QF144 Auckland to Sydney engine out

[Foxxster]

Just reported, about 30 minutes out from Sydney. Reported one engine out. Currently at 20,000 feet at about 370 knots.

[SITTINGBULL]

QF's new Single Engine Taxi procedure is intense :E

[Stationair8]

No, carbon offset programme in action.

Safest airline in 2023.

[VHOED191006]

New poster, long time lurker, not affiliated with the media at all (am watching the dramatization of this flight :ugh:). However, I curious to know as to whether or not it is SOP there to declare a mayday if you lose an engine during ETOPS ops?

[Advance]

QAL 34L YSSY 0426, now on the gate

[ControlLock]

From track log details, appears to have failed shortly after TOC with a long gradual drift down all the way across the Tasman into YSSY.

[RodH]

Fear not fellow aviation enthusiasts!
Our Aviation Expert, "GT", will soon tell us exactly what happened and why.
I can hardly wait to read his words of wisdom.

[Nuasea]

There was a time when diverting to the nearest airfield was considered the thing to do.

[SHVC]

Maybe they were out of NZ arrival cards and their Aus border force was already filled out.

[Kiwiconehead]

From track log details, appears to have failed shortly after TOC with a long gradual drift down all the way across the Tasman into YSSY.

Yeah nah

[morno]

From track log details, appears to have failed shortly after TOC with a long gradual drift down all the way across the Tasman into YSSY.

Hmmm, I highly doubt that, because you can’t exactly go EDTO with an engine failure…

[TimmyTee]

Hmmm, I highly doubt that, because you are not meant to go EDTO with an engine failure…

I’m pretty sure you can if you really want to

[Capn Bloggs]

From track log details, appears to have failed shortly after TOC with a long gradual drift down all the way across the Tasman into YSSY.
Show us your data to verify, or do you seriously think the line between the end of the ADS-B return from NZ and the start of the AUS ADS-B return is what the aeroplane did?

[pct085]

There was a time when diverting to the nearest airfield was considered the thing to do.

If this engine out occcured at cruise, don't you need to factor in the costs of turning around to distance travelled and time in the air? An engine out during cruise is at speed so I imagine you can't just "turn around". I anticipate the "nearest airfield" in distance at the moment of failure may not be the "nearest airfield" in travel distance or time in the air. It may well be that SYD was the "nearest".

[Angle of Attack]

The engine failure didn’t occur TOC, it was pretty much half way across so close to the CP.

[stillcallozhome]

Why is an engine failure a mayday ?QF sop?

Ah - the good old mayday vs pan debate. Go Austranauts!!!

[Ascend Charlie]

I see that Ch 7 is now favouring Discrepancy to GT for Expert Opinion.

[aussieflyboy]

Ah - the good old mayday vs pan debate. Go Austranauts!!!

Its not a debate in Aus mate. Do you want fire trucks and ambos from all over town at the airport or do you just want the airport fire trucks.

[SandyPalms]

Downgraded to PAN. These people are so incredibly lucky, as the captain was a cadet, presumably it could only have been information passed onto the aircraft by an ex GA guy that saved the day. Phew! (Sarcasm) I hope I never have to see one for real.

[Ollie Onion]

I think a Mayday is appropriate in 3rd world ATC environments, OZ certainly qualifies as that.

[1A_Please]

Fear not fellow aviation enthusiasts!
Our Aviation Expert, "GT", will soon tell us exactly what happened and why.
I can hardly wait to read his words of wisdom.
He could beam his expert and unbiased opinion in from the Chairmans Lounge after getting his membership extended by naming QF the world's safest airline.

[aussieflyboy]

Was this QF Tech Crew or Jetconnect?

[stillcallozhome]

Its not a debate in Aus mate. Do you want fire trucks and ambos from all over town at the airport or do you just want the airport fire trucks.

:D not a debate :ugh:

[VHOED191006]

"A visible hole in one of the plane's engines. Inner sections of the engine were exposed." - Herald Sun with pictures of Engine 2's reversers deployed.

The media in this country has become an embarrassment.

[AerocatS2A]

There’s a big chunk of sky out in the middle of the Tasman with no ADSB coverage. What you are seeing is FR24 / FlightAware joining the dots between cruising altitude as they left coverage and cruising altitude when they entered coverage approaching Aus. Given they continued to Sydney, it’s a safe bet it happened at or after their ETP.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I think a Mayday is appropriate in 3rd world ATC environments, OZ certainly qualifies as that.


Hahaha, I can just imagine ATC responding to a PAN with “will advise” :E

edit: that was a joke by the way, just in case we have any ATC guys and girls on here.

[PoppaJo]

Well done Daily Telegraph. I see QF have outsourced its cabin crew to JQ now also.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/561x960/325933938_548355454002663_909631345709439943_n_f3e6d25e29453 788a0847f1c318475deaf521c58.jpg;

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x774/screenshot_2023_01_18_at_6_37_24_pm_4126a6e496d88d844cfd7ec4 0fa9fefd01e1d998.png

[Car RAMROD]

Well done Daily Telegraph.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/561x960/325933938_548355454002663_909631345709439943_n_f3e6d25e29453 788a0847f1c318475deaf521c58.jpg;


so, all the other 737s I see landing every day with BOTH engines like that must have had a DOUBLE ENGINE FAILURE! :eek:

[Lead Balloon]

It wasn’t a “Mayday”. It was a “Rare Mayday”.

It’s like difference between an ordinary Wallaby and an endangered Rock Wallaby.

[deja vu]

From track log details, appears to have failed shortly after TOC with a long gradual drift down all the way across the Tasman into YSSY.
Certainly looks that way. The QRH used to say on the last line "LAND AT NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT"

[Occy]

Certainly looks that way. The QRH used to say on the last line "LAND AT NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT"

For those not listening and just speculating on random info they find on the internet, it didn’t happen at top of climb.:ugh::ugh:

[Ollie Onion]

TOC just happened to coincide with Flight Radar losing ADSB data, when the aircraft was then identified on the OZ side it had started a descent, the graph is just a linear plot between the two points. So it did not lose an engine just after TOC and the 1 hour before arrival seems to fit nicely with the data.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day Mr 'A',


Good to see you're still 'up' wif ya 'Q' codes.....


Possibly in order......Hey YSSY, QF '****tyknickers', QHH ?, QGP ? QFO ?.......


Cheeerrrsss.....

[Lead Balloon]

These Rare Maydays are usually declared at or near TOC, because that’s usually where the [deleted for security reasons] fails - the prolonged climb exacerbates duractance flux in the compressor phase in the high-bypass engines fitted to the 737.

[tossbag]

I think a Mayday is appropriate in 3rd world ATC environments, OZ certainly qualifies as that.

​​​​​​​Double Like or Super Like.Well done, accurate assessment.

[Landseer]

These Rare Maydays are usually declared at or near TOC, because that’s usually where the Turbo Encabulator fails - the prolonged climb exacerbates duractance flux in the compressor phase in the high-bypass engines fitted to the 737.
Yes but what was the actual reason for this engine failure?

[Lead Balloon]

Based on what we know so far, [deleted for security reasons] failure is the most likely cause. It’s about time the high-bypass engines on the 737 fleet were upgraded.

[Pearly White]

These Rare Maydays are usually declared at or near TOC, because that’s usually where the Turbo Encabulator fails - the prolonged climb exacerbates duractance flux in the compressor phase in the high-bypass engines fitted to the 737.
You know you're not supposed to be talking about the encabulators - in a forum where the meia might read about it. It was in the NOTAMs last week. You'd better delete the post before someone gets the wrong end of the stick.

[Lead Balloon]

Good point. References deleted.

[Australopithecus]

Marsal vanes on the flux detractor. There has been a spate of those failing recently which puts the engine into sinus-o delta configuration.

[Landseer]

You know you're not supposed to be talking about the encabulators - in a forum where the meia might read about it. It was in the NOTAMs last week. You'd better delete the post before someone gets the wrong end of the stick.
Wait a mo you totally ignore the latest version of the stick has three ends ....

[drpixie]

talking about the encabulators

Yeah - ever since they stopped using thrombulators, things haven't been the same.

[Landseer]

I think I will stick with the Telegraph report that the "inside of the engine" was exposed. They must be right, after all they are a trusted newspaper aren't they....

[Weapons Grade]

G'Day Mr 'A',


Good to see you're still 'up' wif ya 'Q' codes.....


Possibly in order......Hey YSSY, QF '****tyknickers', QHH ?, QGP ? QFO ?.......


Cheeerrrsss.....

Hello all
Been a l o n g time since I worked with the Q and Z codes. Luckily I found my old ACP131 to de-code the Qs:
QHH: I am making an emergency landing (at...)
QGP: You are number ... to land.
QFO: You may land immediately.

[roundsounds]

Yeah - ever since they stopped using thrombulators, things haven't been the same.
I have inside information confirming they neglected to replenish the Ad-Blue supply due to a shortage at NZ airports. That’s obviously caused a build up of lead on the spark plugs resulting in the engine failure.

[Impress to inflate]

Australia has be asked by ICAO to trial a new emergency call, it's just below a MayDay but above a PanPan and it's called a "MaeDey"

Today was a great great day to try it

[swh]

However, I curious to know as to whether or not it is SOP there to declare a mayday if you lose an engine during ETOPS ops?

Yes it is, as the coffee machine does not work. That is a no go item on the maggot MEL.

[lagiace]

The engine failure didn’t occur TOC, it was pretty much half way across so close to the CP.

The aircraft started a slow descent 40 minutes after t/o indicating engine problem. Very close to Auckland than Sydney.

[Capn Bloggs]

The aircraft started a slow descent 40 minutes after t/o indicating engine problem. Very close to Auckland than Sydney.
You're the second one. No it didn't. The ADS-B dropped out at 40 minutes. Take some lessons on FlightRadar. Do you have a pilot's licence?

[Maninthebar]

You're the second one. No it didn't. The ADS-B dropped out at 40 minutes. Take some lessons on FlightRadar. Do you have a pilot's licence?

...and if so is it yours?

I have the body of a 25 year old, honestly. I keep it in a cupboard under the stairs

[AerialPerspective]

Fear not fellow aviation enthusiasts!
Our Aviation Expert, "GT", will soon tell us exactly what happened and why.
I can hardly wait to read his words of wisdom.

Me neither, although I nearly threw something at the television with that imbecilic reporter on channel seven "the response was MASSIVE, emergency vehicles SURROUNDED it AS SOON AS it 'hit' the runway". Funny, I was sure it was rolling for quite sometime on the landing roll and turned off the runway and onto a taxiway then onto an apron before any emergency vehicles came near it. I mean the person reporting was watching it happen and still couldn't help themselves talking utter, sensationalist ****e.

Then we were treated to "this near disaster" and "the pilot executed a near perfect landing as though nothing was wrong" - pretty sure the air head doing the reporting, judging by her language like with all reporters not quite being right, doesn't have a pilot license or any time on the B737 so how would she know?

Then she rabbited on about "what a terrifying experience for the passengers, with anxiety levels high and every passengers' worst fear".

Upon interviewing some passengers, the first ones she spoke to said "No. We didn't know about the engine shutdown, the Captain told us once we'd landed and explained it was a routine procedure when they shut down an engine as there was no danger".

When is the media going to spend some money and get some decent reporters. A bunch of 5 year olds would be more honest and less sensationalist.

[AerialPerspective]

Based on what we know so far, [deleted for security reasons] failure is the most likely cause. It’s about time the high-bypass engines on the 737 fleet were upgraded.

They're going to be, with new engines attached to A320neos and A321neos.

[DaveReidUK]

From track log details, appears to have failed shortly after TOC with a long gradual drift down all the way across the Tasman into YSSY.

Per FR24, TOC (FL360) was about 01:50Z. Drift-down appears to have started about 03:10Z.

[AerialPerspective]

All the talk on here of people like GT not knowing what the hell they're talking about put me in mind of a story I once heard at a major Australian airline (no, not QF).
At a meeting, two managers who's aviation experience between them consisted of stints at Bunnings or McDonalds or something asked of a ground person "What was the reason for the engineering delay on such and such flight?".

I've always been amused by non-aviation, non-engineering managers asking this question. My response was always, "I'm not an engineer, it was an engineering related matter".

Anyway, on this occasion, one of the ground people who was known to be a stirrer replied "It was a problem with the flux capacitor".

Yes. Sit down if you aren't already. The two managers wrote it down on their notepads. Fully prepared to go into a high level Ops Review meeting with executives on the line and say that a delay that morning was caused by a faulty 'flux capacitor'.

At the end of the meeting, the ground handler apparently said to the managers "Ah, I was just pulling your leg, there's no such thing as a flux capacitor, it's from a movie".

Both managers got visibly angry and berated the person for it.

My point is, how bloody stupid does someone have to be to fall for that? When I was told the story, I was asked "You know what a flux capacitor is" and I responded immediately "Yes. Marty my boy, it's the thing that makes time travel possible".

Reminds me of another incident many years before where an Ansett flight was delayed due to dupe seating on board. A newly minted manager fresh from Uni with his MBA butted in and said "Wait a minute. That aircraft came out of the hangar this morning, why weren't the dupe seats picked up before it left the hangar".

A brief but excruciating silence ensued after which someone was heard to mumble "I think we'll take that offline".

[adnoid]

Marsal vanes on the flux detractor. There has been a spate of those failing recently which puts the engine into sinus-o delta configuration.

The pentametric fan.

[fdr]

Why is an engine failure a mayday ?QF sop?

It is actually a requirement under mat regulatory systems. It might seem excessive, but it gets the point across. A pan would seem to be adequate, but often the failure to communicate issues has led to bad days. Much of the world will only achieve curiosity from a Pan call.

[Tango and Cash]

All the talk on here of people like GT not knowing what the hell they're talking about put me in mind of a story I once heard at a major Australian airline (no, not QF).
At a meeting, two managers who's aviation experience between them consisted of stints at Bunnings or McDonalds or something asked of a ground person "What was the reason for the engineering delay on such and such flight?".

I've always been amused by non-aviation, non-engineering managers asking this question. My response was always, "I'm not an engineer, it was an engineering related matter".

Anyway, on this occasion, one of the ground people who was known to be a stirrer replied "It was a problem with the flux capacitor".

Yes. Sit down if you aren't already. The two managers wrote it down on their notepads. Fully prepared to go into a high level Ops Review meeting with executives on the line and say that a delay that morning was caused by a faulty 'flux capacitor'.

At the end of the meeting, the ground handler apparently said to the managers "Ah, I was just pulling your leg, there's no such thing as a flux capacitor, it's from a movie".

Both managers got visibly angry and berated the person for it.

My point is, how bloody stupid does someone have to be to fall for that? When I was told the story, I was asked "You know what a flux capacitor is" and I responded immediately "Yes. Marty my boy, it's the thing that makes time travel possible".

Reminds me of another incident many years before where an Ansett flight was delayed due to dupe seating on board. A newly minted manager fresh from Uni with his MBA butted in and said "Wait a minute. That aircraft came out of the hangar this morning, why weren't the dupe seats picked up before it left the hangar".

A brief but excruciating silence ensued after which someone was heard to mumble "I think we'll take that offline".

Depending on my mood, like/dislike for those management types, and desire for continued employment, I would have let those managers go into the Ops Review with the "flux capacitor" issue at the top of their notepads. Just to see how far it would go. I'm guessing there'd be committees formed and teams deployed to conduct a full on flux capacitor review, looking for patterns of flux capacitor failures, reading flux capacitor reliabilty reports, and conducting investigations into alternate flux capacitor suppliers...

[Good Business Sense]

I have the body of a 25 year old

​​​​​​​Give it back !

[ampclamp]

Sounds like the QF manager that thought AOG was a rego. Apparently AOG was a very unreliable aircraft.

By the way did we find out what the actual defect was?

[maggot]

By the way did we find out what the actual defect was?

I believe it was the engine

[Cat3508]

I think it was one of 2 problems, they either ran out of petrol on that side, or it was a bent scroggly plate.

[aussieflyboy]

This event is a good example of the difference between calling Mayday or Pan.

A Mayday has resulted in significant media attention whereas another QF operator has had 4 engine failures (on 2 engine jet aircraft) in very recent times and only declared Pan resulting in no media coverage.

A ‘full emergency’ results in all the local boys around the airport finding out and calling the media.

[RodH]

I read passenger reports that praise the "pilot " as a " Hero " for getting then safely down.
In my 30+ years in the Airlines as a " Pilot " I have had engine failures on a DC3 , V832, B727,F27, L188 , DC9 and a B737.
It's so nice to know that I must be in the ranks of a " super Hero " for the amazing and fantastic feat of landing multi engine aeroplanes after an engine failure not once but on several occasions!!!!

:yuk:

[Gin Jockey]

The aircraft started a slow descent 40 minutes after t/o indicating engine problem. Very close to Auckland than Sydney.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x540/590df006_5667_4509_b7ba_ca5ef9079763_0ebab0eee9ffdcf675f9a47 503a14704c4c3506f.png

[Lead Balloon]

I read passenger reports that praise the "pilot " as a " Hero " for getting then safely down.
In my 30+ years in the Airlines as a " Pilot " I have had engine failures on a DC3 , V832, B727,F27, L188 , DC9 and a B737.
It's so nice to know that I must be in the ranks of a " super Hero " for the amazing and fantastic feat of landing multi engine aeroplanes after an engine failure not once but on several occasions!!!!

:yuk:But did you declare a “Rare Mayday”?

[JustJoinedToSearch]

But did you declare a “Rare Mayday”?
You just say "Mayday, Mayday" and make sure to stop before the third one overdoes it.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

At least there was no problem with the hydraulic wings, unlike that Virgin flight the other day. :rolleyes:

[gordonfvckingramsay]

This event is a good example of the difference between calling Mayday or Pan.

A Mayday has resulted in significant media attention whereas another QF operator has had 4 engine failures (on 2 engine jet aircraft) in very recent times and only declared Pan resulting in no media coverage.

A ‘full emergency’ results in all the local boys around the airport finding out and calling the media.

It’s still strange that the pax on the other 4 didn’t relate their terrifying ordeal to the media, those down the back would have had a plenty of opportunities to whip the iPhone out. The whole cluster has been very effectively hushed up somehow.

[C441]

And while we're at it….
For you media types 'listening' in, Pan-Pan is derived from the French word "panne", which means failure or breakdown. Pan-Pan most often refers to a mechanical failure or breakdown of some kind.
It is not an acronym for "Possible Assistance Needed".

[maggot]

And while we're at it….
For you media types 'listening' in, Pan-Pan is derived from the French word "panne", which means failure or breakdown. Pan-Pan most often refers to a mechanical failure or breakdown of some kind.
It is not an acronym for "Possible Assistance Needed".
Mayday is a loose translation of 'merde'

[Lead Balloon]

And while we're at it….
For you media types 'listening' in, Pan-Pan is derived from the French word "panne", which means failure or breakdown. Pan-Pan most often refers to a mechanical failure or breakdown of some kind.
It is not an acronym for "Possible Assistance Needed".I thought it derived from the Italian word for ‘bread’.

“PAN PAN PAN” = [We need] bread, bread, bread.

[ampclamp]

No need for a smart arse reply. Same goes for Cat3508.

I was a LAME on them for 20 years and still maintain an interest in my old job.

[ScepticalOptomist]

It is actually a requirement under mat regulatory systems. It might seem excessive, but it gets the point across. A pan would seem to be adequate, but often the failure to communicate issues has led to bad days. Much of the world will only achieve curiosity from a Pan call.

Unfortunately true.

During a type rating course on a modern twin we were pulled up for not declaring MAYDAY after an engine failure. His logic being we don’t know why the failure occurred and we are down to 1 engine.

[324906]

And mayday derives from the French “m’aider”, help me, I think.

[cooperplace]

I have inside information.....That’s obviously caused a build up of lead on the spark plugs resulting in the engine failure.
Yes, this is true. I know because the flight engineer told me.

[Twist & Shout]

Think about the story (“exposed engine parts” etc) in the Daily Telegraph, if you are ever tempted to read that rag. Worse than a waste of time.

[Icarus2001]

Just remember next time you read ANY media reports, after seeing how they get basic facts wrong that we can verify from our knowledge, just how bad they are at reporting anything correctly.

[Matt48]

Just remember next time you read ANY media reports, after seeing how they get basic facts wrong that we can verify from our knowledge, just how bad they are at reporting anything correctly.

That is very true.
Another Qantas International flight with problems, QF 101 had to return to SYD, was heading to Nadi.

[mudguard01]

Thank God for GT. How can we ever know what happened without his thoughts and wisdom. Is it true the Captain is thinking I writing a book about it?:)

[Stationair8]

I would like to reach out to GT!

[JohnMcGhie]

Fear not fellow aviation enthusiasts!
Our Aviation Expert, "GT", will soon tell us exactly what happened and why.
I can hardly wait to read his words of wisdom.
Things have improved a bit (at least, at the Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/national/we-need-two-pilots-at-the-pointy-end-the-qantas-mayday-shows-us-why-20230118-p5cdlh.html

For those who weren't there, David Evans was a checkie amongst the five pilots on the flight deck when QF2 blew an engine apart over Singapore.

Look: I get it; it's amusing to make fun of journalists who display breathtaking ignorance about aviation matters. But it doesn't help the cause much (either theirs or ours...).

Disclaimer: I have a foot in both camps: I was briefly a glider pilot, and I was a journalist for ten years. I was even an aviation reporter (briefly).

Journalists these days are under intense pressure: a journalist who files their story for publication within half an hour of the incident is considered "slow" these days. Not a lot of time for deep research or fact-checking. So a response of "I don't know, wait for the report in 12 months time..." is singularly unhelpful. We will do that: the Diary Sub-Editor at a major news organisation will insert a tag in the diary to follow up with the ATSB until the final report comes out, and a second story will be generated based on its content. And just like Pilots, Journalists are busy people; expected to file five or ten stories per day (in my day -- it's probably worse now...). But unlike pilots who have the luxury of doing only one job at a time and operating a single type they understand at a level almost down to the individual rivet, a journalist may find that none of the ten stories they file each day are on the same subject. They are totally reliant on their sources (in aviation, that would be YOU!) to understand and interpret for them. If you decide to have a lend of them, the published story will indeed be wrong; because these days there is nobody in the chain between keyboard and the public who knows any better than the journalist. The "Aviation Correspondent" these days is just that: a "correspondent". Who is probably out fishing when the story breaks... "Johnny-on-the-Spot" is often a lone young reporter with a year or so of experience, who has to do the best they can with their native wit and ability under intense pressure to beat their competitors.

In case you think the embarrassment you will cause that kid by blaming the incident on a flux capacitor (hi Trekkies...) is huge, you have no idea the humiliation they will suffer from their peers in their own newsroom if they get one wrong. It's the journalistic equivalent of taking off with insufficient fuel. Sadly, I speak from personal experience. :\

We could all improve things -- simply by foregoing the urge to have a lend of someone when they are in the journalistic equivalent of single-pilot IFR at night in inclement weather with an engine failure.

I hope to all available deities there's no spelling mistakes in this :O

[Matt48]

Think about the story (“exposed engine parts” etc) in the Daily Telegraph, if you are ever tempted to read that rag. Worse than a waste of time.

This lack of quality reporting has been going on for a very, very long time, I think Mark Twain said it best, 'if you don't read the papers you are uninformed, if you do, you are misinformed.

[AerialPerspective]

Things have improved a bit (at least, at the Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/national/we-need-two-pilots-at-the-pointy-end-the-qantas-mayday-shows-us-why-20230118-p5cdlh.html

For those who weren't there, David Evans was a checkie amongst the five pilots on the flight deck when QF2 blew an engine apart over Singapore.

Look: I get it; it's amusing to make fun of journalists who display breathtaking ignorance about aviation matters. But it doesn't help the cause much (either theirs or ours...).

Disclaimer: I have a foot in both camps: I was briefly a glider pilot, and I was a journalist for ten years. I was even an aviation reporter (briefly).

Journalists these days are under intense pressure: a journalist who files their story for publication within half an hour of the incident is considered "slow" these days. Not a lot of time for deep research or fact-checking. So a response of "I don't know, wait for the report in 12 months time..." is singularly unhelpful. We will do that: the Diary Sub-Editor at a major news organisation will insert a tag in the diary to follow up with the ATSB until the final report comes out, and a second story will be generated based on its content. And just like Pilots, Journalists are busy people; expected to file five or ten stories per day (in my day -- it's probably worse now...). But unlike pilots who have the luxury of doing only one job at a time and operating a single type they understand at a level almost down to the individual rivet, a journalist may find that none of the ten stories they file each day are on the same subject. They are totally reliant on their sources (in aviation, that would be YOU!) to understand and interpret for them. If you decide to have a lend of them, the published story will indeed be wrong; because these days there is nobody in the chain between keyboard and the public who knows any better than the journalist. The "Aviation Correspondent" these days is just that: a "correspondent". Who is probably out fishing when the story breaks... "Johnny-on-the-Spot" is often a lone young reporter with a year or so of experience, who has to do the best they can with their native wit and ability under intense pressure to beat their competitors.

In case you think the embarrassment you will cause that kid by blaming the incident on a flux capacitor (hi Trekkies...) is huge, you have no idea the humiliation they will suffer from their peers in their own newsroom if they get one wrong. It's the journalistic equivalent of taking off with insufficient fuel. Sadly, I speak from personal experience. :\

We could all improve things -- simply by foregoing the urge to have a lend of someone when they are in the journalistic equivalent of single-pilot IFR at night in inclement weather with an engine failure.

I hope to all available deities there's no spelling mistakes in this :O

Flux capacitor is from the De Lorean in Back to the Future, not Star Trek. That story wasn't about a journalist, it was about a manager who was put in a position running a major aviation department who had absolutely zero life and/or aviation experience, hence falling for the ludicrously obvious flux capacitor gag - it was a comment on how an MBA and having seen an aeroplane fly over once are about all the qualifications required to be an airport manager or a senior departmental manager in one of the most complex, specialist industries in the world.

[AerialPerspective]

Depending on my mood, like/dislike for those management types, and desire for continued employment, I would have let those managers go into the Ops Review with the "flux capacitor" issue at the top of their notepads. Just to see how far it would go. I'm guessing there'd be committees formed and teams deployed to conduct a full on flux capacitor review, looking for patterns of flux capacitor failures, reading flux capacitor reliabilty reports, and conducting investigations into alternate flux capacitor suppliers...

Actually, no names, no pack drill but when I was told the story I said the same thing, and then when castigated later just say "So sorry, I thought the engineer said flux capacitor but he actually said f-cked capacitor".

Looking back and thinking who used to run the meetings, I suspect the person I'm thinking of (no names, no pack drill) would have probably said something like "Ah well, I need to leave the call now as I have to go and get my DeLorean serviced" and even that would have gone over said managers' heads.

[RickNRoll]

Yes, this is true. I know because the flight engineer told me.
I was on that flight and went up to the cockpit and helped the pilots with the emergency. They managed to calm down and reduce the alert to PAN.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Mr 'JM',

Re 'I hope to all available deities there's no spelling mistakes in this'......

'Cause 'mistakes' is plural, shud it not be 'there are no.......',

Or you cud use the singular, then you cud say 'there's no spelling mistake in this..."


The devil made me do it....honestly...!!

[JohnMcGhie]

{Giggle} I swear I wasn't trolling; and yes you are correct and "there's" is not :*

[ZebedeeAU]

A bunch of 5 year olds would be more honest and less sensationalist.

Not quite 5 year olds but there is a very good news crew in Australia made up of teenage reporters called "6 News". A lot of their content revolves around Australian Politics but they also cover other news as well, including this flight on their Twitter feed. They're worth checking out, they seem to be a lot more responsible and less sensationalist than the bigger organisations.

[VR-HFX]

It should always be remembered that the "Flux Capacitor" is a critical piece of equipment to ensure a safe return from NZ to the present. I am sure this was not lost upon the astute aviation experts lurking in Dunnunda, Godzone and the Pacific. Look what happened today to the PM over the dutch when she blew her flux capacitor. Far worse than a simple thronomister issue and well worthy of a MAYDAY MAYDAY (in caps).

[JPJP]

I thought it derived from the Italian word for ‘bread’.

“PAN PAN PAN” = [We need] bread, bread, bread.

Negative. But you’re close. The origins of the word are in fact French - From ‘Pain au Chocolat’. First used inflight in the late 1600s. Transmitted by an irate French first officer bickering over a flight deck breakfast on a hot mic. Hence, Urgency.

[27/09]

It should always be remembered that the "Flux Capacitor" is a critical piece of equipment to ensure a safe return from NZ to the present. I am sure this was not lost upon the astute aviation experts lurking in Dunnunda, Godzone and the Pacific. Look what happened today to the PM over the dutch when she blew her flux capacitor. Far worse than a simple thronomister issue and well worthy of a MAYDAY MAYDAY (in caps).

Slightly off topic. Actually the call today was Hooray Hooray Hooray. I suppose that might be confused with Mayday Mayday Mayday, the end bit sounds the same.

[C441]

Rumor has it Jacinda has taken full responsibility for QF144 and resigned. It must be true, I read it in the Tele.:hmm:

[27/09]

Rumor has it Jacinda has taken full responsibility for QF144 and resigned. It must be true, I read it in the Tele.:hmm:
Unlikely, she hasn't taken responsibility for anything yet.

[mmurray]

For those who weren't there, David Evans was a checkie amongst the five pilots on the flight deck when QF2 blew an engine apart over Singapore.


QF32 :)

[Nuasea]

How about engine fire, pax hear bang when extinguishers fired. Mayday call, fire goes out, downgrade to Pan??

[jportzer]

Breaking news, the cause has been discovered, DBT has the scoop: https://doublebaytoday.com/qantas-ceo-blames-emergency-landing-on-passenger-who-didnt-switch-phone-to-aeroplane-mode/
Turns out it wasn't an engine problem after all :)

[lamax]

In Australia aviation journalism is an oxymoron except for a handful of individuals who know what they are talking about. Standards of reporting could easily be improved to the detriment of media sensationalism and revenue. Airlines and other aviation entities need to be represented in the media by current on type operational people who can with management approval convey in no nonsense technical language the facts relating to an incident or accident. Sure most readers would be ignorant of the meanings of acronyms etc. but those with half a brain could research and make some sense of what they read. For the rest spare them the ill informed musings of PR numpties and work experience reporters in the media. Company reporting should be vetted by the authors prior to publication to ensure media spin is not inserted. To be fair to news outlets, updates should be frequent and factual without interference from management if company reputation is perceived to be compromised.

[Capn Bloggs]

The origins of the word are in fact French - From ‘Pain au Chocolat’. First used inflight in the late 1600s
PIC Capt Leonardo Davinci.

[43Inches]

I'm reading too many instances of "engine failures are extremely rare occurrences" in a 12 month period where around 10 QF group aircraft have had shut downs, and that's just the ones I know about. What I'm seeing is that reporting of QF group engine failures is extremely rare and is kept out of the public view for some reason while claiming to be the safest airline in the world.

Was this a normal engine failure? was it possibly a reverser un-latching in flight? that would explain why both engines had reversers deployed and might warrant a "mayday" until its sorted out and then it's just a "Pan" once the engines secured, but who knows, we won't, as the ATSB will probably hide anything we could learn from any public scrutiny.

[601]

They are totally reliant on their sources (in aviation, that would be YOU!)

Thanks for the heads up. I have been waiting all day and no Jurno has called.
You must have given them an incorrect number.

The Double Bay Today may have a "scoop" but the Betoota Advocate will have the real story.
They just have to wait for the carrier pigeon to arrive.

[ozaub]

Only believe three things in any newspaper. The price, the date and the horoscopes.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Are not Flux Capacitors required to be fitted to all aircraft engaged on services to and from NZ? How else is the requirement to travel back to the 1980's prior to arrival there achieved?

[Mooloo]

A big twin has two motors. Losing one (while quite rare) does put you in the position of having only one functional donk over the ocean. In the very rare event of losing that one remaining power unit, you know books are going to be written about you.

Is this that point in time where rather than shrug off an engine out incident, we perhaps push toward the next couple of levels of redundancy.

it’s surely only a matter of time before the holes in the Swiss cheese line up.

[cooperplace]

I was on that flight and went up to the cockpit and helped the pilots with the emergency. They managed to calm down and reduce the alert to PAN.
No, please no false modesty. YOU helped them calm down. You're the hero.

Discussion around whether mayday was warranted gives me the sh1ts. I've had in-flight emergencies (disclosure: private pilot only), they can be scary, the decision to declare mayday belongs to the pilot, not the baying press who have 20/20 hindsight. If people are to be hung out to dry over calling mayday, what a bad thing that is. PIC was between the devil and the deep blue sea with one engine only, >140 souls utterly dependent on his skills. Who am I or anyone else to pass judgement? BTW the crew did a great job.

[Lead Balloon]

A big twin has two motors. Losing one (while quite rare) does put you in the position of having only one functional donk over the ocean. In the very rare event of losing that one remaining power unit, you know books are going to be written about you.

Is this that point in time where rather than shrug off an engine out incident, we perhaps push toward the next couple of levels of redundancy.

it’s surely only a matter of time before the holes in the Swiss cheese line up.So back to four engines then?

You realise that even with the addition of “the next couple of levels of redundancy” there would still be a possibility - albeit extraordinarily remote - of an incident resulting in a ditching?

[compressor stall]

A big twin has two motors. Losing one (while quite rare) does put you in the position of having only one functional donk over the ocean. In the very rare event of losing that one remaining power unit, you know books are going to be written about you.

Is this that point in time where rather than shrug off an engine out incident, we perhaps push toward the next couple of levels of redundancy.

it’s surely only a matter of time before the holes in the Swiss cheese line up.
We already have moved towards the next couple of levels of redundancy. We did it decades ago. It’s called ETOPS. Or EDTO these days.

[Transition Layer]

How about engine fire, pax hear bang when extinguishers fired. Mayday call, fire goes out, downgrade to Pan??
That’s not what happened. No fire indications and no bottles were used.

[Australopithecus]

This entire mayday/pan discussion is an embarrassment.

[compressor stall]

This entire mayday/pan discussion is an embarrassment.
As is the amount of media traction this got - and continues to get.

[VHOED191006]

And another one....

(Can't post links yet)

"Packed Qantas flight from Melbourne to Sydney suffers an ENGINE issue and is forced to turn around immediately after take-off in third incident in three days. Qantas flight QF430 is understood to have suffered an engine issue. The plane took off from Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport at 9:28am before completing a large loop and returning just 50 minutes later at 10:18am." - Dailymail

[AerialPerspective]

In Australia aviation journalism is an oxymoron except for a handful of individuals who know what they are talking about. Standards of reporting could easily be improved to the detriment of media sensationalism and revenue. Airlines and other aviation entities need to be represented in the media by current on type operational people who can with management approval convey in no nonsense technical language the facts relating to an incident or accident. Sure most readers would be ignorant of the meanings of acronyms etc. but those with half a brain could research and make some sense of what they read. For the rest spare them the ill informed musings of PR numpties and work experience reporters in the media. Company reporting should be vetted by the authors prior to publication to ensure media spin is not inserted. To be fair to news outlets, updates should be frequent and factual without interference from management if company reputation is perceived to be compromised.

Let me guess, are journalists paid by column inches or words? If so, this is why every article about anything refers to a tweet sent by someone and then shows the tweet in full. The New Daily the other day during the first QF incident repeated the same quotes at least three times at different points in the article. Are these people just writing what they 'think' something might be then just filling out the allotted or paid inches with drivel that goes over the same info again and again?

[AerialPerspective]

Not quite 5 year olds but there is a very good news crew in Australia made up of teenage reporters called "6 News". A lot of their content revolves around Australian Politics but they also cover other news as well, including this flight on their Twitter feed. They're worth checking out, they seem to be a lot more responsible and less sensationalist than the bigger organisations.

I think I've actually seen a young man interviewed that works for them, he was under 10 years of age I think. Yes, I've heard good things about them.

That's youth I guess, as yet uncorrupted by influence. I bet they also don't use 'impact', 'going forward', 'reaching out' and refer to everything as a 'space' too.

[layman]

While the stories are problematic for the news organisations, they are not always the journo's doing. Sub-editors 'play' with the story and can (sometimes) stuff up mightily what may have been quite reasonable to start with e.g. headlines and photos are usually added by the sub-editors.

A story about my organisation some years ago was a dogs breakfast that we couldn't comprehend. When I spoke to the journalist he was not amused - about 1/3 of his words were omitted and various paragraphs had been placed in seemingly random order by the sub-editor.

[Mooloo]

We already have moved towards the next couple of levels of redundancy. We did it decades ago. It’s called ETOPS. Or EDTO these days.

Sure. And that minimises the risk window. However if you lose two engines you’re still potentially looking at buying the farm if you’re over water. Bring back big quads!

[Nuasea]

That’s not what happened. No fire indications and no bottles were used.
Thank you but how do you know?

[Angle of Attack]

No fire, no vibrations, just a straight failure.

[43Inches]

So QF144 is getting an ATSB investigation for an engine failure because it featured in the news. But the other 8 or so group failures in a few months are nowhere to be found. Seems like it has to make the news in a sensational way to get looked at....

However if you lose two engines you’re still potentially looking at buying the farm if you’re over water. Bring back big quads!

Due to the gliding range on large jets the few double engine failures have resulted in reasonable results, from the Gimli Glider to the Hudson event and more appropriately Air Transat 236 which glided onto an island in the Azores. All with no loss of life. The main point is that if it's still controllable and you keep your cool, gliding a large jet into a safe place is achievable. After all the space shuttle glided every landing and that was a controlled brick.

TACA flight 110 in the 1980s landed on a grass levee after a double engine failure. The crew did so well Boeing only changed the engines and flew the 737 out off a nearby road (which in part used to be a ww2 strip).

[Icarus2001]

However if you lose two engines you’re still potentially looking at buying the farm if you’re over water.

Potentially. Potentially one of the dozens of satellites orbiting earth could land on a school killing hundreds of children.

Sully showed what is possible with little time to plan. Imagine two out from FL360. Chances are good for survival. Lord Howe…

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

It is actually a requirement under mat regulatory systems. It might seem excessive, but it gets the point across. A pan would seem to be adequate, but often the failure to communicate issues has led to bad days. Much of the world will only achieve curiosity from a Pan call.

Quite.

last time I did a pan call the approach controller didn’t even pass it on to tower and when I landed we were told to wait for stand as they hadn’t been told about it either.

if I had an engine failure I’d make a mayday call initially and then when I had it all under control maybe here after drift down and level off, or if it happened on take off, after the non normal checklist and after take off checklist etc I’d likely downgrade it to a pan.

Seems odd to me all these people criticising the captain for making a mayday initially. I’m sure they’ve all had lots of engine failures though so are likely more experienced.

[Matt48]

Just a thought, would the crew of QF144 be to start the APU mid flight, about 2hrs out of Auckland, or would it be too cold soaked.

[compressor stall]

Sure. And that minimises the risk window. However if you lose two engines you’re still potentially looking at buying the farm if you’re over water. Bring back big quads!
I thought we grew out of that mindset last century.

[Shark Patrol]

As much as the media reporting of aircraft incidents annoys me too, we have to admit that the mainstream media probably don’t care whether what is reported is essentially accurate or not. Most of the “great unwashed” that aren’t part of the aviation community wouldn’t be able to pick the difference between a 737 and a 787 and probably wouldn’t care. In this era of social media, the public has the attention span of a gnat, and the media are under pressure to get the story out ASAP. Also, sensationalism grabs the attention that the advertisers demand and, therefore, aeroplanes don’t descend rapidly, they “plummet”; the passengers aren’t concerned, they’re “terrified” and crews that handle inflight emergencies efficiently aren’t professional, they’re “heroes”. I have a feeling that the media don’t really care about accuracy anymore, and we should start getting used to it for our own sanity.

[Lasiorhinus]

By the way did we find out what the actual defect was?

The front fell off.

[tdracer]

Just a thought, would the crew of QF144 be to start the APU mid flight, about 2hrs out of Auckland, or would it be too cold soaked.
One of the things that grew out of ETOPS was a requirement for the APU to reliably start after an extended cold soak. I believe starting the APU after an engine failure during ETOPS is SOP.
Now, nothing is 100%. but the chance that the APU wouldn't start is quite small.

So QF144 is getting an ATSB investigation for an engine failure because it featured in the news. But the other 8 or so group failures in a few months are nowhere to be found. Seems like it has to make the news in a sensational way to get looked at....
We didn't necessarily get the local authorities involved, but pretty much every IFSD is investigated to determine the cause and take corrective action if appropriate. This is generally headed up by the engine manufacturer, with airframer and operator involvement as needed. If an operator has a rash of shutdowns it's in their best interest to understand what is going on - e.g. is there a systemic problem or was it was basically 'bad luck' (a statistical fluke). Shutdown rates are tracked for individual operators, and if it gets too high they can lose their ETOPS ticket.

Due to the gliding range on large jets the few double engine failures have resulted in reasonable results, from the Gimli Glider to the Hudson event and more appropriately Air Transat 236 which glided onto an island in the Azores. All with no loss of life. The main point is that if it's still controllable and you keep your cool, gliding a large jet into a safe place is achievable. After all the space shuttle glided every landing and that was a controlled brick.
A dual engine power loss at cruise gives you roughly 100 miles of gliding range - is there is a suitable place to land within that radius you have a pretty good shot at a good outcome. Obviously if your further than that (e.g. ETOPS) things can go south pretty fast.

TACA flight 110 in the 1980s landed on a grass levee after a double engine failure. The crew did so well Boeing only changed the engines and flew the 737 out off a nearby road (which in part used to be a ww2 strip).
Being a bit anal here, but actually they only had to change out one engine - they inspected the other engine and it was found to be serviceable.

[Chris2303]

So QF144 is getting an ATSB investigation for an engine failure because it featured in the news. But the other 8 or so group failures in a few months are nowhere to be found. Seems like it has to make the news in a sensational way to get looked at....

One wonders if the ATSB will include the 4 incidents in 3 days for QF and the NJS failures in the QF144 investigation? (I'm aware that not all air returns were engine failures)

[Mooloo]

As much as the media reporting of aircraft incidents annoys me too, we have to admit that the mainstream media probably don’t care whether what is reported is essentially accurate or not. Most of the “great unwashed” that aren’t part of the aviation community wouldn’t be able to pick the difference between a 737 and a 787 and probably wouldn’t care. In this era of social media, the public has the attention span of a gnat, and the media are under pressure to get the story out ASAP. Also, sensationalism grabs the attention that the advertisers demand and, therefore, aeroplanes don’t descend rapidly, they “plummet”; the passengers aren’t concerned, they’re “terrified” and crews that handle inflight emergencies efficiently aren’t professional, they’re “heroes”. I have a feeling that the media don’t really care about accuracy anymore, and we should start getting used to it for our own sanity.

It’s a little unfair to expect the media to be experts on aviation, they’ll play what’s in front of them and of course they’ll make the story as click baity as possible. This is their job. Like folks in the media “the great unwashed” also tend to over react to aviation incidents.

This us and them attitude some of us have isn’t helpful. At days end aviation is in the news for multiple turn backs in a short timeline. Coincidence or not, whether we like it or not, this is newsworthy.

[Lead Balloon]

Doesn’t help when someone purporting to have some aviation expertise is calling for a return to 4 engines.

[Australopithecus]

That’s true. The only reason to have four engines is that there are no five engined aircraft.

Old joke by the way , like the B-52 on only 7 engines mayday story.

[Chris2303]

Doesn’t help when someone purporting to have some aviation expertise is calling for a return to 4 engines.

"Captain, sir, number 4 engine has failed"
"Which side?"

[Dick Smith]

Two engines over long oceans is a classic example of affordable safety!

[Occy]

Just a thought, would the crew of QF144 be to start the APU mid flight, about 2hrs out of Auckland, or would it be too cold soaked.

When an engine fails, the checklist directs you to start the APU. It should start. But, in this case, it may have already been running… traditionally for ETOPS/EDTO on the 737 the APU is always left running. So if an engine (or generator) fails, you have an immediate backup. A few years ago, the concept of “APU on demand” AOD came in whereby some aircraft have their APUs monitored for reliability (includes regular start attempts after a long cold soak in cruise at high altitude) and provided they meet all the relevant maintenance criteria they can fly ETOPS with APU turned off.

[Matt48]

When an engine fails, the checklist directs you to start the APU. It should start. But, in this case, it may have already been running… traditionally for ETOPS/EDTO on the 737 the APU is always left running. So if an engine (or generator) fails, you have an immediate backup. A few years ago, the concept of “APU on demand” AOD came in whereby some aircraft have their APUs monitored for reliability (includes regular start attempts after a long cold soak in cruise at high altitude) and provided they meet all the relevant maintenance criteria they can fly ETOPS with APU turned off.

Thanks Occy.

[Matt48]

It’s a little unfair to expect the media to be experts on aviation, they’ll play what’s in front of them and of course they’ll make the story as click baity as possible. This is their job. Like folks in the media “the great unwashed” also tend to over react to aviation incidents.

This us and them attitude some of us have isn’t helpful. At days end aviation is in the news for multiple turn backs in a short timeline. Coincidence or not, whether we like it or not, this is newsworthy.

Some SLF think that the phrase ' we lost an engine', means it physically fell off the wing.

[Matt48]

Two engines over long oceans is a classic example of affordable safety!

As they say, it's all good until it isn't, hate to think if the remaining engine gives out from the extra expected of it and you're an hour from land.

[VHOED191006]

We all have one common goal: to reassure the public that flying is safe. Unfortunately, those effects are being diminished by the constant circus show and tomfoolery that the media displays. Perhaps we should all start a movement, directed at the media, to do a similar act of what the French did to their royal family!

[FullWings]

Due to the gliding range on large jets the few double engine failures have resulted in reasonable results, from the Gimli Glider to the Hudson event and more appropriately Air Transat 236 which glided onto an island in the Azores. All with no loss of life. The main point is that if it's still controllable and you keep your cool, gliding a large jet into a safe place is achievable. After all the space shuttle glided every landing and that was a controlled brick.
To add to that, all of the double engine failures on jet twins that I can think of were caused by things that made the number of engines irrelevant, like running out of fuel (AT236), or fuel contamination (BA38). The engines themselves are statistically very reliable and the chance of them failing at the same time for unrelated causes is so low it can be realistically discounted.

[AerocatS2A]

As they say, it's all good until it isn't, hate to think if the remaining engine gives out from the extra expected of it and you're an hour from land.
Having flown a BAe146 for a few hours and an A320, I know which would one I'd rather have an engine failure in 180 minutes from the nearest suitable, and it's not the one with five APUs four engines.

[Lead Balloon]

As they say, it's all good until it isn't, hate to think if the remaining engine gives out from the extra expected of it and you're an hour from land.So four engines required, each one of which is capable of sustaining the flight of the aircraft.

Then we need to set up a 24/7 air-air refuelling fleet, cruising and ready to deliver fuel mid-ocean crossing, to the (mid-air refuelling-capable) four-engined aircraft, because it doesn’t matter how many engines you have if you lose all the motion lotion due to a defect or damage. After all, the probabilities of losing all the motion lotion are about the same as losing both of the engines on a modern, transport category aircraft.

Run it past ICAO. (That’d be the same ICAO that hasn’t got GADDS through yet, more than seven years after MH370.)

[tdracer]

Two engines over long oceans is a classic example of affordable safety!

You're under the mistaken assumption that more than two engines automatically makes it safer. Statistically, there is no basis for that.
While more than two engines makes it less likely you'll experience an all engine power loss, it increases the probability of experiencing a catastrophic engine failure - e.g. engine fire, uncontained failure that damages critical systems, etc.
As long as there is a certain level of engine reliability (which is required by ETOPS), when you add engines (above two), the increase in probability of a catastrophic engine failure is greater than the reduction in probability of an all engine power loss.

BTW, I didn't make that up - it's the entire basis of ETOPS.

[timbo1]

The townsville refueller has it on good advice, that is was a catastrophic thronomeister failure, that caused the shutdown

[Chronic Snoozer]

The townsville refueller has it on good advice, that is was a catastrophic thronomeister failure, that caused the shutdown

Perhaps it was a current generation engine which simply decided to “lie flat.”

[VHOED191006]

Perhaps it was a current generation engine which simply decided to “lie flat.”
I've heard that instead of it being the left, it was the right phalange.

[AerialPerspective]

We all have one common goal: to reassure the public that flying is safe. Unfortunately, those effects are being diminished by the constant circus show and tomfoolery that the media displays. Perhaps we should all start a movement, directed at the media, to do a similar act of what the French did to their royal family!

I read an article a while back (can't remember where unfortunately) and it was titled something like "What the media gets wrong about aviation".

It went into quite a bit of depth, even criticizing the use of the term 'tarmac' for everything not grass at an airport. Of course, the majority of major airports have concrete runways, taxiways and aprons and tarmac is a road surface material.

Perhaps someone should set up a website, a la 'Media Watch' that highlights errors in the media v.v. aviation.

Lots of material. If anyone has time, look at the occasional article (space filler) in Traveler and other newspaper travel sections that occasionally rehash articles about various aspects of aviation. Not one of them seems to have even the benefit of looking at wikipedia, let alone even bothering to do a nanosecond of research, with very, very basic errors.

[Ollie Onion]

The media kept saying they ‘lost and engine over the Tasman Sea’, I hope they can find it!

[Australopithecus]

I have been told that the failure was the quill shaft which drives the accessory gear box which is one of those failures that you don’t hear discussed as a possibility. Fairly instant way of winding an engine down.

[C441]

The media kept saying they ‘lost and engine over the Tasman Sea’, I hope they can find it!
:) And while we’re at it….there’s often a difference between an engine failure and an engine shutdown. The “lost” engine may have failed or it may not but it doesn’t have to “fail” to be shutdown.

[rb14]

...it was a comment on how an MBA and having seen an aeroplane fly over once are about all the qualifications required to be an airport manager or a senior departmental manager in one of the most complex, specialist industries in the world.
It's not rocket science.

[Cedrik]

It's not rocket science.
The main task of any manager senior middle or other is not to accept responsibility for anything, it's always somebody else's fault.

[AerialPerspective]

The main task of any manager senior middle or other is not to accept responsibility for anything, it's always somebody else's fault.

That never used to be the case, but some of the absolute drones and Dunning-Kruger case-studies in positions now it wouldn't surprise me. Even if they get wedged and look like having to take responsibility, they trot out all the weasel word 'reaching out' nonsense and 'resetting expectations, going forward, so they can 'celebrate' success'.