QF144 Auckland to Sydney engine out
The following 2 users liked this post by compressor stall:
As much as the media reporting of aircraft incidents annoys me too, we have to admit that the mainstream media probably don’t care whether what is reported is essentially accurate or not. Most of the “great unwashed” that aren’t part of the aviation community wouldn’t be able to pick the difference between a 737 and a 787 and probably wouldn’t care. In this era of social media, the public has the attention span of a gnat, and the media are under pressure to get the story out ASAP. Also, sensationalism grabs the attention that the advertisers demand and, therefore, aeroplanes don’t descend rapidly, they “plummet”; the passengers aren’t concerned, they’re “terrified” and crews that handle inflight emergencies efficiently aren’t professional, they’re “heroes”. I have a feeling that the media don’t really care about accuracy anymore, and we should start getting used to it for our own sanity.
The following 3 users liked this post by Lasiorhinus:
Now, nothing is 100%. but the chance that the APU wouldn't start is quite small.
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.
Being a bit anal here, but actually they only had to change out one engine - they inspected the other engine and it was found to be serviceable.
The following users liked this post:
As much as the media reporting of aircraft incidents annoys me too, we have to admit that the mainstream media probably don’t care whether what is reported is essentially accurate or not. Most of the “great unwashed” that aren’t part of the aviation community wouldn’t be able to pick the difference between a 737 and a 787 and probably wouldn’t care. In this era of social media, the public has the attention span of a gnat, and the media are under pressure to get the story out ASAP. Also, sensationalism grabs the attention that the advertisers demand and, therefore, aeroplanes don’t descend rapidly, they “plummet”; the passengers aren’t concerned, they’re “terrified” and crews that handle inflight emergencies efficiently aren’t professional, they’re “heroes”. I have a feeling that the media don’t really care about accuracy anymore, and we should start getting used to it for our own sanity.
This us and them attitude some of us have isn’t helpful. At days end aviation is in the news for multiple turn backs in a short timeline. Coincidence or not, whether we like it or not, this is newsworthy.
Doesn’t help when someone purporting to have some aviation expertise is calling for a return to 4 engines.
That’s true. The only reason to have four engines is that there are no five engined aircraft.
Old joke by the way , like the B-52 on only 7 engines mayday story.
Old joke by the way , like the B-52 on only 7 engines mayday story.
When an engine fails, the checklist directs you to start the APU. It should start. But, in this case, it may have already been running… traditionally for ETOPS/EDTO on the 737 the APU is always left running. So if an engine (or generator) fails, you have an immediate backup. A few years ago, the concept of “APU on demand” AOD came in whereby some aircraft have their APUs monitored for reliability (includes regular start attempts after a long cold soak in cruise at high altitude) and provided they meet all the relevant maintenance criteria they can fly ETOPS with APU turned off.
The following users liked this post:
When an engine fails, the checklist directs you to start the APU. It should start. But, in this case, it may have already been running… traditionally for ETOPS/EDTO on the 737 the APU is always left running. So if an engine (or generator) fails, you have an immediate backup. A few years ago, the concept of “APU on demand” AOD came in whereby some aircraft have their APUs monitored for reliability (includes regular start attempts after a long cold soak in cruise at high altitude) and provided they meet all the relevant maintenance criteria they can fly ETOPS with APU turned off.
It’s a little unfair to expect the media to be experts on aviation, they’ll play what’s in front of them and of course they’ll make the story as click baity as possible. This is their job. Like folks in the media “the great unwashed” also tend to over react to aviation incidents.
This us and them attitude some of us have isn’t helpful. At days end aviation is in the news for multiple turn backs in a short timeline. Coincidence or not, whether we like it or not, this is newsworthy.
This us and them attitude some of us have isn’t helpful. At days end aviation is in the news for multiple turn backs in a short timeline. Coincidence or not, whether we like it or not, this is newsworthy.
We all have one common goal: to reassure the public that flying is safe. Unfortunately, those effects are being diminished by the constant circus show and tomfoolery that the media displays. Perhaps we should all start a movement, directed at the media, to do a similar act of what the French did to their royal family!
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.
Last edited by FullWings; 21st Jan 2023 at 07:39.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Then we need to set up a 24/7 air-air refuelling fleet, cruising and ready to deliver fuel mid-ocean crossing, to the (mid-air refuelling-capable) four-engined aircraft, because it doesn’t matter how many engines you have if you lose all the motion lotion due to a defect or damage. After all, the probabilities of losing all the motion lotion are about the same as losing both of the engines on a modern, transport category aircraft.
Run it past ICAO. (That’d be the same ICAO that hasn’t got GADDS through yet, more than seven years after MH370.)
While more than two engines makes it less likely you'll experience an all engine power loss, it increases the probability of experiencing a catastrophic engine failure - e.g. engine fire, uncontained failure that damages critical systems, etc.
As long as there is a certain level of engine reliability (which is required by ETOPS), when you add engines (above two), the increase in probability of a catastrophic engine failure is greater than the reduction in probability of an all engine power loss.
BTW, I didn't make that up - it's the entire basis of ETOPS.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The townsville refueller has it on good advice, that is was a catastrophic thronomeister failure, that caused the shutdown
Last edited by timbo1; 23rd Jan 2023 at 00:11. Reason: typo