MERGED: Air Asia Turnback Perth 25 Jun 17
Turn back appears to have occurred about 465 nm from Perth.
Distance to Exmouth was then about 165 nm
Looking at the way the aircraft was shaking, I'd have thought Exmouth / Learmonth would have been the prime choice.
Distance to Exmouth was then about 165 nm
Looking at the way the aircraft was shaking, I'd have thought Exmouth / Learmonth would have been the prime choice.
Old fella
Surely there's no chance a windmilling engine would create severe vibration like that
What ever is causing the vibration would stop the windmill one would've thought
Surely there's no chance a windmilling engine would create severe vibration like that
What ever is causing the vibration would stop the windmill one would've thought
Posted in another thread
Surely Learmonth was the better option. Reasonably long from memory. Any 330 flight crew care to comment re likely landing weight vs RWY length? I recall actually seeing the QF 330 that did the nose over at Learmonth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by autoflight View Post
Were there no suitable closer airports than Perth?
Turn back appears to have occurred about 465 nm from Perth.
Distance to Exmouth was then about 165 nm
Looking at the way the aircraft was shaking, I'd have thought Exmouth / Learmonth would have been the prime choice.
Originally Posted by autoflight View Post
Were there no suitable closer airports than Perth?
Turn back appears to have occurred about 465 nm from Perth.
Distance to Exmouth was then about 165 nm
Looking at the way the aircraft was shaking, I'd have thought Exmouth / Learmonth would have been the prime choice.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, let's all make decisions from the comfort of our armchairs, without any knowledge of what was actually discussed and concluded by the guys who were actually handling the problem - and no doubt talking to the company!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by beamender99; 25th Jun 2017 at 10:04. Reason: clarification of link
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shotshotz
WRONG - A few years back an EK A330 suffered an engine failure (main fan blade separation during the climb at about 35000 ft) during departure from Lusaka, The crew shut it down, but the vibrations from the windmilling donk were so severe that the Captain told me he couldn't read any instrumentation, and thought that the engine would separate. They had 3 pilots on the sector and the augmenting FO had to do the landing performance calcs on the portable laptop, as the touch screen fixed EFB's were unusable. He said the vibrations only receded to comfortable levels when that slowed down with flap 2. 
Surely there's no chance a windmilling engine would create severe vibration like that
What ever is causing the vibration would stop the windmill one would've thought
What ever is causing the vibration would stop the windmill one would've thought
What was the reason to title this thread "Another A330 engine failure" ??
Airbus don't make the engines
Contrary to popular belief, modern airliners do not fall out of the sky if an engine fails - indeed modern twin jets are mandated to be certified to continue a take-off and fly safely on one engine. So, (depending on the severity of the situation), it is not always necessary or desirable to make an immediate landing at the nearest airfield.
Airbus don't make the engines
Contrary to popular belief, modern airliners do not fall out of the sky if an engine fails - indeed modern twin jets are mandated to be certified to continue a take-off and fly safely on one engine. So, (depending on the severity of the situation), it is not always necessary or desirable to make an immediate landing at the nearest airfield.
Did you look at the footage from the previous posts. That was a LOT of vibration from a windmilling engine.
Now do that for an hour and a half +.
As i said in an earlier post, it inevitably goes back to what constitutes a "suitable" airport for diversion.
I will readily admit that I do not know what that really means, and it seems, nor do many other contributors..
From other threads I have heard numerous arguments for "get it on the ground, ASAP".
Have a look at the thread for the event in northern Canada a couple of months ago.
Engine failure - land it in the tundra in a blizzard rather than somewhere with passenger friendly amenities and ground support.
Learmonth would most certainly have been available as an alternate.
In fact, other than Perth, it was probably the ONLY other suitable alternate within cooee.
Unless I'm mistaken, if Perth had closed up on them (not impossible at this time of year) their next options would have been back to Learmonth or head east to Adelaide.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of similarities with this one. Also avoided closer airports and flew a lot further to Melbourne. Mabye they have a mantra of getting back to the carriers port in order to avoided further costs being stranded in the middle of nowhere (costs before safety). Not unheard of in these bottom feeding low costs.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-101/
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-101/
Further favouring Exmouth / Learmonth as a choice.
I can not see any advantage to soldiering on all the way back to Perth other than convenience of repair facilities and handling disgruntled passengers.
And I didn't think that those factors were part of the "nearest suitable" equation.
I can not see any advantage to soldiering on all the way back to Perth other than convenience of repair facilities and handling disgruntled passengers.
And I didn't think that those factors were part of the "nearest suitable" equation.
OttoL and ronthefisherman: The engine would have been shut down. It would have continued to "windmill" and would not have been producing any thrust. There is no means of stopping the engine from continuing to rotate whilst ever there is sufficient airflow through the fan section to drive the engine.
That certainly adds another aspect to ETOPS, i would have thought.
The prospect of having the aircraft & passengers shaken for a few hours is not a great thought.
shotshotz
WRONG - A few years back an EK A330 suffered an engine failure (main fan blade separation during the climb at about 35000 ft) during departure from Lusaka, The crew shut it down, but the vibrations from the windmilling donk were so severe that the Captain told me he couldn't read any instrumentation, and thought that the engine would separate. They had 3 pilots on the sector and the augmenting FO had to do the landing performance calcs on the portable laptop, as the touch screen fixed EFB's were unusable. He said the vibrations only receded to comfortable levels when that slowed down with flap 2.
WRONG - A few years back an EK A330 suffered an engine failure (main fan blade separation during the climb at about 35000 ft) during departure from Lusaka, The crew shut it down, but the vibrations from the windmilling donk were so severe that the Captain told me he couldn't read any instrumentation, and thought that the engine would separate. They had 3 pilots on the sector and the augmenting FO had to do the landing performance calcs on the portable laptop, as the touch screen fixed EFB's were unusable. He said the vibrations only receded to comfortable levels when that slowed down with flap 2.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the reason to title this thread "Another A330 engine failure" ??
Airbus don't make the engines
Contrary to popular belief, modern airliners do not fall out of the sky if an engine fails - indeed modern twin jets are mandated to be certified to continue a take-off and fly safely on one engine. So, (depending on the severity of the situation), it is not always necessary or desirable to make an immediate landing at the nearest airfield.
Airbus don't make the engines
Contrary to popular belief, modern airliners do not fall out of the sky if an engine fails - indeed modern twin jets are mandated to be certified to continue a take-off and fly safely on one engine. So, (depending on the severity of the situation), it is not always necessary or desirable to make an immediate landing at the nearest airfield.
I suppose the title of the thread could also be correctly construed as Another A330 has suffered an engine failure. Which is fact. 2 in 2 weeks.
Pithy.
It depends on Malaysia / Air Asia's Etops rules. If for instance their Etops rules are the same as in Oz ( and there is no reason to assume they are) then unless there is an overriding compelling reason for the Captain to ignore the rules, then the Captain is obliged to land at Learmonth assuming that it is categorised as an Alternate or Adequate airport or the equivalents under Malyasian rules.
If the flight is not being conducted under Etops rules ( and assuming Malaysian rules are the same as Oz) then all the Captain is required to do is to have a good reason why he has flown past a suitable airport to a more distant suitable airport ( having a better chance at having the engine fixed or passenger comfort might not qualify).
If he didn't shut the engine down ( and there is no reason to assume he didn't ,) then he is not in an engine out situation and therefore has no special rules that are applicable.
If the flight is not being conducted under Etops rules ( and assuming Malaysian rules are the same as Oz) then all the Captain is required to do is to have a good reason why he has flown past a suitable airport to a more distant suitable airport ( having a better chance at having the engine fixed or passenger comfort might not qualify).
If he didn't shut the engine down ( and there is no reason to assume he didn't ,) then he is not in an engine out situation and therefore has no special rules that are applicable.
Last edited by JamieMaree; 25th Jun 2017 at 11:27.
It depends on Malaysia / Air Asia's Etops rules. If for instance their Etops rules are the same as in Oz ( and there is no reason to assume they are) then unless there is an overriding compelling reason for the Captain to ignore the rules, then the Captain is obliged to land at Learmonth assuming that it is categorised as an Alternate or Adequate airport or the equivalents under Malyasian rules.
If the flight is not being conducted under Etops rules ( and assuming Malaysian rules are the same as Oz) then all the Captain is required to do is to have a good reason why he has flown past a suitable airport to a more distant suitable airport ( having a better chance at having the engine fixed or passenger comfort might not qualify).
If he didn't shut the engine down ( and there is no reason to assume he didn't ,) then he is not in an engine out situation and therefore has no special rules that are applicable.
If the flight is not being conducted under Etops rules ( and assuming Malaysian rules are the same as Oz) then all the Captain is required to do is to have a good reason why he has flown past a suitable airport to a more distant suitable airport ( having a better chance at having the engine fixed or passenger comfort might not qualify).
If he didn't shut the engine down ( and there is no reason to assume he didn't ,) then he is not in an engine out situation and therefore has no special rules that are applicable.