MERGED: Air Asia Turnback Perth 25 Jun 17

[Minimbah]

AirAsia flight returns to Perth due to 'technical issue', passenger says 'blade came off turbine'

AirAsia flight returns to Perth due to 'technical issue', passenger says 'blade came off turbine' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-25/airasia-flight-forced-to-turn-back-to-perth-technical-issue/8649990)

[Jbrownie]

Good job on the capt!!!

[morno]

What was his English like?

[Jonny Suave Trousers]

Returned safely to Perth.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-25/airasia-flight-forced-to-turn-back-to-perth-technical-issue/8649990?pfmredir=sm

[msbbarratt]

Looks like, after the initial failure, a lot of engineering technology and training did exactly what it was supposed to do.

It looks like they had lost a fan blade, and that the unbalanced wind milling engine was causing the vibration. What does that do to the airframe?! It's getting quite a pounding. Would that knock a few hours off the fatigue life?

[PoppaJo]

The said carrier has had questionable standards in regards to maintenance in the past (stuff that just shouldn't happen) so I look forward to reading this Australian investigation along with the other half dozen.

[autoflight]

Were there no suitable closer airports than Perth?

[IAW]

I won't believe this is real until a bonafide expert such as GT weighs in.

It's in his home turf after all.

[airdualbleedfault]

Passenger said a turbine blade came off, did they google that?

[0ttoL]

Video from onboard shows a severe vibration.
That says to me that the engine wasn't shut down.
Why would the crew continue to run an engine with that vibration?
I realise that 2 is better than 1 but the vibration could cause other damage?

[FlareArmed2]

What was his English like?

Morno: 5 stars. Bravo!

[ronthefisherman]

Channel 9 tells how passengers were asked to pray.............................WTF!:(

The crew said there was a turbine blade failure, after they had landed. Why didn't they shut down the out of balance engine? If it had have ripped off the wing it could have caused all sorts of catastrophic damage.
Air Asia - enough said...

[WingNut60]

Exmouth definitely closer.
Now lets talk about what defines "suitable" again.

[Old Fella]

Video from onboard shows a severe vibration.
That says to me that the engine wasn't shut down.
Why would the crew continue to run an engine with that vibration?
I realise that 2 is better than 1 but the vibration could cause other damage?

OttoL and ronthefisherman: The engine would have been shut down. It would have continued to "windmill" and would not have been producing any thrust. There is no means of stopping the engine from continuing to rotate whilst ever there is sufficient airflow through the fan section to drive the engine.

[Capt Basil Brush]

Anyone seen the Flightradar24 track? They must have been not far from Learmonth if they were an hour or so into the flight.

[Sonics]

Learmonth was pretty close to the diversion point and it has a 3000m runway. However is literally in the middle of no where. Good luck if you need medical attention for PAX, and then there's the whole hassle of getting engineering support to such a remote location. Unless you need to get the aircraft on the ground right now, Perth is a better option.

However, single engine in a twin is a land at nearest suitable situation, and with no catastrophic event PAX injurys are likely to be non existent. I'm not saying they made the wrong decision, but had it being my aircraft the Learmonth decision would have being heavily considered.

[pax2908]

From that article - "[Crew] said 'I hope you all say a prayer, I'll be saying a prayer too".
Wow ... is that a standard thing to say to calm people ?

[WingNut60]

Looks like turn back occurred about 1:20 into flight; then 1:45'ish for return to Perth
Interesting that:

a) he peaked, briefly, at 511 knots while getting down to 24000 ft
b) speed while still in climb peaked at 491 kt before slowly reducing to 433 in level flight immediately before the failure
Any chance he had been throttling back while chasing a vibration alarm?

All this from FR24 - so not sure what it is really showing me.

[WingNut60]

I have flown two airlines that invoked prayers as part of the pre-flight.
Invocation card in the back of the seat.

[DaveReidUK]

All this from FR24 - so not sure what it is really showing me.

It's showing you groundspeed. So unless you know the winds aloft, you can't really draw any conclusions.

[WingNut60]

Were there no suitable closer airports than Perth?

Turn back appears to have occurred about 465 nm from Perth.
Distance to Exmouth was then about 165 nm

Looking at the way the aircraft was shaking, I'd have thought Exmouth / Learmonth would have been the prime choice.

[shortshortz]

Old fella

Surely there's no chance a windmilling engine would create severe vibration like that

What ever is causing the vibration would stop the windmill one would've thought

[Berealgetreal]

Posted in another thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by autoflight View Post
Were there no suitable closer airports than Perth?
Turn back appears to have occurred about 465 nm from Perth.
Distance to Exmouth was then about 165 nm

Looking at the way the aircraft was shaking, I'd have thought Exmouth / Learmonth would have been the prime choice.

Surely Learmonth was the better option. Reasonably long from memory. Any 330 flight crew care to comment re likely landing weight vs RWY length? I recall actually seeing the QF 330 that did the nose over at Learmonth.

[Hotel Tango]

Yep, let's all make decisions from the comfort of our armchairs, without any knowledge of what was actually discussed and concluded by the guys who were actually handling the problem - and no doubt talking to the company!

[beamender99]

Air Asia plane suffers 'washing machine' fault - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-40397081/air-asia-plane-suffers-washing-machine-fault)

On board video

[737pnf]

I won't believe this is real until a bonafide expert such as GT weighs in.

It's in his home turf after all.

He's o/s at an air show. Might have to comment from somewhere in the French Alps

[Capn Rex Havoc]

shotshotz

Surely there's no chance a windmilling engine would create severe vibration like that

What ever is causing the vibration would stop the windmill one would've thought

WRONG - A few years back an EK A330 suffered an engine failure (main fan blade separation during the climb at about 35000 ft) during departure from Lusaka, The crew shut it down, but the vibrations from the windmilling donk were so severe that the Captain told me he couldn't read any instrumentation, and thought that the engine would separate. They had 3 pilots on the sector and the augmenting FO had to do the landing performance calcs on the portable laptop, as the touch screen fixed EFB's were unusable. He said the vibrations only receded to comfortable levels when that slowed down with flap 2. :eek:

[Uplinker]

What was the reason to title this thread "Another A330 engine failure" ??

Airbus don't make the engines :hmm:

Contrary to popular belief, modern airliners do not fall out of the sky if an engine fails - indeed modern twin jets are mandated to be certified to continue a take-off and fly safely on one engine. So, (depending on the severity of the situation), it is not always necessary or desirable to make an immediate landing at the nearest airfield.

[WingNut60]

Yep, let's all make decisions from the comfort of our armchairs, without any knowledge of what was actually discussed and concluded by the guys who were actually handling the problem - and no doubt talking to the company!

What, I can't express MY opinion, now?
Did you look at the footage from the previous posts. That was a LOT of vibration from a windmilling engine.
Now do that for an hour and a half +.

As i said in an earlier post, it inevitably goes back to what constitutes a "suitable" airport for diversion.
I will readily admit that I do not know what that really means, and it seems, nor do many other contributors..
From other threads I have heard numerous arguments for "get it on the ground, ASAP".
Have a look at the thread for the event in northern Canada a couple of months ago.
Engine failure - land it in the tundra in a blizzard rather than somewhere with passenger friendly amenities and ground support.

Learmonth would most certainly have been available as an alternate.
In fact, other than Perth, it was probably the ONLY other suitable alternate within cooee.
Unless I'm mistaken, if Perth had closed up on them (not impossible at this time of year) their next options would have been back to Learmonth or head east to Adelaide.

[wheels_down]

A lot of similarities with this one. Also avoided closer airports and flew a lot further to Melbourne. Mabye they have a mantra of getting back to the carriers port in order to avoided further costs being stranded in the middle of nowhere (costs before safety). Not unheard of in these bottom feeding low costs.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-101/

[Basil]

ISTR that, with windmilling vibes, it's a good idea to get to low altitude to reduce TAS as much as poss.
Subject, of course, to range considerations.

[Ken Borough]

359 pax. I didn't realise that there were so many thrill-seekers in WA! :}

[WingNut60]

Further favouring Exmouth / Learmonth as a choice.
I can not see any advantage to soldiering on all the way back to Perth other than convenience of repair facilities and handling disgruntled passengers.
And I didn't think that those factors were part of the "nearest suitable" equation.

[Berealgetreal]

3000m long 45 wide ...Belt sign on .. RNAV 36..

[0ttoL]

OttoL and ronthefisherman: The engine would have been shut down. It would have continued to "windmill" and would not have been producing any thrust. There is no means of stopping the engine from continuing to rotate whilst ever there is sufficient airflow through the fan section to drive the engine.
Thanks Old Fella
That certainly adds another aspect to ETOPS, i would have thought.
The prospect of having the aircraft & passengers shaken for a few hours is not a great thought.

[shortshortz]

shotshotz



WRONG - A few years back an EK A330 suffered an engine failure (main fan blade separation during the climb at about 35000 ft) during departure from Lusaka, The crew shut it down, but the vibrations from the windmilling donk were so severe that the Captain told me he couldn't read any instrumentation, and thought that the engine would separate. They had 3 pilots on the sector and the augmenting FO had to do the landing performance calcs on the portable laptop, as the touch screen fixed EFB's were unusable. He said the vibrations only receded to comfortable levels when that slowed down with flap 2. :eek:

Thanks,
Cheers

[Berealgetreal]

Ah yes that was a good one wheels down.

[Jonny Suave Trousers]

What was the reason to title this thread "Another A330 engine failure" ??

Airbus don't make the engines :hmm:

Contrary to popular belief, modern airliners do not fall out of the sky if an engine fails - indeed modern twin jets are mandated to be certified to continue a take-off and fly safely on one engine. So, (depending on the severity of the situation), it is not always necessary or desirable to make an immediate landing at the nearest airfield.

Oh really? There you go. Enlightening.

I suppose the title of the thread could also be correctly construed as Another A330 has suffered an engine failure. Which is fact. 2 in 2 weeks.

Pithy.

[JamieMaree]

It depends on Malaysia / Air Asia's Etops rules. If for instance their Etops rules are the same as in Oz ( and there is no reason to assume they are) then unless there is an overriding compelling reason for the Captain to ignore the rules, then the Captain is obliged to land at Learmonth assuming that it is categorised as an Alternate or Adequate airport or the equivalents under Malyasian rules.
If the flight is not being conducted under Etops rules ( and assuming Malaysian rules are the same as Oz) then all the Captain is required to do is to have a good reason why he has flown past a suitable airport to a more distant suitable airport ( having a better chance at having the engine fixed or passenger comfort might not qualify).
If he didn't shut the engine down ( and there is no reason to assume he didn't ,) then he is not in an engine out situation and therefore has no special rules that are applicable.

[chookcooker]

It depends on Malaysia / Air Asia's Etops rules. If for instance their Etops rules are the same as in Oz ( and there is no reason to assume they are) then unless there is an overriding compelling reason for the Captain to ignore the rules, then the Captain is obliged to land at Learmonth assuming that it is categorised as an Alternate or Adequate airport or the equivalents under Malyasian rules.
If the flight is not being conducted under Etops rules ( and assuming Malaysian rules are the same as Oz) then all the Captain is required to do is to have a good reason why he has flown past a suitable airport to a more distant suitable airport ( having a better chance at having the engine fixed or passenger comfort might not qualify).
If he didn't shut the engine down ( and there is no reason to assume he didn't ,) then he is not in an engine out situation and therefore has no special rules that are applicable.

What the fck are you talking about?

[Icarus2001]

JamieMaree you don't know what you are talking about do you?

[JamieMaree]

What the fck are you talking about?

The question was asked: why didn't he land at Learmonth which he appeared to be very close to when the problem occurred. Only he knows the answer. But time will tell if he was required to but didn't . If he wasn't required to, then it is his opinion vs 100,000 arm chair experts. Maybe that's why he needed the pax prayers.

[PoppaJo]

Intetesting commentary from the Captain.

Can someone please tell me how many incidents this carrier needs to accrue before one has its rights to this country cancelled?

nkAKFx-kc9E

[Hotel Tango]

What, I can't express MY opinion, now?

Did I say that? No, just like you, I expressed my opinion. And I stand by it!

[morno]

JamieMaree, been a while since I've read anything about EDTO, but unless they were actually on an EDTO segment, then they don't have to comply with anything EDTO related, apart from obviously not commencing EDTO if something fails beforehand.

With Learmonth there, I'd imagine they weren't EDTO yet.

morno

[gerry111]

Perhaps it's about time that Air Asia and Qantas got together to provide A330 airstairs at Learmonth?

[JamieMaree]

JamieMaree, been a while since I've read anything about EDTO, but unless they were actually on an EDTO segment, then they don't have to comply with anything EDTO related, apart from obviously not commencing EDTO if something fails beforehand.

With Learmonth there, I'd imagine they weren't EDTO yet.

morno

Sort of what I was saying. Depends on airline rules and state rules. The airline I worked for, the sector was either Etops or non Etops. You couldn't break it into parts of the sector to apply the rules. I assume that Edto is the same as Etops.
For example: if you were flying Syd/Mel and you had an engine failure 5 mins before ETP, legally could you fly on to Mel, answer yes.
If you were flying Nadi/ Honolulu and assuming no other airports were available and you had an engine failure 5 mins before ETP could you legally fly on to HNL, answer no.
The former is non Etops rules and the latter is Etops rules. In the case of the former under the CAOs there were certain things that the PIC had to consider in making his decision. Under Etops he had fewer options.

[airdualbleedfault]

I'm with you poppa Jo, regardless of any regs, EDTO, prayers etc etc, flying an aeroplane 400 odd miles instead of 100 odd, in that condition, is plain stupidity.

[WingNut60]

So be it. But can I ask again, did you actually have a look at this footage?

AirAsia flight returns to Perth due to 'technical issue', passenger says 'blade came off turbine' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-25/airasia-flight-forced-to-turn-back-to-perth-technical-issue/8649990?pfmredir=sm)

[Old and Horrified]

With that level of vibration there must have been serious damage to one of the engines and to shake the whole aircraft like that would take considerable force. Engine mountings will be taking a real sideways pounding. No question in my mind - very serious emergency and land as soon as possible at nearest available, NOT nearest convenient.

[DaveReidUK]

What was the reason to title this thread "Another A330 engine failure" ??

Or, to put it another way, it would be remarkable if an aircraft type that has been in service for nearly 25 years had only just suffered its first engine failure.

So to refer to it as "another A330 engine failure" tells us nothing.

[WingNut60]

With that level of vibration there must have been serious damage to one of the engines and to shake the whole aircraft like that would take considerable force. Engine mountings will be taking a real sideways pounding. No question in my mind - very serious emergency and land as soon as possible at nearest available, NOT nearest convenient.

Precisely.
Seeing that footage, nothing in my mind justifies turning 180 away from valid alternate at 165 nm and running 465 nm to maintenance base.

[*Lancer*]

JamieMaree, EDTO does not require a diversion to the nearest adequate airport following a critical system failure.

I doubt anyone other than the operating crew know the specifics of their decision making ;)

[Sailvi767]

Turn back appears to have occurred about 465 nm from Perth.
Distance to Exmouth was then about 165 nm

Looking at the way the aircraft was shaking, I'd have thought Exmouth / Learmonth would have been the prime choice.

It's a suitable airport and Airbus requires a landing ASAP. Compound that with the vibration issue and it's difficult to understand the thought process. Many of the passengers were probably terrified in addition to the technical issues.

[Hotel Tango]

WingNut60, that footage tells us nothing for sure. Then again, having driven on cobbled Belgian roads for many years past - without my car falling apart, I'm possibly immune to vibrations! :)

[WingNut60]

It gives a fair indication to me that the passengers were subjected to 1:50 (approx) of traumatising exposure when they could have been on the ground in 30 minutes.

[ploughman67]

Really? You know that for sure? That's a 25s video, no-one (here) knows whether that went on for 1, 10 or 110 minutes.

It's possible that the video was the immediate aftermath and that once secure the vibration was not as severe. We don't know, we weren't there. How about we credit the crew with the fact that the decision made to return to Perth was made with the full facts at their disposal at that time and was the best option of those they considered.

[rude1]

https://scontent.fper2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19430071_10155506056146095_1449859646026527889_n.jpg?oh=5ab8 0a228e7be421127440967ab21fae&oe=59E236C1

[haughtney1]

JamieMaree, you be talking cobblers, the CAPT is empowered to make the decision that they see fit in an emergency situation, irrespective of anything in the rule book. After the event those decisions will need to be justified...but at the time, the rule book is nothing more than a paper weight.

[Concours77]

I was flying Holiday Airlines into Lake Tahoe. Decades ago. On short final, the pilot commanded full thrust, and, sitting on the left side just ahead of the engine (Number two, on the Electra), I looked out and saw the scariest thing I have ever seen. The entire engine and nacelle were wildly trying to leave the aircraft. The plane was shaking so bad I couldn't believe what I was looking at.

I asked the pilot on exiting what had happened. He was unconcerned, I suppose used to this behaviour. That was a bit before Whirl mode entered the vocabulary.

So. No criticism from me until a whole lot more is known about this flight.

[A0283]

Remember at least one all fatal crash with early Electra's where the complete engine plus nacelle and mounts vibration that you seem to describe took the wing off. It appeared that the wing was too stiff. Redesign changed the natural frequency.
Do not remember reading in that report about such earlier events. Which is rather amazing.

[WingNut60]

Really? You know that for sure? That's a 25s video, no-one (here) knows whether that went on for 1, 10 or 110 minutes.

It's possible that the video was the immediate aftermath and that once secure the vibration was not as severe. We don't know, we weren't there. How about we credit the crew with the fact that the decision made to return to Perth was made with the full facts at their disposal at that time and was the best option of those they considered.

You are of course quite correct; we do not know exactly what happened.

However just to raise a couple of points;
1. The video is 41 secs in two clips - presumably spanning more than 41 secs
2. The gentleman on the left at about 25 sec mark says "about half an hour to go" leading me to suspect that it may well have been shaking for > 1 hour at that time.
This is supported by quoted passenger accounts ... eg "After the explosion it started to shake, it started to bounce, but overall the captain did a very good job" and "It was literally like you were sitting on top of a washing machine. The whole thing was going. We could see the engine out the window which was really shaken on the wing.". The latter remark also supported by a brief glimpse in the video.
3. Reported that "marine emergency services north of Perth were put on standby to prepare for a possible water landing" so you would have to presume that some level of emergency had been called.
4. In the thread SWISS LX40 (http://www.pprune.org/SWISS LX40)[ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit, of the 226 posts a fair proportion were firmly in support of that crew landing in the middle of the tundra rather than carrying on to a maintenance base.

So which is it? Nearest suitable or nearest convenient. Both arguments can't be correct.

[pax2908]

... What does that do to the airframe?! It's getting quite a pounding. Would that knock a few hours off the fatigue life?

Is there anything which mandates an airframe inspection, or assessment, by the manufacturer? Or can they return the a/c to service after "just" an engine repair / replacement? Does certification account for such an event? (Presumably yes, but what are the details?)

[b1lanc]

Remember at least one all fatal crash with early Electra's where the complete engine plus nacelle and mounts vibration that you seem to describe took the wing off. It appeared that the wing was too stiff. Redesign changed the natural frequency.
Do not remember reading in that report about such earlier events. Which is rather amazing.

There were two - Northwest and Braniff. Actually, the wing wasn't too stiff - there were multiple issues - outer nacelle not stiff enough, engine mount damage from repeated hard landings, gearbox-to-engine structure failure, wing torsion. But that raises an interesting point. Metallurgy, composites, designs, construction have certainly changed since whirl mode. But what really is the airframe tolerance to the 'new' jet-age replacements from 'vibrations' compared to the very vibrating four-bladed props?

[Eclan]

What a few people here aren't able to understand (and what I think JamieMaree is trying to explain) is that this diversion (in this case back to Perth) is nothing to do with ETOPS/EDTO. ETOPS just allows the flight to operate further from an alternate airport than usual. The diversion is usually due to a statement in a checklist which says something to the effect of "Land At The Nearest Suitable Airport" and would take place regardless of the sector being ETOPS or non-ETOPS.

On a twin engine aircraft this statement is usually included in the checklists involving in-flight engine shutdown. If the capt didn't shut down the engine but left it running at idle (maybe because he wanted the GEN and HYD systems available) there's an argument that you don't need to Land At The Nearest Suitable Airport. I hope you guys understand now.

I personally wouldn't feel very comfortable flying past YPLM to continue hundreds of NM to YPPH with an engine running but incapable of delivering power above idle but that's a different argument.

[The Green Goblin]

Indeed. ETOPS/EDTO etc is a planning exercise. More often than not, you have other suitable and adequate fields you can utilise. It doesn't require you to land at the nominated ports, you're just using them to comply with the rules.

In an emergency situation, you can do whatever you believe is the safest option. Provided of course you can justify your actions and decision making.

Air Asia, CTAF, NPA and limited support? It's a no brainer they went to Perth.

Ultimately our job is to land the aircraft in one piece with everyone safe. How you get it there is of course always up to much debate. The job was done and the crew should be commended for doing their best and delivering 350 souls home.

Well done guys.

[DaveReidUK]

It looks like they had lost a fan blade, and that the unbalanced wind milling engine was causing the vibration. What does that do to the airframe?! It's getting quite a pounding. Would that knock a few hours off the fatigue life?

5-8_Gnbp2JA

[Bearcat]

If my aircraft was shaking so violently from a windmilling fan with the engine shut down as per severe damage procedures I'd be landing it on the nearest suitable piece of concrete not trucking on

[lomapaseo]

Too little info to go on at this time. I haven't seen any photos of the engine, nor
confirmation of the extent of a possible fan blade failure.

However the manufacturers do conduct full up blade loss tests and verify that the engine will remain on the wing even during windmilling for long diversions.

The only problems I have seen in the historical data is that although the engine is shut down by the crew that if the front bearing structure is severely damaged, then as the plane slows down to land the windmilling speed has a tendency to shake the passengers and their seats. No concern for the engine mounting or any airframe loadings which are designed for much worse in turbulence and gusts.

The pilots are advised to be prepared for such a crossover speed vs vibration change and if it causes difficulty in reading instruments to simply change airspeed up or down.

I presume, no injuries nor broken aircraft critical structures but will await the AAIB reports

[oleary]

From that article - "[Crew] said 'I hope you all say a prayer, I'll be saying a prayer too".
Wow ... is that a standard thing to say to calm people ?

If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then it was God's decision to fail the engine in the first place, right?

So their plan was to appeal God's inerrant decision?

[DaveReidUK]

The only problems I have seen in the historical data is that although the engine is shut down by the crew that if the front bearing structure is severely damaged, then as the plane slows down to land the windmilling speed has a tendency to shake the passengers and their seats.

I'd have thought that the out-of-balance forces from a windmilling engine minus a fan blade would be sufficient on their own to produce that effect.

[msbbarratt]

No concern for the engine mounting or any airframe loadings which are designed for much worse in turbulence and gusts.

Only kind of. They're designed to last a certain number of cycles and flight hours under typical conditions, with out of sequence inspections required after extra heavy landings, etc. They're not designed for a couple of hour's fixed frequency heavy duty rattling, which has a completely different characteristic to the loadings experienced in turbulence.

It's similar to the wisdom of the wear and tear put on cars on the cross channel hovercraft (back in the day). Only a few bumpy trips would be enough to wreck the suspension.

So either Airbus have a specification for this, or they don't. If not, they're going to have to pronounce on what remedial action is required.

[Concours77]

Remember at least one all fatal crash with early Electra's where the complete engine plus nacelle and mounts vibration that you seem to describe took the wing off. It appeared that the wing was too stiff. Redesign changed the natural frequency.
Do not remember reading in that report about such earlier events. Which is rather amazing.

Too lazy to look it up. I remember the problem was the length of the shaft and the novel gyration (at certain rpm and Thrust) of the system that caused the shaft to spiral out of its axis, asymmetrically. The resulting vibration was too much for the wing box, and a wing was shed.

This is what I saw on the day.... I was literally within two feet of the Propellor's arc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Q5ggtV-y8


By the way, I was aboard well after 1960. They did not fix it, they "mitigated" whirl mode.

[Unregistered_]

The job was done and the crew should be commended for doing their best and delivering 350 souls home. Well done guys.

Seriously? With a vibration like that, I would be VERY concerned of that engine module eventually letting go and taking half the wing with it. There would be absolutely no doubt in my mind, Learmonth at Vmin. :ugh:

[Jeps]

Your all throwing big words at this flight crew and airline like EDTO, ETOPS and adequate training. Praying works, Isaac Newton was wrong. The ATSB needn't investigate.

[twentyyearstoolate]

So the Captain asks for Prayers and he also will say a prayer as well!!!!??

Another reason my family and I will never be on an Air Asia flight. Totally unprofessional no matter how good his hand skills are

[Capt Kremin]

The Captain himself feared for the flyability of the aircraft. When you exhort your passengers to pray in order to survive, it's time to land on the nearest piece of asphalt.

Just another inexplicable action by the crews of this airline.

[Kranz]

Turn back to PER would've been appropriate if there was a need for fuel usage to achieve safe landing weight. Alternative would be a dump then land at Learmonth which costs time anyway. If the captain genuinely thought they were in serious trouble then Perth would provide a much better emergency services/rescue option with the airport closer to better equipped medical facilities in the event there was a catastrophe.

[drpixie]

Looks like turn back occurred about 1:20 into flight; then 1:45'ish for return to Perth

Put yourself in the cockpit - of the aircraft, you're not in a car at ground level:

You're at good altitude in a functioning but "abnormal" aircraft. You have a whole collection of checks to do, and then you've got to set-up for landing. It takes quite a while to prepare an airliner for a landing - and more if unfamiliar with, say, Learmouth. The last thing you want is to rush and make silly mistakes.

You're about 20 mins from Learmouth, but it will take longer than that for normal (or for a drift-down) descent.

You can orbit near Learmouth, doing the checks and prep, slowly descending. Or you can do the checks and preparation while continuing on to a more suitable airfield.

Captain's choice but you can see that Learmouth might not be the obvious choice. Same as the Rex that dropped a prop only a few minutes from their planned destination.


Somewhat pointless addition because PPrune readers :ugh:

There is no requirement anywhere to land at the nearest airfield. It's always up to the captain.
The person telling everyone to pray was some (dropkick) passenger.

[troppo]

The Captain himself feared for the flyability of the aircraft. When you exhort your passengers to pray in order to survive, it's time to land on the nearest piece of asphalt.

Just another inexplicable action by the crews of this airline.

Air Asia is Malaysian. Predominant religion in Malaysia is Islam. Now, when it comes to faith and beliefs in religion and prayer in Islam, prayer is an ingrained way of life which some of you fail to understand whilst sitting in a predominantly white, christian country. Through ignorance, you'd all be sitting there venting rage and disbelief if he had said 'Insha'Allah', or worse 'Allahu akbar' and again you would fail to understand or respect other's faith, religion or prayer. If he wants to call to prayer, so be it...at least he respected all faiths, in English.

[Capt Kremin]

Oh FFS.......

[Kranz]

Air Asia is Malaysian. Predominant religion in Malaysia is Islam. Now, when it comes to faith and beliefs in religion and prayer in Islam, prayer is an ingrained way of life which some of you fail to understand whilst sitting in a predominantly white, christian country. Through ignorance, you'd all be sitting there venting rage and disbelief if he had said 'Insha'Allah', or worse 'Allahu akbar' and again you would fail to understand or respect other's faith, religion or prayer. If he wants to call to prayer, so be it...at least he respected all faiths, in English.

Without getting into religious debate, if "god" the all-seeing omnipresent entity can get them out of trouble, doesn't it stand to reason that it was "god" that put in that situation to begin with?

...In any case, prayer isn't what saves a plane in trouble - its good airmanship. Well done to the pilot for getting the plane back on the ground safely but I doubt it had anything to do with any of the prayers of the pilot or pax.

[junior.VH-LFA]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but YPLM has very little in the way of emergency/ARFF resources, let alone ability to handle PAX etc. I've never flown an A330 so can't comment on it from a type specific point of view, but Learmonth can't have been the ideal place to land if it was safe to go elsewhere.

Whether it was safe or not I'll leave up to the experts.

[bekolblockage]

ISTR that, with windmilling vibes, it's a good idea to get to low altitude to reduce TAS as much as poss.
Subject, of course, to range considerations.

Surely it's the IAS you want to reduce- that's what's driving the windmilling. Stay up high if you've decided you want to get back to PH in a reasonable time at low IAS but reasonable TAS.

[AI23B]

My lack of religious belief contrasted with a firm grip on reality would tell me not to get on the damned thing in the first place.If you can't afford the extra 200 bucks - don't go.

[Troo believer]

Mixing religion with aviation. Now there's an oxymoron. Returning to Perth was questionable when Learmonth was so close. You must also consider the possibility of any further degradation of the aircraft systems. The longer the exposure the greater the risk. From the video the vibration was significant. It was severe engine damage.......LAND at the nearest suitable.

[wishiwasupthere]

It would be interesting to compare the list of indiscretions that Tiger did in the lead up to them being grounded, versus those of Air Asia in Australia over the past few years.

[lomapaseo]

Mixing religion with aviation. Now there's an oxymoron. Returning to Perth was questionable when Learmonth was so close. You must also consider the possibility of any further degradation of the aircraft systems. The longer the exposure the greater the risk. From the video the vibration was significant. It was severe engine damage.......LAND at the nearest suitable.

it's only severe engine damage to the pilot if it matches the definition in his training.

The vibration that is shaking things is a function of specific frequencies, higher speed would likely be less vibration.

There is no indication that critical aircraft structures are involved.

best we await the pilot report of sensed vibration vs AC speed points before judging how soon he should have landed.

[Spotted Reptile]

The issue seems to be that the aircraft is now down to a single engine, and has flown past a perfectly suitable alternate airport. Yes, he "could" continue on one engine to Perth, but what if he lost the other one? Not unheard of. Better to be safe on the ground nearby than in the air hundreds of kms from your destination and then there is that silence . . .

[troppo]

Oh FFS.......

Don't take it personally, yours was the last post mentioning religion and I simply replied to that. If indeed the Captain was/is Muslim, he has been a Muslim longer than he has been a pilot. Some comments lack understanding and appreciation of other's religion and life. Islam is also a way of life and there are some fundamental misunderstandings of Islam and being a Muslim.

[TineeTim]

There are some remarkably bad takes here. Many implying this was a simple decision and 'obviously' the wrong one was made.

Why is YPLM automatically considered by many as nearest suitable? It's isolated, limited RFF, limited hospital facilities, limited ATC, etc They weren't flying a Cessna. The AirAsia guys are thinking about all that and also considering Customs, hotels, maintenance and on it goes. Not to mention that the aeroplane is perfectly capable of flying on one engine. Many here are comfortable because they understand what it would be like at Learmonth (or somewhere similar in Oz) But it wouldn't have been that simple to these guys.

Take this scenario:
400nm out of Manilla an engine fails. 200nm ahead is an uncontrolled/isolated airport with few facilities. You've never been to this airport but heard about it and it's listed as an emergency in your company's manual. Manilla is about an hour behind you but that's a destination with all the bells and whistles. About half way back to Manilla there's a small airport you COULD use if absolutely necessary just for a bit of concrete if it gets very quiet all of a sudden.

It's a 'no-brainer' that you'd land at that isolated airport 200nm ahead? OK. Unbelievably, you stuff up the single engine landing (undoubtedly your first ever on the A330 outside a sim) into the isolated airport and end up with a collapsed gear off the end of the runway followed by a fire. Now you're evacuating with little support and virtually no medical assistance. Multiple fatalities. I can see the pprune thread now...

[Enos]

Interesting thread single engine vs two engine.

SE cut and dry = land át nearest suitable airport!

Define suitable? 5000ft elevation with terrain issues vs 10 min further on at sea level and no terrain?

Nearly SE, ie running one engine at less than full thrust due to a problem, it doesn't say land at nearest suitable airport because airlines didn't want that in a checklist (managment like grey areas they can manoeuvre here)

But consider one engine that can only produce 50% thrust and the other engine going from 100% thrust to 0% you will not maintain altitude !!

So consider landing at nearest suitable airport!!

Management via ACARS or Sat Phone will ask you to go to an airport that's suitable for them, and if it goes wrong it's your arse and remember they only asked you, not told you!

The captain on the Swiss 777 did the right thing, landed in the snow in the middle of winter in northern Canada and handed the companies broken aircraft back to them to sort out their own problems.

[troppo]

Surprised no one has mentioned the cockpit gradient that is so often referred to with Asian carriers. The Captain made a decision based upon experience and knowledge and safely got it on the deck. If it was a crash a lot would still pile **** on him. Professional respect anyone???

[AmericanFlyer]

Pilot urges passengers to pray after AirAsia flight forced to turn around | KRON4.com (http://kron4.com/2017/06/25/pilot-urges-passengers-to-pray-after-airasia-flight-forced-to-turn-around/)

[otech]

Pretty unprofessional on the pilots part to suggest prayer...

On local news coverage the passengers hears a loud bang, followed by the vibrations.

The local news went on to say an engine 'seized', though that would not seem consistent with shaking continuing on for over 90 minutes.

Would have though shutting down the engine would be sufficient to stop the shaking though...

Anyone have some actual information as to what happened?

From :

The Australian Article (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/airasia-inquiry-into-why-flight-had-to-return-to-perth/news-story/d4c89e159d6e0243c28450f8b382bff3?nk=0ced37c6eb5e4698e5ae9495 d8bd5939-1498456034)

Brenton Atkinson said the plane started vibrating and shaking after what sounded like a small explosion.

“It was literally like you were sitting on top of a washing machine,” he told ABC radio.

“You could see the engine out the window which was really shaking on the wing.

“It was a little unnerving, everyone handled it pretty well, no one freaked out too much.”

[rutan around]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Q5ggtV-y8Concours 77 has just updated an old saying to 'A You Tube is worth a thousand words' It was an excellent demonstration of a serious problem.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[stringbender]

The Electra had many changes after the fatal inflight wing separation, one change was the advance of phasing the propellers to prevent vibration (prevent multiple blades from crossing the leading edge at the same time).

Air Asia:
I would suspect if the Captain kept the damaged engine running this may produce the vibration seen in the film vs it shut down.

When dealing with Operations at certain airlines information can be demanding to land the aircraft at the base of operations. Obviously you have an engine change but I would be very concerned over continuing a flight with excessive vibration. One person mentioned it was worse than a helicopter, I flew in plenty of those contraptions however never to experience what was referred. Severe vibration can damage all aircraft. I would think the vibration in the center of the aircraft where the engine is mounted is less vibration vs the cockpit. I experienced a moderate vibration from a worn out rudder bellcrank sperical bearing that came on while climbing out of FL 240 up to FL 390. I stopped climb and slowed down. Time to return back to where we started from, Dubai, but the Captain feels we can and should continue to Shanghai? Captain if you walk all the way back to the pressure bulkhead and your ok with this vibration I'm ok with it also. He returns and his eyeballs are wide open. I then inform him that we'll have to dump fuel. He calls operations and next thing we get a phone call from operations and then messages on our printer stating that the head of training has blessed us with a procedure of landing overweight. Really? Why do operations get involved making this **** up? We didn't declare an emergency, were not on fire. We entered an altitude and speed range where the vibration occured, we arrested it and returned but dumped fuel bring us within proper landing weight (limitations). Worked all the checklists and went to the hotel. The tail of a B744 is 64' and they didn't have proper checks on the tail because of the necessity of having a vertical stand. They changed the sperical bearing and problem solved. People that carry broken aircraft screw it up for the next crew. Continuing to China could have brought the flight control into a flutter. Was it a balance weight missing. You don't know.

[fox niner]

He not only told the passengers that they better start praying, but he also said that he himself was going to pray as well.
What happened to "relying on your training and experience"?
What happened to trusting the redundancy of the airplane design?
By the way, why would an aircraft manufacturer build in any redundancy, if everything is decided by a higher power anyway?
Seriously. We (humanity) need to start to re-evaluate this reliance on any gods asap.

[ExXB]

While I agree, this has more to do with culture than religion.

[Akrep]

I do not think praying is unprofessional,some people believe in an almighty. If praying helps relieve their stress a bit let them be.

For the second part, shutting down a damaged engine is no guarantee the vibrations will stop. A damaged engine will probably be out of balance and windmilling in the airflow causing the vibrations to continue.

[pattern_is_full]

Aviation Herald says "a blade" fractured - no mention of location (fan, compressor, turbine). Engine core ingested the blade, breaking other parts.

Engine was shut down, but 1) it might still freewheel in the slipstream, and/or 2) the original vibrations may have shaken something else loose (nacelle, pylon, inlet lining) that also rattled and vibrated in the airstream.

Any given engine failure may produce its own pattern of damage and "knock-on" effects. 90 minutes of shaking after shutting down an engine is not something I've encountered (outside of The High and the Mighty) - but someone probably has.

[DaveReidUK]

PPRuNe: Air Asia Turnback Perth 25 Jun 17 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/596307-merged-air-asia-turnback-perth-25-jun-17-a.html)

[crewmeal]

Don't all ME carriers say (show) a prayer before every take off on IFE screens?

[WingNut60]

...... Why is YPLM automatically considered by many as nearest suitable? ......

Indeed, it would not have been an easy decision for the crew.
But, just taking a few of your comments:

It's isolated. - No, its remote, not isolated.
Limited RFF - OK. Not as good as Perth.
Limited hospital facilities - OK again, Definitely less than Perth
Limited ATC - do you mean eyes in the tower? Not too much of that around these days.
- But it is a military air base, albeit little-used. Still, it can't be too bad.
- countered by "Limited traffic to contend with (make that zero traffic)".
Customs - not sure what's available. But nobody's going to want to wander off too far at Exmouth.
Hotels - yes limited, but back up transport (road or air) from Perth or even another aircraft out of Malaysia would be relatively simple.
Maintenance - yep, everything would need to be brought in. Very inconvenient.
The aeroplane is perfectly capable of flying on one engine - hmmm, I would not have used the word "perfectly".

But on the other hand you do have:

Proximiity - 165 nm vs 465 nm. 30 minutes vs 1:50. All of it in descent from 24,000. He MAY have had to lose some fuel.
10,000 ft x 150 ft runway - let's not compare it to a dirt strip in the Philipines, eh.
- U.S. B-52's use this airbase when necessary.
It IS the primary alternate for Perth for flights out of SE Asia and for flights to Sydney, Melbourne, etc coming in from M-E.
It would not have been the first diversion of a heavy to Learmonth. As with Iqualuvit, 300 people unexpectedly arriving in the middle of the night would be a challenge, but not insurmountable.

As for "Take this scenario ......." - No thanks. Not comparable.

[Wannabe Flyer]

Never seen one on Emirates

[Awol57]

If the aircraft landed and blocked the runway I would definitely say LM is isolated. It's at least a 2 hour drive from Carnarvon which has a small runway really. It's about 2.5hours from OLW which is probably the closest larger runway, or 5 hours from KA. KA has the only ARFF in the area unless the military happen to be there (they aren't at the moment). Otherwise Exmouth would be volunteer Firefighters. The town is much smaller than KA so at best they have 2 trucks would be my guess. The hospital is tiny so other than the physical dimensions of the place it doesn't tick many other boxes.

Admittedly PC12's and the like could get into EXM strip but still.

The only thing they have in bucket loads is accommodation, but that may be difficult this time of the year.

[Metro man]

Royal Brunei, whilst not ME, do have a prayer before departure.

[Metro man]

We could fly PER-SIN as either ETOPS or non ETOPS, with a slight route variation and a few minutes additional flight time removing the extra requirements.

[Piltdown Man]

Here is an interesting scenario for us all. A blade separated and based on their training and information available to them they decided to return to Perth. This crew appear to have got away with their decision. So we have to leave them alone. But now we have the luxury of an incident where nobody got hurt and add to our knowledge. RR and Airbus should now tell us if there is any technical reason if this was a good plan or not. Then, we can add this information into our knowledge banks and make better decisions in the future.

Personally, I would have left the plane and passengers in the middle of nowhere. If you run an airline that flies over remote parts of the world you must expect that every now and again your aircraft and passengers might end up in the middle of it.

PM

[tartare]

Video on Nine just now showing the shaking both inside the cabin and the engine on the wing oscillating on the pylon while in flight is just extraordinary.
Surely something that persistent and significant has got to fatigue the airframe?

[Pavement]

Just a small point. It may have been longer to PH but there are other aerodromes enroute. Geraldton would've been equidistant from turnaround as Learmonth. Geraldton is some change under 2000m x 45m (although not ideal it is certainly adequate). Then Gin Gin at 1830m x 45m and Pearce. PIC had other options enroute to PH.

[WHBM]

If they were doing a return to base then reduction of fuel load is effectively done, not by the journalists' favourite "dumping fuel", but by spooling up the engines and extending the speedbrakes.

Have had this on a 767 which had to divert. There is some vibration associated with this.

[eal401]

Never seen one on Emirates

Etihad do - the "Traveller's Prayer" I think it is called.

[KABOY]

Why is YPLM automatically considered by many as nearest suitable? It's isolated, limited RFF, limited hospital facilities, limited ATC, etc They weren't flying a Cessna.

I don't think Airbus would agree with the commercial aspects listed above. Suitable airports come back to runway length and weather. Engineers would have you fly past 1000 airports if it made their life easier.....

[Gate_15L]

"In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position. The pilot-in-command may determine, based on the nature of the situation and an examination of the relevant factors, that the safest course of action is to divert to a more distant airport than the nearest airport. For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane's present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport."

You armchair experts need to shut up....

[RUMBEAR]

My employer only provides airport (JEPPESEN ) data on destination, alternates and occasional enroute Airports. An emergency could mean some airports are not considered due no information. LCC model!!!

[John Citizen]

Why is YPLM automatically considered by many as nearest suitable? It's isolated, limited RFF, limited hospital facilities, limited ATC, etc They weren't flying a Cessna

Qantas also weren't flying a Cessna, but it didn't stop them going to YPLM after an incident. :eek:

Same aircraft type (A330) and in the same area as well. :eek:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-070.aspx

[JamieMaree]

"In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position. The pilot-in-command may determine, based on the nature of the situation and an examination of the relevant factors, that the safest course of action is to divert to a more distant airport than the nearest airport. For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane's present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport."

You armchair experts need to shut up....


And what is that a quote from?

[Flexable]

Qantas also weren't flying a Cessna, but it didn't stop them going to YPLM after an incident. :eek:

Same aircraft type (A330) and in the same area as well. :eek:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-070.aspx
===============
Well if you take the time to read the above mentioned report...not the same circumstance
''On 7 October 2008, an Airbus A330-303 aircraft, registered VH-QPA and operated as Qantas flight 72, departed Singapore on a scheduled passenger transport service to Perth, Western Australia. While the aircraft was in cruise at 37,000 ft, one of the aircraft's three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs) started outputting intermittent, incorrect values (spikes) on all flight parameters to other aircraft systems. Two minutes later, in response to spikes in angle of attack (AOA) data, the aircraft's flight control primary computers (FCPCs) commanded the aircraft to pitch down. At least 110 of the 303 passengers and nine of the 12 crew members were injured; 12 of the occupants were seriously injured and another 39 received hospital medical treatment.''

''At 1240:28, while the aircraft was cruising at 37,000 ft, the autopilot disconnected. That was accompanied by various aircraft system failure indications. At 1242:27, while the crew was evaluating the situation, the aircraft abruptly pitched nose-down. The aircraft reached a maximum pitch angle of about 8.4 degrees nose-down, and descended 650 ft during the event. After returning the aircraft to 37,000 ft, the crew commenced actions to deal with multiple failure messages. At 1245:08, the aircraft commenced a second uncommanded pitch-down event. The aircraft reached a maximum pitch angle of about 3.5 degrees nose-down, and descended about 400 ft during this second event.
At 1249, the crew made a PAN emergency broadcast to air traffic control, and requested a clearance to divert to and track direct to Learmonth. At 1254, after receiving advice from the cabin crew of several serious injuries, the crew declared a MAYDAY. The aircraft subsequently landed at Learmonth at 1350.''

[Sailvi767]

Looks like, after the initial failure, a lot of engineering technology and training did exactly what it was supposed to do.

It looks like they had lost a fan blade, and that the unbalanced wind milling engine was causing the vibration. What does that do to the airframe?! It's getting quite a pounding. Would that knock a few hours off the fatigue life?

I certainly would not want to be on that airframe again until the entire pylon was changed and a full inspection of the wing box and pylon attach points.

[WingNut60]

If the aircraft landed and blocked the runway I would definitely say LM is isolated. .
Unlikely to block the runway. They had one good engine; good enough to return to Perth.
And no shortage of taxiways. See following.

Learmonth RAAF Base in WA - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-15/learmonth-raaf-base-in-wa/5201346)

Anyway, it has all been said already.
As Piltdown Man suggested, let's see what comes out in the wash.

[Sailvi767]

There are some remarkably bad takes here. Many implying this was a simple decision and 'obviously' the wrong one was made.

Why is YPLM automatically considered by many as nearest suitable? It's isolated, limited RFF, limited hospital facilities, limited ATC, etc They weren't flying a Cessna. The AirAsia guys are thinking about all that and also considering Customs, hotels, maintenance and on it goes. Not to mention that the aeroplane is perfectly capable of flying on one engine. Many here are comfortable because they understand what it would be like at Learmonth (or somewhere similar in Oz) But it wouldn't have been that simple to these guys.

Take this scenario:
400nm out of Manilla an engine fails. 200nm ahead is an uncontrolled/isolated airport with few facilities. You've never been to this airport but heard about it and it's listed as an emergency in your company's manual. Manilla is about an hour behind you but that's a destination with all the bells and whistles. About half way back to Manilla there's a small airport you COULD use if absolutely necessary just for a bit of concrete if it gets very quiet all of a sudden.

It's a 'no-brainer' that you'd land at that isolated airport 200nm ahead? OK. Unbelievably, you stuff up the single engine landing (undoubtedly your first ever on the A330 outside a sim) into the isolated airport and end up with a collapsed gear off the end of the runway followed by a fire. Now you're evacuating with little support and virtually no medical assistance. Multiple fatalities. I can see the pprune thread now...

There is a big diffference between a engine failure and the level of vibration that airframe was experiencing. There was a very real possibility that engine could separate from the pylon with possible catastrophic results.

[DaveReidUK]

I won't believe this is real until a bonafide expert such as GT weighs in.

It's in his home turf after all.

Needless to say, he couldn't resist:

AirAsia has long record of safety failures - Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor (https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/airline-has-long-record-of-safety-failures-ng-b88517785z)

"The terrifying engine failure involving an AirAsia X A330 yesterday is the latest in a string of serious incidents and accidents to trouble the AirAsia Group"

etc, etc (you get the idea).

[WingNut60]

===============
..not the same circumstance
............. At least 110 of the 303 passengers and nine of the 12 crew members were injured; 12 of the occupants were seriously injured and another 39 received hospital medical treatment.''


And decided nevertheless to land at the nearest "suitable", even though it had two engines running perfectly and YPLM has limited medical facilities, is isolated, has limited RFF, limited ATC, &c, &c.

So what then made it "suitable" in that case?

[Awol57]

Unlikely to block the runway. They had one good engine; good enough to return to Perth.
And no shortage of taxiways. See following.

Learmonth RAAF Base in WA - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-15/learmonth-raaf-base-in-wa/5201346)

Anyway, it has all been said already.
As Piltdown Man suggested, let's see what comes out in the wash.

I have been to the airport there a few times, I guess I was just playing a bit of "what if" as well.

Living in the NW I have a fair idea of the resources available and I just suspect it wouldn't be as straightforward as some people seem to think if it did all go pear shaped I guess was more my point. Sure if you have no options I'd be headed there but I can only presume at the time with the information they had they decided PH or somewhere further south was a better option was all.

An extra 359 in a town of about 2500 is a fair impost even with an airline potentially throwing money around.

[.Scott]

Video from onboard shows a severe vibration.
That says to me that the engine wasn't shut down.
Why would the crew continue to run an engine with that vibration?
I realise that 2 is better than 1 but the vibration could cause other damage?The video shows us a vibration that corresponds to about 480 rpm (8 cycles per second).
That sounds more like windmilling than anything else.

[WingNut60]

I have been to the airport there a few times, I guess I was just playing a bit of "what if" as well.

Living in the NW I have a fair idea of the resources available and I just suspect it wouldn't be as straightforward as some people seem to think.........

Fair enough. So have I.
I'm not unaware of the inconvenience (at the very least) of diverting to Exmouth.
I guess my interest revolves around the seemingly diametrically opposed opinions being posted in this thread versus the Swissair case in Iqualuvit a couple of months ago.

It seems to me that there is wildly varying interpretation of what constitutes "suitable".
And I don't understand why that should be the case.

It seems that in the case of QF72 the crew gave priority to the condition of the aircraft and their uncertainty about that condition, above all the other factors mentioned by other contriburors.
In this AirAsia case that does not seem to have been the case.

[MickG0105]

And what is that a quote from?

It appears in the Boeing 777 FCTM, Chapter 8, Non-Normal Operations, Landing at the Nearest Suitable Airport; I suspect that most Boeing FCTMs contain a similar passage.

In some FCTMs there is a cross-reference to Supplemental Information along the lines of;

A suitable airport is defined by the operating authority for the operator based on
guidance material, but in general must have adequate facilities and meet certain
minimum weather and field conditions. My bolding.

Learmonth does not meet ICAO Rescue and Fire Fighting Services Category 9 standards (as required for airplanes 61 m ≤ length < 76 m) and therefore fails the "adequate facilities" test as a suitable airport for an A330-300.

[silverstrata]

While I agree, this has more to do with culture than religion.

I would disagree. When I worked out there, some would pray before every crosswind landing; yet I have never seen an Atheist pray before a difficult landing or situation. Much to their disappointment, I made them agree that the landing would be made by skill, not by divine intervention.


Aviation Herald says "a blade" fractured - no mention of location (fan, compressor, turbine).

For the vibration to continue, it is highly likely that it was an N1 blade failure. Shame you cannot feather them, eh? Will be interesting to see why the blade failed. An earlier bird strike, perhaps??


Aviation Herald says "a blade" fractured - no mention of location (fan, compressor, turbine).

For the vibration to continue, it is highly likely that it was an N1 blade failure. Shame you cannot feather them, eh? Will be interesting to see why the blade failed. An earlier bird strike, perhaps??

[Karunch]

Not discounting the previously mentioned inputs to the PIC's decision process, but its highly likely they have an operator customised EFB running Jepps with only the company approved airport charts on board. Learmonth probably not even charted as far as Air Asia concerned. Plenty of foreign airlines running across Australia without charts for suitable en route aerodromes. With Casa issued foreign AOC's. Who's to blame for this?

[dogsridewith]

What originated "on a wing and a prayer?"

[garpal gumnut]

We tend to overinterprate casual emergencies. Words from the Captain. Chosen airfields. All souls got back safely. End of story.

[HPSOV L]

Here we go...
The minimum RFF category for ETOPS/EDTO is 4.
Learmonth has been assessed as adequate to nominate as an ERA alternate by many airlines.
Most Asian aircrew rely heavily on decisions made by their operations centres in the event of non normal situations. It is common for Asian OCs to place operational convenience ahead of regulatory requirements. I don't think they deliberately ignore the rules, it's more likely a combination of legacy mindset from four and three engine days, and confusing EDTO literature that doesn't translate well from English (there are plenty of confused posters in this thread too...).
It's not a stretch to suggest that they only had Notams and information for the alternates specified on their flight plan and were unaware of the availability of Learmonth.

[WingNut60]

Other than Perth itself, Learmonth would have to be one of, if not THE, best alternate for heavies coming from or heading west.

I seriously doubt that any of the other WA regionals have better facilities / capability overall.

[jolihokistix]

St Christopher was the patron saint of travellers when all forms of travel were dangerous.


That people do not pray nowadays says something about how safe the world is perceived to have become.

[WingNut60]

Yes, maybe.
Better facilities and access to support.

But I'd put runway specs at the top of the list and an extra 800 metres might come in handy with a single engine landing.
Support facilities come second provided you're not on fire.

And YPPD is quite a bit farther north.

[Awol57]

Yeah I missed the west bit in your post so deleted it, not quick enough apparently :)

[Obbie]

Tell passengers to pray during an emergency........

Unprofessional, inappropriate, and reckless!!!!!

Termination of the pilot by management the only acceptable response.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

For those of you thinking the aeroplane was about to shake itself apart, Mr Boeing offers this advice:
Certain engine failures, such as fan blade separation can cause high levels of airframe vibration. Although the airframe vibration may seem severe to the Flight Crew, it is extremely unlikely that the vibration will damage the airplane structure or critical systems.
I wonder if Airbus has the same faith in its own airframes/systems.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I'm with Sailvi767 on the inspection of pylons and other critical structure, given the severity and length of time of the vibration.
I know nothing about Airbus pylons at all, but I do know quite a bit about Boeing/Douglas pylons, including a number of in-service failures.
Tootle pip!!

[WingNut60]

Interesting.

Quote:
Certain engine failures, such as fan blade separation can cause high levels of airframe vibration. Although the airframe vibration may seem severe to the Flight Crew, it is extremely unlikely that the vibration will damage the airplane structure or critical systems. But it all still seems very subjective to me. I would hope that there is further advice that better defines the circumstances that they are describing.
Was the vibration level observed in the passenger's video "high", as envisaged by the advice from Boeing?
Or was it "extreme"and way beyond anything they ever considered? ((Not saying it was. Just asking)

And how long did they anticipate that the vibration would last or be tolerated for?

[Toruk Macto]

Be interesting to know if there was any suggestions from their IOC ?
Yes I know it should not come into a decision and yes I know the captain has final authority .

[morno]

And how long did they anticipate that the vibration would last or be tolerated for?

Only a guess, but given that the A330 is certified for EDTO operations, I'm guessing that they would have considered prolonged vibration after a failure like this, up to and beyond the EDTO distance/time that the aircraft is certified for?

morno

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

Interesting.

But it all still seems very subjective to me. I would hope that there is further advice that better defines the circumstances that they are describing.
Was the vibration level observed in the passenger's video "high", as envisaged by the advice from Boeing?
Or was it "extreme"and way beyond anything they ever considered? ((Not saying it was. Just asking)

And how long did they anticipate that the vibration would last or be tolerated for?
Given that the situation Boeing describes seems to be the exact situation the XAX experienced (fan blade separation) I'd suggest that this is the "severe" vibration they mention.

Mind you, there may be a difference in the levels of vibration experienced by a Boeing compared to an Airbus in the same scenario but I can't imagine an Airbus would be much more likely to self destruct.

[lomapaseo]

But it all still seems very subjective to me. I would hope that there is further advice that better defines the circumstances that they are describing.
Was the vibration level observed in the passenger's video "high", as envisaged by the advice from Boeing?
Or was it "extreme"and way beyond anything they ever considered? ((Not saying it was. Just asking)

And how long did they anticipate that the vibration would last or be tolerated for?

The vibration level observed in the passenger cabin was similar to other events and of little relationship to highly damped structural systems in the airframe.

As stated much earlier it is way below the expectations for continued flight in turbulence and gusting levels.

Of course some local parts (tubing, brackets, etc.) associated with the failed engine pylon need be inspected before flight.

I expect that the Australian ATSB will later report on findings.

I'm still awaiting any glimpse of overall photos of the fan as I can't see any great fan damage including the cowl

[misd-agin]

If you think the vibration was bad enough to require an inspection AFTER the fact why would you continue to fly 300 nm farther PRAYING that the engine pylon won't fail?

No maintenance? Who cares, the plane is grounded for days?
No customs? Does not matter in an emergency. And they were returning to the country of departure so there's no need for customs if you insist in being ridiculously pedantic.
Limited medical? No one is injured.
Limited ARFF? They're not burning, they're trying to land before possible structural damage.

[stringbender]

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/airasia-engine-failure-could-have-been-worse-ng-b88518000z

ref above: in the article it states "a source said the pilots were alerted to the problem by a monitoring system and then heard and felt the vibration from the stricken engine, they shut the engine down, did a 180-degree turn and returned to Perth".

My opinion is such: Vibration meters alerted the crew, get a high vibe level - perform a precautionary shut-down, return to Perth. Engine gets changed and the people don't get freeked out along with what now is obviously a difficult procedure to determine "what inspections are necessary"?
In a perfect world this is what "should have happened" but probably did not. The crew got alerted and before you knew it (check-list out and performing it) the Fan blade separated. Large fans require maintenance every so often for lubrication, inspection, balancing, overhaul.
I suspect this is a maintenance related issue.

As far as landing at the nearest suitable airport vs what probably was a coaxing of the operator for the FLIGHT CREW TO RETURN to Perth where the company handed out bottle water and $20. vouchers to a group of emotionally changed passengers in need of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome DEBRIEFING WITH QUALIFIED EMOTIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL. (dramatic changes in life experience often occurs to individuals with PTSD in short time. Marriages, relationships, addiction, phobia's etc etc).

[costalpilot]

We tend to overinterprate casual emergencies. Words from the Captain. Chosen airfields. All souls got back safely. End of story.

since WHEN did all souls getting back safely end anything?

since when should it?

is the author a pilot?

[JamieMaree]

It appears in the Boeing 777 FCTM, Chapter 8, Non-Normal Operations, Landing at the Nearest Suitable Airport; I suspect that most Boeing FCTMs contain a similar passage.

In some FCTMs there is a cross-reference to Supplemental Information along the lines of;

My bolding.

Learmonth does not meet ICAO Rescue and Fire Fighting Services Category 9 standards (as required for airplanes 61 m ≤ length < 76 m) and therefore fails the "adequate facilities" test as a suitable airport for an A330-300.

Fair enough.
I would suggest to you that Learmonth is approved by many large carriers as a full alternate, Suitable alternate or whatever title each airline uses, for a very long time. For example, it has been the No 1 Alternate for Perth for QF Boeing 747s since the 1970 s. If they can't use Learmonth (1.30 away) they have to use Adelaide(2.30+ away) with consquential penalties.
If each airline allows each individual pilot to determine what constitutes "suitable" then that is a very variable standard in my view.
I don't know, but my guess is that Learmonth is used by a number of A380 airlines as a full Alternate for Perth and ergo, if that particular airline considers it safe and appropriate for an A380 that just needs to fuel up, it would be considered safe and appropriate for an A330-300 with an engine shutdown and vibrating, lack of RFF notwithstanding.

[Spotted Reptile]

Fair enough.

I don't know, but my guess is that Learmonth is used by a number of A380 airlines as a full Alternate for Perth and ergo, if that particular airline considers it safe and appropriate for an A380 that just needs to fuel up, it would be considered safe and appropriate for an A330-300 with an engine shutdown and vibrating, lack of RFF notwithstanding.

It is down as a suitable alternate for the A380. You worry about the logistical problems once you have safely got your passengers and crew on the ground. If you remember QF72 (A330) when the computers went haywire the captain couldn't get the aircraft down to Learmonth fast enough and didn't give a damm about support or maintenance at the airport. He was concerned with saving lives. Learmonth had a runway he could use, and that was that.

The problem with so many of the assumptions in this thread is that the remaining engine WILL get the plane back to Perth. This is a huge assumption on a trip of several hundred kms after an engine failure of unknown cause, when the crew could have landed safely nearby.

That remaining engine is subject to extra stress and higher loads because it's operating for two, at a reduced height, higher drag and higher fuel burn. Life is more important than maintenance facilities and emotional support people at destination. If you lose one engine, the chances of losing the other are a lot higher in this scenario, and then it's the desert and bye bye.

Correction: It's not an official alternate for the A380 as I previously implied, but its a runway an A380 captain would have no hesitation in using if needs must.

[Matt48]

What's with the warning from the Captain, " Our survival depends on your cooperation", what can pax do apart from sitting down and belting up, and it appears the capt put maint support ahead of the safety of the pax with his decision to return to Perth, a 90 min flight on one good engine , with the other vibrating madly, the stress on everything from the turbine shafts, pylons, wing structure and fuselage must have been considerable.

[Matt48]

Video on Nine just now showing the shaking both inside the cabin and the engine on the wing oscillating on the pylon while in flight is just extraordinary.
Surely something that persistent and significant has got to fatigue the airframe?
My exact thoughts too, remind me not to fly AirAsia anytime soon, it's a wonder the engine didn't depart the wing.

[Matt48]

I have been to the airport there a few times, I guess I was just playing a bit of "what if" as well.

Living in the NW I have a fair idea of the resources available and I just suspect it wouldn't be as straightforward as some people seem to think if it did all go pear shaped I guess was more my point. Sure if you have no options I'd be headed there but I can only presume at the time with the information they had they decided PH or somewhere further south was a better option was all.

An extra 359 in a town of about 2500 is a fair impost even with an airline potentially throwing money around.
If they had landed at Learmonth, wouldn't it be fairly straightforward to send another plane up from Perth to pick up the pax and transport them back to Perth on a plane that wasn't trying to shake itself to bits.

[CurtainTwitcher]

If you lose one engine, the chances of losing the other are a lot higher in this scenario, and then it's the desert and bye bye.

Are they? Do you have a statistical source for this? The central assumption behind ETOPS is that cruise engine failures are independent of one another with one engine operating at Max Continuous Thrust for the maximum ETOPS time limit.

If there is a dependant relationship between the two engines (common fuel source or an engine failure damages another engine) then this assumption is no longer valid, and getting on the ground ASAP is a must. A blade failure at cruise altitude is likely to be a random event within the ETOPS time limit (ie the second engine suffering a random failure with say a 180 minute ETOPS segment is vanishingly small).

Even if there is a identical common point of failure of engine maintenance for both engines, the chances of the both failures occurring within the one flight is statistically incredibly small. In other words, the engineering is designed to get you home from the the worst case scenario. Sure, it would feel very very uncomfortable, but it will work.

We accept this engineering rational every time we go flying in a twin. Here is a primer from EASA on the IFSD rates and engineering assumptions: Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Aeroplanes ETOPS Certification and Operation (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Annex%20II%20-%20AMC%2020-6.pdf). Have a look at section 3: RISK MANAGEMENT AND RISK MODEL (page 35), see Figure 1 and look at the IFSD rates per 1000 flight hours, and how they derive Figure 2 and the IFSD rate as ETOPS segments goes out towards 10 hours (0.010 failures per 1000 flight hours). If the second engine still works after the first blows up, it will keep working until you land.

Recent incidents that shows that dual engine failures were dependant: US Airways Flight 1549 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549), QF32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32) and Air Transat 236 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236). In all cases, there was a dependant relationship between the failures (external, birds for Sully, engine disintegration causing a second engine problem for QF32 and the Air Transat crew mishandling a fuel leak causing a common point of failure for the Azores Glider)


Having said all that, in this scenario I would be proceeding to the nearest runway that I believed was safe given my knowledge of the local environment. For me, YPLM is OK, for another pilot who is less familiar with the area that may be YPPH.

This short video shows where a random independent process becomes dependent one. The final simulation appears to defy logic and reason and does not produce the expected normal distribution.

3m4bxse2JEQ

[misd-agin]

Matt48 - "a 90 min flight on one good engine , with the other vibrating madly, the stress on everything from the turbine shafts, pylons, wing structure and fuselage must have been considerable"


Exactly. Why subject the operating engine to additional stress? How many hours has the good engine been tested at the vibration level it was experiencing?

[Matt48]

Perhaps it's about time that Air Asia and Qantas got together to provide A330 airstairs at Learmonth?
:) Good one, and perhaps a food truck and chairs.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Matt48 - "a 90 min flight on one good engine , with the other vibrating madly, the stress on everything from the turbine shafts, pylons, wing structure and fuselage must have been considerable"


Exactly. Why subject the operating engine to additional stress? How many hours has the good engine been tested at the vibration level it was experiencing?
Its covered in the EASA ETOPS document (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Annex%20II%20-%20AMC%2020-6.pdf).

[Berealgetreal]

My opinion and thinking:

Something goes "bang" and an engine stops. You can't pull over and have an engineer have a look and even if you could, the airplane would be grounded for weeks and maybe months. How do you know what damage has occurred? How do you know the last bolt holding a wing on isn't going to let go?

In this situation, in addition to the bang and the engine stopping, the entire fuselage engine and wing was shaking. The airplane and its occupants belongs on the ground and YPLM is long enough, wide enough and hard enough to not cause further danger. It was day time the terrain around the airport is forgiving and its hardly Broome in the dry season traffic wise.

Forget the problem with the stairs, hotels and every other thing you can dream up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XU0nAGKLYY

Whilst very different the Sioux city crash shows what fragments at high speed can do to an airplane.

How many stuff ups can one have before a spade is called a spade? Are Europe and the US wrong?

[Matt48]

My opinion and thinking:

Something goes "bang" and an engine stops. You can't pull over and have an engineer have a look and even if you could, the airplane would be grounded for weeks and maybe months. How do you know what damage has occurred? How do you know the last bolt holding a wing on isn't going to let go?

In this situation, in addition to the bang and the engine stopping, the entire fuselage engine and wing was shaking. The airplane and its occupants belongs on the ground and YPLM is long enough, wide enough and hard enough to not cause further danger. It was day time the terrain around the airport is forgiving and its hardly Broome in the dry season traffic wise.

Forget the problem with the stairs, hotels and every other thing you can dream up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XU0nAGKLYY

Whilst very different the Sioux city crash shows what fragments at high speed can do to an airplane.

How many stuff ups can one have before a spade is called a spade? Are Europe and the US wrong?
The Captain should be considering his passengers safety first and foremost, screw the lack of facilities, someone elses problem once he lands the plane. Safety first, one engine U/S, the other going flat out on a vibrating wing for 90 mins, what could go wrong.

[neville_nobody]

It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. If you consider how much pressure CASA puts on local operators it begs the question what does a foreign operator have to do to get it's AOC revoked or investigated by CASA?

Air Asia have had two very close calls in Australia now they're flying past perfectly acceptable alternates on one engine.

My money is on CASA doing nothing as per usual as they are not interested in upsetting a foreign country, and will just continue hammering the local operators and making what is already an uneven playing field even more uneven.

[Matt48]

359 souls on that AirAsia flight obviously value their life at $200, so it would seem a prayer or two would be wise indeed.

[Matt48]

Interesting.

But it all still seems very subjective to me. I would hope that there is further advice that better defines the circumstances that they are describing.
Was the vibration level observed in the passenger's video "high", as envisaged by the advice from Boeing?
Or was it "extreme"and way beyond anything they ever considered? ((Not saying it was. Just asking)

And how long did they anticipate that the vibration would last or be tolerated for?
Perhaps if the skipper had taken a walk back in the cabin past the wings, he may have reevaluated his decision, if he had finished praying, that is.

[TineeTim]

So many posters absolutely sure their opinion is correct and the Captain's was wrong. Interesting.

I know of two major airlines, not LCC, that virtually never use Learmonth as an alternate for Perth- they use Adelaide or Melbourne unless absolutely necessary. They've made the decision that it's not a place they want their A/C going unless it's absolutely necessary. Qantas would almost always use Learmonth. Who's right? Are the others wrong?

'Nearest Suitable' is a subjective term, no doubt that's intentional. Someone posted what Boeing says about it and, in my opinion, the Captain here made a reasonable decision.This Captain decided Perth was the best option. You might have made a different decision, I might have made a different decision, doesn't mean he's wrong. As evidenced by the different opinions here, it's not as straightforward as too many are making it out to be.

[Icarus2001]

TineeTim that is the most sensible post on this thread.

[Moneymoneymoneymoney]

It amuses me the way operators employees go quiet on this board when one of theirs is involved in an incident :eek:

[PoppaJo]

You can't blame everyone going against the crew here.

I mean the past few incidents have all resulted in errors on the company's behalf and there's still more investigations to come. There are serious procedural breakdowns in every report that materialises, my main gripe with this mob is they continue to roll on even after acknowledging they have implemented new safety procedures. It's just not happening.

I encourage you to read past investigations (moreso if on the Airbus) to really see the issues at play. I've not seen such poor display of piloting in my entire career.

[Airbus A320321]

Very unprofessional by the crew to return to Perth. The crew should have a good knowledge of alternates en-route and be aware of the runway capabilities and approaches available (3047 x 45m runway with RNAV-Z approaches at Learmonth!!) and probably have them loaded into the secondary flight plan ready to go. I doubt this crew had that knowledge, based in the decision they made.

[Kizz]

Dumb question, would they have to dump fuel to land at Learmonth? If so, how long would it take and where are they allowed to do it?

[HEALY]

A number of major non LCC carriers don't use YPLM as an alternate because mainly due to state regulations requiring certain levels of RFF and approach capabilities. This may exclude it from being an EDTO alternate for planning purposes however once airbourne all bets are off with a major failure. Middle of the day , CAVOK with 3 km of runway and a engine with vibrations strong enough to cause a lot of alarm strewth how much suitable does it need to be !

[Tankengine]

Are they? Do you have a statistical source for this? The central assumption behind ETOPS is that cruise engine failures are independent of one another with one engine operating at Max Continuous Thrust for the maximum ETOPS time limit.

If there is a dependant relationship between the two engines (common fuel source or an engine failure damages another engine) then this assumption is no longer valid, and getting on the ground ASAP is a must. A blade failure at cruise altitude is likely to be a random event within the ETOPS time limit (ie the second engine suffering a random failure with say a 180 minute ETOPS segment is vanishingly small).

Even if there is a identical common point of failure of engine maintenance for both engines, the chances of the both failures occurring within the one flight is statistically incredibly small. In other words, the engineering is designed to get you home from the the worst case scenario. Sure, it would feel very very uncomfortable, but it will work.

We accept this engineering rational every time we go flying in a twin. Here is a primer from EASA on the IFSD rates and engineering assumptions: Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Aeroplanes ETOPS Certification and Operation (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Annex%20II%20-%20AMC%2020-6.pdf). Have a look at section 3: RISK MANAGEMENT AND RISK MODEL (page 35), see Figure 1 and look at the IFSD rates per 1000 flight hours, and how they derive Figure 2 and the IFSD rate as ETOPS segments goes out towards 10 hours (0.010 failures per 1000 flight hours). If the second engine still works after the first blows up, it will keep working until you land.

Recent incidents that shows that dual engine failures were dependant: US Airways Flight 1549 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549), QF32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32) and Air Transat 236 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236). In all cases, there was a dependant relationship between the failures (external, birds for Sully, engine disintegration causing a second engine problem for QF32 and the Air Transat crew mishandling a fuel leak causing a common point of failure for the Azores Glider)


Having said all that, in this scenario I would be proceeding to the nearest runway that I believed was safe given my knowledge of the local environment. For me, YPLM is OK, for another pilot who is less familiar with the area that may be YPPH.

This short video shows where a random independent process becomes dependent one. The final simulation appears to defy logic and reason and does not produce the expected normal distribution.

3m4bxse2JEQ

All very interesting.
I personally know a pilot that had an engine failure with return to land in Singapore. A day or two later he departed in the same aircraft once it was fixed and the OTHER engine failed!!
Work out the stats for that! ;)

[Unregistered_]

Perhaps if the skipper had taken a walk back in the cabin past the wings, he may have reevaluated his decision, if he had finished praying, that is.

Thats a very good point. Do we know if he went back to do a visual inspection and vibe appraisal? I sincerely hope he did, I suspect he didn't.

[Jonny Suave Trousers]

If the captain did put it down in Learmonth, what possible punishment could he be dealt?

Little or non is my guess.

Not a great look for an airline firing someone for putting their customers safety first I would have thought?

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

There's a big difference between nominating an airport as an alternate and using it as a diversion port in an emergency.

[Miles Long]

So many posters absolutely sure their opinion is correct and the Captain's was wrong. Interesting

'Nearest Suitable' is a subjective term, no doubt that's intentional. Someone posted what Boeing says about it and, in my opinion, the Captain here made a reasonable decision.This Captain decided Perth was the best option. You might have made a different decision, I might have made a different decision, doesn't mean he's wrong. As evidenced by the different opinions here, it's not as straightforward as too many are making it out to be.

"Nearest Suitable" is clearly defined in at least one major Australia airline's procedures, there's nothing subjective about it. Flying past an Adequate or EDTo Alternate is subjective, flying past a Suitable is not.
I do however acknowledge that Learmonth may not have been designated as Suitable or equivalent to AirAsia, and that other factors may have precluded a landing in Learmonth or favoured a return to Perth.
But hopefully not those factors affecting safety, like passenger convenience, accommodation etc.
Then, with an Airbus, you get this ECAM alert..."LAND ASAP" in either red or amber, depending on the severity of the situation.
I've heard a number of interpretations on this one, to me it's pretty clear.

[Bored987]

On a different but not unrelated question: when Qantas start their non-stop flights to Perth from the UK soon what is their alternate for a full 787 if, having reached Perth and found that they can't land, they are forced to divert?

Presumably similar questions have been asked (& answered) about Learmonth's suitability etc irrespective of the situation the aircraft and/or passengers are in?

[Tom Sawyer]

I certainly would not want to be on that airframe again until the entire pylon was changed and a full inspection of the wing box and pylon attach points.

There is an inspection criteria in Chp 5 and/or 71 of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual for failure of engine post a blade off event. The whole engine, fan cowlings, nose cowl, C Ducts and Common Nozzle Assembly must be removed and quarantined (the CNA is matched to the engine so would be replaced anyway). The Engine pylon mounts will also be removed and replaced. There is then a progressive inspection of the pylon which will require deeper inspections depending on level 1 findings up to level 3 (from memory) if required. A pylon replacement would be dependent on inspection level findings. I would also think Airbus have requested the QAR/FDR data to determine the level and frequency of vibration which they will then base further airframe inspection requirements on also.

[Eclan]

Several credible sources have referred to the possibility of the flight ditching being raised at some point.

- If - the capt was contemplating ditching one moment then a diversion to Perth the next, then the thinking is definitely questionable. No doubt the return to Perth was for commercial reasons instead of the much closer and adequate alternate, YPLM.

The ditching talk has gone quiet though.

Matt, this fad of referring to "souls" on board is repugnant and as unprofessional as the capt asking everyone to "pray" that he'll be able to do his job and get them on the ground in one piece. Unless you have wings growing out of your shoulders, let's leave religious claptrap out of aviation please.

[jumby164]

Referring to "souls" on board is repugnant and as unprofessional as the capt asking everyone to "pray" that he'll be able to do his job

You are kidding me, Souls on Board has been a common reference for ATC services in many countries.

Let go of anti-religious clap trap, its tiring.

[misd-agin]

Its covered in the EASA ETOPS document (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Annex%20II%20-%20AMC%2020-6.pdf).

Page 34/65 -

This test must be run with the high speed and low speed main engine rotors unbalanced to generate at least 90 percent of the applicant’s recommended maintenance vibration levels. Additionally, for engines with three main engine rotors, the intermediate speed rotor must be unbalanced to generate at least 90 percent of the applicant’s recommended acceptance vibration level.

**************

I've reached vibration limits and they weren't noticeable. Ninty percent would be a lower figure.

So what level is the pylon and wing certified to when the entire plane is shaking?

How long is the good engine certified to operate when exposed to level X vibration? What level are they tested to, especially for 90+ minutes.

I don't know the answers. I doubt 1/100, perhaps 1/1000, or 1/10,000 pilots know the answers. Absent that knowledge I'd do whatever I could do reduce the vibrations and land ASAP. We don't operate with " I think it will stay together" as a hope. Absent knowledge, or if there's significant doubt about the safety of the aircraft, landing and solving the trouble shooting, or investigation, on the ground is the most prudent course of action.

And none of this addresses the requirement to land at the nearest suitable after the lose of an engine.

[misd-agin]

You don't dilly-dally dumping fuel when it's not required. An overweight landing, even single engine, isn't a dire emergency. It's standard risk assessment. With the much vibration I'd land overweight vs delaying and subjectng the aircraft to additional stress from the vibration. And it's not like an overweight inspection will delay the next departure because that airplane isn't going anywhere for days.

Hopefully the investigation gives flight crews more insight into what is, or isn't, acceptable limits if we experience this ourselves.

[misd-agin]

I have been to the airport there a few times, I guess I was just playing a bit of "what if" as well.

Living in the NW I have a fair idea of the resources available and I just suspect it wouldn't be as straightforward as some people seem to think if it did all go pear shaped I guess was more my point. Sure if you have no options I'd be headed there but I can only presume at the time with the information they had they decided PH or somewhere further south was a better option was all.

An extra 359 in a town of about 2500 is a fair impost even with an airline potentially throwing money around.

The industry has diverted airliners into towns who's population numbers less than the passenger total of the a/c diverting.

Here's an aviation truth - being on the ground is better than wishing you were on the ground.

[misd-agin]

This Captain decided Perth was the best option. You might have made a different decision, I might have made a different decision, doesn't mean he's wrong.
••••••••••••••

We won't know who's right or who's wrong until the pylons, engine mounts, wing, etc are inspected.

That's the point - if you don't know the answer/outcome why continue for 300 nm?

[lomapaseo]

How long is the good engine certified to operate when exposed to level X vibration? What level are they tested to, especially for 90+ minutes.

You seem to be talking about one single running engine's vibration. That concern is that it may lead to some accessory tubing break and the need to shutdown that engine.

This thread is about an engine already shutdown for cause (fan rotor wobble) and it's vibration level is at a very low frequency not likely to cause the loss of another critical system including another engine position (lots of damping through all the joints between isolated systems)

[dogsridewith]

What's with the warning from the Captain, " Our survival depends on your cooperation", what can pax do apart from sitting down and belting up, and it appears the capt put maint support ahead of the safety of the pax with his decision to return to Perth, a 90 min flight on one good engine , with the other vibrating madly, the stress on everything from the turbine shafts, pylons, wing structure and fuselage must have been considerable.
For one thing, if there's a water landing impending, the captain may announce it, including "...it is very important not to open any doors or move from your seats until floating attitude stabilizes and instructions are provided."

People are different. Some passengers probably found some comfort in the captain's announcement. Please submit a good statement to make during this incident...or suggest silence on the subject of the shaking.

This particular aircraft would now make a good test subject. Put it on a shake table, or maybe hang it from cable(s), and make the bad engine spin to quantify what the aircraft saw during the flight. Then put on some more time to see how much margin there was. Then vary speed and/or eccentric mass until something fails.

[smala01]

Out of interest what is the paperwork required for a foreign registered aircraft to pick up stranded passengers and drop them domestically - e.g. KUL - Learmonth - Perth (or vice versa)

[megan]

So many posters absolutely sure their opinion is correct and the Captain's was wrongHow do those commenting on the Captains decision to fly for 90 minutes back to Perth reconcile that with the fact that it may have a 240 etops approval? 90 is a lot, lot less than 240.

[pax2908]

We won't know who's right or who's wrong until the pylons, engine mounts, wing, etc are inspected.


SORRY, not necessarily. Right/wrong surely depends on more than "did some thing break eventually". Because people Have to take the correct decision, before having that inspection done.

[Spotted Reptile]

Are they? Do you have a statistical source for this? The central assumption behind ETOPS is that cruise engine failures are independent of one another with one engine operating at Max Continuous Thrust for the maximum ETOPS time limit.

If there is a dependant relationship between the two engines (common fuel source or an engine failure damages another engine) then this assumption is no longer valid, and getting on the ground ASAP is a must.

Oh please. This isn't about statistics. This is about airmanship and conservative thinking. If one engine is carrying the load of two, especially with all that vibrating and shaking going on, it IS subject to more stress and loads than it normally operates with. It makes it more likely to fail than it did.

And Captains don't go on statistics and all that other waffle you put up. They think of the worst case scenario and plan for it. No Captain I know would have flown past a suitable runway on one engine with hundreds of kms to go to destination.

[Awol57]

The industry has diverted airliners into towns who's population numbers less than the passenger total of the a/c diverting.

Here's an aviation truth - being on the ground is better than wishing you were on the ground.

I understand that. But I also said with the information they had they obviously decided that PH was a better option.

I have yet to see anything definitive say that the vibration we saw in 2 short videos was that severe and continuous for the other 89 odd minutes to return to PH.

For the time being, I am going with the crew made what they thought was the best decision at the time.

[WingNut60]

I have yet to see anything definitive say that the vibration we saw in 2 short videos was that severe and continuous for the other 89 odd minutes to return to PH.......

Nothing definitive, no. But can I suggest that you take a look at my post #63
But I'll recap with a small part of that post anyway.

2. The gentleman on the left at about 25 sec mark says "about half an hour to go" leading me to suspect that it may well have been shaking for > 1 hour at that time.More passenger quotes to substantiate that assumption at post #63
Are you suggesting that we should presume that the vibration only started 1:10 after the failure, because there is nothing definitive to show otherwise?

And also, with regard possibility of a water landing:

3. Reported that "marine emergency services north of Perth were put on standby to prepare for a possible water landing" so you would have to presume that some level of emergency had been called.And finally, just to be pedantic, return time was more like 1:43, not 90 minutes.

[airdualbleedfault]

To back you up wingnut, I read somewhere that the vibration levels were uncomfortable until Flap 2, that's the whole flight in my book. I'll put my house on the fact that Air Asia use Learmonth as a planning alternate for wx etc when it suits them.

[misd-agin]

How do those commenting on the Captains decision to fly for 90 minutes back to Perth reconcile that with the fact that it may have a 240 etops approval? 90 is a lot, lot less than 240.

How many suitable airports are you allowed to fly by, with any ETOPS aircraft, after losing an engine?

[chookcooker]

How many suitable airports are you allowed to fly by, with any ETOPS aircraft, after losing an engine?

4.........

[Lookleft]

Some airlines use Forrest as an adequate so that they can fly to Perth non-etops. There is no way anyone is going to land at Forrest single engine even if over the Bight. It will be ADL KGL or PTH.

[kutu0062]

I have not read all posts on this thread but I was a passenger on the plane and can clarify a few things first hand.

First, there was an initial loud bang followed quickly by the vibration. I imagined that a cargo door had blown off. The vibration did last the entire return flight except for the approach to landing when it all but stopped. Presumably lower airspeed reduced the windmilling force.

The vibration was fairly constant and low frequency - maybe 5 to 8 Hz I am guessing. It did seem so wane and surge. During the surging it was extremely unnerving. The toilet block behind me was wobbling so much that the noise prevented me from always hearing properly whatever was being said. In fact, during the emergency briefings from the crew they had to deliver it in person to a couple of rows at a time so we could hear them.

At times the vibration of my seat back was too much to be able to rest against. I had to sit forward in the seat.

The captain did suggest we pray on two occasions. I was not upset that he said that except that I hoped it did not mean that he was substituting reliance on a higher being over his own effort. He did sound emotional on one of his announcements when he appeared to have to stop mid sentence and then compose himself to continue. Then again it could have been something else that diverted his attention.

He did initially describe the number 1 engine as having siezed. Although I could not see it - I was sitting in the middle, intuitively I imagined that it was still spinning asymmetrically and that must be causing the vibration. I did not know why it could not be stopped but presumed the captain could not contain it.

The passengers around me were discussing why we were not landing at a closer airport. We though we must be close to Learmonth.

The cabin crew did an excellent job. You could tell they were worried but they performed well.

My gut feeling was that we had a 50:50 chance but really I had no idea. I knew the captain was in control but with all the wobbling and vibration I was worried something would break and he would lose control.

Landing was sweet. The captain stood at the door and shook the hands of every single passenger. The crew got hi 5s and the passengers were giving hugs all round.

It's good to be alive!

[HPSOV L]

ETOPs/EDTO training around the world is based on ICAO annex 6 part II and compliance guidelines by EASA AMC 20-6 and (the far clearer)FAA AC120-42B.
The confusion around diversion airport selection is largely caused by the ICAO and EASA EDTO documents. This document is misleading when interpreted without context. They appear to suggest En-route alternates to be used are pre-determined by the dispatcher and that flight crews are expected to use the ones on the filed flight plan in the event of an engine failure. The glaring point easily missed is that it is written purely in the context of providing a legal minimum standard for dispatching a flight.
In practice dispatchers tend to reduce the number of nominated ERAs to the minimum required in order to reduce flight plan clutter. Often the NOTAM and weather package do not include non-nominated ERAs.
Many asian airlines training departments actually train their pilots based on this misconception. Compounding this is an institutional deferral to their 'OC' for diversion decisions.
In this case the crew may not have had the information at hand to properly evaluate Learmonth, especially under the physiological circumstances. It may well have been safer from a human factors perspective to follow the simpler option of returning to Perth.

[Icarus2001]

Out of interest what is the paperwork required for a foreign registered aircraft to pick up stranded passengers and drop them domestically - e.g. KUL - Learmonth - Perth (or vice versa)

Unlikely to be recovered in that way, simpler and cheaper to use a Perth based carrier to fly them back to Perth from Learmonth.

[Mogas]

What was his English like?

uhhh yes is not so good and is not so bad, icao is engrish, wellington english not so well rejected from mother england. whoops did i just say that

[neville_nobody]

Some airlines use Forrest as an adequate so that they can fly to Perth non-etops. There is no way anyone is going to land at Forrest single engine even if over the Bight. It will be ADL KGL or PTH.

I think you would have a hard time justifying that decision if it happened at the furthest distance out from KGI and ADL. If you have nominated Forrest as an alternate, then fly past it for another 1.5 hours plus on one engine, when the checklist says land at the nearest suitable I would suggest you may come in for some scrutiny.

Obviously if there wasn't much in it then ADL or KGI is the better option but if the engine fails in the worst possible position then it will be tough to justify pressing on. The other consideration is if you press on then something else goes wrong that leads to an accident you are going to get smashed in an inquiry or court case.

[FL11967]

The "aviation expert" Neil Hansford at it again. ABC lowering its standards to news.com

AirAsia engine malfunction prompts expert warning on booking budget air travel - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/aviation-expert-urges-rethink-on-budget-air-travel-airasia/8653278)

[DaveReidUK]

it's vibration level is at a very low frequency not likely to cause the loss of another critical system including another engine position

Low frequency isn't the same as low amplitude.

We're not talking about a fatigue regime here, we're talking about potential damage caused by the aircraft trying to shake itself to bits.

[megan]

We're not talking about a fatigue regime here, we're talking about potential damage caused by the aircraft trying to shake itself to bitsFrom https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/engine_prop/media/engine_malf_report.pdfFor some engine failures, severe vibration may be experienced after the engine has been shut down, to the point where instruments are difficult to read. This vibration is caused by the unbalanced fan, windmilling at an engine speed close to an airframe’s natural resonance frequency, which amplifies the vibration. Changing airspeed and/or altitude will change the fan windmill speed and an airplane speed may be found where there will be much less vibration. There is no risk of airplane structural failure due to vibratory engine loads during this windmilling action.

[Keith Myath]

I think you would have a hard time justifying that decision if it happened at the furthest distance out from KGI and ADL. If you have nominated Forrest as an alternate, then fly past it for another 1.5 hours plus on one engine, when the checklist says land at the nearest suitable I would suggest you may come in for some scrutiny.

Obviously if there wasn't much in it then ADL or KGI is the better option but if the engine fails in the worst possible position then it will be tough to justify pressing on. The other consideration is if you press on then something else goes wrong that leads to an accident you are going to get smashed in an inquiry or court case.

Hi Nev,

I think you would come in for an even greater amount of scrutiny if you attempted to land at Forrest at typical weights that you could expect to arrive at. Utilising YFRT as a non-EDTO adequate is fraught with problems. Have you ever done a LDR calculation at typical weights you may arrive at? The answer will be enlightening and surprising. If you lose an engine over the bight you won’t be able to land at YFRT, even using un-factored distances. So you will be much better off flying beyond the non-EDTO distance OEI and landing at an aerodrome that has sufficient runway – or insisting on an EDTO plan and check before departing.

[sia sniffer]

This is a AirAsia. The crew are trained in all normal and abnormal techniques. However, Allah rules the day. Trust in God, Allah and we will survive. When the situation gets tough, the tough pull out the koran not the QRH.
Its a cultural thing, and cannot be trained out of them .

Korean Air had the same problem of cultural loss of face in the 1990's , causing several preventable tragedies. SIA suffered a similar fate with SQ6 . I worked in SQ, their cultural indoctrination was prevalent in the cockpit. No amount of inhouse training can remove it, not now, not ever.

[WingNut60]

Hi Nev,

I think you would come in for an even greater amount of scrutiny if you attempted to land at Forrest at typical weights that you could expect to arrive at. Utilising YFRT as a non-EDTO adequate is fraught with problems. Have you ever done a LDR calculation at typical weights you may arrive at? The answer will be enlightening and surprising. If you lose an engine over the bight you won’t be able to land at YFRT, even using un-factored distances. So you will be much better off flying beyond the non-EDTO distance OEI and landing at an aerodrome that has sufficient runway – or insisting on an EDTO plan and check before departing.

YFRT - 5000 ft
Not too many would want to land there on one engine methinks.
Aplogies to 172 owners

[C441]

Landing was sweet.
….Having previously heard some northern-neighbour airlines insisting on an ILS approach inbound to Australian airports*, I wonder if an RNAV approach with manual landing in Learmonth vs an ILS and autoland in Perth played any part in the crew's decision making process?

* This included a funny conversation between a Malaysian carrier and a controller asking if an ILS to runway 27 would be okay in Melbourne. The pilot replied that he required an ILS to runway 34. The controller told him he'd be waiting a while. "How long?" came the reply. "Some years!….34 doesn't have an ILS but a VOR approach is available"
"Runway 27 will be okay then."

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

Perth does not have autoland. As I understand it (I'm not a pilot), only visual landings can be done there.
WRONG. On both counts.
Perhaps if you're not a pilot you should refrain from commenting in a pilots' forum.

[Deejaypee]

Kirkc, I'm glad you said you are not a pilot.
Nough said!:ugh:

[kirkc]

Kirkc, I'm glad you said you are not a pilot.
Nough said!:ugh:

My apologies, I'd misinterpreted the way this issue is typically reported in our local media and I now understand the difference - thank you.

I've read every single word in this entire thread, as Air Asia and their Perth operations are particularly relevant for me. I'm also a technically minded aircraft enthusiast with a very good understanding of most aspects of this incident (and I held a student licence at one time).

Quite clearly I'm not the only non-pilot here and I have to say, I find some statements made by people who do appear to be pilots quite disturbing. The lack of understanding by some of how 'ETOPS' relates (or otherwise) to this incident is a good example.

I am interested in both sides of the debate on the choice to fly all the way back to Perth and especially interested in the comments from those with engineering backgrounds (mainly non-pilotes too I assume?) - their input is especially relevant.

[neville_nobody]

Have you ever done a LDR calculation at typical weights you may arrive at? The answer will be enlightening and surprising. If you lose an engine over the bight you won’t be able to land at YFRT, even using un-factored distances.

Well not sure which aircraft you are referring to but the one I fly can land there at MLW, single engine, dry runway, factored.
My assumption in my previous post was that the aircraft is capable of doing it and that the weather was OK.

[Jet II]

pretty clean break

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19247723_1506198456103159_8595142172159316481_n.jpg?oh=e1d18 c327fa9a9b8408ae45ba88c9da5&oe=5A0FBAF2

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19429842_1506198459436492_3661073376366185170_n.jpg?oh=c897e 6097492204a203283487e6c7884&oe=59C8630B

[WingNut60]

Just to keep the discussion regarding the turn-back decision alive, consider this prior event.


On 16 May 2011, an Airbus A330-343 of Cathay Pacific Airways took off from Singapore-Changi Airport on a scheduled flight to Jakarta. While climbing through 33,000 feet at 01:29 hours, the No.2 engine stalled and a loud bang was heard and vibration was felt by the flight crew. The flight crew shut down the No.2 engine, following which the vibration reduced, but did not disappear. The flight crew declared an emergency to ATC and flew the aircraft back to Changi Airport.
About 15 minutes after the initial No.2 engine problem, when the aircraft was at 10,500 feet and descending into Singapore, the No.2 engine fire warning indication appeared and the flight crew discharged an engine fire extinguishing bottle. The fire warning indication was cleared but re-appeared after 69 seconds.
The flight crew discharged a second engine fire extinguishing bottle but was unsure if the fire had been extinguished as the fire warning light flickered intermittently.
After the aircraft landed, the Airport Emergency Service saw fire at the No.2 engine as they approached the aircraft and proceeded to put it out. No one was injured in this incident.
The No.2 engine vibration was a result of the engine’s rotating assembly becoming unbalanced following the loss of a 130 mm tip section of one of the engine fan blades. The failure of the fan blade could be attributed to its mechanical strength having been compromised as a result of the use of an incorrect gas during the manufacturing process.
The interior of the No.2 engine fan case was damaged by the rubbing against it of the fan blades of the engine’s unbalanced rotating assembly. The severe rubbing generated heat resulting in the ignition of the Kevlar wrap of the fan case. The fuel pump supply line cracked due to high vibrations, resulting in fuel leak. It was likely that the heat from the burning Kevlar layers ignited the leaked fuel.Yes, I know that changes were mandated and hopefully carried out following that incident, but until that incident occurred the T700 was already, at that time, supposed to be resilient to a fan blade failure. Clearly it was not.

4.1.4 The engine manufacturer has launched modification design activities to increase the engine’s robustness in the event of a partial fan blade release.This most recent failure on D7237 seems to show somewhat more of the blade missing than the 130 mm cited in the CX case. Hence greater imbalance and presumably, greater amplitude of vibration.
I am somewhat dubious about the Boeing claim that such vibration is "unlikely to lead to further damage" when in this CX case it clearly did just that.

Duration of CX event - failure to on-the-ground - 28 minutes.
And, yes; they must have flown past Batam.

1.3.1.7 The pylon on which No.2 engine was mounted was found with several cracks. The pylon was removed and inspection revealed multiple cracks on the forward secondary structure which suggest the presence of high loads level. This damage was most probably consequential and due to the high engine vibration following the partial fan blade release. The pylon primary structure showed no signs of damage.
1.3.2 Fuel line
1.3.2.1
The No.2 engine fuel line next to the engine fuel pump (which supplied fuel from the wing fuel tank to the fuel pump) was found to have a 180° crack around the edge of the tube end-fitting weld

That more serious consequences did not eventuate is no guarantee that they could not have occurred at any time during that 1:45 turn-back..

Refer : https://www.mot.gov.sg/news/20140822%20CX%20330%20Engine%20Fire%2016%20May%2011-%20Final%20Report.pdf

[lomapaseo]

pretty clean break

yeah and at very low speed ???

[misd-agin]

Well not sure which aircraft you are referring to but the one I fly can land there at MLW, single engine, dry runway, factored.
My assumption in my previous post was that the aircraft is capable of doing it and that the weather was OK.


A330-200 at max landing weight requires 5600'(rounded up). SL. ISA std
A330-300 at max landing weight requires 5400'(rounded up).


777-200 needs 3900'(rounded up).
777-300 needs 4400'(rounded up).


737-800 needs 4100'.


A319 needs 4700'.
A320 needs 5000'.
A321 needs 5400'.

[C441]

The lack of understanding by some of how 'ETOPS' relates (or otherwise) to this incident is a good example.
In a dynamic environment, with a failure of any critical system, I don't believe many pilots would place very much importance on 'ETOPS' requirements. In any event where critical systems have been compromised the question most would ask will likely be "Is it safe to continue to a preferred airport as opposed to the nearest?"

In the QF72 event, the Captain very quickly realised that the failures that were occurring were beyond his (and possibly most line pilot's) knowledge and experience base to make any decision other than to land at the nearest suitable (the non-aviation definition) airport.

Given the obvious level of vibration and with an engine inoperative, I'm surprised that this Captain felt he had the confidence in the aircraft and, among other things, it's structural integrity to go past a suitable airport significantly closer than Perth.

Maybe he did.

Maybe that's why he was praying.......

[Matt48]

It seems not so much the point that the Captain flew for 103 mins PAST a strip suitable for the aircraft, not so much for the passengers or repair and recovery, but the fact that the failed engine was contributing severe vibration to the airframe and most likely the sole remaining engine on the other wing, it's pretty bad vibration if you can't bear to sit back against the seatback. If #1 had run out of oil and seized, then no vibration and to continue on to Perth would be a safe option.

[Matt48]

Low frequency isn't the same as low amplitude.

We're not talking about a fatigue regime here, we're talking about potential damage caused by the aircraft trying to shake itself to bits.
In this case, these was low frequency and high amplitude.

[WingNut60]

Just for the record, it seems that he commenced his turn-back approx. 3 mins after the bang.
If there was any contribution from base that went into the decision then it was pretty punctual and brief.

[Matt48]

Low frequency isn't the same as low amplitude.

We're not talking about a fatigue regime here, we're talking about potential damage caused by the aircraft trying to shake itself to bits.
Spot on Dave, low frequency and very high amplitude, I'd be very surprised if this airframe isn't damaged, if it isn't then Airbus have gone up a notch in my estimation.

[lomapaseo]

I'd be very surprised if this airframe isn't damaged,

It's usually the soft parts like the interior panels in the loos and some galley cabinets.

It ain't the first time its happened across most fleets.

[.Scott]

I have not read all posts on this thread but I was a passenger on the plane and can clarify a few things first hand. ...
Thanks for the info.

[Airbus A320321]

Well not sure which aircraft you are referring to but the one I fly can land there at MLW, single engine, dry runway, factored.
My assumption in my previous post was that the aircraft is capable of doing it and that the weather was OK.

Who is to say you will be at or below max landing weight when you divert to Forrest? Coming back from Perth with a full plane and heaps of gas on my type (should be obvious) you would be many tonnes overweight. With a cargo fire indication you're not exactly going to hold for an hour to burn off the extra gas!

[Capn Bloggs]

From The West, 29 June 2017
AirAsia boss super proud of ‘pray’ pilot
AirAsia boss Tony Fernandes has lavished praise on the pilot and crew of a flight from Perth to Kuala Lumpur after a mid-air drama caused by a major engine malfunction.

Despite widespread condemnation of the captain for telling passengers to pray for their survival as they returned to Perth with the A330 shaking severely, Mr Fernandes said he was “super proud of Captain Ibrahim” .

“AirAsia don’t make engines and all airlines have engine failures,” Mr Fernandes said in a Facebook post. “But when it does happen, it takes great pilots and great leadership in times of crisis. I’m beaming with pride.

“From videos you can see all guests calm, and from the many emails and WhatsApp I got, the captain’s announcements kept everyone calm.”

Mr Fernandes said “if it was a full-service airline the pilot would have been a hero” .

“But because it’s a lowcost carrier, press and so-called experts make wild accusations and forget the heroics of our crew.

“I want to thank the many Australians who have praised AirAsia for all we have done despite all the adverse press.”

Australian and International Pilots Association vice-president Shane Loney said the captain “could have worded things differently” .

“We don’t usually invite our passengers to pray,” Mr Loney, a Qantas A380 pilot, said. “We know the aeroplanes are well built and reliable pieces of kit.”

He said there would be many pilots looking at the AirAsia X incident and how they might handle themselves in a similar situation.

“If we’re in a position like that in the future we might handle it a little better as a result of this incident,” Mr Loney said.

Other pilots questioned Capt. Ibrahim’s training.

“Sounds like the captain should attend a course in how to calm passengers. Prompting them to pray is obviously not the best idea!” wrote Airbus Fan on AvHerald.com.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and AirAsia X are investigating the incident , described as an “engine malfunction” .

Other aviation experts suggested the problems occurred because of a blade ingestion.

Coming back from Perth with a full plane and heaps of gas on my type (should be obvious) you would be many tonnes overweight. With a cargo fire indication you're not exactly going to hold for an hour to burn off the extra gas!
Compare apples with apples. You wouldn't be using YFRT as an EDTO alternate. Neville Nobody would be because he has the landing performance. As for a cargo fire, if you're going to crash on landing due to runway length, then that's a problem you'll have to work out. Nothing to do with YFRT per se.

[Unregistered_]

Comments from a passenger:

"At times the vibration of my seat back was too much to be able to rest against. I had to sit forward in the seat" and "The passengers around me were discussing why we were not landing at a closer airport"

Mr Fernandes said in a Facebook post. “But when it does happen, it takes great pilots and great leadership in times of crisis. I’m beaming with pride."

I'll bet Mr Fernandes wouldn't be "beaming with pride" had the severely vibrating engine module come away with part of the wing abeam Geraldton.

Unbelievable. :ugh:

[RetiredTooEarly]

Comments from a passenger:

"At times the vibration of my seat back was too much to be able to rest against. I had to sit forward in the seat" and "The passengers around me were discussing why we were not landing at a closer airport"

Mr Fernandes said in a Facebook post. “But when it does happen, it takes great pilots and great leadership in times of crisis. I’m beaming with pride."

I'll bet Mr Fernandes wouldn't be "beaming with pride" had the severely vibrating engine module come away with part of the wing abeam Geraldton.

Unbelievable. :ugh:

Highly unlikely that would have happened in spite of the vibration! Engines are held on (basically) by a couple of BIG bolts that are intended to shear when stresses get too much....... bigger worry would be it tearing off and striking the wing front on the way up and over though manufacturers have rerouted most of the hydraulics, fuel and electrics away from this area owing several aircraft having been lost some decades back!

Things like overnight(s) passenger accomodation, new engine availability, lack of knowledge of the chosen alternate airport can all contribute to a captain taking the "long way home!"

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't!

[WingNut60]

Highly unlikely that would have happened in spite of the vibration! ......

Please take another look at my post # 213 or, better still, read the full report at this link:

https://www.mot.gov.sg/news/20140822%20CX%20330%20Engine%20Fire%2016%20May%2011-%20Final%20Report.pdf

The CX A330 in question had significant cracking to the pylon sub-structure after
only 28 minutes for their turn-around with vibration levels that could be presumed to be lower than in this event.
We'll see what the current investigation shows. If it all comes out hunky-dory then I'll be more than impressed.

[unobtanium]

I wonder if the aircraft is designed to take such vibrations for the maximum ETOPs duration.

[misd-agin]

I wonder if the aircraft is designed to take such vibrations for the maximum ETOPs duration.



One has to wonder. ETOPS divert is at 320-335 KIAS. It will be interesting to see if the A330 crew maintained that speed or if they reduced speed to reduce the vibration.

[lomapaseo]

One has to wonder. ETOPS divert is at 320-335 KIAS. It will be interesting to see if the A330 crew maintained that speed or if they reduced speed to reduce the vibration.

Changing the speed in either direction, up or down, likely would reduce the vibration in the cabin.

Of course it's up to the pilot to set the speed according to his needs.

As stated earlier, the issue is not related to structural integrity. The pilot simply follows his training.

We'll see what the ATSB has to say about this eventually since there is always room for "lessons learned"

[waren9]

One has to wonder. ETOPS divert is at 320-335 KIAS. It will be interesting to see if the A330 crew maintained that speed or if they reduced speed to reduce the vibration.

etops divert speed is any speed you like.

[misd-agin]

Our procedures specify a speed. Obviously emergency authority will help when you're explaining at the big green table if you choose a different speed.

[skkm]

Our procedures specify a speed. Obviously emergency authority will help when you're explaining at the big green table if you choose a different speed.

At my company the EDTO planning certainly has a specified speed – but there is absolutely no requirement to fly at that speed when diverting. EDTO is simply a planning and paperwork exercise that doesn’t necessarily apply in the real world.

[Capn Bloggs]

ETOPS divert is at 320-335 KIAS
Seriously? What is your best range speed single-engine?

[Tankengine]

It seems some are confusing EROPS, ETOPS, EDNO, engine failures, vibration and common sense. ;)

[waren9]

It seems some are confusing EROPS, ETOPS, EDNO, engine failures, vibration and common sense. ;)

you forgot edto

[Capt Quentin McHale]

Pretty sure that if the Capt's butt cheeks did'nt suck that seat cushion up off his seat, I'm damn sure the resulting vibrations would have bashed it up into a very dark place and he's still picking bits of cushion out now as we speak. FFS, land at nearest available!!!


McHale.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

ETOPS has absolutely nothing to do with this. 4 eng jets are not bound by etops, but i can bloody well guarantee that if I was flying a 380 that had an engine failure and was shaking the jet as badly as was happening on the 330, I would have landed at the nearest suitable - ie Learmonth.

Besides, doesn't the manufacturer have capital letter LAND ANSA in amber on the ECAM for the 330? (It did when I used to fly em). Looks like a lot of commentators have forgotten about that thing called airmanship, and CDF.:ugh:

As for the "saying a prayer" bit - well if that isn't the most terrible display of command leadership, and that that is endorsed by any actual captains here, then I weep for the future of aviation.

[WingNut60]

FR24 shows that the aircraft had started a turn-back to Perth less than 3 minutes after the big bang. For what it's worth, it also shows one of the first things to happen was a sharp climb of > 800 ft before commencing a swift descent, initially to 24,000 ft. No doubt they were pretty busy during the first several minutes.


So now lets throw in some politically incorrect conjecture.
Having made the decision to return to Perth and committed to that path, the cultural reluctance to reverse that decision took over.
Once the aircraft was pointed at Perth, that's where it was going, no matter what.


Conjecture? Absolutely, but not out of the realms of possibility.

[framer]

I dont see why that conjecture is politically incorrect.
Not reviewing and revising decisions is a very common mistake made by people in all trades and all walks.

[megan]

It seems some are confusing EROPS, ETOPS, EDNO, engine failures, vibration and common senseI think folk are hinting at how can ETOP limits be justified when such failures as this occur, and there have been a number from all accounts. 370 minutes on an A350, or whatever the ETOP limit is for the aircraft under discussion, being shaken, not stirred, is the point being made I think.

[framer]

It does make one wonder about training when pilots think that because the ETOPS area was determined using 310kts that they then have to fly 310 kts. It's tempting to write them off as slack pilots but more likely I think is that their Airlines have not invested in effective training and a misunderstanding that occurs early in their training ( probably as an F/O or S/O) sits there for years without being detected by the checking/training department.

[megan]

framer, another training shortfall according to the FAA. There was a specific concern relating to engine vibration after an inflight shutdown, which had led one flight crew to question the structural integrity of the airplane.Although the vast majority of propulsion system malfunctions are recognized and handled appropriately, there is a shortfall in some pilot’s abilities to recognize and handle propulsion system malfunctions. The shortfall from initial expectation is due to improved modern engine reliability, changing propulsion system failure characteristics (symptoms), changes in flight crews’ experience levels, and related shortcomings in flight crew training practices and training equipment.

Industry has not provided adequate pilot training processes or material to ensure pilots are provided with training for powerplant malfunction recognition. This shortfall needs urgent action to develop suitable text and video training material which can be used during training and checking of all pilots for both turboprop and turbofan powered airplanes.

There is generally no airframe or powerplant manufacturers’ input into realistic engine failure/malfunction scenarios as represented in simulators. Furthermore, the engine failures currently addressed in most training do not cover loud noises and the onset of heavy vibration. Complete and rapid loss of thrust is currently being trained and is probably the most critical from an airplane handling perspective; however, this failure is not necessarily representative of the malfunctions most likely to be encountered in service. There is also evidence that this lack of realism in current simulations of turbofan propulsion system malfunctions can lead to negative training, increasing the likelihood of inappropriate crew response. Inappropriate crew response, or not, seems to be the prime subject here.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Ironically megan the FAA training video talks specifically about the points in your quote. Paraphrasing one of the comments in the video is that vibration IS NOT a problem for the flight crew (10:38 in the video), and there is no chance of a structural failure from vibration, although it states that altering speed and or altitude can significantly reduce vibration.

The vibration section starts at 9:38.

G05rx8NdqrE

[muffman]

Air Asia A330 just landed in Brisbane with an apparent engine fire out of Cooly. More prayer required for their engineering perhaps.

As an aside, the small amount of r/t I heard from them was all very professional on what would have been a stressful and short sector into an airport they've probably never been to before.

[lomapaseo]

Inappropriate crew response, or not, seems to be the prime subject here.

I might agree with this but I would instead place the shoe on another horse

i.e. inappropriate judgements by untrained PPruners.

For all we know the pilots might have been aware of the issues in the video just above and controlled the flight and vibration accordingly. Yet many are second guessing their assessments of the symptoms available to them in the conduct of obtaining safe flight and landing.

[WingNut60]

FOR REFERENCE ;


ATSB : Investigation number: AO-2017-066

Summary

The ATSB is investigating an engine malfunction involving Airbus A330, registered 9M-XXE, near Carnarvon, Western Australia, on 25 June 2017.

As a result of an in‑flight engine fault, the aircraft was subjected to moderate airframe vibration. The flight crew elected to return to Perth.

As part of the investigation the ATSB will:
•interview personnel involved
•examine the engine damage
•download and analyse data from the flight data and cockpit voice recorders.

A report will be released within several months.

ATSB rate incident as : Serious
Aircraft is still on the ground

[misd-agin]

It does make one wonder about training when pilots think that because the ETOPS area was determined using 310kts that they then have to fly 310 kts. It's tempting to write them off as slack pilots but more likely I think is that their Airlines have not invested in effective training and a misunderstanding that occurs early in their training ( probably as an F/O or S/O) sits there for years without being detected by the checking/training department.



For 25+ yrs our SOP's have said "set xyz speed" during a single engine divert. The FAA document governing ETOPS stated that the operator chooses the speed for it's ETOPS distance/time and the FAA approves the procedure. If the company chooses to select a different speed it goes back to the FAA for approval. Granted, that is to define the ETOPS distance/time. The example given in the FAA document was slowing to allow a higher s/e cruise altitude due to terrain clearance.


Do you have a clarification from the FAA stating which speeds are acceptable to actually use during a divert? I'm curious as to why our SOP's state a specific speed if it's not a FAA requirement. Sometimes the answer is "we choose it." The ETOPS document itself does not specify, or restrict, using any speed except for the speed used to the ETOPS distance/time.

[misd-agin]

The ETOPS document itself does not specify, or restrict, using any speed. It refers to the speed used to establish the ETOPS area but does not specific any speed to be used once the divert starts.

[jetjockey696]

Another engine problem with airasia x.. divert to Brisbane after takeoff from gold coast

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/airasia-flight-turned-back-to-australia-after-suspected-bird-strike/news-story/567807f3d44f555481127baf07018d24

[Icarus2001]

Air Asia A330 just landed in Brisbane with an apparent engine fire out of Cooly. More prayer required for their engineering perhaps.

AirAsia flight turned back to Australia after suspected bird strike (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/airasia-flight-turned-back-to-australia-after-suspected-bird-strike/news-story/567807f3d44f555481127baf07018d24)

Difficult to blame a bird strike on engineering but you go ahead and try...

i.e. inappropriate judgements by untrained PPruners.

There are more than a few posters here who seem to believe that they are the first to worry about vibration, clearly the aircraft manufacturers have not and neither has the regulator when it comes to EDTO times.

Imagine if you actually had to be a professional pilot to post on here, sigh.