Air Nelson Engine Shutdown NZWN
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 52
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Nelson Engine Shutdown NZWN
what's up with air nelson today into wellington with a engine with 0 torque?
happened this morning saturday 19 march. two days after st paddy's day!!!!!!
the boys requested priority and it made an uneventful approach and landing. saw it on the gate afterwards and i thought i saw a lot of fluid on the ground under one of the engines?
anyone care to explain?
by the way for you aussies air nelson fly SAAB340's. that's with two engines for u tasmanians
happened this morning saturday 19 march. two days after st paddy's day!!!!!!
the boys requested priority and it made an uneventful approach and landing. saw it on the gate afterwards and i thought i saw a lot of fluid on the ground under one of the engines?
anyone care to explain?
by the way for you aussies air nelson fly SAAB340's. that's with two engines for u tasmanians
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by the way for you aussies air nelson fly SAAB340's. that's with two engines for u tasmanians
SAAB's have been flying to TASMNANIAm for many years now.
Personally I am surprised gthat you K1W1's have gotten past Richard Pearce being surpassed as the worlds first flyer!!!!!!
HOWEVER.... NZ does have a LOT of things to it's credit:
1/ Pavlova
2/ Phar Lap
3/ Rugby Union (per capita!)
4/ First to let the female vote ....(jury STILL out on that one!
5/ Sir Edmund Hillary
6/ Hamilton Jet (BOAT!!!!)
7/ ... OK.... Neeed help NOW ????!!!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ does have a LOT of things to it's credit:
Oh, and of course King Kong!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Now Jaffa, firstly is there a hood in Queenstown?
Secondly...
You obviously have'nt watched a game of AFL since the early 90's, tight nut hugging shorts went out ages ago. When we realised they intereferred with our ability to produce offspring to be drafted under the Father/Son rule.
Cheers, HH.
Secondly...
How can those players call themselves men when they go running around a sports feild trying to look cool in nut hugger shorts
Cheers, HH.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porn Star
Your argument regarding point number 3 i.e that NZ rugby is better on a "per Capita" basis doesn't hold water
If you go to the Australian & the NZ official websights you will notice that the number of registered players in both countries is :-
Australia - 135621
NZ - 137592
So this indicates that NZ have more, albeit slightly, registered players
So the "per Captita" argument doesn't wash
Your argument regarding point number 3 i.e that NZ rugby is better on a "per Capita" basis doesn't hold water
If you go to the Australian & the NZ official websights you will notice that the number of registered players in both countries is :-
Australia - 135621
NZ - 137592
So this indicates that NZ have more, albeit slightly, registered players
So the "per Captita" argument doesn't wash
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fantasy movies about little men with hairy feet... and err...... big apes with hairy bodies.....
Apart from The Castle, that was quite funny... "uuummmmm, two stroke"
Lemme see...film success stories... Peter Jackson or Paul Hogan... hmm hard choice that. Of course Peter Jackson is so rich now he could buy the West Island and still have change.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, it wasn't an insult.... i think Peter and the Kiwis did a fab job to try and make a movie that wasn't too far off the mark....
not easy to make a Tolkien movie and keep the majority happy!
Sky
not easy to make a Tolkien movie and keep the majority happy!
Sky
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, I know... don't worry I wasn't insulted.
However for my money, "The Castle" is one of the funnier movies ever made... any of you Aussies seen it? I think we were the only ones who ever hired it from the little Blockbuster in Kinross, Scotland. I think my F/O thought I was nuts the next day, I kept laughing for no reason that he could see...
However for my money, "The Castle" is one of the funnier movies ever made... any of you Aussies seen it? I think we were the only ones who ever hired it from the little Blockbuster in Kinross, Scotland. I think my F/O thought I was nuts the next day, I kept laughing for no reason that he could see...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR...us kiwi's can even beat the Ozzies..drinking english pints!....as for Australia...I was alway under the impression is was a large barren island off the west coast of NZ
By the way..how is Scare(air) to there goin?.....still got its AOC?
Oh yeah..as for the castle..."Yeah I gotta shift the Camira..." the getting the car out scene...pure magic
By the way..how is Scare(air) to there goin?.....still got its AOC?
Oh yeah..as for the castle..."Yeah I gotta shift the Camira..." the getting the car out scene...pure magic
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 20deg N, 35deg C
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to bring this thread back to reality for a moment...
If a pilot has a problem and specifically requests that services NOT be notified, should that flight then be afforded priority?
If said pilot then notifies ATC that there is zero thrust on one engine should ATC follow the procedures as published in the AIP and at least declare a 'Local Standby' contrary to the pilots wishes?
What would motivate a pilot with such a problem to decline a 'local standby' at the airport apart from the poor publicity the company may receive?
Should the PR departments desire to create the least possible poor publicity detract from sensible and safe operations when a pilot is presented with a malfunction?
I suggest that loosing the other engine on short final for 16 without services at least at a state of readiness would provide far greater bad publicity
If a pilot has a problem and specifically requests that services NOT be notified, should that flight then be afforded priority?
If said pilot then notifies ATC that there is zero thrust on one engine should ATC follow the procedures as published in the AIP and at least declare a 'Local Standby' contrary to the pilots wishes?
What would motivate a pilot with such a problem to decline a 'local standby' at the airport apart from the poor publicity the company may receive?
Should the PR departments desire to create the least possible poor publicity detract from sensible and safe operations when a pilot is presented with a malfunction?
I suggest that loosing the other engine on short final for 16 without services at least at a state of readiness would provide far greater bad publicity
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This a complete no-brainer.
You do what the Ops Manual says to do. If the Air Nelson Ops Manual resembles the one most airlines use, it will say that an engine failure (which is what it is) warrants, at the minimum, a PAN call. I'm not an ATCO, but I'm betting that the ATCO on duty has no choice but to go to a "local standby" if he knows that the aircraft has a problem. He will normally ask the pilot whether he wishes to declare either urgency (PAN) or emergency. I can't imagine any possible reason for not doing so. If he doesn't follow the Ops Manual, he is in fact breaking the law.
By the way, zero torque is correct. There is no measurement of thrust on the flight deck, but there is a guage that gives you a measurement of torque, and that is what tells you the engine isn't producing any.
You do what the Ops Manual says to do. If the Air Nelson Ops Manual resembles the one most airlines use, it will say that an engine failure (which is what it is) warrants, at the minimum, a PAN call. I'm not an ATCO, but I'm betting that the ATCO on duty has no choice but to go to a "local standby" if he knows that the aircraft has a problem. He will normally ask the pilot whether he wishes to declare either urgency (PAN) or emergency. I can't imagine any possible reason for not doing so. If he doesn't follow the Ops Manual, he is in fact breaking the law.
By the way, zero torque is correct. There is no measurement of thrust on the flight deck, but there is a guage that gives you a measurement of torque, and that is what tells you the engine isn't producing any.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 20deg N, 35deg C
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
It should be a no brainer but unfortunately it's not!
I refer to the AIP ENR1.15-12
7.2.1 The ATS unit on the aerodrome is responsible for alerting the emergency services, following a request from a pilot or when an aircraft is considered to be in any of the following emergency phases...
it goes on to detail Local Standby, Full Emergency and Aircraft Accident phases.
7.2.2 When an emergency occurs in flight and adequate communications exist, the pilot is responsible for advising the ATS unit accordingly and for nominating the desired state of readiness of the emergency services. If adequate comm's with the aircraft do not exist, the ATS unit will assess the situation and bring the aerodrome emergency services to the state of readiness considered appropriate.
In this case the pilot specifically requested services NOT be advised. Adequate comm's existed therefore ATS didn't have the discretion to declare a Local Standby at the airport contrary to the pilots wishes.
My question again was, what would motivate a pilot to not declare an emergency apart from the poor PR?
and
Should a flight be afforded priority when the pilot specifically requests services NOT be notified?
From a personal perspective if a pilot requests priority but fails to advise the state of readiness I would declare a local standby anyway and wear the flack from the boss after the event.
With respect to your torque/thrust comments, I accept them however on the day in question as the aircraft crossed TY the pilot used the term 'zero thrust'.
Cheers TP
It should be a no brainer but unfortunately it's not!
I refer to the AIP ENR1.15-12
7.2.1 The ATS unit on the aerodrome is responsible for alerting the emergency services, following a request from a pilot or when an aircraft is considered to be in any of the following emergency phases...
it goes on to detail Local Standby, Full Emergency and Aircraft Accident phases.
7.2.2 When an emergency occurs in flight and adequate communications exist, the pilot is responsible for advising the ATS unit accordingly and for nominating the desired state of readiness of the emergency services. If adequate comm's with the aircraft do not exist, the ATS unit will assess the situation and bring the aerodrome emergency services to the state of readiness considered appropriate.
In this case the pilot specifically requested services NOT be advised. Adequate comm's existed therefore ATS didn't have the discretion to declare a Local Standby at the airport contrary to the pilots wishes.
My question again was, what would motivate a pilot to not declare an emergency apart from the poor PR?
and
Should a flight be afforded priority when the pilot specifically requests services NOT be notified?
From a personal perspective if a pilot requests priority but fails to advise the state of readiness I would declare a local standby anyway and wear the flack from the boss after the event.
With respect to your torque/thrust comments, I accept them however on the day in question as the aircraft crossed TY the pilot used the term 'zero thrust'.
Cheers TP
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilot used the term 'zero thrust'
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 20deg N, 35deg C
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the pilot was aware that the term torque may have little relevance to ATC given our knowledge of aircraft systems does not extend to such terminology and the particular systems on different aircraft types.
There are many of my collegues who think of jet engines as 'suck and blow' and what ever happens in between is a mystery. All we want to know is whether the engine is working or not!
This isn't a one off case either as there have been a number of instances over the years where a pilot for one reason or another has been reluctant to declare urgency or an emergency. All I'm interested in knowing is why there is the reluctance to follow fairly explicit guidlines.
There are many of my collegues who think of jet engines as 'suck and blow' and what ever happens in between is a mystery. All we want to know is whether the engine is working or not!
This isn't a one off case either as there have been a number of instances over the years where a pilot for one reason or another has been reluctant to declare urgency or an emergency. All I'm interested in knowing is why there is the reluctance to follow fairly explicit guidlines.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
It would be safe to say that whenever a prop is feathered, it is producing zero (or very slightly negative) thrust, regardless of torque being applied to it. As TinPusher said, the term zero thrust has more relevance to most people, and is also correct.
With respect to the state of urgency (or lack there of), I have seen pilots request a local standby for far less than a complete engine failure. Most of us would agree that it is better have the services on standby even if it is very unlikely they will be needed. Requesting a local standby is just not a big deal compared to the consequences if it did all go pear shaped.
Many people would over estimate the impact of an engine failure in this context, and I think some pilots may over compensate by treating it as a completely normal situation (perhaps in a effort to educate the ill-informed). While it should never be a major problem, a single engine approach and landing is certainly not normal and I can't see any reason not to declare urgency. Who would the blame be placed with if it did hit the fan?
I don't know the full details of this incident so these considerations may or may not apply.
It would be safe to say that whenever a prop is feathered, it is producing zero (or very slightly negative) thrust, regardless of torque being applied to it. As TinPusher said, the term zero thrust has more relevance to most people, and is also correct.
With respect to the state of urgency (or lack there of), I have seen pilots request a local standby for far less than a complete engine failure. Most of us would agree that it is better have the services on standby even if it is very unlikely they will be needed. Requesting a local standby is just not a big deal compared to the consequences if it did all go pear shaped.
Many people would over estimate the impact of an engine failure in this context, and I think some pilots may over compensate by treating it as a completely normal situation (perhaps in a effort to educate the ill-informed). While it should never be a major problem, a single engine approach and landing is certainly not normal and I can't see any reason not to declare urgency. Who would the blame be placed with if it did hit the fan?
I don't know the full details of this incident so these considerations may or may not apply.
