Safety bureau awaits Jetstar incident report
Bottums Up
Thanks Douglas. You're not suggesting that the ground agent would go home as soon as the last flight has departed, are you? Aren't they required to stay in attendance until ATD + 30? 
I guess when the 146 drivers get onto the 71, if it all gets too much they can just shut one down and revert to 146 times!
I guess when the 146 drivers get onto the 71, if it all gets too much they can just shut one down and revert to 146 times!
It seems the pilots concerned made one assumption that I wonder about - that is that the failure of one engine was not caused by something that would cause the second engine to follow the first and fail later.
I wonder if this assumption is justified?
I wonder if this assumption is justified?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then ask about multiple bird-strikes.
"Land at the nearest suitable airport."
Not that I'm saying it was a bird-strike, I don't know why they lost the engine but I can't see anyone eating up 200 track miles in the time it takes to go through the QRH.
Flying over water on one donk having just left a suitable airport seems like something I'd be hard-pressed to explain, myself. But I wasn't there...
By the way, as stated above, during EFATO in a light piston twin, the other engine will usually only serve to take you to the scene of the accident!
"Land at the nearest suitable airport."
Not that I'm saying it was a bird-strike, I don't know why they lost the engine but I can't see anyone eating up 200 track miles in the time it takes to go through the QRH.
Flying over water on one donk having just left a suitable airport seems like something I'd be hard-pressed to explain, myself. But I wasn't there...
By the way, as stated above, during EFATO in a light piston twin, the other engine will usually only serve to take you to the scene of the accident!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erudite and cunning, Spotlight?... me?
Nah, just a professional pilot for 40 yrs who learnt a bit about airmanship from some good teachers!
Not too many of them around these days, more's the pity!
Nah, just a professional pilot for 40 yrs who learnt a bit about airmanship from some good teachers!
Not too many of them around these days, more's the pity!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without being in posession of the facts about this occurence I would definately hesitate in passing judgement upon actions taken by the crew in this situation.Obviously professional clowns like Amos etc have a far deeper insight into what happened.
Would any of you clowns like to inform us at what point during the flight that the engine problem actually occured.
Would any of you clowns like to inform us at what point during the flight that the engine problem actually occured.
The questions are - and I don't know the answers cause I wasn't there...
What runway was the wind favouring - ie was it going to be an ILS or an OMNI approach, was the weather crappy - Launy can get some nasty turbulence on final - do you want to do a night single engine go around because the aircraft became unstable late in the approach?
What is the landing performance on 1 engine like - the 737 lands at Flap 15 on one engine - I assume that the 717 is similar - Launy is shortish at around 2000m - with a dip to make life interesting.
I can easily see 200 nm being chewed up doing the engine fire severe damage checklist, the normal after takeoff checklist, communicating with ATC, the Crew and company, completing the approach brief and then the one engine inoperative landing checklist..
What height and distance were they when the engine failed - would they have had to do holding patterns to lose height to make an approach into Launy - if they were 50 nm Launy and 24-26 000 ft they would need more than 50 track miles to get back down.
The captain is permitted under the CAO's to make a determination regarding landing at the nearest suitable airport - he/she obviously exercised that authority when chosing to fly to Melbourne.
As for MKV11's suggestions regarding Burnie or Devonport - I don't think that those particular airports would be suitable for an aircraft like the 717 in this situation - I have not looked closely but that is my gut impression I certainly wouldn't put a 737 into there.
Ultimately we weren't there, so it isn't fair on our fellow professional colleagues to armchair quarterback their decisions - how would you feel if it was YOUR decisions being mulled over by the masses on this forum?
What runway was the wind favouring - ie was it going to be an ILS or an OMNI approach, was the weather crappy - Launy can get some nasty turbulence on final - do you want to do a night single engine go around because the aircraft became unstable late in the approach?
What is the landing performance on 1 engine like - the 737 lands at Flap 15 on one engine - I assume that the 717 is similar - Launy is shortish at around 2000m - with a dip to make life interesting.
I can easily see 200 nm being chewed up doing the engine fire severe damage checklist, the normal after takeoff checklist, communicating with ATC, the Crew and company, completing the approach brief and then the one engine inoperative landing checklist..
What height and distance were they when the engine failed - would they have had to do holding patterns to lose height to make an approach into Launy - if they were 50 nm Launy and 24-26 000 ft they would need more than 50 track miles to get back down.
The captain is permitted under the CAO's to make a determination regarding landing at the nearest suitable airport - he/she obviously exercised that authority when chosing to fly to Melbourne.
As for MKV11's suggestions regarding Burnie or Devonport - I don't think that those particular airports would be suitable for an aircraft like the 717 in this situation - I have not looked closely but that is my gut impression I certainly wouldn't put a 737 into there.
Ultimately we weren't there, so it isn't fair on our fellow professional colleagues to armchair quarterback their decisions - how would you feel if it was YOUR decisions being mulled over by the masses on this forum?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Labuan
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DHD - Bernie and Devonport were both serviced by the DC-9 in times gone by. They are MORE than suitable in regards to performance factors with the 717. Maybe not as "good" services, firefighting etc, but defintiely a possibilty in times of dire need.
Douglas McDonnell made mention, for some reason, of the pitot and static systems being on the nose, and not affected by an engine problem. Well, I was NOT referring to pitot and static in my response regarding damaged sensors, but rather in regards to engine instrumentation / sensors may be DAMAGED or faulty (particularly in regards to a catastrophic failure) - anyone remember the AN 727 that had an engine fire in No2, where the engine sensors were damaged, and the crew were BLISSFULLY unaware of the problem??? Damaged engine sensors....
Let's wait and see just exactly what WAS the fault with the engine, but it surely does NOT sound like a surge or otherwise, or even an uncommanded shutdown as VH-VQC did out of YMLT in 2002.
Amos2, we must've had the same mentors!
Douglas McDonnell made mention, for some reason, of the pitot and static systems being on the nose, and not affected by an engine problem. Well, I was NOT referring to pitot and static in my response regarding damaged sensors, but rather in regards to engine instrumentation / sensors may be DAMAGED or faulty (particularly in regards to a catastrophic failure) - anyone remember the AN 727 that had an engine fire in No2, where the engine sensors were damaged, and the crew were BLISSFULLY unaware of the problem??? Damaged engine sensors....
Let's wait and see just exactly what WAS the fault with the engine, but it surely does NOT sound like a surge or otherwise, or even an uncommanded shutdown as VH-VQC did out of YMLT in 2002.
Amos2, we must've had the same mentors!
I'm not sure there'd be much of a case for diversion to Wynyard or Devonport, Mk VIII.
Notwithstanding the fact you'd have them headed in to an MBZ at night for an approach they have never probably carried out (on one engine no less), a LDA of 1650m and 1830m respectively, no company facilities or agent on the ground and probably even no stairs for B717.
I can't imagine you would find 103 hotel rooms in either of these places either....
Notwithstanding the fact you'd have them headed in to an MBZ at night for an approach they have never probably carried out (on one engine no less), a LDA of 1650m and 1830m respectively, no company facilities or agent on the ground and probably even no stairs for B717.
I can't imagine you would find 103 hotel rooms in either of these places either....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Labuan
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't saying they SHOULD have diverted to Bernie or Devonport; just that they were POSSIBILITIES if Launy was not suitable (which it was).
I think finding 103 beds would be the least of my worries in consideration to press on into a dark night over the Tasman on one donk or not...
Let's revise something: Aviate, navigate, Communicate, satisfy accountants.
I think finding 103 beds would be the least of my worries in consideration to press on into a dark night over the Tasman on one donk or not...
Let's revise something: Aviate, navigate, Communicate, satisfy accountants.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are in way over your head here MK8. As Buckshot pointed out, Bernie and Devonport are last resort bolt holes. The term suitable isnt as good as it sounds.
Your continued use of the term "Catastrophic" leads me to think that you might be sitting in the back?
Diverting to small airports in the middlof the night, especially ones that you dont operate into, only further complicates a trying situation.
DM
Your continued use of the term "Catastrophic" leads me to think that you might be sitting in the back?
Diverting to small airports in the middlof the night, especially ones that you dont operate into, only further complicates a trying situation.
DM
MKII, (more points off)
What DM says would be indicative of what a good commander, after assessing many factors, would do.
Decisions are not based soley on distance.
Enough said - this post is going nowhere!
What DM says would be indicative of what a good commander, after assessing many factors, would do.
Decisions are not based soley on distance.
Enough said - this post is going nowhere!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
The debate is surely about the weight placed upon subparagraph 3.2(d) of CAO 20.6 by the Captain versus the view of the PPRuNe jury. What will be of greater interest is whether the regulator might form a view, once apprised of the facts and circumstances.
DM,
The certification rules establish certain reliability/redundancy standards and under the EROPs rules potentially allow aeroplanes to fly a long way without intermediate options. The B717 certification may allow that aeroplane to fly even further than your quoted 380nm. But it is the operating rules that establish the 60 minute route distance limitation (75 minutes basically by request) and set out the continuation of flight criteria contained in CAO 20.6.
By your argument, it would be reasonable for B717 that suffered a failure 40 miles out of Newcastle to overfly Sydney enroute to Melbourne, simply because it satisfied in isolation a navigation planning rule.
That would be an interesting discussion....
Stay Alive,
The debate is surely about the weight placed upon subparagraph 3.2(d) of CAO 20.6 by the Captain versus the view of the PPRuNe jury. What will be of greater interest is whether the regulator might form a view, once apprised of the facts and circumstances.
DM,
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.
By your argument, it would be reasonable for B717 that suffered a failure 40 miles out of Newcastle to overfly Sydney enroute to Melbourne, simply because it satisfied in isolation a navigation planning rule.
That would be an interesting discussion....
Stay Alive,
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe a great deal of the protagonist respondees here have no idea how to properly read and comprehend an answer given by someone.
RTFA CORRECTLY, then type the dribble.
Honestly guys, there is still so much of this "Them and US" mentality in Australian aviation. Can we at least CONSIDER contemplating someones alternative suggestion without yelling how wrong they obviously are in YOUR opinion?
Reading ONE particular respondee, I got the distinct impression that HE was either PIC or PNF on THAT flight.
RTFA CORRECTLY, then type the dribble.
Honestly guys, there is still so much of this "Them and US" mentality in Australian aviation. Can we at least CONSIDER contemplating someones alternative suggestion without yelling how wrong they obviously are in YOUR opinion?
Reading ONE particular respondee, I got the distinct impression that HE was either PIC or PNF on THAT flight.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this thread has suffered a "CATASTROPHIC FAILURE ".
4 Dogs you have missed the point all together. casting doubt on others actions without knowing the facts sounds like the sort of back hangar antics you would find at bankstown.
I think some of you guys need to get out and do some flying overseas. Widen your perspective a little.
Looking for the passport DM
4 Dogs you have missed the point all together. casting doubt on others actions without knowing the facts sounds like the sort of back hangar antics you would find at bankstown.
I think some of you guys need to get out and do some flying overseas. Widen your perspective a little.
Looking for the passport DM
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested to know from any Jetstar drivers whether their SOPs conform to mainline SOPs as regards ETOPs/nonETOPs flights.
In QF mainline, domestic flights are usually not flown to ETOPs standards (with the exception of East coast-West coast flights). Therefore, the flights need only be planned to within 60 minutes of an Adequate airport. Under QF nomenclature, an Adequate airport can be planned for use in a contingency, but does not need to be of the same standard as a Main or Alternate airport - those airports which are regularly used by Qantas. Emergency airports are even more rudimentary. Mount Isa is an example of an Adequate airport and Paraburdoo is an example of an Emergency airport (for the 767).
There is a distinction made in QF SOPs between "nearest suitable" and "nearest available". "Nearest available" is essentially any airport that can be used - for example if an uncontrollable fire occurs (or any other dire emergency). "Nearest suitable" is either a Main or Alternate airport that does not itself require an alternate for weather. Therefore, if an engine failure occurs (without any concurrent dire emergency) on the 767, the PIC is not required to divert to the nearest Adequate airport, but can continue to the nearest Main/Alternate airport - similar to the guidance in CAO 20.
To get my own head around this concept (having been a recent convertee to QF twin-engined operations) I once posed a question to the PIC on a Melbourne- Sydney flight. Canberra, which is midway between the two is a "Main/Alternate" airport for the 767. "Therefore", I asked the Captain, "if we were halfway between Melbourne and Sydney and an engine failed, we should divert into Canberra. Is that correct?" "Yes", he replied. Canberra has limited facilities for the 767, so I asked him, "Would you land in Canberra?" "Weeeeellllllll", he said, "I would make sure that by the time I had run the checklists, discussed the problem and weighed up my options that Sydney would be closer than Canberra."
For all of the Monday-morning quarterbacks out there, I offer this information for further consideration.
PS If any Jetstar pilots read this, do your SOPs align with mainline in this regard?
In QF mainline, domestic flights are usually not flown to ETOPs standards (with the exception of East coast-West coast flights). Therefore, the flights need only be planned to within 60 minutes of an Adequate airport. Under QF nomenclature, an Adequate airport can be planned for use in a contingency, but does not need to be of the same standard as a Main or Alternate airport - those airports which are regularly used by Qantas. Emergency airports are even more rudimentary. Mount Isa is an example of an Adequate airport and Paraburdoo is an example of an Emergency airport (for the 767).
There is a distinction made in QF SOPs between "nearest suitable" and "nearest available". "Nearest available" is essentially any airport that can be used - for example if an uncontrollable fire occurs (or any other dire emergency). "Nearest suitable" is either a Main or Alternate airport that does not itself require an alternate for weather. Therefore, if an engine failure occurs (without any concurrent dire emergency) on the 767, the PIC is not required to divert to the nearest Adequate airport, but can continue to the nearest Main/Alternate airport - similar to the guidance in CAO 20.
To get my own head around this concept (having been a recent convertee to QF twin-engined operations) I once posed a question to the PIC on a Melbourne- Sydney flight. Canberra, which is midway between the two is a "Main/Alternate" airport for the 767. "Therefore", I asked the Captain, "if we were halfway between Melbourne and Sydney and an engine failed, we should divert into Canberra. Is that correct?" "Yes", he replied. Canberra has limited facilities for the 767, so I asked him, "Would you land in Canberra?" "Weeeeellllllll", he said, "I would make sure that by the time I had run the checklists, discussed the problem and weighed up my options that Sydney would be closer than Canberra."
For all of the Monday-morning quarterbacks out there, I offer this information for further consideration.
PS If any Jetstar pilots read this, do your SOPs align with mainline in this regard?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: S392421 E1460523
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mk8
From long memory, WYY and DPO were not serviced by B727 or DC9. BA146 and F28 used to be used for RPT services, and of course, F27
Since the B717 does not normally operate to these locations, so it would have been unfamiliar territory.
spinout
Probably not because at the point the engine problem occurred, the distance to ML was about the same as to HB (allowing for the 180deg turn)
Bernie and Devonport were both serviced by the DC-9 in times gone by.
Since the B717 does not normally operate to these locations, so it would have been unfamiliar territory.
spinout
Was Hobart ever considered??