Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

EK413 engine failure..

Old 13th Nov 2012, 05:21
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 49
Posts: 180
I dont fly jets at all or in and out of YSSY. (I did twice, 20 yrs ago in a C210 tho)
But RE the curfew, I thought the curfew was for departing off the 34's or landing on the 16's after hours, if you can land/takeoff using 34/16 then you can ?
Lancair70 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 06:32
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
That is why they spoke to company and the company decided that they wanted the jet back in Sydney. If the company had wanted them to continue to Singas, and if the captain felt that the aircraft was in good shape (minus one engine) they would have continued.
Whilst it's nice to be able to talk to the company and get their opinion, and I would certainly take it into consideration to a point, But to be advised to fly away from a major port for eight hours to say Singapore (Brisbane or melbourne I can understand) for commercial reasons after an engine failure??? I know where I'd be filing that advice!

Although I guess it does come down to the culture and policies of the employees company on the day and the pressures put on the crews.

IMHO, at the end of the day it's my name and licence on the line.

EK has had a 380 shut down an engine in the past (due low oil pressure) over Aus, and continued 3 engines to Dubai.
Was that over Australia or was it in Aus airspace over the Indian Ocean?

But RE the curfew, I thought the curfew was for departing off the 34's or landing on the 16's after hours, if you can land/takeoff using 34/16 then you can ?
I think it's an RPT restriction or a aircraft weight restriction for the curfew between 11pm-6am. There is a few exemptions to land no earlier than 5am but using 34.
Stalins ugly Brother is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 08:09
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15
At one stage, BNE Center advises aircraft in the vacinity of Mudgee and Scone that there will be a fuel dump from an A330 commencing at flight level 190. Oh well, an Airbus is an Airbus.
fix767 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 08:48
  #44 (permalink)  
VC9
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
For those who have no experience of 4 engine aircraft, the failure of 1 engine use to be considered a normal operation. All options were usually still available. Continue to a preferred maintenance base was a far better option than landing somewhere and then having to do a 3 engine ferry.
VC9 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 09:04
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,343
For the record, EK has had a 380 shut down an engine in the past (due low oil pressure) over Aus, and continued 3 engines to Dubai.
Not possible under Australian regs! EK obviously have different rules!
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 09:13
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,343
Curfew restrictions do not apply for abnormal operations.

Division 2—Emergencies and dispensations

18 Aircraft may take off or land in emergencies or if Minister grants dispensation

An aircraft may take off from, or land at, Sydney Airport in circumstances that would otherwise contravene section 7, 10 or 11 if:

(d) there is an urgent need for the aircraft to land or take off:
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 10:39
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Present Position
Posts: 44
The operations manual takes precedence

Airlines operate to rules approved by their home regulator. Many foreign regulations are disregarded by Qantas for example, because CASA is viewed by foreign regulators as a competent authority, able to make reasonable restrictions on the operations of their carriers. Its reciprocal...we don't require overseas carriers to comply with every bit of trivia in our AIP either.

And BTW, +1 on four engined ops. Zero panic. Otherwise explain the DC-10

A probably false story doing the rounds thirty years ago had a B-52 declaring a mayday after an engine failure. A calmer voice transmitted "Ah yes, the dreaded seven engine approach!"

Last edited by Twin Beech; 13th Nov 2012 at 10:42.
Twin Beech is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 12:49
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 191
I think that if it was a straight failure then a continuation on a 4 engine aircraft is a distinct possibility. If it was severe damage, fire/flames reported (and in this case it was) then I would be landing at the nearest suitable airport regardless of how many engines you have. What if the fanblade seizes? I don't think you'd be able to continue for 12 hours......
Bypass ratio is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 13:28
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: YSBK
Age: 31
Posts: 41
but no doubt Richard the C will be on the telly tonight referring us to his bible and how they should have handled landing a four engined aircraft with just three engines, on a short-ish 4000m runway
A new book maybe???
CPT733 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 16:12
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
From A340 FCTM: quoting FAR121.565 as guidance..."If no more than 1 engine is shutdown on an aeroplane with 3 or more engines, the regulations permit the PIC to fly beyond the nearest suitable airport in point of time if he determines that doing so is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport."
strut780 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 19:31
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 247
The discussion about continuing or not after an engine failure on a 4 engine aircraft stemmed from a comment of surprise from someone that the 413 crew were even considering it.

The fact is you can continue.

I'm not (and never was) advocating any particular course of action in this specific case. Wether you continue or not depends on the nature of the failure, collateral damage, company requirements, fuel etc etc. Gathering this information would have taken time and there was nothing to lose in remaining on course for 12 minutes while this information was gathered. They weren't critical for time or certainly didn't appear to be!

As stated before, a PAN call was a choice they made that could easily be downgraded but gave them the priority if they needed or wanted it.

Perhaps some here advocate the following approach to an engine failure after take off, "In the event of an engine failure, we'll join downwind at 1500', remain at take off flap, do what checklists we can, and make a visual approach".

Sadly I still occasionally hear this briefing.

Last edited by atiuta; 13th Nov 2012 at 19:32.
atiuta is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 21:44
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
SUB - I don't know your background. But if you had time on 4 eng aircraft you would know that an engine failure is not an emergency. You do not have to declare a pan for an engine failure on a 4 eng aircraft. There is no pressure, the company will not say - YOU MUST LAND YOUR AIRCRAFT HERE. They will provide information from their point of view, and as captain, you decide whether you will use their advice or not. It is part of CRM
Ex-380, I haven't flown any other jet In my career other than a four engine jet, and I agree, a straight forward failure is not a big deal. However, taking into consideration your point in space at the time of the said failure I would be very hesitant to leave the airspace of a major port and fly eight hours because I can. I would still return or divert to the most suitable airport for the pax/crew/company/ and me. If that's eight hours so be it, but if it's two hours guess where I'm going?

Maybe im not as brave as some!

Last edited by Stalins ugly Brother; 13th Nov 2012 at 21:46.
Stalins ugly Brother is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 23:32
  #53 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,924
Originally Posted by Stalins ugly Brother
However, taking into consideration your point in space at the time of the said failure I would be very hesitant to leave the airspace of a major port and fly eight hours because I can. I would still return or divert to the most suitable airport for the pax/crew/company/ and me. If that's eight hours so be it, but if it's two hours guess where I'm going?
Modern aircraft are a flying computer networks. The airlines engineering control on the ground can see the different systems, they can see the engine parameters. They have a good idea of what has happened as quick as the pilots do.

With the fuel load onboard they could go a long way on 3 engines. The aircraft would have been well above the maximum landing weight, so unless they were on fire, it will be some time before they could have landed. Landing or doing a missed approach on 3 engines at maximum landing weight does not have the same buffers compared to a lighter fuel load.

If they went to Singapore, they could have all the passenger handling aspects done during the 8 hour flight, and possibly an engine on its way to meet the aircraft from DXB. Good luck quickly getting hotel rooms for everyone late at night in Sydney.

Flying for 8+ hours on 3 engines in a quad would happen worldwide several times a year. You may recall a case where BA had a compressor stall leaving LAX, and went onto Manchester on 3 engines. the FAA controller filed a complaint as he saw flames coming from the aircraft, it was his opinion they should have landed.
swh is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 23:48
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 199
You may recall a case where BA had a compressor stall leaving LAX, and went onto Manchester on 3 engines.
Actually from memory they diverted to MAN after declaring a fuel emergency because they couldn't make LHR on 3.
Buckshot is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2012, 00:46
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,426
Actually from memory they diverted to MAN after declaring a fuel emergency because they couldn't make LHR on 3.
Actually they did have enough fuel, if you read the report BA used there own non Boeing fuel balance procedure (basically using O/J pumps only and not turning off boost pumps) this only works up to a point and that point was Manchester after the investigation BA now use the correct Boeing procedure.

The crew had been using the override/jettison pumps to maintain fuel balance but these became ineffective towards the end of the flight. Thereafter, there was a reluctance to turn both main pumps off in a tank and a lack of confidence that this would be effective. There was ncreasng concern that they would not be able to keep the main tanks balanced and that some of the fuel might be unavailable.
A better understanding of the fuel system should have reassured the crew that fuel should have been avalable to all engines even with one tank empty. Nevertheless, the awareness of the apparent problem came at a time when the crew had made the decision to divert, had started the descent to Manchester and was therefore busy. If the crew had been n the habt of utlsng the manufacturer’s procedures for balancing fuel by only using the main pumps, it is possible that they would have become more confident with the procedure. Although the problem had not previously been encountered by other company pilots, the potential difficulties might have been foreseen by the operator. After the ncdent, the operator reverted to the manufacturer’s fuel handling procedures.
SMOC is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2012, 12:47
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
At 1 hour out from SYD the run time remaining to DXB would have been 13.5 hours chock to chock, not 8 hours and probably more with 1 mill deadheading.

Is it possible that the fuel useage compensating for the dead #3 engine along with the drag for rudder deflection for compensating for the thrust imbalance may have made the potential range of the aeroplane a factor?

Probably something I shouldn't throw into the mix but just interested. I was always told and taught that a clean well trimmed aeroplane was a fast and fuel efficient one.

best all

EWL
Eastwest Loco is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 04:08
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,426
I'd say they could have made Bombay, however I doubt anyone would want to stop in India with the amount of paperwork required to get all the punters on the move again.
SMOC is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 10:17
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dubai
Posts: 2
3/4

MASTEMA,

Continuing to destination with 3 engines on a 4 engine a/c is not a problem at all (if it was a normal engine shutdown due to low oil pressure, high EGT, etc) and of course if the fuel onboard allows to do so.

An A340-500 from MAD/DXB continued to desination with 3 engines.
20 minutes after airborne the PIC had to shutdown engine #3 due to high EGT, the a/c made it to DXB with a DPP flight plan.

Last edited by Totenkopf; 15th Nov 2012 at 10:19.
Totenkopf is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2012, 21:09
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Warm & Sunny
Posts: 94
So what actually happened to the bloody engine....??
Alien Role is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2012, 11:50
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
So what actually happened to the bloody engine....??
Flames came out of the front and went ca-put!
Engineer_aus is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.