WA: Push on or Pull Out?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,103
Originally Posted by Morno
Because I certainly wouldn’t be landing at the “nearest” if continuing to a much better alternative was an option.
Originally Posted by krismiler
PER - SIN can be operated non ETOPS with a slight route alteration which adds a few minutes to the flight time.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,798
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
That'd be the "more" suitable, would it Morno? Like passing Learmonth, Bali...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,130
What's that supposed to mean, Kris? Are you insinuating that you just keep going provided you're within the non-ETOPS rules?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,596
Nearest airport? You sure about that? Are we talking a Baron or a 777 here? Because I certainly wouldn'’t be landing at the “nearest” if continuing to a much better alternative was an option.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Dubai
Posts: 6
Irrespective if flying an ETOPS segment or not, an airliner’s ops manual will stipulate a landing at the nearest suitable aerodrome in the event of an engine failure, for obvious reasons.
Had this event been a sim-check, I’m sure I know where the crew would have landed.
Had this event been a sim-check, I’m sure I know where the crew would have landed.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Agent_86
A few years back now, when 777's were in favour with SQ, their SOP was to continue onto SIN should they suffer an EFATO departing PER due to the Engineering Support at home base.
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160627-0
Last edited by Roj approved; 18th Feb 2021 at 07:53. Reason: added words
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Dubai
Posts: 6
That report supports nothing of the above statement. As with any commercial airline ops, the desire from operations control and the maintenance team is to have the aircraft AOG at main base or at least at a base with engineering support, this is obvious. But to say that report supports a BS statement from previous poster that it was SOP for a 777 to
continue 5 hours to SIN on one engine after having it failed on departure out of PER, is very incorrect.
continue 5 hours to SIN on one engine after having it failed on departure out of PER, is very incorrect.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,798
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
Most if not all twin jet airliners will direct you to land ASAP or nearest suitable airport (or similar wording) in the case of an engine failure. Ultimately if can land there it is the safest option after all.
The pilot in command of a multi-engine aircraft in which 1 engine fails or its rotation is stopped, may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if, upon consideration of all relevant factors, he or she deems such action to be safe and operationally acceptable.
It then goes on to list several factors that must be considered.
Like I said earlier, as an example with Airbus, a straight engine failure is only considered abnormal. The CAO’s plus at least one manufacturer, supports the fact that you don’t have to land at the “nearest suitable”, if you can justify your decision to continue to a better aerodrome.
Obviously if the thing is shaking itself to bits (Air Asia style), its justification for a landing much sooner than sometime this week, but this notion that “you must land ASAP regardless”, is just bullshit in modern aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 177
Let’s be a little bit more specific. CAO 20.6, para 3.2:
The CAO requires you to consider what will will happen if the second engine fails. The argument that it’s a modern aircraft, so ‘she’ll be right’ doesn’t pass muster.
... Relevant factors must include the following:
(b) availability of the inoperative engine to be used;
(d) distance to be flown coupled with the performance availability should another engine fail;
(b) availability of the inoperative engine to be used;
(d) distance to be flown coupled with the performance availability should another engine fail;
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: M.I.A.
Posts: 182
FFS.
3.2 (d) isn’t meant to be read in isolation of the other paragraphs. If it was, why even bother including all the other considerations?
It’s just one of the several considerations to take into account.
3.2 (d) isn’t meant to be read in isolation of the other paragraphs. If it was, why even bother including all the other considerations?
It’s just one of the several considerations to take into account.
Last edited by Bug Smasher Smasher; 18th Feb 2021 at 23:08.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 48
Posts: 730
NOT relevant to this event however an interesting read on the subject to carry on or divert is this report.
SQ 777 - https://reports.aviation-safety.net/...77W_9V-SWB.pdf
This one certainly flew past more than suitable airports.
SQ 777 - https://reports.aviation-safety.net/...77W_9V-SWB.pdf
This one certainly flew past more than suitable airports.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,714
The CAO requires you to consider what will will happen if the second engine fails
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 48
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by EY_A330
What point are you trying to make? The engine didn't fail and the flight-crew didn't shut it down.
Unless your arse is strapped to the machine you never really know the full thought process. Look at Sully, great example, head to the runway die, land in the water - HERO, yes a little over dramatic.
Point is Captains discretion is there for a reason.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,798
Originally Posted by Bleve
Let’s be a little bit more specific. CAO 20.6, para 3.2:
The CAO requires you to consider what will will happen if the second engine fails. The argument that it’s a modern aircraft, so ‘she’ll be right’ doesn’t pass muster.
The CAO requires you to consider what will will happen if the second engine fails. The argument that it’s a modern aircraft, so ‘she’ll be right’ doesn’t pass muster.
