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

WA: Push on or Pull Out?

Old 17th Feb 2021, 10:53
  #61 (permalink)  
 
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.
That'd be the "more" suitable, would it Morno? Like passing Learmonth, Bali...

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.
What's that supposed to mean, Kris? Are you insinuating that you just keep going provided you're within the non-ETOPS rules?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2021, 11:30
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,798
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
That'd be the "more" suitable, would it Morno? Like passing Learmonth, Bali...
Half asleep typing that. Passing major airports like that is silly. But flying between Geraldton and Perth, why the F would you return to Geraldton if Perth is just down the road.
morno is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2021, 23:21
  #63 (permalink)  
 
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?
Certain defects may preclude an aircraft from entering the ETOPS area if they occur in flight, I’m not B777 rated but I think a failed engine is likely to be one of them. The post was for info only, PER - SIN can be either ETOPS or non ETOPS depending on the route. We would sometimes downgrade and reroute due to weather not being suitable. Non ETOPS is only a few minutes longer but obviously it adds up.
krismiler is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2021, 02:25
  #64 (permalink)  
 
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.
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.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2021, 05:52
  #65 (permalink)  
 
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.




EY_A330 is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2021, 07:51
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Agent_86 View Post
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.
This would support the above statement, different direction, but same desire to return to SIN.

https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160627-0

Last edited by Roj approved; 18th Feb 2021 at 07:53. Reason: added words
Roj approved is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2021, 08:08
  #67 (permalink)  
 
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.
EY_A330 is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2021, 11:57
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,798
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
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.
CAO 20.6:

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.
morno is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2021, 13:43
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 177
Let’s be a little bit more specific. CAO 20.6, para 3.2:
... 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;
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.
Bleve is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2021, 14:17
  #70 (permalink)  
 
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.

Last edited by Bug Smasher Smasher; 18th Feb 2021 at 23:08.
Bug Smasher Smasher is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2021, 20:47
  #71 (permalink)  
 
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.
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 01:41
  #72 (permalink)  
 
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
If you're worried about the 60 minute rule best not fly a 350XWB that has 370 minutes. Wonder if CASA or ATSB has contemplated glide range.
megan is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 03:33
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Dubai
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Global Aviator View Post
This one certainly flew past more than suitable airports.
What point are you trying to make? The engine didn't fail and the flight-crew didn't shut it down.

EY_A330 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 04:58
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 48
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by EY_A330 View Post
What point are you trying to make? The engine didn't fail and the flight-crew didn't shut it down.
Fair call, it was meant to be more about decision making or lack of, very cryptic of me not to say so! Thanks for pointing it out.

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.
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2021, 10:09
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,798
Originally Posted by Bleve View Post
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.
Does EDTO scare you?
morno is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.