Safety bureau awaits Jetstar incident report
Regarding the Ba 747,the Faa are talking cr
as their rules regarding carrying on are the same when it comes to a 4 engined aircraft. the yanks overall dont have many 4 engined aircraft
thats why they think everything has 2! then of course you go to the nearest suitable airfield. .By the way that 717 hardly plumetted out of the sky,it was at FL260 after the failure was sorted,so sayeth my atc friends
as their rules regarding carrying on are the same when it comes to a 4 engined aircraft. the yanks overall dont have many 4 engined aircraftthats why they think everything has 2! then of course you go to the nearest suitable airfield. .By the way that 717 hardly plumetted out of the sky,it was at FL260 after the failure was sorted,so sayeth my atc friends
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Plan to land at the nearest AVAILABLE AIRPORT" says the checklist.
"We fly Qantas group safety standards to the tee. Jetstar doesn't operate an aircraft unless it is 100 per cent operable,"says the jetstar spruiker
Remind me again jetstar spruiker why jetstar stopped recruiting to the Qantas Group standard that all other groups within Qantas are recruiting to. Couldn't get them through the hoops perhaps????
PLAN TO LAND AT THE NEAREST AVAILABLE AIRPORT pretty simple really.
What would be the headline if No. 2 had given up 40 miles south of Melbourne.
I can see it now:
"Stupid Pilot error causes death of passengers"
A jetstar pilot, after seeking advice from ops control, decided to press on to Melbourne on one engine after losing the other engine to catastrophic engine failure last night. Captain XXX determined that pressing on to melbourne, even though less than 40 miles from Launceston at the time, was the better option in what proved to be an incredible show of poor airmanship last night. On board was Senator XXX who is survived by his wife and four children. Senator XXX's wife was today being counselled by professional medical staff after her devastating loss".
What do you think you would be remembered for as the Pilot?
"We fly Qantas group safety standards to the tee. Jetstar doesn't operate an aircraft unless it is 100 per cent operable,"says the jetstar spruiker
Remind me again jetstar spruiker why jetstar stopped recruiting to the Qantas Group standard that all other groups within Qantas are recruiting to. Couldn't get them through the hoops perhaps????
PLAN TO LAND AT THE NEAREST AVAILABLE AIRPORT pretty simple really.
What would be the headline if No. 2 had given up 40 miles south of Melbourne.
I can see it now:
"Stupid Pilot error causes death of passengers"
A jetstar pilot, after seeking advice from ops control, decided to press on to Melbourne on one engine after losing the other engine to catastrophic engine failure last night. Captain XXX determined that pressing on to melbourne, even though less than 40 miles from Launceston at the time, was the better option in what proved to be an incredible show of poor airmanship last night. On board was Senator XXX who is survived by his wife and four children. Senator XXX's wife was today being counselled by professional medical staff after her devastating loss".
What do you think you would be remembered for as the Pilot?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without endorsing or criticising the actions of the crew I can say that the QRH checklist actually states,
Land at nearest SUITABLE airport
There is a difference Jake and if you don't know that than its a wonder how you got through those all important HOOPS !
Land at nearest SUITABLE airport
There is a difference Jake and if you don't know that than its a wonder how you got through those all important HOOPS !
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Labuan
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez Douglas McDonnell, you know a LOT about me. You can think that if you so desire my friend.
Let's see, suitable airport: For an airport to be suitable, it shall have the capabilities, services and facilities necessary to be designated as an adequate airport and have weather conditions and field conditions at the time of the particular operation which provide a high assurance that an approach and landing can be safely completed with an engine and/or systems inoperative, in the event that a diversion to an enroute alternate becomes necessary. For planning purposes, the en route alternate weather minima are higher than the weather minima required to initiate an instrument approach.
Launceston met "Suitable Requirements" last night.
My Boeing manuals (not 717) "Non normal ops" section state that in the event of "Engine severe damage accompanied by high vibration....[reduce vibration by] reducing airspeed and decrease altitude. Once airframe vibration is reduced to acceptable levels, the crew must evaluate the situation and determine a new course of action based on weather, fuel remaining, and available airports" Jetstar obviously did this, but why was the decision made to press-on to the mainland, considering Launceston was SUITABLE AND AVAILABLE???
So, what mitigating circumstances dictated NOT returning to Launceston?
A LOT can go wrong in an hour (Launy - Melbourne, normal ops). Why push it?
The decision I make, or you make in the same circumstance will probably be different. I am NOT slagging off at the decision, just pondering why that decision, and how that decision was made.
Let's see, suitable airport: For an airport to be suitable, it shall have the capabilities, services and facilities necessary to be designated as an adequate airport and have weather conditions and field conditions at the time of the particular operation which provide a high assurance that an approach and landing can be safely completed with an engine and/or systems inoperative, in the event that a diversion to an enroute alternate becomes necessary. For planning purposes, the en route alternate weather minima are higher than the weather minima required to initiate an instrument approach.
Launceston met "Suitable Requirements" last night.
My Boeing manuals (not 717) "Non normal ops" section state that in the event of "Engine severe damage accompanied by high vibration....[reduce vibration by] reducing airspeed and decrease altitude. Once airframe vibration is reduced to acceptable levels, the crew must evaluate the situation and determine a new course of action based on weather, fuel remaining, and available airports" Jetstar obviously did this, but why was the decision made to press-on to the mainland, considering Launceston was SUITABLE AND AVAILABLE???
So, what mitigating circumstances dictated NOT returning to Launceston?
A LOT can go wrong in an hour (Launy - Melbourne, normal ops). Why push it?
The decision I make, or you make in the same circumstance will probably be different. I am NOT slagging off at the decision, just pondering why that decision, and how that decision was made.
Bottums Up
Gee they must perform well, FL240 in about 50 track miles.
Perhaps landing weight was a consideration and the PIC on the day thought that a flight on the cleared route, to destination, arriving at or below MLW was a better choice than returning to LT and holding to burn down to MLW.
Wasn't there. Don't know. Just don't see a need to suggest the crew didn't operate safely or prudently.
Perhaps landing weight was a consideration and the PIC on the day thought that a flight on the cleared route, to destination, arriving at or below MLW was a better choice than returning to LT and holding to burn down to MLW.
Wasn't there. Don't know. Just don't see a need to suggest the crew didn't operate safely or prudently.
Here,here capt claret. There are as many armchair experts on this forum as on the main one. I would also hate to be one of these experts on a 777 going from the caribbean to the uk.A donk goes and you are over 2 hours from a suitable place,as
has happened on a number of occasions(and worse over the pacific).Thats a long time for them to sweat it out in the back.
Perhaps by the time this crew had sorted everything out and gone through their options they were near the half way point anyway.
has happened on a number of occasions(and worse over the pacific).Thats a long time for them to sweat it out in the back.
Perhaps by the time this crew had sorted everything out and gone through their options they were near the half way point anyway.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter how much you guys castigate the "armchair critics" they are going to have their say regardless.
On that basis, those of you who argue in support of this unfortunate 717 skipper, and tell others to shut up, why not put together a coherent argument rather than use the tired old line of "you don't know, you weren't there!"
For my part, well there but for the crace of God go I. But I CAN learn something here. Claret, I don't fly the 717, but I don't think it is outside the realms of possibilities for a light a/c to reach F240 by 50nm. Which in turn would put it below max LDGW.
And even if it were above max LDGW, personally I think I'd prefer to stay over land rather than water if I were flying an aircraft that has already had one go quiet.
BUT, having said all that, if the engine went quiet at 50nm and F240, then presuming they guys stayed on their flight planned track, by the time they had sorted everything out, chances are they would be on Bracksie's side of the pond anyway?
Just my 2c!
On that basis, those of you who argue in support of this unfortunate 717 skipper, and tell others to shut up, why not put together a coherent argument rather than use the tired old line of "you don't know, you weren't there!"
For my part, well there but for the crace of God go I. But I CAN learn something here. Claret, I don't fly the 717, but I don't think it is outside the realms of possibilities for a light a/c to reach F240 by 50nm. Which in turn would put it below max LDGW.
And even if it were above max LDGW, personally I think I'd prefer to stay over land rather than water if I were flying an aircraft that has already had one go quiet.
BUT, having said all that, if the engine went quiet at 50nm and F240, then presuming they guys stayed on their flight planned track, by the time they had sorted everything out, chances are they would be on Bracksie's side of the pond anyway?
Just my 2c!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Skylab
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of a two engined jet transport aeroplane that suffers an engine failure en route, there should be no objection to the crew continuing to the destination after the crew have assessed the situation and found that being the best and safest option.
What more needs to be said? you guys are arguing bullsh!t
What more needs to be said? you guys are arguing bullsh!t
Last edited by Pete Conrad; 21st Mar 2005 at 00:05.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mk8 and Co. I think Pete has summed it up. Probably a good time to re read the BIG RED WARNING at the bottom of the screen. Its fairly obvious from these attitudes as to why so many Aussie pilots throw their collective hands in the air and head overseas.
All I ever wanted to do was come back home. Im wondering why.
DM
All I ever wanted to do was come back home. Im wondering why.
DM
Just be a little careful what you comment on in this forum. If today's attempt at a news story beat-up (see below) is anything to go by, I reckon there are a few journos in our midst.
Airline backs captain of stricken 717
By NICK CLARK
22mar05
BUDGET airline Jetstar yesterday defended a captain's decision to fly a stricken plane to Melbourne rather than bring it back to Launceston on Friday night.
The flight from Launceston to Melbourne with 102 passengers on board plunged 1200m after an engine on the Boeing 717 blew up.
Jetstar issued a distress call as a result of the explosion in the engine.
The plane flew on one engine and landed without incident in Melbourne.
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said the aircraft had been about halfway into the journey and that Melbourne was the most appropriate place to fly to.
"It was at the top of its ascent so it was a debating point which was the best place to go to but Melbourne is a 24-hour airport so it was the right decision," he said.
"By the time it had turned around it would not have made a lot of difference in time."
The Rolls Royce engine was replaced in Melbourne on Saturday and the plane was back in service on Sunday.
Mr Westaway said safety had been the major reason for deciding where the plane was taken.
He said that Launceston had the appropriate safety levels but Melbourne had been the right decision.
Deputy director of Aviation Safety Investigation with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau Alan Stray said Jetstar had 72 hours to supply more information on the incident.
Mr Stray said the engine might be disassembled overseas by counterpart agencies to the ATSB.
Air Services Australia spokesman Ben Mitchell said the Aviation Rescue and Firefighting Service in Launceston was more than capable of handling the aircraft.
"The Launceston facilities are based on Civil Aviation Safety Authority standards and the [rescue and firefighting service] has to meet certain categories to service types and size of aircraft," he said.
The rescue and firefighting service would have been available on call for the incident but would not have been at the airport at the time of the incident, Mr Mitchell said.
Airline backs captain of stricken 717
By NICK CLARK
22mar05
BUDGET airline Jetstar yesterday defended a captain's decision to fly a stricken plane to Melbourne rather than bring it back to Launceston on Friday night.
The flight from Launceston to Melbourne with 102 passengers on board plunged 1200m after an engine on the Boeing 717 blew up.
Jetstar issued a distress call as a result of the explosion in the engine.
The plane flew on one engine and landed without incident in Melbourne.
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said the aircraft had been about halfway into the journey and that Melbourne was the most appropriate place to fly to.
"It was at the top of its ascent so it was a debating point which was the best place to go to but Melbourne is a 24-hour airport so it was the right decision," he said.
"By the time it had turned around it would not have made a lot of difference in time."
The Rolls Royce engine was replaced in Melbourne on Saturday and the plane was back in service on Sunday.
Mr Westaway said safety had been the major reason for deciding where the plane was taken.
He said that Launceston had the appropriate safety levels but Melbourne had been the right decision.
Deputy director of Aviation Safety Investigation with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau Alan Stray said Jetstar had 72 hours to supply more information on the incident.
Mr Stray said the engine might be disassembled overseas by counterpart agencies to the ATSB.
Air Services Australia spokesman Ben Mitchell said the Aviation Rescue and Firefighting Service in Launceston was more than capable of handling the aircraft.
"The Launceston facilities are based on Civil Aviation Safety Authority standards and the [rescue and firefighting service] has to meet certain categories to service types and size of aircraft," he said.
The rescue and firefighting service would have been available on call for the incident but would not have been at the airport at the time of the incident, Mr Mitchell said.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How very interesting, an article discussing the very essence of this thread, and without journalstic interpretation.
It shouldn't matter who reads this forum, as long as something is learnt by one, and correctly passed on to others.
It shouldn't matter who reads this forum, as long as something is learnt by one, and correctly passed on to others.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I make no comment on the incident,
I refer to the the mouthpiece/apologist for J*
Isn't it amazing that he claims they operate to QF group standards. Funny how the maggot Irishman Joyce didn't want "mainline pilots in the company as it would pollute the culture"
I'm sure the culture that our engineers would instill in J* is one reason why the pilots do their own turnarounds....
QF mainline standards are conveniently bought out when needed be they pilot or engineering. The name built up over 80 years that the company doesnt seem to care about is indeed a significant tool when a tu*d of an operation needs it
AND IM NOT REFERRING TO THE PILOTS concerned in this incident OR THE RECRUITING STANDARD...That's an entirely different question
I refer to the the mouthpiece/apologist for J*
Isn't it amazing that he claims they operate to QF group standards. Funny how the maggot Irishman Joyce didn't want "mainline pilots in the company as it would pollute the culture"
I'm sure the culture that our engineers would instill in J* is one reason why the pilots do their own turnarounds....
QF mainline standards are conveniently bought out when needed be they pilot or engineering. The name built up over 80 years that the company doesnt seem to care about is indeed a significant tool when a tu*d of an operation needs it
AND IM NOT REFERRING TO THE PILOTS concerned in this incident OR THE RECRUITING STANDARD...That's an entirely different question
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Pete Conrad on this. You ARE all arguing the proverbial.
And in doing so you're lending credibility to such asinine assertions as; "The plane plunged 1200 metres in a matter of seconds".
It was certainly an unusual incident, but by all accounts the subsequent actions of the crew were textbook and not even a matter of grave concern (hence the "Pan" call).
And in doing so you're lending credibility to such asinine assertions as; "The plane plunged 1200 metres in a matter of seconds".
It was certainly an unusual incident, but by all accounts the subsequent actions of the crew were textbook and not even a matter of grave concern (hence the "Pan" call).
Last edited by flyingins; 22nd Mar 2005 at 04:24.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strewth!!...no wonder aviation is at an all time low in this country at the moment.
An RPT a/c on climb out of Launceston loses a donk and carries on to Mel/Avalon, whatever, when Launceston is available just over the shoulder, and you turkeys think that's a great decision!
GOD help us all and protect us from you lot!
An RPT a/c on climb out of Launceston loses a donk and carries on to Mel/Avalon, whatever, when Launceston is available just over the shoulder, and you turkeys think that's a great decision!
GOD help us all and protect us from you lot!
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at the risk of asking a dumba$$ question,
somewhere in the darkness of depths of my memory I recall learning that when a problem exists with the/an engine on tkof, that you looked for a place to land that was in front of you, not behind or to the side of you.
Now I realise that LT is obviously behind as it was after tkof from there, the acft was on 1 engine and very obviously vastly different technology from what I've flown, but wouldn't that very basic principle still apply?
when Launceston is available just over the shoulder
Now I realise that LT is obviously behind as it was after tkof from there, the acft was on 1 engine and very obviously vastly different technology from what I've flown, but wouldn't that very basic principle still apply?
Just to answer your question,TV, these aircraft climb out VERY well on one donk, part of the cert. rules, so a basic engine failure after t/o (and there are many variables here) would still allow an aircraft a lazy circuit back to land if the airfield is "suitable". and that term of suitable is open to all sorts of definitions depending on company type/aircraft type etc....but remember it is a very dynamic enviroment out there with all sorts of variables and despite all the pilot "hanging" you are reading about on this particular thread none of these guys/gals were actually in the seat at the time.
Bottums Up
Voice,
No such thing as a dumba$$ question.
EFATO in a single is definitely a case of look for somewhere close to dead ahead for the inevitable landing.
EFATO in a light twin, one has more options but often only the inevitable touch down, as many light twins won't go too well on only one engine.
EFATO in a transport category aircraft, and the B717 is one, requires a guaranteed level of performance which should guarantee safe flight to a suitable landing point.
The permutations are numerous. Amos2 has suggested that leaving LT was a bad choice. Another perspective might be that the straight line distance LT to ML is 257ish NM. Given that the 717 was about 50nm from LT, the distance to run is 200nm.
I'd guess that it would take about half an hour to run through the QRH, consider any special landing considerations, secure the cabin, contact company, etc. etc.
In this time the aircraft may have travelled close to 200nm (haven't flown one .... yet), so, the crew could assess the problem and decide to either continue on flight planned and cleared track, using the enroute time to prepare for the subsequent single engine landing, or, return to LT which requires a new clearance, a new assessment of traffic, consideration of where to hold, at what level, then, monitor the hold while they fly around in circles preparing.
I guess we know what they chose, no one yet knows why. Personally I place no credence on the press report of an engine explosion, or plummetting out of the sky, given that I've read press reports about incidents that I was closely involved in, an they have had almost no resemblance to the actual event.
No such thing as a dumba$$ question.
EFATO in a single is definitely a case of look for somewhere close to dead ahead for the inevitable landing.
EFATO in a light twin, one has more options but often only the inevitable touch down, as many light twins won't go too well on only one engine.
EFATO in a transport category aircraft, and the B717 is one, requires a guaranteed level of performance which should guarantee safe flight to a suitable landing point.
The permutations are numerous. Amos2 has suggested that leaving LT was a bad choice. Another perspective might be that the straight line distance LT to ML is 257ish NM. Given that the 717 was about 50nm from LT, the distance to run is 200nm.
I'd guess that it would take about half an hour to run through the QRH, consider any special landing considerations, secure the cabin, contact company, etc. etc.
In this time the aircraft may have travelled close to 200nm (haven't flown one .... yet), so, the crew could assess the problem and decide to either continue on flight planned and cleared track, using the enroute time to prepare for the subsequent single engine landing, or, return to LT which requires a new clearance, a new assessment of traffic, consideration of where to hold, at what level, then, monitor the hold while they fly around in circles preparing.
I guess we know what they chose, no one yet knows why. Personally I place no credence on the press report of an engine explosion, or plummetting out of the sky, given that I've read press reports about incidents that I was closely involved in, an they have had almost no resemblance to the actual event.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Clarrie and Rocky,
From my knowledge base I did know that it would have taken sometime for a complete check of equipment to have been completed, including what may or may not have been damaged in an explosion, based on what happened with the Dash v eagle at BM all those years ago, and what info was passed to me by the crew and what actually took place on landing WRT equipment failure on landing ...
.. and you're right of course, there isn't really a dumba$$ Q when it comes to things aviation. All helps me do my job better for my boys (and gals) and their toys.
From my knowledge base I did know that it would have taken sometime for a complete check of equipment to have been completed, including what may or may not have been damaged in an explosion, based on what happened with the Dash v eagle at BM all those years ago, and what info was passed to me by the crew and what actually took place on landing WRT equipment failure on landing ...
.. and you're right of course, there isn't really a dumba$$ Q when it comes to things aviation. All helps me do my job better for my boys (and gals) and their toys.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Claret. Single engine TAS is 380kts. The QRH checklist for servere engine damage is about 1 and a half pages. It realy doesnt take that long to complete.
From previous experience Id reckon that Qantas Launy had most likely gone home. This is the last departure out of Launy for the day.
Communications with "Ops" in Melbourne arent available to around 130 nm ML. If the aircraft was lower, this distance will obviously be closer. As I have stated before, Id reckon that the service level available at Launy would be a large consideration. Id be hesitant to return to an MBZ with services driving in from town, and perform a single engine circling approach into a Black hole.
Heading to an airport such as ML with 24/7 services and straight in approaches on the ILS is a very sound option.
The certification of these aircraft require them to be able to fly to a SUITABLE airport within 1 hour single engine TAS distance. Ie, 380 nm. This debate about continuing or returning realy isnt valid considering the certification process involved with high capacity RPT aircraft.
I feel the more valid question is, why the hell do we have to operate jet airliners into and out of non controlled airports. Considering how much federal funding goes into touchy feely projects, couldnt we at least make sure ATC services are available at major airports. No matter what time of day it is?
Cost cutting?
languishing in the top tax bracket. DM
From previous experience Id reckon that Qantas Launy had most likely gone home. This is the last departure out of Launy for the day.
Communications with "Ops" in Melbourne arent available to around 130 nm ML. If the aircraft was lower, this distance will obviously be closer. As I have stated before, Id reckon that the service level available at Launy would be a large consideration. Id be hesitant to return to an MBZ with services driving in from town, and perform a single engine circling approach into a Black hole.
Heading to an airport such as ML with 24/7 services and straight in approaches on the ILS is a very sound option.
The certification of these aircraft require them to be able to fly to a SUITABLE airport within 1 hour single engine TAS distance. Ie, 380 nm. This debate about continuing or returning realy isnt valid considering the certification process involved with high capacity RPT aircraft.
I feel the more valid question is, why the hell do we have to operate jet airliners into and out of non controlled airports. Considering how much federal funding goes into touchy feely projects, couldnt we at least make sure ATC services are available at major airports. No matter what time of day it is?
Cost cutting?
languishing in the top tax bracket. DM