committee to oversee and endorse appropriately accurate technical reporting.

I suggest that we draw together a body of aviation professionals, representing not just professional air crew but also Air Traffic Control, Engineers, Flight Attendants and Ground Handlers. (I have included ground handlers here because I am sick to death of the poor attempt many commercials make when including marshalers in some way to sell a product. Too often I see actors waving glow sicks around with absolutely no idea of the correct procedures and don't get me started on their lack of appropriate high visibility clothing or ASIC!)

This was in response to that awful movie 'Flight' and I see no barrier to perhaps expanding the AAAPs role in providing technical advice to journalists whenever an aviation incident hits the news.

Regarding 'said' incident at Melbourne involving the Vietnam A330 methinks it was that pesky Thronomister playing up again :ok:

[hogey74]

Some good points, methinks. Acceleration affecting perceptions of orientation etc.

[Australopithecus]

I of course suspect the absolute veracity of any story that is grabbed in time to meet a broadcast or print deadline.

Except that I don't care, really. When presented with a story about a field or endeavour of which I am ignorant I go away satisfied that I have the gist of the event, the immediate repercussions and move on to the next thing.

I am sure that there is similar outraged sputtering inside any specialist field when an event in their sphere makes the news. Don't forget that half of the target audience bell curve won't make sense of most of it anyway. And they are the ones buying the crap peddled on the ads.

While we may get agitated at inaccuracies in trivial details, Joe Blow don't know.

Save your righteous indignation for so-called experts like G. Thomas who have no clues in the clues closet. Providing commentary or "expert" background information that is inaccurate is unforgivable. What is even worse is the CNN phenomena of journalists interviewing other journalists for background. Back in the days of real standards that was simply not done.

[ruddman]

Who reads newspapers anyway? Tabloid trash.
Reporters/writers think they are gods gift to the world yet forget their little piece is written on paper worth maybe 2 cents.

Garbage collectors rate miles above newpaper 'reporters' in my books. Miles.


Supreme professionals safely handled something they train for and everyone walks away safe.

What's the big story again?

[Wally Mk2]

I think some of you guys are getting all worked up over this journo thingy.

I mean they are in an industry that is aimed at the masses & survives on sensationalism alone. It's not an exact science for them never will be unlike our industry which relies on a far greater level of acuracy.
We as pilots/engineers & other aviation professionals all know what really goes on behind the scenes but that's where it ends.

Mr & Mrs Joe Public almost crave for want of a better word for the death & mayhem on TV of a night time that now exists in our society daily (Christ look at all the police, crime shows we are exposed to, we want it & they sell it big time!!!) & anything to do with Aeroplanes especially when danger is the headline is sought after & the media know this & they run with it like a hot potato!. Automobile crashes & deaths are almost common place on TV every day/night, we have almost become complacent with that. The media want mileage, not common place.
Just look at the fiasco with the two high profile fools at Bondi fighting in the streets recently, I mean who really cares what they do, they have the same feelings as the rest of us, the media have made an industry out of such antics, they thrive on it & the public lap it up!

Now whether it's right or wrong, incorrect not factual or whatever is mostly irrelevant as far as the media are concerned & GT has proved this numerous times in the press.

Pain, death, misery & all the sadness that goes with it sells, simple as that really & the most saddest part about all this is that we revel in it right here!

Wmk2

[sms777]

I have given up reading newspaper since I have joined pprune.....this is where you find all the facts about aviation.

[Biatch]

sms777 - I have given up reading newspaper since I have joined pprune.....this is where you find all the facts about aviation.



Hahahahahaha ... Thanks for the laugh mate...

[Giant Bird]

The aircraft in Sky Team livery has been outside John Holland at Melbourne Airport. Still there this morning. I understand that engineers will fly in from Vietnam to do the engine change in the John Holland hanger.

[Ancient Mariner]

Being neither an Austral-Pacifician nor an aviator I am begging forgiveness for barging in, but I would like to comment on some posters view of aviation related journalism.
As a mariner, and one involved in the odd published "incident" I have some experience with the medias description of the events.
Suffice to say, they were not accurate, nor did they use the correct terminology. As a result I have a huge file of newspaper clippings and the odd VHS cassette with the yakkings of news-anchors and "experts". They are always a hit when old sailors get together for a beer or several. I suppose we consider it entertainment and don't expect more from non-professionals.
That said, none of our passengers and not even all the crew would describe the proceedings equally. Human I guess.
If I might add, I have also pax'ed on a B767 when one engine went bang and some parts headed for terra firma and even though professional aviators would consider this a non-event since the airplane landed safely, I for one didn't. :E
Per

[C441]

As I have said before, the news media (with a very few exceptions) is no longer about accurately reporting the news. It's about selling a paper or attracting advertisers.

Bland doesn't sell, hysteria does, so the knowledge and expertise of the reporter is irrelevant if the story sells.

[vee1-rotate]

New engine arrived courtesy of Cathay 748 this afternoon, currently sitting on the Menzies cargo ramp. I'm guessing the Vietnam Airlines engineers will be working away by the weekend.

[Not-a_Pilot]

A few small observations about the declining standards in journalism...

It's true that many news editors aren't too concerned about accuracy; after all, they know that what is printed today is tomorrow's wrapping paper for fish and chips or the liner in the kitty litter. The prevalent attitude in most newsrooms is to get the story out and, if absolutely necessary, print a correction later (although the correction is usually hidden away in a corner somewhere).

The problem is made far worse by economic considerations. Just like airlines, media outlets want to maximise profit and minimise cost. The difference is that in airlines you still (hopefully!) have someone who knows something about flying at the pointy end of the aircraft. Today most newspaper editors are people who know something about marketing and fundraising and very little about journalism.

Many years ago to become an editor you worked your way up from the bottom - starting as a court reporter, where you learned to get things right - and then climbing the ladder, all the time judged by more experienced journalists.

Today one can waltz in with a marketing degree, promise to turn a failing outlet around and show a profit, and boom -there's your new editor. So this clown, who knows nothing about reporting, sends reporters out to get the story and threatens disciplinary action or dismissal if a reporter wants to delay a story to check facts.

Then of course everyone is trying to outdo everyone else in terms of timing and sensationalism. It's a miracle they ever get anything right!

**end of rant**