QF144 Auckland to Sydney engine out
The following 6 users liked this post by ozaub:
Are not Flux Capacitors required to be fitted to all aircraft engaged on services to and from NZ? How else is the requirement to travel back to the 1980's prior to arrival there achieved?
The following 2 users liked this post by Traffic_Is_Er_Was:
A big twin has two motors. Losing one (while quite rare) does put you in the position of having only one functional donk over the ocean. In the very rare event of losing that one remaining power unit, you know books are going to be written about you.
Is this that point in time where rather than shrug off an engine out incident, we perhaps push toward the next couple of levels of redundancy.
it’s surely only a matter of time before the holes in the Swiss cheese line up.
Is this that point in time where rather than shrug off an engine out incident, we perhaps push toward the next couple of levels of redundancy.
it’s surely only a matter of time before the holes in the Swiss cheese line up.
Discussion around whether mayday was warranted gives me the sh1ts. I've had in-flight emergencies (disclosure: private pilot only), they can be scary, the decision to declare mayday belongs to the pilot, not the baying press who have 20/20 hindsight. If people are to be hung out to dry over calling mayday, what a bad thing that is. PIC was between the devil and the deep blue sea with one engine only, >140 souls utterly dependent on his skills. Who am I or anyone else to pass judgement? BTW the crew did a great job.
The following users liked this post:
A big twin has two motors. Losing one (while quite rare) does put you in the position of having only one functional donk over the ocean. In the very rare event of losing that one remaining power unit, you know books are going to be written about you.
Is this that point in time where rather than shrug off an engine out incident, we perhaps push toward the next couple of levels of redundancy.
it’s surely only a matter of time before the holes in the Swiss cheese line up.
Is this that point in time where rather than shrug off an engine out incident, we perhaps push toward the next couple of levels of redundancy.
it’s surely only a matter of time before the holes in the Swiss cheese line up.
You realise that even with the addition of “the next couple of levels of redundancy” there would still be a possibility - albeit extraordinarily remote - of an incident resulting in a ditching?
A big twin has two motors. Losing one (while quite rare) does put you in the position of having only one functional donk over the ocean. In the very rare event of losing that one remaining power unit, you know books are going to be written about you.
Is this that point in time where rather than shrug off an engine out incident, we perhaps push toward the next couple of levels of redundancy.
it’s surely only a matter of time before the holes in the Swiss cheese line up.
Is this that point in time where rather than shrug off an engine out incident, we perhaps push toward the next couple of levels of redundancy.
it’s surely only a matter of time before the holes in the Swiss cheese line up.
The following 3 users liked this post by Australopithecus:
And another one....
(Can't post links yet)
"Packed Qantas flight from Melbourne to Sydney suffers an ENGINE issue and is forced to turn around immediately after take-off in third incident in three days. Qantas flight QF430 is understood to have suffered an engine issue. The plane took off from Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport at 9:28am before completing a large loop and returning just 50 minutes later at 10:18am." - Dailymail
(Can't post links yet)
"Packed Qantas flight from Melbourne to Sydney suffers an ENGINE issue and is forced to turn around immediately after take-off in third incident in three days. Qantas flight QF430 is understood to have suffered an engine issue. The plane took off from Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport at 9:28am before completing a large loop and returning just 50 minutes later at 10:18am." - Dailymail
In Australia aviation journalism is an oxymoron except for a handful of individuals who know what they are talking about. Standards of reporting could easily be improved to the detriment of media sensationalism and revenue. Airlines and other aviation entities need to be represented in the media by current on type operational people who can with management approval convey in no nonsense technical language the facts relating to an incident or accident. Sure most readers would be ignorant of the meanings of acronyms etc. but those with half a brain could research and make some sense of what they read. For the rest spare them the ill informed musings of PR numpties and work experience reporters in the media. Company reporting should be vetted by the authors prior to publication to ensure media spin is not inserted. To be fair to news outlets, updates should be frequent and factual without interference from management if company reputation is perceived to be compromised.
Not quite 5 year olds but there is a very good news crew in Australia made up of teenage reporters called "6 News". A lot of their content revolves around Australian Politics but they also cover other news as well, including this flight on their Twitter feed. They're worth checking out, they seem to be a lot more responsible and less sensationalist than the bigger organisations.
That's youth I guess, as yet uncorrupted by influence. I bet they also don't use 'impact', 'going forward', 'reaching out' and refer to everything as a 'space' too.
While the stories are problematic for the news organisations, they are not always the journo's doing. Sub-editors 'play' with the story and can (sometimes) stuff up mightily what may have been quite reasonable to start with e.g. headlines and photos are usually added by the sub-editors.
A story about my organisation some years ago was a dogs breakfast that we couldn't comprehend. When I spoke to the journalist he was not amused - about 1/3 of his words were omitted and various paragraphs had been placed in seemingly random order by the sub-editor.
A story about my organisation some years ago was a dogs breakfast that we couldn't comprehend. When I spoke to the journalist he was not amused - about 1/3 of his words were omitted and various paragraphs had been placed in seemingly random order by the sub-editor.
Sure. And that minimises the risk window. However if you lose two engines you’re still potentially looking at buying the farm if you’re over water. Bring back big quads!
So QF144 is getting an ATSB investigation for an engine failure because it featured in the news. But the other 8 or so group failures in a few months are nowhere to be found. Seems like it has to make the news in a sensational way to get looked at....
Due to the gliding range on large jets the few double engine failures have resulted in reasonable results, from the Gimli Glider to the Hudson event and more appropriately Air Transat 236 which glided onto an island in the Azores. All with no loss of life. The main point is that if it's still controllable and you keep your cool, gliding a large jet into a safe place is achievable. After all the space shuttle glided every landing and that was a controlled brick.
TACA flight 110 in the 1980s landed on a grass levee after a double engine failure. The crew did so well Boeing only changed the engines and flew the 737 out off a nearby road (which in part used to be a ww2 strip).
However if you lose two engines you’re still potentially looking at buying the farm if you’re over water. Bring back big quads!
TACA flight 110 in the 1980s landed on a grass levee after a double engine failure. The crew did so well Boeing only changed the engines and flew the 737 out off a nearby road (which in part used to be a ww2 strip).
Last edited by 43Inches; 20th Jan 2023 at 06:19.
However if you lose two engines you’re still potentially looking at buying the farm if you’re over water.
Sully showed what is possible with little time to plan. Imagine two out from FL360. Chances are good for survival. Lord Howe…
The following 3 users liked this post by Icarus2001:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: up up up
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
last time I did a pan call the approach controller didn’t even pass it on to tower and when I landed we were told to wait for stand as they hadn’t been told about it either.
if I had an engine failure I’d make a mayday call initially and then when I had it all under control maybe here after drift down and level off, or if it happened on take off, after the non normal checklist and after take off checklist etc I’d likely downgrade it to a pan.
Seems odd to me all these people criticising the captain for making a mayday initially. I’m sure they’ve all had lots of engine failures though so are likely more experienced.