Air NZ 737 donk goes pop
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 34
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuff has reported on a second engine failure, this time on a b1900 operated by eagle.
Second Air New Zealand engine drama - travel | Stuff.co.nz
Second Air New Zealand engine drama - travel | Stuff.co.nz
Join Date: May 2011
Location: nz
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
radio nz accurate
I was on this flight and surprisingly the radio new zealand report is in fact, the more accurate. There was 3 bangs close together, a violent slewing of the aircraft and fine blue smoke inside the cabin. An experience not to be repeated.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Otautahi (awright, NZCH)
Age: 74
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, RReds. Your observation gives me a clue as to what may have happened. I'll keep quiet until the official report(s) come through.
Not a pleasant experience though, even for a seasoned traveller.
Now, where's the third engine failure? Everyone knows that bad luck always runs in threes. Doesn't it?
So which one have our eagle-eyed journos not spotted?
Another glass of red, garçon.
Le Vieux
Not a pleasant experience though, even for a seasoned traveller.
Now, where's the third engine failure? Everyone knows that bad luck always runs in threes. Doesn't it?
So which one have our eagle-eyed journos not spotted?
Another glass of red, garçon.
Le Vieux
A suitable airport is not black and white. And yes you are getting mixed up with EDTO. Are you telling me if HN was open you must go to HN?
What if HN was max X wind and Min vis. Also short rw that if LDR was factored the a/c could not land. Still technically suitable but is this wise?
AA is CAVOK with better RFF, longer. That is your nearest suitable in my opinion unless it is a dire situation.
Granted on the day HN was fine and well done to the crew, I'm just interested in the debate on nearest suitable not in casting opinions on this event.
What if HN was max X wind and Min vis. Also short rw that if LDR was factored the a/c could not land. Still technically suitable but is this wise?
AA is CAVOK with better RFF, longer. That is your nearest suitable in my opinion unless it is a dire situation.
Granted on the day HN was fine and well done to the crew, I'm just interested in the debate on nearest suitable not in casting opinions on this event.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the nearest SUITABLE airport time wise.
Amongst other factors, weather, aircraft status, pilot experience and familiarity may influence which airport is deemed to be "suitable" on the day.
Amongst other factors, weather, aircraft status, pilot experience and familiarity may influence which airport is deemed to be "suitable" on the day.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see it now. 737 in cruise everyone relaxed down the back. Two pilots "monitoring" up front - one reading the newspaper the other filling in the tech log. Then a loud bang like a compressor stall which it probably was. And if you haven't seen or heard a compressor stall then believe me the bang is real loud and scary.
Aircraft yaws because the autopilot does not control the rudders. "Wot the f..k"? sez the captain. Both look at the engine instruments. The captain decides to shut down the engine (which by now has probably recovered itself from the compressor stall) and closes the offending engine thrust lever while still on autopilot. Big yaw now occurs because of the closed throttle and someone up front is a bit slow to prevent further yaw.
Someone maybe disconnects the autopilot and instinctively applies rapid aileron and spoilers to get the aircraft on a even keel. Spoilers at high altitude in cruise can cause rapid wing waggling caused by overcontrolling.
By now a couple of hundred few feet of altitude loss is evident, the altitude alerter sounds causing someone up front to exclaim "s..t!" and further overcontrols both ailerons and elevators to get back to cleared level. Finally everything is under control again and the autopilot is carefully re-engaged and a PA is made to the people down the back who were the recipients of the momentary harsh over-controlling made in haste rather than deliberate.
To the startled passengers it felt like the 737 was porpoising and rolling rapidly for maybe 5-10 seconds as the crew got over their own momentary fright. Any dead heading pilot down the back I'm sure would be equally startled as the passengers at the sudden yaw and rolls that occured.
It is not like a planned simulator session where the pilot knows roughly when the instructor will fail an engine and is ready on the rudder. From a smooth cruise to a sudden loud unexpected bang or multiple bangs and yaw would likely cause even the most switched on crew up front to be victim of the startle factor and lose a few seconds before they had things calmly under control up front within the regulatory allowance of +/- 20 degrees in initial yaw to +/- 5 degrees in subsequent heading.
Aircraft yaws because the autopilot does not control the rudders. "Wot the f..k"? sez the captain. Both look at the engine instruments. The captain decides to shut down the engine (which by now has probably recovered itself from the compressor stall) and closes the offending engine thrust lever while still on autopilot. Big yaw now occurs because of the closed throttle and someone up front is a bit slow to prevent further yaw.
Someone maybe disconnects the autopilot and instinctively applies rapid aileron and spoilers to get the aircraft on a even keel. Spoilers at high altitude in cruise can cause rapid wing waggling caused by overcontrolling.
By now a couple of hundred few feet of altitude loss is evident, the altitude alerter sounds causing someone up front to exclaim "s..t!" and further overcontrols both ailerons and elevators to get back to cleared level. Finally everything is under control again and the autopilot is carefully re-engaged and a PA is made to the people down the back who were the recipients of the momentary harsh over-controlling made in haste rather than deliberate.
To the startled passengers it felt like the 737 was porpoising and rolling rapidly for maybe 5-10 seconds as the crew got over their own momentary fright. Any dead heading pilot down the back I'm sure would be equally startled as the passengers at the sudden yaw and rolls that occured.
It is not like a planned simulator session where the pilot knows roughly when the instructor will fail an engine and is ready on the rudder. From a smooth cruise to a sudden loud unexpected bang or multiple bangs and yaw would likely cause even the most switched on crew up front to be victim of the startle factor and lose a few seconds before they had things calmly under control up front within the regulatory allowance of +/- 20 degrees in initial yaw to +/- 5 degrees in subsequent heading.
Last edited by A37575; 9th May 2011 at 10:16.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: ex everywhere
Age: 72
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, I'll admit that after 23 years on the type, I'm still learning, but is it just me, or is A37575's post deeply offensive to anyone else whose qualified ?
I've done sectors as short as 22 minutes, and as long as 6 hours, but I don't recall ever being as slack as this poster insinuates.
It seems, according to A37575, that any sort of formal investigation is not required, he/she has it all completely sussed. Clearly, it was badly handled by the flight crew on the day.
I flew this aircraft for six different operators .... FYI Sir, the flight crew of the airline in question, have a very high standard, to which a lot of other companies aspire.
If you have some " Inside knowledge " that you would like to share, then please go ahead. If you don't then IMHO, you should apologise on this thread.
This response was chardonnay assisted.
Regards Tpad
I've done sectors as short as 22 minutes, and as long as 6 hours, but I don't recall ever being as slack as this poster insinuates.
It seems, according to A37575, that any sort of formal investigation is not required, he/she has it all completely sussed. Clearly, it was badly handled by the flight crew on the day.
I flew this aircraft for six different operators .... FYI Sir, the flight crew of the airline in question, have a very high standard, to which a lot of other companies aspire.
If you have some " Inside knowledge " that you would like to share, then please go ahead. If you don't then IMHO, you should apologise on this thread.
This response was chardonnay assisted.
Regards Tpad
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tpad, I'm not offended by the remarks but they are unrealistic as far as an engine surge goes. I had one on a 737 and the thing was banging away like a barn door in a storm. There was, however, certainly no noticeable yaw because the loss of thrust during the actual surges was negligible. The autopilot coped very well with the event and certainly didn't produce the results as described. In diagnosing the problem there was no need to rush and there is nothing in the Boeing manuals that suggests you need to close the thrust lever so quickly that yaw in uncontrollable. We closed the thrust lever slowly and applied rudder because, amazingly, we know the autopilot doesn't do this and, by doing what any reasonable 737 pilots would do (and I certainly include Air NZ pilots in that description) we had no aerobatics as described. The autopilot stayed engaged and we maintained altitude (although started to slow to drift down speed). Again, there's no knee-jerk decisions to shut down the engine because once that thrust lever is closed the surging is reduced to a mere annoyance, if it continues at all (as ours did). So, once again, the dreaded yaw can be anticipated and easily countered by the PF. I have no idea at what stage of the game the Air NZ flight had their problem but mine required a descent as we were above the single-engine cruise altitude. Again, no need for dropping like a stone and/or recovering to the original level, as a quick chat with ATC will sort out that problem.
So, all in all, while I normally like A37575's comments, I think this one is over-the-top and certainly does not describe the actions of a trained 737 crew, even if they were relaxed and not coiled springs.
So, all in all, while I normally like A37575's comments, I think this one is over-the-top and certainly does not describe the actions of a trained 737 crew, even if they were relaxed and not coiled springs.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tpad
+1
I started a reply to that A3757390210 post the other night but in the end couldn't be bothered.
Every engine failure I've had at altitude (in the sim, anyway) has been a big non event.
This post is O.P Bundy endorsed.
W9.
+1
I started a reply to that A3757390210 post the other night but in the end couldn't be bothered.
Every engine failure I've had at altitude (in the sim, anyway) has been a big non event.
This post is O.P Bundy endorsed.
W9.
I was on this flight and surprisingly the radio new zealand report is in fact, the more accurate. There was 3 bangs close together, a violent slewing of the aircraft and fine blue smoke inside the cabin. An experience not to be repeated.
From a smooth cruise to a sudden loud unexpected bang or multiple bangs and yaw would likely cause even the most switched on crew up front to be victim of the startle factor and lose a few seconds before they had things calmly under control up front
"A violent slewing of the aircraft". No one is criticising the professionalism of the crew. Sometimes pilots do actually read a newspaper in flight. Others prefer to entertain themselves chatting up a female FA when she visits the flight deck. Nothing wrong with that. Often a pilot will fill in the fuel log in flight. The words "f..k and "s...it" are part of normal crew conversation in flight with some people and a startled oath when faced with an unexpected loud event in flight is entirely normal. The `violent slewing` described by the Pprune correspondent above is either a lie (I don't think so, do you?) or an accurate description of the event as it affected that contributor.
The post by A37575 was light hearted humour and tongue in cheek. Some people take themselves too seriously... lighten, up chaps
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: ex everywhere
Age: 72
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Centauras
On the red tonight, so taking myself a lot less seriously.
However, I still feel mildly aggrieved. For 38 years in the business, I watched the profession go down the tube in almost every category you like to name.
I just don't see the point in attacking a flight crew, of whom, the poster has almost certainly no personal or operational knowledge. If the post was made in jest, he/she needs another script writer.
I used to enjoy the fraternity of the game. Clearly that is long gone. In the race to the bottom, some of us just can't wait to bag the next guy.
We are paid not to scratch the paint. Ever !! QED.
They landed safely. Job well done.
What possible good can come of denigrating this crew ?
The customers also read these threads. IMHO the big picture is that it is unnecessary attack on all of us, that has no merit.
Having said that, I'm retired and don't really give a stuff.
Oh well, back to the Pinot
Regards Tpad
On the red tonight, so taking myself a lot less seriously.
However, I still feel mildly aggrieved. For 38 years in the business, I watched the profession go down the tube in almost every category you like to name.
I just don't see the point in attacking a flight crew, of whom, the poster has almost certainly no personal or operational knowledge. If the post was made in jest, he/she needs another script writer.
I used to enjoy the fraternity of the game. Clearly that is long gone. In the race to the bottom, some of us just can't wait to bag the next guy.
We are paid not to scratch the paint. Ever !! QED.
They landed safely. Job well done.
What possible good can come of denigrating this crew ?
The customers also read these threads. IMHO the big picture is that it is unnecessary attack on all of us, that has no merit.
Having said that, I'm retired and don't really give a stuff.
Oh well, back to the Pinot
Regards Tpad
Why Hamilton?
Apart from all the other reasons, perhaps a good choice?
Let's think about it ... maybe something is badly broken, and the aircraft could end up blocking its landing runway for some period, perhaps a long period.
What are the practicable choices?
Let's think about it ... maybe something is badly broken, and the aircraft could end up blocking its landing runway for some period, perhaps a long period.
What are the practicable choices?
- Go on to Wellington: single runway, NZ's busiest airport, hub of the entire Air NZ Domestic network, potential traffic disruption catastrophic;
- Go back to Auckland: single runway, NZ's principal international port of entry & exit, hub of trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman operations, potential traffic disruption major; or
- Divert to Hamilton: hub of insomnia, a place that makes Palmerston North look exciting, potential traffic disruption negligible or less
You have to be joking right?
As PIC your job is to get the aircraft back on the ground and not worry about any disruption it may cause at the airport you decide to use. Next thing you will be wanting to use airports with cheaper parking or the rail connections are better or some other lame reason.
If it is the closest and suitable then use it.
It appears in this case the engine was contained so a single engine landing is hardly likely to have caused a runway blockage.
You would look a bloody idiot to divert to a more distant airport on one donk and then it gives up the ghost before you get there.
As PIC your job is to get the aircraft back on the ground and not worry about any disruption it may cause at the airport you decide to use. Next thing you will be wanting to use airports with cheaper parking or the rail connections are better or some other lame reason.
If it is the closest and suitable then use it.
It appears in this case the engine was contained so a single engine landing is hardly likely to have caused a runway blockage.
You would look a bloody idiot to divert to a more distant airport on one donk and then it gives up the ghost before you get there.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Well it's an IRS nowdays, but the AHRS were fun.
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's think about it ... maybe something is badly broken, and the aircraft could end up blocking its landing runway for some period, perhaps a long period.
What are the practicable choices?
Go on to Wellington: single runway, NZ's busiest airport, hub of the entire Air NZ Domestic network, potential traffic disruption catastrophic;
Go back to Auckland: single runway, NZ's principal international port of entry & exit, hub of trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman operations, potential traffic disruption major; or
Divert to Hamilton: hub of insomnia, a place that makes Palmerston North look exciting, potential traffic disruption negligible or less
No choice, really
What are the practicable choices?
Go on to Wellington: single runway, NZ's busiest airport, hub of the entire Air NZ Domestic network, potential traffic disruption catastrophic;
Go back to Auckland: single runway, NZ's principal international port of entry & exit, hub of trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman operations, potential traffic disruption major; or
Divert to Hamilton: hub of insomnia, a place that makes Palmerston North look exciting, potential traffic disruption negligible or less
No choice, really
Suitable airport, well the only time I had an enroute issue like this, I was flying a November register with a yank copilot over Iran. However we still diverted to a suitable airport, it just took a little longer thats all.
