Smartwings B738 over Aegean Sea on Aug 22nd 2019

[gearlever]

2 hrs 20 minutes on single engine.:=

Very ambitious (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434&opt=0)

[speedrestriction]

Unless everywhere enroute was either under a TS or SNOCLO, this is definitely not a command decision I would make.

[Old King Coal]

An In Flight Shut Down (IFSD) event is defined (by EASA and the FAA) as follows.

When an engine ceases to function in flight and is shutdown, whether self-induced, crew initiated or caused by some other external influence (i.e. In Flight Shutdown / IFSD for all causes; for example: due to flameout, internal failure, crew-initiated shutoff, foreign object ingestion, icing, inability to obtain and / or control desired thrust).
In the event of an IFSD the Boeing QRH instruction is 'Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport'.

It would seem, in this instance, that they were stretching the definition of the words 'nearest' & 'suitable' just a tadge too far?!

[EDML]

They could have landed in Athens around 30 min after the IFSD.

Also looks like the AC wasn't ETOPS certified at all. - So max. diversion time 60min.

[paully]

There is some suggestion on AV that the PIC was the Director of Flight Operations..either way these clowns are on my No Fly list

[ReturningVector]

They could have landed in Athens around 30 min after the IFSD.Also looks like the AC wasn't ETOPS certified at all. - So max. diversion time 60min.
ETOPS doesn't really matter outside of the planning phase.
If the nearest suitable is more than 60 minutes of flying away while non-ETOPS you should fly there.
Other way around, even if you are flying ETOPS but the nearest suitable airport is only 30 minuts away, you should fly there.

Anyhow, very odd decision-making at first glance.

[gearlever]

They could have landed in Athens around 30 min after the IFSD.

Also looks like the AC wasn't ETOPS certified at all. - So max. diversion time 60min.

ETOPS or not, does it matter to land ASAP?

[EDML]

ETOPS doesn't really matter outside of the planning phase.


True, but still there are maintenance & dispatch requirements around ETOPS which decrease the risk of a 2nd IFSD while diverting (or not) OEI.


ETOPS or not, does it matter to land ASAP?


Of course not.

[gearlever]

"Head of Flight Operations of Smartwings. (CPT)"

I hope it was a joke....

[Meester proach]

It won’t be an ETOPs flight will it, so they’ll be within 60 mins of a suitable airfield at one engine cruise ? So no excuse for 2h20

[SymbolA310]

Gross negligence and irresponsible of the crew. Their licences should be revoked.

[bumpy737]

"Head of Flight Operations of Smartwings. (CPT)"

I hope it was a joke....


Not a joke and read the comments on avherald from an ATC, they even didn’t notify the ATC untill they were in Czech airspace. Just ridiculous and this company was making headlines to often during last years...

[DaveReidUK]

Not a joke

Avherald doesn't offer any evidence for that assertion. Do you have some?

[Double Hydco]

Avherald doesn't offer any evidence for that assertion. Do you have some?


There's a comment from a Hungarian ATCO that handled the flight....

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

I wonder which bit of "land at nearest suitable airport" they didn't understand?

I also read they tried 2 relight attempts, one X-bleed and one windmill:ugh:

[Gordomac]

Johnny ; The discussion has been done to death but there is similar stuff on the Med East forum, "QR 920 11th Aug" thread. Funny how many love to dig deep into what is "nearest" and what is "suitable" until they justify pure lack of airmanship.

[EDML]

I think nobody would disagree that Athens, 100NM away would have been not only suitable but nearly perfect (descent profile). Also good weather on the 22nd at LGAV all day.

[gearlever]

I think nobody would disagree that Athens, 100NM away would have been not only suitable but nearly perfect (descent profile). Also good weather on the 22nd at LGAV all day.

Indeed. I'll not be surprised to learn the CPT was a management pilot.

[Bam Thwok]

The 2 clowns who operated this flight need to be prosecuted for gross criminal negligence....... Unbelievable !!

[763 jock]

Printing error on the QRH. "LAND LKPR" apparently.

[OldnGrounded]

Printing error on the QRH. "LAND LKPR" apparently.

No problem, their most distant destination is Dubai, so it's a quick trip home. I'm sure they could make it on the APU alone.

Seriously, it would be very interesting to know what that captain was thinking.

[UltraFan]

https://www.smartwings.com/en/career/
Requirements:

No criminal report
No incident report

[lomapaseo]

Seriously, it would be very interesting to know what that captain was thinking.

That doesn't make it wrong. We put the decision making in the hands of the captain and after it's made we second guess him/her not against a hard rule but only against our own faded view from our computer screens.

[gearlever]

Fuel burn 737-800, LRC


Compared to 2 Engine LRC at Optimum Altitude how much more is it with one eng?

Thx

[Bam Thwok]

That doesn't make it wrong. We put the decision making in the hands of the captain and after it's made we second guess him/her not against a hard rule but only against our own faded view from our computer screens.

Yes it does ........ What this crew did (if proved factual) was TOTALLY wrong in so many ways.
They’ve continued on to scheduled destination passing numerous “suitable airports”, not to mention crossing numerous sovereign state boundaries in an emergency condition.

Absolutely shocking !

Surely EASA will be investigating this incident ?
I know that if I was a passenger on this flight, I’d be on to a lawyer and suing their asses !

[aterpster]

I know that if I was a passenger on this flight, I’d be on to a lawyer and suing their asses !
What harm would you sue for?

[aterpster]

That doesn't make it wrong. We put the decision making in the hands of the captain and after it's made we second guess him/her not against a hard rule but only against our own faded view from our computer screens.
Since we won't be privy to an eventual report on this one, I'll go with the decision being not only wrong but wacko.I flew two different two-engine birds during my career, one of which was ETOPS (the first iteration of ETOPS).

[Bam Thwok]

What harm would you sue for?

How about Reckless Endangerment for a start ?

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.

[His dudeness]

Post 1 The 2 clowns who operated this flight need to be prosecuted for gross criminal negligence....... Unbelievable !!

Post 2 ...(if proved factual)....

So your opinion is, hang em high and then lets find out what really happened.

I sure hope I will never have to have anything to do with you in real life.

[luchtzak]

“It was safe to operate,” the airline told Czech newspapersThe airline confirmed the incident to Czech newspaper iROZHLAS, stating that it was perfectly safe to operate the aircraft on one engine all the way to Prague.

SmartWings spokesperson Vlaďka Dufková denies that the company violated safety regulations and explains to newspaper Zdopravy.cz: “The crew proceeded in accordance with the safety and operational procedures for these cases and the aircraft landed safely. The commander of the aircraft is one of the most experienced in the company, the crew had the situation under control and certainly would not underestimate anything.“

Zdopravy.cz asked the Czech Civil Aviation Authority for comments, and are still waiting for an answer.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/smartwings/engine-of-a-smartwings-boeing-737-800-shuts-down-in-flight-crew-continues-to-prague-for-another-2-hours-and-20-minutes-on-remaining-engine/

[The AvgasDinosaur]

The 2 clowns who operated this flight need to be prosecuted for gross criminal negligence....... Unbelievable !!
Under which legal jurisdiction? Point of origin, country of registration, flight crew nationality, countries overflown, or your own nationality?
The legal eagles will most assuredly get rich before you do, if you ever do so!
Be lucky
David

[The AvgasDinosaur]

What harm would you sue for?
See post 47 ! Same questions apply
Be lucky
David

[pax2908]

"safe to operate" - can this (statement) be true? If yes ... IMO this is not a flight crew problem, it is a problem that the airline is allowed to operate.

[gearlever]

SafetyFlying is a matter of trust and safety is a parameter to which the Smartwings Group gives the greatest possible attention. Smartwings is certified as an air carrier for the scheduled and chartered commercial transportation of passengers and cargo according to European Union rules. The company has also met the demanding requirements of the FAA - the Federal Aviation Administration for flying in the US - and it is authorized for commercial flights to and from the US. Smartwings has repeatedly and successfully passed the rigorous safety audit of the international airline organization IATA (International Air Transport Association). The IOSA audit program (IATA Operational Safety Audit) checks the safety and quality of operation, and the airlines involved in the program must demonstrate their compliance with the strictest international standards.

Smartwings (https://www.smartwings.com/en/about-smartwings)

Maybe the FAA will have a closer look after this incident.....

[misd-agin]

Fuel burn 737-800, LRC


Compared to 2 Engine LRC at Optimum Altitude how much more is it with one eng?

Thx
Boxed data so it's not exactly the same - but it shows a weight of 130,000 lbs to be able to cruise at FL250. Specific range is 79 nm/1000 lbs. At FL370 at 130,000 lbs the specific range is 111 nm/1000 lbs.

[gearlever]

Boxed data so it's not exactly the same - but it shows a weight of 130,000 lbs to be able to cruise at FL250. Specific range is 79 nm/1000 lbs. At FL370 at 130,000 lbs the specific range is 111 nm/1000 lbs.

Thx misd:ok:

[568]

Fuel burn 737-800, LRC


Compared to 2 Engine LRC at Optimum Altitude how much more is it with one eng?

Thx

Fuel burn depends on the DD (drift down) altitude capability provided by the FMC, if the crew had executed the EO (engine out) prompt on the FMC CRZ page.
DD provides best L over D in the descent but once established at the new FMC CRZ altitude, 300 knots or LRC can be set/selected.
QRH (engine failure etc) then directs the crew to land at nearest suitable. If fuel contamination was/could be part of the original problem, then the extended time in flight wasn't a good idea.

[Squawk7777]

How about Reckless Endangerment for a start ?

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.

Reminds me of the Hapag Lloyd flight that continued the flight with one main down. I believe the skipper lost his licence over this right before his retirement.

[OldnGrounded]

Reminds me of the Hapag Lloyd flight that continued the flight with one main down. I believe the skipper lost his licence over this right before his retirement.

He was actually convicted of a crime:

Court says A310 captain "endangered lives" by ignoring low-fuel warnings three years ago (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pilot-lands-suspended-prison-sentence-after-vienna-crash-181747/)

The captain of a Hapag-Lloyd Airbus A310-300 that ran out of fuel just short of the runway at Vienna airport three years ago, has been given a six-month suspended prison sentence by a Hanover, Germany court for "endangering others' lives".Capt Wolfgang Arminger had voluntarily left his job at the German charter airline around six months after the accident. The court said he had ignored low-fuel warnings that began while he was over the Balkans when he was operating a flight on 12 July 2000 from Chania, Crete, to Hanover. The A310's landing gear would not retract after take-off from Chania, but the captain elected to continue to the destination, and the court criticised him for failing to take the option of diverting to a nearer airport such as Zagreb.

More (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pilot-lands-suspended-prison-sentence-after-vienna-crash-181747/)

[UltraFan]

Reminds me of the Hapag Lloyd flight that continued the flight with one main down. I believe the skipper lost his licence over this right before his retirement.

He was actually convicted of a crime:

If it's flight 3378 in 2000 you're talking about, just one tiny detail... actually two tiny details. One, he ran out of fuel and crash-landed in Vienna. The Czech crew was a bit luckier. And it wasn't an engine out. It was gear down that he flew with. Again, IF you mean that flight.

[Super VC-10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapag-Lloyd_Flight_3378

[sonicbum]

No FR24 data yet on the thread ?! Ok let's start.

Takeoff at 0627 from SMI (SAMOS).
Reaches TOC FL360 at 0646 NW of ATH.
Starts a descent at 0649 with a ROD of approx 3100 ft/min (it's FR24, you never know...).
1 min later ROD becomes 5/600 ft/min and more or less remains the same till FL240 with some excursions back to 2500 ft/min.
FL240 at 0705 abeam SKG.
Aircraft overflies North Macedonia, Kosovo, Serbia, Hungary and Austria OEI.
TOD from FL240 @ 0849. 1h44 cruise OEI.

The occurrence aircraft returned to service about 17 hours after landing in Prague.

On Aug 24th 2019 The Aviation Herald received additional information stating maintenance performed a wet run of the engine after landing, which failed, the engine valve closed light remained illuminated and no fuel was supplied to the engine. Maintenance subsequently replaced the hydro mechanical unit (HMU), fuel filter nozzle, servo fuel heater, fuel pump and fuel heat exchanger, subsequently a test 5 - power assurance test - was performed and was passed.

On Aug 24th 2019 the airline confirmed the occurrence to Czech Media, e.g. irozhlas (https://www.irozhlas.cz/ekonomika/smartwings-recko-samos-praha-boeing-jeden-motor_1908241455_ako) and zdopravy (https://zdopravy.cz/boeing-smartwings-letel-pres-dve-hodiny-s-jednim-motorem-bylo-to-bezpecne-tvrdi-firma-33182/) stating: "The crew proceeded in accordance with the safety and operational procedures for these cases and the aircraft landed safely. The commander is one of the most experienced in the company, the crew was in control of the situation and certainly would not underestimate anything."

[gearlever]

"The crew proceeded in accordance with the safety and operational procedures for these cases and the aircraft landed safely. The commander is one of the most experienced in the company, the crew was in control of the situation and certainly would not underestimate anything."

- 2:20 hrs on SINGLE ENG
- NO MAYDAY
- NO PAN
- most probably low fuel at Prague


Jeez

[atakacs]

Well the FR24 data pretty much corroborates the narrative so far.

Glad everything worked out as it did but this is unconscionable in a "normal" flight with pax. I really hope ESA will have a close look into that one. To be honest I can't see how they could even think getting away with it in this day and age!? Contrast it with the Norvegian 738 that landed in Shira. They had many choices a little bit further but landed at the closest suitable airport, consequences be damned 👍

[sonicbum]

- 2:20 hrs on SINGLE ENG
- NO MAYDAY
- NO PAN
- most probably low fuel at Prague


Jeez

Yep. If I was part of the CAA of one of the several countries overflown by the aircraft I would also be interested in a chat with the operator with free coffee/tea and biscuits.

[aterpster]

How about Reckless Endangerment for a start ?

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.
Good luck.

[Just a Grunt]

How about Reckless Endangerment for a start ?

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.

Yeah, but you have to suffer a loss... Mere negligence isn’t compensable - something bad needs to actually happen to you. At best, there might be a nervous shock/ptsd claim, but I wonder how many of the pax actually understood the potential implications of the failure to divert.

[JanetFlight]

It seems Ukraines YanAir had its AOC suspended for much less...

[Meester proach]

Does this lot do any flying for UK charter operators ?

[gearlever]

Does this lot do any flying for UK charter operators ?

Not to my knowledge, but they do PRG-LGW-PRG 4/7.

[SymbolA310]

They fly wetlease for Sunwing, Transat and Flair in Canada during winter. Guess TC will look at that now.

[rog747]

Yes, Smartwings do (did) fly for UK holiday companies,
One of the 737-800's flew IT weekly charters from Jersey to Tenerife and Malaga iirc (these were booked for a MAX from April but of course that's not possible right now)
They also used to do a lot to Greece and Greek islands for Olympic Holidays from UK but I gather that is all finished now also.

Update - for next season 2020 - No more Smartwings
For our 2020 Tenerife programme we are pleased to work with Spanish airline Volotea for Sunday day time departures. You will enjoy a quick and comfortable flying experience aboard Volotea’s new Airbus A319 jet aircraft. The modern jet will take you from Jersey to Tenerife South Airport in approximately four hours direct to the winter sun.
Palma and Malaga will be operated by Air Europa.

[gearlever]

There is an interesting discussion about fuel consumption on another forum.

- Off block fuel 9.500 kg
- 2:41hrs total flt time
- thereof 2:20hrs on single eng FL240 (eng failed just after reaching FL360)
- distance SMI-PRG about 1.000 NM
- pax 170

- fuel remaining at Prague 2.300kg ?

Possible?

[flash8]

- 2:20 hrs on SINGLE ENG
- NO MAYDAY
- NO PAN
- most probably low fuel at Prague
If that turns out to be the facts, no whitewashing by the airline should be sufficient. If that were me, I'd be in a cell by now and deservedly so. Almost unbelievable.

[RatherBeFlying]

Remain within 2 engine out final glide of adequate airport.

Remember to adjust final glide distance for time gear will be down. Note that the Air Canada Gimli Glider dropped the gear on short final, but failed to get the nose gear down.

Evacuate by the front slides in case of a nose gear collapse.

[sonicbum]

Avherald :

On Aug 23rd 2019 (verified by AVH on Aug 25th 2019) Reader Marc had reported in the reader comments:

I work at Budapest ACC and I was in contact with this A/C when they overflew Hungary. Not a word did they mention about engine failure we were informed about a "technical issue". That is in most cases an air con failure for the 737 to fly at 240 or 250. So they came in at FL240 as they reached the Austrian border we sent them to Vienna Approach.

10 minutes later they called us back to inquire us why we haven't told them about the engine failure. It turned out that the failure was announced over Prague, Vienna then called us back but we didn't know either. Serbians were also unaware and I also asked my colleague who was working at KFOR (Kosovo) airspace - it is also operated from Budapest - but he didn't know either.

I think that tells a lot about this airline. And just to add: This evening I had 2 A/C in 20 minutes from this operator on my frequency cruising at 250 so it's not so unusual to see the like that.

[bleedfail]

13 Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport.

►►Go to the One Engine Inoperative Landing

checklist on page 7.30

■ ■ ■ ■

Last items of the NNC " Engine Failure or Shutdown" Checklist for the 737 NG

End of story

[gearlever]

If that turns out to be the facts, no whitewashing by the airline should be sufficient. If that were me, I'd be in a cell by now and deservedly so. Almost unbelievable.

ALL facts. The profile is on FR24, no reports of PAN or MAYDAY by any ATCO involved all the way from SMI to PRG.
Fuel at PRG may have been low, unsure.

It wouldn't surprise me if one of the "big shots" of smartwings was the CPT.

[Banana Joe]

The CPT was the Director of Flight Ops.

[golfyankeesierra]

Lead by example..

[gearlever]

The CPT was the Director of Flight Ops.

Do you have a reliable source for that?
Thx

[booze]

Do you have a reliable source for that?
Thx
This is a rumour network. But sure, here's a hint: how does ATC flt.pln PIC name crosschecked against company docs sounds like?

[His dudeness]

This "gentleman" from Budapest ATC should have his license pulled (if he really is what he claims to be). This is NOT information intended for public circulation, give your statement to a board of inquiry OR the states CAA and thats it.

[beardy]

This "gentleman" from Budapest ATC should have his license pulled (if he really is what he claims to be). This is NOT information intended for public circulation, give your statement to a board of inquiry OR the states CAA and thats it.
Why is it not intended for public consumption? Does my knowledge of it hazard anything? If it is is untrue then an inquiry will dismiss it.

[fox niner]

I understand what you mean Dudeness, but this whole incident would probably be swept under a carpet if info such as this was not brought into public. Especially since many relatives-of-friends-of-relatives are occupying seats in the Czech aviation world.

[andrasz]

This is NOT information intended for public circulation, give your statement to a board of inquiry OR the states CAA and thats it. Having some insider information on the outfit being the subject of this thread, I am a bit hesitant to agree in full.

In principle, you are absolutely right. However this excuse for an airline has been around in the region for over a decade now (they used to have a Hungarian subsidiary too) previously under the Travel Service brand, and people in the profession were constantly amazed by the extent to which they were testing their limits, and even more amazed by the fact that they got away with it (both in terms of pure luck, and the regulators seemingly turning a blind eye). Most of the incidents were brushed under the carpet, and I'm sure the whistleblower at BUD ATC had plenty of experience with them. While the public release of this information is certainly not commendable, it likely was a last resort action in face of a growing frustration that they can get away with anything.

[His dudeness]

I understand what you mean Dudeness, but this whole incident would probably be swept under a carpet if info such as this was not brought into public. Especially since many relatives-of-friends-of-relatives are occupying seats in the Czech aviation world.


Wether or not it would be swept und what carpet, I don´t know. I have no idea of the inner workings of the Czech CAA. Nevertheless, I maintain that I would not want a pre - judgement via Avherald, PPRUNE and the likes fueled by info such as this. In no way I intend to defend the actions of this crew (or captain). Put that stuff where it belongs. The reaction on here and elsewere speak for themselves "pull the licenses of these clowns" for example at a time were we don´t know any thing but rumours and nothing of what happened inside the cockpit. Rethink to the infamous A310, the F/O tried his best to get the "old man" to land and could not convince him - where I said F/O I would be liked to be burned by the witch hunters on here and Avherald.

To say it CLEARLY: I would not have trucked on that long with one donk under the circumstances that we know at this point, BUT they need to judged fairly. And that is NOT via internet etcetc.

witch !

[Consol]

Having some insider information on the outfit being the subject of this thread, I am a bit hesitant to agree in full. In principle, you are absolutely right. However this excuse for an airline has been around in the region for over a decade now (they used to have a Hungarian subsidiary too) previously under the Travel Service brand, and people in the profession were constantly amazed by the extent to whivh they were testing their limits, and even more amazed by the fact that they got away with it (both in terms of pure luck, and the regulators seemingly turning a blind eye). Most of the incidents were brushed under the carpet, and I'm sure the whistleblower at BUD ATC had plenty of experience with them. While the public release of this information is certainly not commendable, it likely was a last resort action in face of a growing frustration that they can get away with anything.

The Hungarian ATC person made a seemingly reasonable and informed submission. I've had reason to comment on poor aviation safety in my career too. Do you really think safety is maintained by aviation authority audits of paperwork and a few information bulletins? Sometimes you have to call out bad practice for what it is.

Remember every dodgy operator out there puts pressure on the the ones that do it right to further cut costs, training, maintenance and customer service. We are in a race to the bottom on this industry and we may have seen an example of why this is so.

[pax2908]

"If" indeed this airline has a history of disregarding safety then one can also ask why it takes (took?) so long for this to stop? Is not anyone with knowledge of what's going on, at least morally obliged to do whatever it takes, including informing the public?
Having some insider information on the outfit being the subject of this thread, I am a bit hesitant to agree in full. In principle, you are absolutely right. However this excuse for an airline has been around in the region for over a decade now (they used to have a Hungarian subsidiary too) previously under the Travel Service brand, and people in the profession were constantly amazed by the extent to which they were testing their limits, and even more amazed by the fact that they got away with it (both in terms of pure luck, and the regulators seemingly turning a blind eye). Most of the incidents were brushed under the carpet, and I'm sure the whistleblower at BUD ATC had plenty of experience with them. While the public release of this information is certainly not commendable, it likely was a last resort action in face of a growing frustration that they can get away with anything.

[Consol]

"If" indeed this airline has a history of disregarding safety then one can also ask why it takes (took?) so long for this to stop? Is not anyone with knowledge of what's going on, at least morally obliged to do whatever it takes, including informing the public?

It's part of essentially the only major airline group in the Czech Republic. Possibility of regulatory capture?

[gearlever]

The Hungarian ATC person made a seemingly reasonable and informed submission. I've had reason to comment on poor aviation safety in my career too. Do you really think safety is maintained by aviation authority audits of paperwork and a few information bulletins? Sometimes you have to call out bad practice for what it is.

Remember every dodgy operator out there puts pressure on the the ones that do it right to further cut costs, training, maintenance and customer service. We are in a race to the bottom on this industry and we may have seen an example of why this is so.

Thx Consol, you nailed it:ok:

[sonicbum]

The Hungarian ATC person made a seemingly reasonable and informed submission. I've had reason to comment on poor aviation safety in my career too. Do you really think safety is maintained by aviation authority audits of paperwork and a few information bulletins? Sometimes you have to call out bad practice for what it is.

Remember every dodgy operator out there puts pressure on the the ones that do it right to further cut costs, training, maintenance and customer service. We are in a race to the bottom on this industry and we may have seen an example of why this is so.

Great post !

[His dudeness]

Remember every dodgy operator out there puts pressure on the the ones that do it right to further cut costs, training, maintenance and customer service. We are in a race to the bottom on this industry and we may have seen an example of why this is so.

Absolutely. That has always been the case and I suspect it will never really stop.

BUT, there is a reason for protocol to follow and whilst you might know a thing or two about the "outfit" in question, I will still maintain that I´d rather have an inquiry than a witch hunt. Make an entry in the log, pull the tapes, do whatever it takes and let the authorities do their job. IF "they" fail to do so, then make it public via the press. Public outrage is produced very easily these days, thanks to "social media", ask yourself, does that make anything better ? Do we really want to go back to the dark ages and put every suspect into the pillory on the market square ?

[fox niner]

Thanks all,

We all know what has to be done. Inquiry, authorities doing their thing, etc. Let’s just wait and see.
The point is, that it takes someone (like the hungarian ATCO and Simon AvHerald) to bring it into the open.
There is no way that anyone can swipe anything under any carpet anymore. Good.

[hans brinker]

So not sure why people keep bringing up ETOPS, all ETOPS does is give youy bigger planning circles for your enroute deviation options. On any twin, once an engine stops you land ASAP. The fact that your twin might have been certified to fly SE on a leg from Guam to Hawaii, does not mean you can overfly a suitable airport when flying from Greece to Prague REGARDLESS of any ETOPS certification.

[gearlever]

Was the Flight Operations Director PIC? (https://www.austrianwings.info/2019/08/smartwings-zwischenfall-sass-chefpilot-im-cockpit/)

[OldnGrounded]

Was the Flight Operations Director PIC? (https://www.austrianwings.info/2019/08/smartwings-zwischenfall-sass-chefpilot-im-cockpit/)

Austrian Wings certainly thinks so. The fifth paragraph of the cited article translates, more or less, to:

"After the incident, one name was repeatedly cited in [airline] industry circles and in the Czech media: Pavel Vesely. [Vesely] is the Director Flight Operation of the airline, suggesting that the term 'chief pilot,' which the [Smartwings] spokeswoman has [provided?] to Czech media, is accurate."

There are probably better translators of German here, but I checked my version with a couple of online translation sites and it seems pretty close.

[AviatorDave]

Austrian Wings certainly thinks so. The fifth paragraph of the cited article translates, more or less, to:

"After the incident, one name was repeatedly cited in [airline] industry circles and in the Czech media: Pavel Vesely. [Vesely] is the Director Flight Operation of the airline, suggesting that the term 'chief pilot,' which the [Smartwings] spokeswoman has [provided?] to Czech media, is accurate."

There are probably better translators of German here, but I checked my version with a couple of online translation sites and it seems pretty close.

„... which the (Smartwings) spokeswoman used when talking to Czech media, is accurate.“

Your translation is spot on otherwise.

[Just a Grunt]

Translation of the Austrian Wings article. My schoolboy German plus Google, but I think this is the sense of it.

Smartwings incident: was chief pilot in the cockpit?

In the case of that Smartwings flight, whose crew flew two and a half hours with only one engine to the destination airport, there is a new suspicion.


As reported, an engine failure occurred on August 22, 2019 on the Smartwings flight from Samos to Prague. But instead of following the international regulations for such an incident, landing on the nearest suitable for a Boeing 737-800 airport, the pilots continued the flight almost two and a half hours with only one working engine to the destination airport Prague. Meanwhile, the Czech authorities investigate against the airline and the crew.


Contrary to what has been said by the Czech media, a smartwings spokeswoman said that "there was no danger", "the chief pilot was very experienced," and the crew "had the situation under control."


However, the international practices for the operation of twin-engine aircraft expose the statement of the spokeswoman as a mere protection claim. Because in the case of twin-engined aircraft, in the event of the failure of an engine in commercial flight operations, the air traffic control must always be informed and the nearest airport must be approached. Some airlines even force their pilots to declare an emergency (Mayday call).


Shortly after the incident, a name was repeatedly quoted in industry circles and in the Czech media: Pavel Vesely. This is the Director Flight Operation of the airline concerned, which would make the wording "Chief Pilot", which the spokeswoman has already used to the Czech media, correct.

"Any engine failure on a twin-engined aircraft is a serious loss of redundancy and can quickly lead to further problems, and Airmanship - the healthy aviator common sense - would always suggest a timely landing at the nearest suitable aerodrome Passengers in this case, nothing happened, this is an incident with a very bad aftertaste. "An A320 training captain who spoke to Austrian Wings


Several mail requests to the Smartwings press office and to Pavel Vesely himself, whether he was actually the pilot of the flight in question, remained unanswered until now. If Vesely was the pilot in command, that would raise general questions about the safety culture within the company.


“In our view, the incident is not a trivial matter and we want to investigate what the crew is doing because we do not think it's standard."Vítězslav Hezký, spokesman for the CZ aviation authority to the Czech media


Vesely also left an inquiry unanswered on how he, as Director Flight Operation, judged the crew's behavior if he had not been the pilot himself. Likewise, he could not or did not want to answer the question of what consequences it had for the captain and first officer.

[Uplinker]

.........Contrary to what has been said by the Czech media, a smartwings spokeswoman said that "there was no danger", "the chief pilot was very experienced," and the crew "had the situation under control.".......

Very experienced ?? He would need to have been bloody clairvoyant in order to know that the other engine was not going to fail*, and that it was safe to continue flying beyond the nearest suitable runway.

Could it be that the DFO was covering up that cost cutting - that he would be privy to - had eaten too far into maintenance procedures, or that his airline could not afford the cost of a diversion and EU261 etc?

* e.g. contaminated fuel.

[Tu.114]

I´d advise for a little caution with that Austrianwings article.

First of all, Austrianwings does not enjoy the highest reputation as a news source. I´d liken it to the Daily Mail or similar.

Secondly, all this article does is *claim* that the name of Smartwings chief pilot has been found in Czech media. " Bereits kurz nach dem Vorfall wurde in Branchenkreisen sowie in tschechischen Medien immer wieder ein Name genannt: Pavel Vesely. " translates as: "Already shortly after the incident, circles and the Czech media repeatedly reported one name: P. V.". Nowhere in this article is it claimed that Austrianwings had achieved own investigation results:

"Mehrere Mailanfragen an die Smartwings-Pressestelle und an Pavel Vesely selbst, ob er tatsächlich der Pilot des betreffenden Fluges war, blieben bis dato unbeantwortet. Sollte Vesely der Pilot in Command gewesen sein, würde das generelle Fragen nach der Sicherheitskultur im Unternehmen aufwerfen."

...translates as: "Multiple email requests for information directed to Smartwings public relation and P. V. himself, asking whether or not he was indeed piloting the concerned flight remained unanswered until now. Should V. have been PIC, it would pose some general questions on the companies safety culture."

So, to sum it up, the quoted article makes much ado about very little except for rehashing some (as to now) rumours and is IMHO not furthering the issue at hand.

[gearlever]

I´d advise for a little caution with that Austrianwings article.

First of all, Austrianwings does not enjoy the highest reputation as a news source. I´d liken it to the Daily Mail or similar.

Secondly, all this article does is *claim* that the name of Smartwings chief pilot has been found in Czech media. " Bereits kurz nach dem Vorfall wurde in Branchenkreisen sowie in tschechischen Medien immer wieder ein Name genannt: Pavel Vesely. " translates as: "Already shortly after the incident, circles and the Czech media repeatedly reported one name: P. V.". Nowhere in this article is it claimed that Austrianwings had achieved own investigation results:

"Mehrere Mailanfragen an die Smartwings-Pressestelle und an Pavel Vesely selbst, ob er tatsächlich der Pilot des betreffenden Fluges war, blieben bis dato unbeantwortet. Sollte Vesely der Pilot in Command gewesen sein, würde das generelle Fragen nach der Sicherheitskultur im Unternehmen aufwerfen."

...translates as: "Multiple email requests for information directed to Smartwings public relation and P. V. himself, asking whether or not he was indeed piloting the concerned flight remained unanswered until now. Should V. have been PIC, it would pose some general questions on the companies safety culture."

So, to sum it up, the quoted article makes much ado about very little except for rehashing some (as to now) rumours and is IMHO not furthering the issue at hand.

Comparing austrianwings with DM is just ridiculous.

Secondly, multiple email requests directed to Smartwings public relation and P. V. himself are showing clearly austrianwing's effort to shed some light on the dark.

[pax2908]

I think I understand that the 'who the Cpt was' makes the situation 'even worse'. But it is so bad to start with, and "apparently" it is a Company problem, that in the end does not (should not) matter who was flying that day?

[Tu.114]

Then let me clarify my point.
There may be an "effort to shed some light", but did it come to fruition? Did Austrianwings find out anything on the issue it spreads rumours on? It would have befitted a reputable media house to wait until they had "hardened" their accusations instead of blaring them out as mere insinuations. Compare the title as well, bearing a question mark instead of a full stop. All those are signs of yellow press style journalism.

The same can be said for the anonymous quotations of supposed experts - a reputable publication would have at least stated that the name of the contribuant is known to them but not stated for some reason. Also, typically of Austrianwings, the article is not signed by any author, just "red" for redaction.

So again, Austrianwings is in my opinion not a reputable news outlet and should be in no ways considered authoritative when it comes to such an investigation.

[gearlever]

Smartwings MEMO published by zdopravy.cz (https://zdopravy.cz/smartwings-neoznamily-let-v-nizsi-hladine-ani-rakousku-firma-odmita-vysvetlit-proc-33351/)


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/738x845/smartwings_memo_b81fd4cbed8364a77ddb1b3b5ded9232b869e903.jpg

[obda]

For those not speaking Czech, the gist of the memo above is a request for Smartwings employees "not to comment on social networks and publish internal information on internet". It also says that "several gross violations" of the company policy prohibiting such behaviour are being investigated.

[Hotel Tango]

It also says that "several gross violations" of the company policy prohibiting such behaviour are being investigated.

Hmm, yet they don't seem to take the opportunity to deny it happened. They only want to scare their personnel. Now that kind of behaviour makes me even more suspicious.

[EDLB]

Hmm, yet they don't seem to take the opportunity to deny it happened. They only want to scare their personnel. Now that kind of behaviour makes me even more suspicious.

I wonder why the authorities do not pull the AOC. The CVR seems already be unavailable. If the PIC was an officer of the airline, they have no place in this BIZ.

[pax2908]

I wonder why the authorities do not pull the AOC. The CVR seems already be unavailable. If the PIC was an officer of the airline, they have no place in this BIZ.
And if he is not, they do ?

[Flight Alloy]

Any source on the CVR being erased already? Or since the plane went back into ops is had been overwrote? Does EASA not go straight to the plane and pull the data when an illegal fuel landing is reported?

[TBSC]

This is a rumour network. But sure, here's a hint: how does ATC flt.pln PIC name crosschecked against company docs sounds like?
It's not a requirement to have the name of the PIC shown on the ATC flight plan.
This "gentleman" from Budapest ATC should have his license pulled (if he really is what he claims to be). This is NOT information intended for public circulation, give your statement to a board of inquiry OR the states CAA and thats it.
Definitely the main problem of the whole occurence...

[gearlever]

This "gentleman" from Budapest ATC should have his license pulled (if he really is what he claims to be). This is NOT information intended for public circulation, give your statement to a board of inquiry OR the states CAA and thats it.

Don't shoot the messenger.
BTW it took the effort of an aviation website to uncover this incident.

[His dudeness]

Don't shoot the messenger.
BTW it took the effort of an aviation website to cover up this incident.

Maybe its different in Hungary, but I know several countries that have laws in place forbidding to listen in on radio comms. Posting this stuff on a website would clearly be a breach IMO. And WHO can tell that this statement is a 100% the truth ? Or even 90%. (Apart from the failed donk, which seems to be a fact undisputed...)

Moreover and more of a problem is the pre-justice done. An inquiry board should not have the public opinion towering over them. (as it happens so often!)

Your second sentence does not make sense to me - you meant to un - cover ?

[His dudeness]

Definitely the main problem of the whole occurence...

Never said that and never meant that. (that was more of an overreaction to make the "pull their (the crew) licenses lot" think a bit. I failed, I admit it)

Appreciate your sense of irony though.

[gearlever]

Your second sentence does not make sense to me - you meant to un - cover ?

Of course, thx.

[TheBat]

The Hungarian ATC person made a seemingly reasonable and informed submission. I've had reason to comment on poor aviation safety in my career too. Do you really think safety is maintained by aviation authority audits of paperwork and a few information bulletins? Sometimes you have to call out bad practice for what it is.

Remember every dodgy operator out there puts pressure on the the ones that do it right to further cut costs, training, maintenance and customer service. We are in a race to the bottom on this industry and we may have seen an example of why this is so.
Brilliant post!

[etudiant]

Is it just me or are people completely missing the plot here.
A certified airline carried well over 100 passengers for several hundred miles in a twin with a failed engine and low fuel warnings, contrary to a truckload of regulations.
In response, posters want to focus on the perceived illegality of listening to A to G communications.

[booze]

Is it just me or are people completely missing the plot here.
A certified airline carried well over 100 passengers for several hundred miles in a twin with a failed engine and low fuel warnings, contrary to a truckload of regulations.
In response, posters want to focus on the perceived illegality of listening to A to G communications.

Nope. You are completely right. This thread has drifted aka "don't shoot the messenger": we do need whistleblowers as long as we have people working together for example at the Czech CAA and Smartwings in order to keep things swept under the carpet. See previous posts on "race to the bottom" subject.

[gearlever]

EASA versus FAA

While FAA is very clear on OEI issues, are there similar EASA regulations?
Thx

CFR § 121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an airplane engine fails or whenever an engine is shutdown to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command must land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.

(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or is shut down to prevent possible damage, the pilot-in-command may proceed to an airport that the pilot selects if, after considering the following, the pilot makes a reasonable decision that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
(2) The altitude, weight, and useable fuel at the time that the engine is shutdown.
(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.
(4) The air traffic congestion.
(5) The kind of terrain.
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.

(c) The pilot-in-command must report each engine shutdown in flight to the appropriate communication facility as soon as practicable and must keep that facility fully informed of the progress of the flight.

(d) If the pilot in command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, he or she shall (upon completing the trip) send a written report, in duplicate, to his or her director of operations stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport. The director of operations shall, within 10 days after the pilot returns to his or her home base, send a copy of this report with the director of operation's comments to the responsible Flight Standards office.

[MerNion]

Things are simple.

EASA OPA.GEN.160 Occurrence Reporting:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy_Access_Rules_for_Organisation_Requirements_for_Aircrew_ Part-ORA.pdf#page15

All European airlines should report to the competent authority any occurrence of one of the following:
http://emsa.europa.eu/retro/Docs/marine_casualties/directive_200342ec.pdf

Aircraft technical, iii, b: ”Flameout, shutdown or malfunction of any engine.“

Now if the airline actually reported that, this is another thing...

[gearlever]

Things are simple.

EASA OPA.GEN.160 Occurrence Reporting:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy_Access_Rules_for_Organisation_Requirements_for_Aircrew_ Part-ORA.pdf#page15

All European airlines should report to the competent authority any occurrence of one of the following:
http://emsa.europa.eu/retro/Docs/marine_casualties/directive_200342ec.pdf

Aircraft technical, iii, b: ”Flameout, shutdown or malfunction of any engine.“

Now if the airline actually reported that, this is another thing...

Thx MerNion. These documents are about "Reporting" an engine failure.

Still looking for equivalent EASA reg of CFR § 121.565 Engine inoperative: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an airplane engine fails or whenever an engine is shutdown to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command must land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.

:hmm:

[giggitygiggity]

EASA versus FAA

While FAA is very clear on OEI issues, are there similar EASA regulations?
Thx

My understanding is that there is more legal flexibility in Europe for the PIC to exercise his judgement and have less concise rules, reportable occurances aside.

Here are the EASA Air Ops regulations which should contain any relevant rules, although I'm struggling to find any specific policy defining how crews should conduct OEI operations except the 60 min flight time requirement.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Air%20OPS%20Easy%20Access%20Rules_Rev.12_March%202019.pdf

[gearlever]

So according EASA, it's legal to continue OEI after T/O on a twin from, let's say EGLL-KJFK for example, as long as ETOPS criteria are met?

Hear hear...

[giggitygiggity]

So according EASA, it's legal to continue OEI after T/O on a twin from, let's say EGLL-KJFK for example, as long as ETOPS criteria are met?

Hear hear...

No, I didn't say it was legal - it's grey (assuming my quick scan through EASA Air Ops didn't miss the appropriate section).


The Airline will have an AOC approved by EASA which means their operation will be approved according to their Part A/B/C etc. Their Part A WILL say that they'll follow the advice of the AFM/FCOM. In the Smartwings instance, their Seattle devised FCOM WILL say that the crew 'should' plan to land at the nearest suitable airport. If it doesn't, then there is a larger issue here.

I assume the wording in the FAA rules is to enshrine the rules in law without getting too concerned about specifics (the aircraft type etc), although that doesn't mean that the same rules/principles/guidance aren't applicable in EASA land.

Excuse the rather culturally loaded example; whilst i'm not saying it's a bad thing, the US law would seem more helpful for a solicitor who is trying to prove (for example) a case of psychological hurt of a passenger on a flight that continued past the first suitable airport. For example, if a passenger decides they are owed ten million dollars by the airline because they flew in contravention of the FAA regs about OEI, then it's quite easy to argue for that passenger to a judge. In Europe it's essentially the same rule, operations approved with regards to following the advice of the QRH as part of an operators AOC. Though that's a little more wooly in court, it doesn't meant it can't be argued by a crafty Barrister. A good analogy would be the constitutions of the US vs that of the UK. The US is written down in a very neat four and half thousand words, the UK's is a million times more complex being written in thousands of separate documents/law, but that doesn't mean there are no rules.

End of the day, an operator won't (shouldn't?) be granted a license if they say they won't be applying the advice/guidance of the AFM/FCOM. It achieves the same goal as the FAA legislation, eg. dont carry on after a loss of 50% of your engines. The only reason a PIC may override the FCOM would be if there was greater safety issue. In this instance, company economics and practicality seems to have overriden safety concerns which is very disappointing to say the least.


ETOPS is entirely different and not covered in these regulations as it would muddy the water even further.

[gearlever]

Thx giggitygiggity for your detailed comment. It shed some light on the darkness of EASA versus FAA regs.

Like you said at the end of the day the FCOM matters, which is very clear about continuation OEI.

[pax2908]

While the legal / regulatory aspects (and explicit wording in various regulations) are very interesting, in this case I think it is a moot point.
I am quite sure that never the EASA had contemplated that this incident would happen.

But then if one insists on "what is written" then I ask:
- does EASA have the equivalent that "no-one should fly a plane in a way that puts others in danger?"
- if the claim is that "there was no danger" then I ask, in the event of the 2nd engine inoperative (or some other relevant subsystem failure), has the situation been approved at the airline, and trained for ? Does the Company say in their manual, we can continue to the planned destination ? ( What about other airlines ?)

[Rarife]

no-one should fly a plane in a way that puts others in danger?

This thing is valid worldwide, isn't it?
They will not claim anything else that would be like shooting yourself to your own leg. They have two chances. They can claim and somehow prove that it was safe which is impossible but I can imagine they will try it or they can admit it was mistake and they will try to find mitigating circumstances for best possible outcome.

[etudiant]

An interesting test case. This was a glitch away from a major accident.
If the regulators stay silent, it is effectively consent to a massive easing of the rules. Other carriers will certainly take note.
If not for the pesky Hungarian ATC, this could have been more easily swept under the rug. Now I believe there has to be a response, but I've been wrong before.
Unfortunately this is a political issue as well and courage is not abundant in politics.

[YRP]

So these guys do or have gone a lot of wet leases for Canadian operators. Would an incident like this make Transport Canada reconsider allowing Smartwings operating in Canada? Would they be made aware of this, e.g. by EASA?

I was on a Flair flight of theirs in the spring, unawares but did notice foreign language signs on the plane, and would not be happy taking one of their flights after this.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Interesting one this. Could an offence of "Reckless endangerment" be persued and completely override EASA rules?

Then you are getting into the murky realms of criminal law....

[BluSdUp]

If this operation is allowed to retain the AOC, they are indeed smarter then we are.
I sure hope the local CAA of this Micky Mouse operation pulls the AOC .
Fascinating!

Regards
Cpt B

[gearlever]

If this operation is allowed to retain the AOC, they are indeed smarter then we are.
I sure hope the local CAA of this Micky Mouse operation pulls the AOC .
Fascinating!

Regards
Cpt B

I doubt it. Czechoslovakia is a small country. In Czech Aviation everyone knows everybody. There are rumours of family ties between SW officials, the involved pilot, and Czech CAA.

[Rarife]

Oh come on, we are not Czechoslovakia anymore for more than quarter of century.
But yes, Czech aviation is rather small, everyone knows everyone. And well, CAA is something... let's say it is typical post-communist institution when bureaucrats had their limitless power and they enjoyed that and used it to their own prosperity. Nothing is possible and everything is problem unless...

[pax2908]

Can the FAA/IASA protect us?
https://www.faa.gov/travelers/international_travel/
"FAA conducts the International Aviation Safety Assessment Program (https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/iasa/) (IASA), assessing the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of each country that has carriers operating to the United States [...]"
I am not sure if any Czech airline is currently operating to the US ... but currenly the Czech CAA has a Category 1 rating. So all is good!

[cactusbusdrvr]

Not sure EASA regulation overrides the QRH. You are on your own when you fail to follow the checklist.

[fox niner]

Found this on the internet. Via google translate:

Source:

https://www.planes.cz/en/article/203621/let-smartwings-na-jeden-motor-po-10-dnech-vice-otazniku-nez-odpovedi-setreni-pokracuje
Smartwings per engine after 10 days. More question marks than answers. The investigation continues.
 2019-09-01 09:00

On 22 August, due to a motor failure, the Boeing 737-800 (OK-TVO) flew by Smartwings from QS1125 from Greece to Prague, taking about 2 hours and 20 minutes. offended a plane with one functional engine. There were 170 passengers aboard. The Civil Aviation Authority and the Aviation Accident Investigation Institute have opened an investigation into this serious incident.

In the meantime, the lack of official information has fueled speculation. Therefore it makes sense to remind the whole event with hindsight, taking into account the information provided by the Office or through the media. In addition to the facts, we also provide some estimates that reflect the discussion of planes.cz forum participants, which may or may not be confirmed during the investigation.

Nearest suitable airport

The basic fact is that the crew decided to continue to the final destination despite the engine failure. The regulations clearly require a diversion to the "nearest suitable airport". The concept of an appropriate airport is and must be ambiguous, since 'suitability' depends on a number of parameters which, in addition, may be variable (eg aircraft status, weather). However, given the number of airports along the route and the favorable weather, it is hard to imagine that the destination Prague airport would be the first “suitable” airport.

In the CT24 report on August 26, we saw that the Civil Aviation Authority qualified this situation with terms “non-standard” and “shocking”. However, neither of these terms indicates whether the infringement was committed. At the request of planes.cz for the interpretation of the term “non-standard” in terms of aviation regulations, the Office stated that “according to currently available information, the decision of the crew to make a flight to a destination was not in accordance with the procedures required in the case. Especially in the light of the documentation available to us, in the event of the failure of one power unit, a landing at the nearest suitable airport should be planned. ' In other words, according to the Office, the infringement is a fact.

However, this is definitely denied by the operator, who states that the situation "was under control". But this is an obvious euphemism that ignores the fact that Boeing did not provide the aircraft with two engines for no reason. If a second engine fails, then Boeing turns into a glider and the concept of 'under control' is limited by the glide of the aircraft. A possible second engine failure is something that cannot be “under control”. Definitely not appealing idea for 170 unsuspecting passengers on board. And that's a fact. Contrary to the current position of the Office, a spokesman for Smartwings insists that "the crew proceeded in accordance with safety and operational procedures for these cases ... and the aircraft landed safely in Prague". The fact that the plane landed safely in Prague does not mean that the flight was safe. To what extent Smartwings' claim of a prescription flight is in line with reality will show the outcome of the investigation.

In the CT24 report mentioned, it was said that the “approved” operating manual of the company allows the flight to the target destination for one engine. The regulator's reply to planes.cz, however, denies this, saying that "according to the Office currently available documents, the decision to make a flight to a destination was not in accordance with the approved documentation of the operator."

Director of CAA Ing. David Jagr went even further when he admitted that there could be criminal prosecution.

Where did the voice recorder (CVR) record go?

It can be assumed that, at least in the light of possible criminal matters, it would be desirable to document what the motivation was and what specific factors led the Smartwings manager, who piloted the flight according to several sources, to believe that The nearest suitable airport is Prague, 2 hours away. 20 min. flight per engine. A natural source of such information is the cockpit communication recorder (CVR). Therefore, it is logical to ask what the CVR record says. However, we receive a surprising response from the CVR to our question regarding the TCL that the Eppo "does not have information on the availability of CVR data. The office did not require a specific entry from the CVR as such in the previous investigation. In view of the investigation of the event under the AAII competencies, it is necessary to contact colleagues directly. " The editors of planes.cz, of course, have turned to AAPLN, but they have not yet received the answer. We believe that, at least in view of the possibility of (albeit remote) prosecution, the CVR record should have been secured as evidence.

The fact remains that at least the ÚCL did not require the CVR record. The office states that "the Civil Aviation Authority has invited the Company's representative to explain the event and the progress of the operator and crew. The next steps are then investigated and its results. In addition, the Office issued a statement to the whole event which is available on the website of the ÚCL. " Since this procedure stopped us, an advanced inquiry by the CPK spokesperson added that "The Office has requested materials from the operator which are relevant to the matter and to the investigations conducted by our office. The method of substantiation is at the moment on the operator. Whether the record was required for the investigation of an event conducted under the responsibility of the AAII, I do not have information about it ". This wording indicates that the EPPO has provided the operator with space and time to present its own version of the event which cannot be verified by the CVR record. That's our assumption. That the CVR record was declared irrelevant to the need for an investigation into the CPCL.

Quietly over Europe

That passengers were not informed about the one-engine flight to Prague, it is OK. However, no evidence has yet emerged that air traffic control services on the route would be informed of the non-functioning engine flight. And that's not good. On the AV Herald server, a staff member of the Budapest ATC, who operated an incriminated flight, said he did not know about the engine failure. He assumed that this is a problem with the air conditioner, which in turn is not so exceptional, and which forces the plane to fly on the levels around FL240. Only then and after the inquiry of the Austrian inspection, he learned that it was a flight of two-engine aircraft per engine. It states that the Serbian, Austrian and Kosovo (KFOR) ATC were not informed of the failure. The AV Herald presents the information as verified. It is almost certainly possible to say that the signal of distress MR Pan Pan was announced for the first time only after entering the airspace of the Czech Republic, together with the information that the flight takes place on one engine. This is also confirmed by a very knowledgeable Technet. From the mouth of the spokesman Richard Klíma's air traffic control, there's another "non-standard" moment. The Ten for CT stated that "in the case of such a serious technical problem, such as loss of functionality of one of the two propulsion units, it is certainly not standard for the commander of the aeroplane to inform the responsible steering Centre about this situation". The ÚCL response to a particular question by the editors planes.cz not provided the communication, AAII is not to be reached. From EASA we received only a non-standard opinion on the interpretation of the concept of "nearest suitable airport", but the answers to the specific question of whether the crew had communicated the problem with the ATC services were not met. On the basis of the information available, we consider that the crew did not adequately inform the air traffic Control service engine failure. We assume that this is a serious ' non-standard ' moment, which will certainly be clarified in the context of ongoing investigations.

Another interesting assumption that appeared in the Forum planes.cz and has a relationship to 2 hours. 20 min. Long flight at low flight level is a link with fuel consumption. Specifically, when landing in Prague, the aircraft had a minimum fuel supply on board. We raised this question at the ÚCL, but we do not have the answer, because it is obviously a fact not disclosed during the investigation.

Who was behind the "Knipl"?

So we are in a situation where all (except Smartwings) agree at least that the flight was non-standard, and in several ways.

Let us admit to the hypothesis that the Commander decided correctly and the whole procedure was exemplarly prescripting. However, this applies only if the flight lasts for 2 hours. 20 min. per engine to the final destination was less risk than landing at the airport along the route. And that's certainly absurd.

The presumption is that the real motivation for a flight to Prague could be to avoid the millions of costs that would represent diversion to the airport along the route – a substitute aircraft, compensation to passengers, etc. Several sources close to Smartwings claim that the commander of the flight was the chief pilot of the company. That it was not a very low-skilled pilot, it follows from the comments of a company spokesperson stating that "The commander is one of the most experienced in the company". It is clear that the executive and "one of the most experienced" of the financial consequences of diversion had to be aware. This could explain the "non-standard" flight to the final destination as well as the "non-standard" silence over Europe. The ongoing investigation will surely confirm or exclude this presumption. It is a pity that the CVR record cannot be used.

As this is a serious incident in the investigation stage, a logical question arises as to whether the commander of the flight is immobiled from the flight during the ongoing investigation. In response to this inquiry, the office stated that "the results [of the investigation] cannot be anticipated at this time. Given the possible psychological pressure on the aeroplane commander concerned and the related impact on the safe conduct of other flights, it was recommended that the operator be considered as being temporarily outside the performance of the flight service. "

This year's incidents

Incident Flight QS1125 was not the only one that hit Smartwings during this year. At the beginning of the year, on 13. In January, the Smartwings aircraft came out of the runway when starting on the runway of Sheremetyevo airport. On 16. In May, two Smartwings planes met during the taxi at Prague Airport. We do not mention other incidents that are of a technical nature.

SmartWings in March affected the grounding of the seven Boeing 737 MAX, which of course caused pressure on the company, caused the need to cancel or change flights and to hire aircraft from other companies. Even here Smartwings stumped upon the problem when 7. June had to oat 737-400 rented from YanAir, after the Ukrainian authorities banned the YanAir activity for critical shortcomings in security. The mentioned aircraft (UR-CNP) is over 30 years old and Yan Air is its 21st century. Operator. With proper maintenance and observance of procedures, this is not the slightest problem, but security shortcomings have convinced the Ukrainian authorities of the need for intervention.

These are all the moments that make up the broader framework in which flight crew QS1125 take their flight decisions to Prague.

Best Practice

The results of the investigation cannot be anticipated. Likewise, at the time of the ongoing investigation, all information is not released. However, it is evident that serious infringements were likely to occur in this case and that passengers flying QS1125 were exposed to undue risk. It is also evident that the company has acted contrary to best practice or if you want to comply with the good manners of the responsible carrier.

On 14. December 2018 was diverted by Boeing 737 MAX (LN-BKE) to Norwegian Air line DY1933 during a flight from Dubai to Oslo due to the decommissioning of the engine to the airport in Iran's Shirazu. Due to sanctions against Iran, it was not the most suitable country for diversions, yet the crew preferred the nearest airport, even if the "suitability" of the Iranian airport was successfully doubting. It took 70 days until the plane was able to get back into operation from Iran. Illustration of the fact that passenger safety is superior to the economic interests of the carrier. The example of Norwegian Air is relevant as Norwegian Air also faces a difficult economic situation. Nevertheless, it acted as expected from a quality company.

Company Security Culture

The investigation of the office and of the Constitution is naturally confined to what the regulations say. A number of important information is not available due to the ongoing investigation.

The regulations only set minimum conditions for operators to ensure safe operation. But what is more important is the security culture of the carrier. High-quality world carriers take measures well beyond what the regulations impose on them to minimise all risks. And this is the approach we expect from professionals who have the lives of passengers in their hands. SmartWings on its website says that "flying is a matter of trust and security is the parameter that Smartwings Group puts the greatest emphasis on".

However, the case of flight QS1125 indicates a serious absence of Smartwings safety culture. Because whatever the investigation may be, it is certain that in the case of this flight, the "non-standard" practices were suspicious. If one of the most experienced leaders of Smartwings and the company's executive is flying like this "non-standard", it is definitely wrong and it is a bad example for other pilots.

Facts
◾ Boeing 737-800 (OK-TVO) flew on line QS1125 after the withdrawal of one engine from the Greek airspace to one engine up to Prague.
◾ According to observations of the Civil Aviation Authority, the decision of the crew according to currently available information was not in accordance with procedures and approved documentation of the operator.

Questions

A number of questions that are offered will be answered by the reports of the authorities investigating the incident. We have to wait for the official responses to the data from the recorders, especially the CVR, to the crew or fuel decision bases and to the communication with air traffic control services.

[Capt Flinstone]

Very ´ŚMART´ decision !

[gearlever]

The first change in the management of Smartwings occurred after the August case, when its machine flew almost all the way from Greece to only one engine. Pavel Veselý, who has held the position since June 2004, ends up as the Flight Director. In addition, the company admitted, according to an internal investigation, that the one-engine failure was a crew's fault.

Smartwings heads down! (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ftn.nova.cz%2Fclanek%2Fve-smartwings-padaji-hlavy-po-letu-s-jednim-motorem-skoncil-letovy-reditel.html)

[OldnGrounded]

Smartwings heads down! (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ftn.nova.cz%2Fclanek%2Fve-smartwings-padaji-hlavy-po-letu-s-jednim-motorem-skoncil-letovy-reditel.html)

English-language post, yesterday, by Radio Prague:

Smartwings admits pilot error on one-engine flight (https://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/smartwings-admits-pilot-error-on-one-engine-flight)

Daniela Lazarová (https://www.radio.cz/en/who-is-who/daniela-lazarova)
13-09-2019


An incident in which a Smartwings flight from Greece failed to report an engine shutdown and continued the flight to Prague for another 2 hours and 20 minutes on one engine has been assessed as pilot error, according to the results of an internal investigation conducted by the carrier, as stated in documents the company handed over to the Civil Aviation authority last week. Smartwings originally denied that the pilots had violated safety regulations, saying that the crew had proceeded in accordance with the safety and operational procedures.

The Aviation Authority is still investigating the incident.

[KingAir1978]

Pilot error?! Smells more of intentional non-compliance to me...

[Banana Joe]

Has he been fired or just demoted to normal line captain?

[gearlever]

On Sep 13th 2019 The Aviation Herald learned that an internal investigation conducted by Smartwings identified there was no systemic fault, but a crew error. The captain of the flight, at that time head of flight operations of Smartwings, is no longer head of flight operations, his deputy has now taken that position. The captain continues to fly for the airline and maintains privileges as instructor, examiner and TRE. Czechia's CAA is determined to ensure that such a decision is not taken again in the future and pledges very harsh penalties. Surrounding nations also show significant interest in the ongoing investigation, revocations of overflight permits are being discussed.

Smartwings B738 over Aegean Sea on Aug 22nd 2019 (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434&opt=0)

[Stratofreighter]

Incident: Smartwings B738 over Aegean Sea on Aug 22nd 2019, engine shut down in flight, aircraft continued to Prague (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434)
last updated Friday, Oct 11th 2019 10:34Z

"While OK-TVO was still airborne south of Hungarian Airspace (after the engine shut down over the Aegean Sea), the office of Smartwings is said to have contacted a Budapest based maintenance provider about whether they would have spare parts readily available, the fuel supply of one of the engines was blocked. Subsequently it was decided the aircraft would not land in Budapest." http://avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434 (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434)

https://zdopravy.cz/ucl-zahajil-spravni-rizeni-kvuli-letu-smartwings-na-jeden-motor-35320/
/ (https://zdopravy.cz/ucl-zahajil-spravni-rizeni-kvuli-letu-smartwings-na-jeden-motor-35320//)
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fzdopravy.cz%2Fucl-zahajil-spravni-rizeni-kvuli-letu-smartwings-na-jeden-motor-35320%2F

04 Oct 2019 12:56

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
commenced administrative proceedings over Smartwings' engine failure in August.

=leftVedle toho úřad pokračuje v dalším šetření.
In addition, the Office continues to investigate further.

=leftNa dotaz ČTK to dnes bez dalších podrobností uvedl mluvčí ÚCL Vítězslav Hezký.
A CTK spokesman Vitezslav Hezky said it today without further details.

=leftNení tak zatím zřejmé, zda je řízení vedeno proti dopravci, nebo někomu z posádky.
It is not yet clear whether the proceedings are brought against the carrier or someone from the crew.

[BDAttitude]

There is a claim in the comments of the AVHerald article, that they landed on 900kg fuel and that the Cptn is therefore suspended in the meantime.

[sejba]

Just for the illustration how some experienced captains and 737 instructors over there are thinking (quote from an interview on ihned.cz):
"Kdyby odešel i druhý motor, letadlo by přistálo v terénu, takové případy jsou, většinou dopadly dobře. ", " Cestující nebyli přímo ohroženi. "
Rough translation: Even if the other engine became unoperative, the plane would have landed in the fields. Such cases happened, usually ended well. Passengers were not in direct danger.

[TheBat]

Please tell me that this is a joke.

[gearlever]

Wow, they make top gun pilots look like a kindergarten.

[OldnGrounded]

sejba

Well, sure, it might well have "landed" in the fields. Such cases definitely have happened. And the pax weren't in "direct danger" -- that would only have been the case if that field "landing" actually happened.

Sheesh.

[FlightDetent]

17 minutes of interview time with the gentleman.

First question: "What would you have done ...(in an identical circumstance) ...?"
First answer: "It's laid out very clearly. Post engine failure, and after the restart is not successful, it is written absolutely unequivocally to land at the nearest suitable aerodrome."
His second sentence to immediately follow without being asked: "Myself I have counted up to 7 aerodromes (under their flight-path)."

Sorry, no time to find out the exact moment and context where the originally quoted piece came from. And no need either.

[sejba]

Please tell me that this is a joke.

Not a joke.
To be fair, he is ex-smartwings pilot. But then, somehow, this represents state of mind of some current senior pilots there.

I can't post links, but let's try it this way: domaci.ihned.cz/c1-66650740-let-smartwings-bez-motoru-lidi-neohrozili-doletem-do-prahy-neusetrili-nic-rika-pilot

[OldnGrounded]

FlightDetent

Here's the Google Translate English rendering of the Blesk story on the DVTV interview:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=cs&u=https://www.blesk.cz/clanek/zpravy-krimi/621005/pilot-o-letu-smartwings-s-jednim-motorem-riziko-nehrozilo-mohli-pristat-v-terenu.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=cs&u=https://www.blesk.cz/clanek/zpravy-krimi/621005/pilot-o-letu-smartwings-s-jednim-motorem-riziko-nehrozilo-mohli-pristat-v-terenu.html&prev=search)

[gearlever]

I really hope Ladislav Keller's statement got fouled up beyond all recognition by translation.

[Stratofreighter]

Incident: Smartwings B738 over Aegean Sea on Aug 22nd 2019, engine shut down in flight, aircraft continued to Prague (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434&opt=0)
last updated Thursday, Oct 24th 2019 16:04Z

On Oct 24th 2019
Czechia's UZPLN reported in their 3rd quarter 2019 bulletin,
that the aircraft was enroute at FL360 when the #1 engine failed.

The crew reported a "maintenance issue" to ATC and requested to descend to FL240.

No PAN or emergency call was issued.

The crew attempted to restart the engine twice unsuccessfully.

The captain tagged the nearest suitable aerodrome to be Prague
and continued to Prague without informing any of the ATC stations
along the 2:20 hours route about the engine failure until in contact with Prague Air Traffic Control,

when the crew declared PAN and reported the failure of the #1 engine.
The aircraft landed.

A fuel pump caused the engine to starve, metallic chips were found in the fuel filter.

Both parts were shipped for expert examination.
An investigation into the occurrence rated a serious incident is continuing.

[hans brinker]

Maybe the wings are smart, but......

[Meester proach]

Let’s hope with the demise of a certain charter company, these jokers aren’t operating in UK airspace next summer season

[rog747]

They were due to fly an IT holiday series contract from Jersey to Tenerife and Malaga but I think someone else is doing it now (It was to be a Smartwings MAX)

[sewushr]

They operate in UK airspace every week!

As the parent company of CSA Czech Airlines, they operate most of CSA's scheduled flights on the Prague to Birmingham route and fly Prague to Gatwick themselves, although I think this may be seasonal

[DaveReidUK]

Both those services now appear to have ceased.

[rog747]

One of theirs popped into Bournemouth yesterday according to the spotty spotters FB group (for painting?)

[gearlever]

Incident: Smartwings B738 over Aegean Sea on Aug 22nd 2019, engine shut down in flight, aircraft continued to Prague (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434&opt=0)

Would be interesting to know how much fuel was left.......

[rog747]

Would be interesting to know how much fuel was left.......

I am sure I read somewhere it was 900kgs -- or am I bonkers LOL

[sewushr]

In the case of Smartwings' Prague to Gatwick route, just a temporary hiatus; the flight resumed today

[fox niner]

Criminal proceedings are underway according to avherald.
Incident: Smartwings B738 over Aegean Sea on Aug 22nd 2019, engine shut down in flight, aircraft continued to Prague (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434&opt=0)

[gunshy67]

I wonder if the aircraft had an ETOPS approval...90/180/240/ etc minute?

Or the operators engineering approval?

Just checking.

[fox niner]

But even then you have to land at the nearest suitable airport. Etops does not change that basic rule.

[wiggy]

fox niner

I just replied in a similar manner then deleted my post on the grounds that I realised belatedly that gunshy67 must have been posing a rhetorical question...

gunshy67: you were being rhetorical.........weren't you??

[rog747]

you dont need ETOPS on MED IT charter flights - not even for the Canary Islands unless you are coming from the USA or Canada lol

[FlightDetent]

Czech AAIB report is out.

[DaveReidUK]

But in Czech only (https://uzpln.cz/pdf/20200723132803.pdf).

[Porto Pete]

Only the Czech language version so far: LINK (https://uzpln.cz/pdf/20200723132803.pdf)

[DaveReidUK]

With help from Google Translate:

3.2
Cause

The cause of the serious incident was a faulty decision-making process of the pilot-in-command after the loss of the power unit, which was not in accordance with QRH and FCTM procedures. These procedures are binding.

Event string:

operation of the fuel pump to "dry" before critical flight, see DL No.107847,

operation of the fuel pump to "dry" without fuel as a lubricant during critical flight,

engine shutdown and consequent loss of the drive unit,

obvious ignoring and violation of OM air traffic procedures, relevant regulations, provisions and safety recommendations,

Defective determination of a suitable aerodrome for a safe landing with one power unit inoperative after a fuel pump failure

faulty implementation of fuel policy,

the commander of the aircraft did not follow the principles of CRM implementation in the implementation of the NNC QRH procedure and thus prevented the F/O from participating effectively in the decision-making process,

by failing to complete the relevant NNC QRH procedure in point 10 of the Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport, the PIC has avoided the obligation to make a safe landing at the nearest suitable airport specified in the manufacturer's QRH and FCTM procedure and applicable to commercial air transport,

it cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated, nor can it be reliably ruled out, that the decisions of the commander and at the same time the flight director of the company were influenced by the economic aspects of the situation, as described in point 2.11.

[parkfell]

“Pony express” mentality. Somewhat ironic being call “Smartwings”.....🧐

This all stems from the top and cascades down through the management ranks to the troops.
A management pilot at the helm.....and / or one who was just obeying
(his unwritten) orders....

AV Herald (27/11/2019) states that the Czechia’s District Prosecution Office had opened criminal proceedings and police investigation into the occurrence for suspicion of committing a crime of endangering the public due to negligence.
Can anyone update this information.......?

[fox niner]

Did he resign? Was he demoted? Or is he still a TRE?

[GKOC41]

Incident: Smartwings B738 over Aegean Sea on Aug 22nd 2019, engine shut down in flight, aircraft continued to Prague (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cbe8434&opt=0)

The Captain/DFO resigned but is still part of the Management team according to a comment on Avherald

[Ray_Y]

More translated details on AVH. I summarize in own words

Discussion between CPT and ATC delayed descend clearance after engine out
First Officer as PF increasingly worried about delayed descend, prepared for offset emergency descend due to decreasing airspeed.
Enourmous Command Gradient, CPT not cooperating with F/O on his worries
Investigation named 3 airports suitable for landing after unsuccessful restarts of engine
Lots of chips and fragments found in some Fuel System Components. also in fuel pump which also showed overheat traces from dry ops
CPT was FI, Flight Examiner and Flight Director in company. Approved OM, QRH, FCTM, FCOM documents, which he didnt follow on this incident flight.
And more details regarding eng perf on takeoff, fuel tankering vs. minimum fuel at alternate, and too high Engine out altitude

From interview with CPT:
CPT didn't tell ATC about Engine problem when requesting descend to FL240. He used a phrase like maintenance issue. He didn't feel like PAN PAN or more details
for ATC was of help.
They had to use MCT in order to maintain speed and level

[alf5071h]

Reading the translated extract @ #151 without considering wider aspects, we might mistakenly conclude human error, which moves to blame and train, dismissal, …
Not wise.

parkfell, there is no evidence to support rash conclusions about 'mentality' or management, nor without explanation how we might learn from 'CRM'.

A philosophical view of 'cause' argues that because of inherent human variability and our inability to avoid hindsight bias, it is impossible to understand the actual human reasoning in past situations; humans cannot be a 'cause', only a contribution; both good and not so.
We learn from trying to understand that contribution, differences from the norm, both our and others expectations; there is little to be learnt from absolute conclusions - extreme positions without reviewing the supporting evidence. Hopefully the report will be translated in full.

In particular we need an understand why the decision making process was faulty; - because the academic view and HF teaching considers that both good and poor decisions stem from the same process.
Similarly for faulty implementation; a choice of action but how was this justified - a balance of probabilities assessed at the time in that situation, with recalled knowledge and influence of teaching, training, and experience.

Which specific principles of CRM were not applied, what are they, and how might they have been applied in a situation which we only see with hindsight.
A glib comparison with other accidents could conclude that CRM as a concept is flawed, because of the association of many accident outcomes with the often reported 'failed' CRM; but associations are not causation.

Opposed to seeking true cause (our view of it) there will be greater safety value by starting from a position that we don't know, and then consider influencing factors by which we can learn from this incident.

[andrasz]

there is no evidence to support rash conclusions about 'mentality' or management

I beg to differ...

For those of us familiar with this part of the world and in particular having some insight on this outfit that operated under a number of brands for the past 15 years, there was nothing surprising about the incident in question. Their operating philosophy was (and is) simply not to break the 11th commandment (Thou shalt not be found out...), while bending the rules and ever expanding the envelope of what they could get away with. Were there not the whistleblower at BUD ATC, there is a pretty good chance we would never have found out about this incident. There are very few EU registered airlines which are firmly on my personal no-fly list, they certainly are, for good reason.

[The Old Swedish]

Google Translate:

4. Safety recommendations

1. ÚZPLN (pendant to NTSB) recommends Smartwings, a.s. based on the execution of the flight and the persistent conviction of the PIC that his final decision-making process was carried out correctly, perform a psychological examination at the PIC at the ÚLZ (Aeromedical Centre).

[MATELO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ga8UFy1M04

[Uplinker]

alf5071h makes some interesting points. I don't know the full story and reasons behind the Smartwings flight but once in the SIM, I was PF when we had an engine failure in the cruise whilst somewhere over the Greek islands. I elected - and my Cap agreed - to fly to Athens rather than land on one of said islands.

My reasoning was that a) We were in an A330. b) We were losing altitude,(drift down), and had to make a decision since we did not have a lot of spare fuel. c) The weather was only good enough at Athens and at the runway on the island almost directly beneath us, I forget which one it was. d) We did not know anything about the airfield below us and we were in an A330, so e) I wanted a known long runway in case we found later that we had landing distance issues owing to reduced stopping ability. f) If we had had to go-around, we would have then been low on fuel, so would have had to commit to the single island runway. g) Athens was well within the descent profile, so we were not taking the aircraft beyond where it could safely go, it would have taken the same flying time to descend to the island runway as it did to descend to Athens, but Athens was not geographically the nearest airfield.

The TRE criticised my decision to go to Athens in the de-brief, and no doubt he was right, but I think my reasons were also valid, I thought that had I attempted to land an A330 on one of the shorter Greek island strips I might have embarrassed myself.

[FlightDetent]

The EASA regulations do not really tell you how to think and act, more accurately described they are technical specifications what needs to be achieved and complied with. In this particular aspect, for Land ASAP, the US FARs go a step further and do instruct the PIC to land at the nearest workable place in the terms of time. In a sense, their law is more evolved (speculation why and how it came to be is irrelevant).

I do not see any grounds to say the TRE was right in Uplinker's story(*), BTW. Interpreting Land ASAP as "the nearest possible by great circle distance" is another apex of the pendulum, wrong too. For the record, on the opposite upswing this sorry soul also thinks the Norwegian crew that ended OEI in Iran did not have the grounds to continue to KWI, even if their particular choice of runway may seem somewhat rushed in hindsight from the office desk.

(*) well, if perhaps it took 10 minutes longer to reach ATH compared to something really nice like RDS (3000 m) then yes. But even then it's not the decision process which was faulty, rather the awareness of what's where.

[sixgee]

This brings me back to the old chestnut. The EASA regulations for non-ETOPS flights continue to be interpreted by some airlines as requiring the weather at ERAs to be checked (whatever that means) and then promptly ignored at the planning stage.

Haven’t read the entire thread though, and not saying that this was a factor in this case.

[FlightDetent]

? The rules for ERAs are rather clear and do not allow any such thing. Hunch is there what you have in mind is not ERAs by the definition but rather the required adequate aerodromes (max planning distance equivalent of 60 mins LRC as agreed with the CAA and put into OM part B). And for those, the rules are rather clear too. If someone wants to be more stringent and then not, it's all for the show, it's their choice.

Agreed it is not relevant to the thread.

[andrasz]

...and had to make a decision since we did not have a lot of spare fuel...

I know it was only a sim scenario, but out of pure curiosity, where on earth were you heading to with a 330 over the Greek islands if a diversion and missed approach to Athens would have put you low on fuel... ?!

[Uplinker]

Yes, I cannot remember now what the exact circumstances were but we probably had a fuel leak which necessitated shutting the leaky engine down and left us with very little fuel. I do remember thinking that if we attempted a landing on the island but had to go around, we would not have had enough fuel to go anywhere else, hence my desire to go somewhere with more options in the first place.

Not saying for a minute that this applies to Smartwings, just offering an example of when flying away from the nearest runway was a valid decision, (maybe).

[procede]

something really nice like RDS (3000 m)

I think you mean RHO (Rhodos).

[andrasz]

...just offering an example of when flying away from the nearest runway was a valid decision, (maybe).

For what it's worth, and also with a little first-hand knowledge of the Greek island airports (rule#1 - the wind is always perpendicular to the only available runway), I would probably have made the same decision.
(provided we're speaking of the new Athens airport - were it in the good old Hellinikon days, would not have made much of a difference)

[waito]

Final report officially available in English now (UZPLN)

https://uzpln.cz/pdf/20201127100923.pdf

Smartwings is still in Business? The criminal prosecution without result after 1 year? (Haven't read anything since). That particular Captain still flying and having business with the airline? I hope they take the same final route as Go2Sky did!

[DingerX]

Certainly, the incident report can't recommend punitive action. But this is the first time I've seen a report recommend a psychological evaluation of the captain involved.
​​​​​​

[megan]

once in the SIM, I was PF when we had an engine failure in the cruise whilst somewhere over the Greek islands. I elected - and my Cap agreed - to fly to Athens rather than land on one of said islands............The TRE criticised my decision to go to Athens in the de-brief, and no doubt he was right, but I think my reasons were also validContained within the report, I'll fly with you Uplinker based on the context of your post rather than the TREIn 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

[parkfell]

It seems that if you are well connected you are fairly bullet proof from being fired.
A bit like the “Barnard Castle” scenario.
They all piss in the same pot.

[sonicbum]

The TRE criticised my decision to go to Athens in the de-brief, and no doubt he was right, but I think my reasons were also valid, I thought that had I attempted to land an A330 on one of the shorter Greek island strips I might have embarrassed myself.

These few words show an ineffective debriefing from your TRE (and hence a big learning occasion loss) for the following reasons :

- He could not pass over his point to you with your acknowledgment.
- Given the above he did not have enough arguments, suggesting your decision was also correct in the same exact way.
- a TRE must never criticize, he/she records a performance, decides based on what he has recorded and debriefs. The debriefing must be full of training elements, otherwise it goes in the trash.
In Your case the only thing he could have done -unless your decision was clearly unsafe- was to show you how to improve it (if it’s the case). Worst thing you can do as a TRE is to think “I would have landed at XXX” and debrief with your pre-conceived idea.

[Uplinker]

Thank you megan and sonicbum, very kind.

Maybe I am a better pilot than I thought :)

[Klimax]

Certainly, the incident report can't recommend punitive action. But this is the first time I've seen a report recommend a psychological evaluation of the captain involved.
​​​​​​

The PIC of the reported flight clearly would need a serious amount of re-training and independent evaluation of his capabilities to continue in flight operations in the capacity as PIC. There are so many findings in that report - that a "one mistake" or "poor judgement" has to be ruled out. There is a clear deep rooted attitude problem - particularly considering that the individual also held a valid FI rating.
I'd be curious to know what Smartwings have actually done with the PIC in question in order to get him back on the line to operate or if he was removed from all duties. Just to know what type of company culture SmartWings has.

[sonicbum]

Uplinker

You're welcome.
Confidence building after every single sim session is the key for a good instructor/examiner :ok:

[andrasz]

Just to know what type of company culture SmartWings has.

In short, test the limit of every rule to pinch a penny, adopt it as practice if able to get away with it, and deny everything if found out. The report is a laugh. It is obvious that the decision to continue was willfully made to save the additional costs, both direct and consequential, of landing at an alternate (which would be a criminal offense if so stated). The PIC was the Responsible Manager controlling all flight ops. Go figure...
Would never ever set foot on one of their aircraft (and that includes CSA now, since it had been acquired by the SW group).

On a different note, does anybody know what happened to the 49% share of CEFC (China Energy) in SmartWings after CEFC went bankrupt earlier this year ?

[Mr Optimistic]

Klimax

(pax) The report does question 'attitude' doesn't it in so far as,

'• It cannot be satisfactorily proven, nor reliably excluded that the decision making of the aircraft Pilot-in-command and at the same time the Flight Manager of the company, was influenced by the financial aspects of the occurred situation as described in Clause 2.11.'

[parkfell]

But on the balance of probabilities (civil proof) influenced by the financial considerations, I would suggest.
“Beyond reasonable doubt” (criminal proof), in other words certain, a higher bar to overcome.
Suspicion Yes......another ‘abnormality of the mind’ similar to PIA 8303. This time Swartwings got away with it.
There is enough material here for a 2 day CRM conference, never mind the Trick Cyclists

[andrasz]

It cannot be satisfactorily proven, nor reliably excluded that the decision making of the aircraft Pilot-in-command and at the same time the Flight Manager of the company, was influenced by the financial aspects of the occurred situation as described in Clause 2.11.

The report states the obvious, but as correctly pointed out above, criminal proof requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and as long as the only two people who are in a position to give evidence collude, there is no proof. However the report stops here, and this is my main issue. Again the report only hints, but does not expressly say, that there are only two reasonable explanations. Either it was a willful action, agreed to (even if implicitly) by both pilots, or mental incapacitation rendering the PIC unfit to fly (but then the question begs why PM did not intervene). However the PIC is question was the Responsible Manager overseeing flight operations, and as such having a responsiblity for procedures to ensure that no person unfit to fly ever does so... A RM continuing to permit an unsafe situation / practice once having become aware of is also a criminal offense...

[A321drvr]

Thing is that the organisation concluded the report (Czech Air Investigation Institute), is a body reporting to the Czech CAA, which granted the post holder status to the person in question.