MERGED: Air Asia Turnback Perth 25 Jun 17
And no shortage of taxiways. See following.
Learmonth RAAF Base in WA - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Anyway, it has all been said already.
As Piltdown Man suggested, let's see what comes out in the wash.
There are some remarkably bad takes here. Many implying this was a simple decision and 'obviously' the wrong one was made.
Why is YPLM automatically considered by many as nearest suitable? It's isolated, limited RFF, limited hospital facilities, limited ATC, etc They weren't flying a Cessna. The AirAsia guys are thinking about all that and also considering Customs, hotels, maintenance and on it goes. Not to mention that the aeroplane is perfectly capable of flying on one engine. Many here are comfortable because they understand what it would be like at Learmonth (or somewhere similar in Oz) But it wouldn't have been that simple to these guys.
Take this scenario:
400nm out of Manilla an engine fails. 200nm ahead is an uncontrolled/isolated airport with few facilities. You've never been to this airport but heard about it and it's listed as an emergency in your company's manual. Manilla is about an hour behind you but that's a destination with all the bells and whistles. About half way back to Manilla there's a small airport you COULD use if absolutely necessary just for a bit of concrete if it gets very quiet all of a sudden.
It's a 'no-brainer' that you'd land at that isolated airport 200nm ahead? OK. Unbelievably, you stuff up the single engine landing (undoubtedly your first ever on the A330 outside a sim) into the isolated airport and end up with a collapsed gear off the end of the runway followed by a fire. Now you're evacuating with little support and virtually no medical assistance. Multiple fatalities. I can see the pprune thread now...
Why is YPLM automatically considered by many as nearest suitable? It's isolated, limited RFF, limited hospital facilities, limited ATC, etc They weren't flying a Cessna. The AirAsia guys are thinking about all that and also considering Customs, hotels, maintenance and on it goes. Not to mention that the aeroplane is perfectly capable of flying on one engine. Many here are comfortable because they understand what it would be like at Learmonth (or somewhere similar in Oz) But it wouldn't have been that simple to these guys.
Take this scenario:
400nm out of Manilla an engine fails. 200nm ahead is an uncontrolled/isolated airport with few facilities. You've never been to this airport but heard about it and it's listed as an emergency in your company's manual. Manilla is about an hour behind you but that's a destination with all the bells and whistles. About half way back to Manilla there's a small airport you COULD use if absolutely necessary just for a bit of concrete if it gets very quiet all of a sudden.
It's a 'no-brainer' that you'd land at that isolated airport 200nm ahead? OK. Unbelievably, you stuff up the single engine landing (undoubtedly your first ever on the A330 outside a sim) into the isolated airport and end up with a collapsed gear off the end of the runway followed by a fire. Now you're evacuating with little support and virtually no medical assistance. Multiple fatalities. I can see the pprune thread now...
AirAsia has long record of safety failures - Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor
"The terrifying engine failure involving an AirAsia X A330 yesterday is the latest in a string of serious incidents and accidents to trouble the AirAsia Group"
etc, etc (you get the idea).
So what then made it "suitable" in that case?
Unlikely to block the runway. They had one good engine; good enough to return to Perth.
And no shortage of taxiways. See following.
Learmonth RAAF Base in WA - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Anyway, it has all been said already.
As Piltdown Man suggested, let's see what comes out in the wash.
And no shortage of taxiways. See following.
Learmonth RAAF Base in WA - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Anyway, it has all been said already.
As Piltdown Man suggested, let's see what comes out in the wash.
Living in the NW I have a fair idea of the resources available and I just suspect it wouldn't be as straightforward as some people seem to think if it did all go pear shaped I guess was more my point. Sure if you have no options I'd be headed there but I can only presume at the time with the information they had they decided PH or somewhere further south was a better option was all.
An extra 359 in a town of about 2500 is a fair impost even with an airline potentially throwing money around.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sounds more like windmilling than anything else.
I'm not unaware of the inconvenience (at the very least) of diverting to Exmouth.
I guess my interest revolves around the seemingly diametrically opposed opinions being posted in this thread versus the Swissair case in Iqualuvit a couple of months ago.
It seems to me that there is wildly varying interpretation of what constitutes "suitable".
And I don't understand why that should be the case.
It seems that in the case of QF72 the crew gave priority to the condition of the aircraft and their uncertainty about that condition, above all the other factors mentioned by other contriburors.
In this AirAsia case that does not seem to have been the case.
It appears in the Boeing 777 FCTM, Chapter 8, Non-Normal Operations, Landing at the Nearest Suitable Airport; I suspect that most Boeing FCTMs contain a similar passage.
In some FCTMs there is a cross-reference to Supplemental Information along the lines of;
My bolding.
Learmonth does not meet ICAO Rescue and Fire Fighting Services Category 9 standards (as required for airplanes 61 m ≤ length < 76 m) and therefore fails the "adequate facilities" test as a suitable airport for an A330-300.
In some FCTMs there is a cross-reference to Supplemental Information along the lines of;
A suitable airport is defined by the operating authority for the operator based on
guidance material, but in general must have adequate facilities and meet certain
minimum weather and field conditions.
guidance material, but in general must have adequate facilities and meet certain
minimum weather and field conditions.
Learmonth does not meet ICAO Rescue and Fire Fighting Services Category 9 standards (as required for airplanes 61 m ≤ length < 76 m) and therefore fails the "adequate facilities" test as a suitable airport for an A330-300.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would disagree. When I worked out there, some would pray before every crosswind landing; yet I have never seen an Atheist pray before a difficult landing or situation. Much to their disappointment, I made them agree that the landing would be made by skill, not by divine intervention.
For the vibration to continue, it is highly likely that it was an N1 blade failure. Shame you cannot feather them, eh? Will be interesting to see why the blade failed. An earlier bird strike, perhaps??
For the vibration to continue, it is highly likely that it was an N1 blade failure. Shame you cannot feather them, eh? Will be interesting to see why the blade failed. An earlier bird strike, perhaps??
For the vibration to continue, it is highly likely that it was an N1 blade failure. Shame you cannot feather them, eh? Will be interesting to see why the blade failed. An earlier bird strike, perhaps??
Not discounting the previously mentioned inputs to the PIC's decision process, but its highly likely they have an operator customised EFB running Jepps with only the company approved airport charts on board. Learmonth probably not even charted as far as Air Asia concerned. Plenty of foreign airlines running across Australia without charts for suitable en route aerodromes. With Casa issued foreign AOC's. Who's to blame for this?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go...
The minimum RFF category for ETOPS/EDTO is 4.
Learmonth has been assessed as adequate to nominate as an ERA alternate by many airlines.
Most Asian aircrew rely heavily on decisions made by their operations centres in the event of non normal situations. It is common for Asian OCs to place operational convenience ahead of regulatory requirements. I don't think they deliberately ignore the rules, it's more likely a combination of legacy mindset from four and three engine days, and confusing EDTO literature that doesn't translate well from English (there are plenty of confused posters in this thread too...).
It's not a stretch to suggest that they only had Notams and information for the alternates specified on their flight plan and were unaware of the availability of Learmonth.
The minimum RFF category for ETOPS/EDTO is 4.
Learmonth has been assessed as adequate to nominate as an ERA alternate by many airlines.
Most Asian aircrew rely heavily on decisions made by their operations centres in the event of non normal situations. It is common for Asian OCs to place operational convenience ahead of regulatory requirements. I don't think they deliberately ignore the rules, it's more likely a combination of legacy mindset from four and three engine days, and confusing EDTO literature that doesn't translate well from English (there are plenty of confused posters in this thread too...).
It's not a stretch to suggest that they only had Notams and information for the alternates specified on their flight plan and were unaware of the availability of Learmonth.
Other than Perth itself, Learmonth would have to be one of, if not THE, best alternate for heavies coming from or heading west.
I seriously doubt that any of the other WA regionals have better facilities / capability overall.
I seriously doubt that any of the other WA regionals have better facilities / capability overall.
St Christopher was the patron saint of travellers when all forms of travel were dangerous.
That people do not pray nowadays says something about how safe the world is perceived to have become.
That people do not pray nowadays says something about how safe the world is perceived to have become.
Yes, maybe.
Better facilities and access to support.
But I'd put runway specs at the top of the list and an extra 800 metres might come in handy with a single engine landing.
Support facilities come second provided you're not on fire.
And YPPD is quite a bit farther north.
Better facilities and access to support.
But I'd put runway specs at the top of the list and an extra 800 metres might come in handy with a single engine landing.
Support facilities come second provided you're not on fire.
And YPPD is quite a bit farther north.
For those of you thinking the aeroplane was about to shake itself apart, Mr Boeing offers this advice:
I wonder if Airbus has the same faith in its own airframes/systems.
Certain engine failures, such as fan blade separation can cause high levels of airframe vibration. Although the airframe vibration may seem severe to the Flight Crew, it is extremely unlikely that the vibration will damage the airplane structure or critical systems.
Folks,
I'm with Sailvi767 on the inspection of pylons and other critical structure, given the severity and length of time of the vibration.
I know nothing about Airbus pylons at all, but I do know quite a bit about Boeing/Douglas pylons, including a number of in-service failures.
Tootle pip!!
I'm with Sailvi767 on the inspection of pylons and other critical structure, given the severity and length of time of the vibration.
I know nothing about Airbus pylons at all, but I do know quite a bit about Boeing/Douglas pylons, including a number of in-service failures.
Tootle pip!!