MERGED: Air Asia Turnback Perth 25 Jun 17
Aviation Herald says "a blade" fractured - no mention of location (fan, compressor, turbine). Engine core ingested the blade, breaking other parts.
Engine was shut down, but 1) it might still freewheel in the slipstream, and/or 2) the original vibrations may have shaken something else loose (nacelle, pylon, inlet lining) that also rattled and vibrated in the airstream.
Any given engine failure may produce its own pattern of damage and "knock-on" effects. 90 minutes of shaking after shutting down an engine is not something I've encountered (outside of The High and the Mighty) - but someone probably has.
Engine was shut down, but 1) it might still freewheel in the slipstream, and/or 2) the original vibrations may have shaken something else loose (nacelle, pylon, inlet lining) that also rattled and vibrated in the airstream.
Any given engine failure may produce its own pattern of damage and "knock-on" effects. 90 minutes of shaking after shutting down an engine is not something I've encountered (outside of The High and the Mighty) - but someone probably has.
But, just taking a few of your comments:
It's isolated. - No, its remote, not isolated.
Limited RFF - OK. Not as good as Perth.
Limited hospital facilities - OK again, Definitely less than Perth
Limited ATC - do you mean eyes in the tower? Not too much of that around these days.
- But it is a military air base, albeit little-used. Still, it can't be too bad.
- countered by "Limited traffic to contend with (make that zero traffic)".
Customs - not sure what's available. But nobody's going to want to wander off too far at Exmouth.
Hotels - yes limited, but back up transport (road or air) from Perth or even another aircraft out of Malaysia would be relatively simple.
Maintenance - yep, everything would need to be brought in. Very inconvenient.
The aeroplane is perfectly capable of flying on one engine - hmmm, I would not have used the word "perfectly".
But on the other hand you do have:
Proximiity - 165 nm vs 465 nm. 30 minutes vs 1:50. All of it in descent from 24,000. He MAY have had to lose some fuel.
10,000 ft x 150 ft runway - let's not compare it to a dirt strip in the Philipines, eh.
- U.S. B-52's use this airbase when necessary.
It IS the primary alternate for Perth for flights out of SE Asia and for flights to Sydney, Melbourne, etc coming in from M-E.
It would not have been the first diversion of a heavy to Learmonth. As with Iqualuvit, 300 people unexpectedly arriving in the middle of the night would be a challenge, but not insurmountable.
As for "Take this scenario ......." - No thanks. Not comparable.
Last edited by WingNut60; 26th Jun 2017 at 07:43.
If the aircraft landed and blocked the runway I would definitely say LM is isolated. It's at least a 2 hour drive from Carnarvon which has a small runway really. It's about 2.5hours from OLW which is probably the closest larger runway, or 5 hours from KA. KA has the only ARFF in the area unless the military happen to be there (they aren't at the moment). Otherwise Exmouth would be volunteer Firefighters. The town is much smaller than KA so at best they have 2 trucks would be my guess. The hospital is tiny so other than the physical dimensions of the place it doesn't tick many other boxes.
Admittedly PC12's and the like could get into EXM strip but still.
The only thing they have in bucket loads is accommodation, but that may be difficult this time of the year.
Admittedly PC12's and the like could get into EXM strip but still.
The only thing they have in bucket loads is accommodation, but that may be difficult this time of the year.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is an interesting scenario for us all. A blade separated and based on their training and information available to them they decided to return to Perth. This crew appear to have got away with their decision. So we have to leave them alone. But now we have the luxury of an incident where nobody got hurt and add to our knowledge. RR and Airbus should now tell us if there is any technical reason if this was a good plan or not. Then, we can add this information into our knowledge banks and make better decisions in the future.
Personally, I would have left the plane and passengers in the middle of nowhere. If you run an airline that flies over remote parts of the world you must expect that every now and again your aircraft and passengers might end up in the middle of it.
PM
Personally, I would have left the plane and passengers in the middle of nowhere. If you run an airline that flies over remote parts of the world you must expect that every now and again your aircraft and passengers might end up in the middle of it.
PM
Video on Nine just now showing the shaking both inside the cabin and the engine on the wing oscillating on the pylon while in flight is just extraordinary.
Surely something that persistent and significant has got to fatigue the airframe?
Surely something that persistent and significant has got to fatigue the airframe?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a small point. It may have been longer to PH but there are other aerodromes enroute. Geraldton would've been equidistant from turnaround as Learmonth. Geraldton is some change under 2000m x 45m (although not ideal it is certainly adequate). Then Gin Gin at 1830m x 45m and Pearce. PIC had other options enroute to PH.
If they were doing a return to base then reduction of fuel load is effectively done, not by the journalists' favourite "dumping fuel", but by spooling up the engines and extending the speedbrakes.
Have had this on a 767 which had to divert. There is some vibration associated with this.
Have had this on a 767 which had to divert. There is some vibration associated with this.
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.
"In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position. The pilot-in-command may determine, based on the nature of the situation and an examination of the relevant factors, that the safest course of action is to divert to a more distant airport than the nearest airport. For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane's present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport."
You armchair experts need to shut up....
You armchair experts need to shut up....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: CASEY STATION
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My employer only provides airport (JEPPESEN ) data on destination, alternates and occasional enroute Airports. An emergency could mean some airports are not considered due no information. LCC model!!!
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
Same aircraft type (A330) and in the same area as well.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2008-070.aspx
"In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position. The pilot-in-command may determine, based on the nature of the situation and an examination of the relevant factors, that the safest course of action is to divert to a more distant airport than the nearest airport. For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane's present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport."
You armchair experts need to shut up....
You armchair experts need to shut up....
And what is that a quote from?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kanada Eh!
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas also weren't flying a Cessna, but it didn't stop them going to YPLM after an incident.
Same aircraft type (A330) and in the same area as well.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2008-070.aspx
Same aircraft type (A330) and in the same area as well.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2008-070.aspx
Well if you take the time to read the above mentioned report...not the same circumstance
''On 7 October 2008, an Airbus A330-303 aircraft, registered VH-QPA and operated as Qantas flight 72, departed Singapore on a scheduled passenger transport service to Perth, Western Australia. While the aircraft was in cruise at 37,000 ft, one of the aircraft's three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs) started outputting intermittent, incorrect values (spikes) on all flight parameters to other aircraft systems. Two minutes later, in response to spikes in angle of attack (AOA) data, the aircraft's flight control primary computers (FCPCs) commanded the aircraft to pitch down. At least 110 of the 303 passengers and nine of the 12 crew members were injured; 12 of the occupants were seriously injured and another 39 received hospital medical treatment.''
''At 1240:28, while the aircraft was cruising at 37,000 ft, the autopilot disconnected. That was accompanied by various aircraft system failure indications. At 1242:27, while the crew was evaluating the situation, the aircraft abruptly pitched nose-down. The aircraft reached a maximum pitch angle of about 8.4 degrees nose-down, and descended 650 ft during the event. After returning the aircraft to 37,000 ft, the crew commenced actions to deal with multiple failure messages. At 1245:08, the aircraft commenced a second uncommanded pitch-down event. The aircraft reached a maximum pitch angle of about 3.5 degrees nose-down, and descended about 400 ft during this second event.
At 1249, the crew made a PAN emergency broadcast to air traffic control, and requested a clearance to divert to and track direct to Learmonth. At 1254, after receiving advice from the cabin crew of several serious injuries, the crew declared a MAYDAY. The aircraft subsequently landed at Learmonth at 1350.''
Last edited by Flexable; 26th Jun 2017 at 11:36. Reason: Quote from official report gives a clearer pic of the situation
Looks like, after the initial failure, a lot of engineering technology and training did exactly what it was supposed to do.
It looks like they had lost a fan blade, and that the unbalanced wind milling engine was causing the vibration. What does that do to the airframe?! It's getting quite a pounding. Would that knock a few hours off the fatigue life?
It looks like they had lost a fan blade, and that the unbalanced wind milling engine was causing the vibration. What does that do to the airframe?! It's getting quite a pounding. Would that knock a few hours off the fatigue life?