Air NZ plane forced to make emergency landing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snowballs.....
Having been involved in what you call a"non normal" landing I am familiar with the differences. However if a "Brace" command (or similar) was made from the flight deck then it is the proceedure of my employer (and most that I know of) to yell out "Heads down. Stay down" (or similar) until the a/c comes to a stop.
I agree with you that this situation perhaps did not warrent the above emeregency call from the flight deck. Not being a pilot or there at the time I wouldn't know if maybe they thought there was imminent danger/risk. You can't flame the cabin crew though for following their SOPs and yelling their commands.
Having been involved in what you call a"non normal" landing I am familiar with the differences. However if a "Brace" command (or similar) was made from the flight deck then it is the proceedure of my employer (and most that I know of) to yell out "Heads down. Stay down" (or similar) until the a/c comes to a stop.
I agree with you that this situation perhaps did not warrent the above emeregency call from the flight deck. Not being a pilot or there at the time I wouldn't know if maybe they thought there was imminent danger/risk. You can't flame the cabin crew though for following their SOPs and yelling their commands.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditzy .... Brace Brace etc is OK if you think the airplane is about to crash but to suggest it be used for a return to landing after an engine failure is absurd ..... you will have the travelling public terrified of flying ! if crash landing procedures are applied to something that professional pilots are trained and paid, to cope with, in a professional manner. It is beginning to sound as though perhaps the cabin crew lost the plot ... anyway read on and see what someone with a professional knowledge of the industry says, It was an EMERGENCY LANDING nothing more, nothing less.
It is nice to read an article by someone who knows what he is talking about … NOTE the author correctly referred to the incident as an “Emergency Landing” not like the inane interpretation as reported in NZ and quoted by the news media elsewhere.
Dow Jones Business News
Air New Zealand Says Boeing Selected To Review Engineering Unit
Monday December 9, 9:14 pm ET
WELLINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Air New Zealand said Tuesday it has selected Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - News) to conduct a review of its engineering operations following a weekend safety scare.
The terms of reference for the investigation - now called a "peer review" by Air New Zealand versus "independent" review when it was announced Monday - will be worked out over the next week, the airline said in a statement.
Engine failure forced an Air New Zealand Boeing 767-200 to make an emergency landing at Brisbane Airport, Australia, Sunday morning. The engine was manufactured by General Electric.
Air New Zealand's safety record was in the spotlight earlier this year after two incidents in which wing parts flew off aircraft shortly after takeoff.
Air New Zealand Senior Vice President Craig Sinclair said the airline faces an issue of "public credibility and transparency" and will release the findings of the review and any recommendations.
The carrier is pleased to be able to draw on the expertise of "such a highly respected industry leader" as Boeing, he said.
- By Stephen Wright, Dow Jones Newswires; 64-4-471-5990; stephen.wright@ dowjones.com
:
It is nice to read an article by someone who knows what he is talking about … NOTE the author correctly referred to the incident as an “Emergency Landing” not like the inane interpretation as reported in NZ and quoted by the news media elsewhere.
Dow Jones Business News
Air New Zealand Says Boeing Selected To Review Engineering Unit
Monday December 9, 9:14 pm ET
WELLINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Air New Zealand said Tuesday it has selected Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - News) to conduct a review of its engineering operations following a weekend safety scare.
The terms of reference for the investigation - now called a "peer review" by Air New Zealand versus "independent" review when it was announced Monday - will be worked out over the next week, the airline said in a statement.
Engine failure forced an Air New Zealand Boeing 767-200 to make an emergency landing at Brisbane Airport, Australia, Sunday morning. The engine was manufactured by General Electric.
Air New Zealand's safety record was in the spotlight earlier this year after two incidents in which wing parts flew off aircraft shortly after takeoff.
Air New Zealand Senior Vice President Craig Sinclair said the airline faces an issue of "public credibility and transparency" and will release the findings of the review and any recommendations.
The carrier is pleased to be able to draw on the expertise of "such a highly respected industry leader" as Boeing, he said.
- By Stephen Wright, Dow Jones Newswires; 64-4-471-5990; stephen.wright@ dowjones.com
:
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Dan K
Given (a) thru (c) you could not have but done likewise.
No one so far has suggested what the consequences may have been had they NOT made the "brace" and for whatever reason it all came unglued resulting in higher than necessary injuries.
Certain super second guessers around here would have been all over them like a plague.
It's like insurance you complain about its costs until you have an accident.
(d)thru (e) well, we all know who "they" are and give their pronouncements the weight they deserve.
Given (a) thru (c) you could not have but done likewise.
No one so far has suggested what the consequences may have been had they NOT made the "brace" and for whatever reason it all came unglued resulting in higher than necessary injuries.
Certain super second guessers around here would have been all over them like a plague.
It's like insurance you complain about its costs until you have an accident.
(d)thru (e) well, we all know who "they" are and give their pronouncements the weight they deserve.
Kiwi PPRuNer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: rockingham, western australia
Age: 42
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its a pity we couldnt lose boeing belly off the end of the runway, maybe at kingsford smith or hong kong, where he could sink, and stay with his bottom dwelling friends
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topend
You and others hit the odd nerve, you know when you've hit one because you get a big bite from the likes of BB and dick head.
Just for the record the QF over-run was just an incident not an accident. I understand that they rebuilt the aircraft, (at a cost somewhat greater than buying a new one) simply to keep their "accident free" record intact.
Every airline has it's skeletons and I ain't necessarily talking about hosties that rattle.
You and others hit the odd nerve, you know when you've hit one because you get a big bite from the likes of BB and dick head.
Just for the record the QF over-run was just an incident not an accident. I understand that they rebuilt the aircraft, (at a cost somewhat greater than buying a new one) simply to keep their "accident free" record intact.
Every airline has it's skeletons and I ain't necessarily talking about hosties that rattle.
couldn't agree more with you sepsoff, though losing ojh i think it was off the end of the runway at hong kong was a pretty bloody major incident i think...
boeing belly certainly has a chip on his shoulder about airnz, maybe he is ex ansett...
i don't rant and rave on about qf or any other airline as soon as they have an "incident", and they always happen together these "incidents", like a couple of years ago when qf had a string of problems with engine shutdowns and the like and everyone started asking questions about their maintenance...
it happens...getover it and you can bet one thng, when the coffee maker on zk-suh (a b747-441) breaks down, bb will be on here proclaiming it to everyone....
boeing belly certainly has a chip on his shoulder about airnz, maybe he is ex ansett...
i don't rant and rave on about qf or any other airline as soon as they have an "incident", and they always happen together these "incidents", like a couple of years ago when qf had a string of problems with engine shutdowns and the like and everyone started asking questions about their maintenance...
it happens...getover it and you can bet one thng, when the coffee maker on zk-suh (a b747-441) breaks down, bb will be on here proclaiming it to everyone....
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Syd
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OJH.....Hong Kong????????? Who or what are you???? What planet have you been living on fella???
Maybe he is ex Ansett????
Maybe that QF panel you like to mention fell on your head!!!!!!!
Maybe he is ex Ansett????
Maybe that QF panel you like to mention fell on your head!!!!!!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, N.S.W. Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before you carry on too much further about VH-OJH, this very aircraft in question, ZK-NBC, ran off the runway in Nadi in 1991.
Nadi Writeup .
Nadi Writeup .
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For What its worth.
NZ132
The crew knew that the LE Flaps were damaged and only extended TE Flaps. The A/C was over landing weight and the resultant Vref was close to advertised tyre limit speed. The Engine went from delivering climb thrust to zero thrust almost instantaneously resulting in considerable damage to the pylon (not known by the crew but suspected).
Would you have declared an emergency? I think I would have.
NZ132
The crew knew that the LE Flaps were damaged and only extended TE Flaps. The A/C was over landing weight and the resultant Vref was close to advertised tyre limit speed. The Engine went from delivering climb thrust to zero thrust almost instantaneously resulting in considerable damage to the pylon (not known by the crew but suspected).
Would you have declared an emergency? I think I would have.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"Just for the record the QF over-run was just an incident not an accident."..............Rubbish!
Any event where damage to an aircraft or injury to a passenger or crew member is incurred is an ACCIDENT.
Any event where damage to an aircraft or injury to a passenger or crew member is incurred is an ACCIDENT.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re -OJH.
Have to agree with Capt M here; sure looked like an accident.
However, one persistent myth needs correcting, QF did NOT pay to repair the a/c; the insurance paid out in full on the claim. Equally, the cost was not in excess [or even close] to the cost of a new a/c [otherwise, I guess the insurance would have written it off.]
G'day
Have to agree with Capt M here; sure looked like an accident.
However, one persistent myth needs correcting, QF did NOT pay to repair the a/c; the insurance paid out in full on the claim. Equally, the cost was not in excess [or even close] to the cost of a new a/c [otherwise, I guess the insurance would have written it off.]
G'day
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the thread / media report.
This “Crash Landing” report is beginning to sound like a rerun of the film Flying High
Take a look at http://www.theaviationforum.com/ Forums/General Discussion and the thread “Engine Failure Forces Air NZ B767 Back to Brisbane” There is some unemotional and more professional comment
This “Crash Landing” report is beginning to sound like a rerun of the film Flying High
Take a look at http://www.theaviationforum.com/ Forums/General Discussion and the thread “Engine Failure Forces Air NZ B767 Back to Brisbane” There is some unemotional and more professional comment
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snowballs et al,
I fear that you fail to see the wood for the trees.
How can you sit in your armchair and state that the incident was simply a single engined return to land?
Had the engine flamed out for no apparent reason, that would be a single engine return to land. It would probably be followed by fuel burn/dump to max landing weight or less and the ensuing landing would be next to normal.
However, after a loud bang, I'd guess some airframe buffet, the sudden stopping of an engine running at high power and the loss of some systems, I don't know that the professional pilot would just assume that all would be well. Surely the prudent thing to do is to be prepared for the worst.
VeeBee says the aircraft was over MLW and near tyre limits, this in itself shows the crew had an understandable concern for the integrity of the airframe as a simple engine out return would not be over weight. Surely the crew showed sound presence of mind. At worst they only have to worry about armchair critics rather than having to explain in court why they didn't take all reasonable precautions ater the tyres blew out and the aircraft left the runway.
I fear that you fail to see the wood for the trees.
How can you sit in your armchair and state that the incident was simply a single engined return to land?
Had the engine flamed out for no apparent reason, that would be a single engine return to land. It would probably be followed by fuel burn/dump to max landing weight or less and the ensuing landing would be next to normal.
However, after a loud bang, I'd guess some airframe buffet, the sudden stopping of an engine running at high power and the loss of some systems, I don't know that the professional pilot would just assume that all would be well. Surely the prudent thing to do is to be prepared for the worst.
VeeBee says the aircraft was over MLW and near tyre limits, this in itself shows the crew had an understandable concern for the integrity of the airframe as a simple engine out return would not be over weight. Surely the crew showed sound presence of mind. At worst they only have to worry about armchair critics rather than having to explain in court why they didn't take all reasonable precautions ater the tyres blew out and the aircraft left the runway.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like all good crews they were trained for the job, congratulations to the crew as they did the job well.
Surely that is all that need be said instead of some of the rubbish that has been written.
Surely that is all that need be said instead of some of the rubbish that has been written.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wed "New Zealand Herald"
Boeing to join Air NZ safety review panel
11.12.2002
By CATHY ARONSON transport reporter
Giant planemaker Boeing will help Air New Zealand to review its engineering systems in the wake of Sunday's engine failure.
The findings will be made public, a move the national carrier says is important for its credibility.
Air NZ announced the review after an engine on a Boeing 767-200 failed at 3000m after takeoff from Brisbane for Auckland. It was the fifth scare in as many months.
The airline said yesterday that Boeing would send a senior representative next week to help to set up the review terms and timetable.
Operations and technical vice-president Craig Sinclair said Air NZ would make the findings and recommendations public for the sake of "credibility and transparency".
Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union national secretary Andrew Little said the Air NZ engineers welcomed Boeing's participation.
"They know they are in a job where there is no margin for error, and they take it very personally. I think they welcome a fresh pair of eyes to review the process."
Images on a website found by the Herald yesterday show the level of damage caused when part of the turbine disc broke off.
The website - www.members.optushome.com.au/vhrmm/nz767/ - also shows damage to the aircraft's leading wing edge.
An international transport accident expert, Professor Colin Boyd, who is visiting the University of Auckland from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, said the accident could have been disastrous if the rotating disc holding in the engine blades had broken off on a different angle and struck a fuel tank.
"The really scary thing is what if it had come out on a different angle and had shot out on the inside rather than the outside of the wing root where the fuel tanks are.
"That could have been disastrous. It was only luck that stopped it."
Mr Sinclair was not willing to speculate on what would have happened if the disc fragment had come out at another angle, saying the airline had to concentrate on why the accident happened.
"That's why they are called uncontained failures, because anything that breaks through an engine casing can create further damage, so that's what makes this so serious."
The airline believed it had met maintenance and airworthiness directives but would review its compliance as part of the investigation, led by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and including the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission, Boeing and General Electric, makers of the engine.
The engine has still to be released back to the airline and is expected to take three to four weeks to repair.
Mr Sinclair did not believe there was any link to an incident in Philadelphia two years ago on a Boeing 767 when a high-pressure turbine disc broke during a ground test and the metal hit a fuel tank, causing an explosion and fire. That aircraft had CF6-80C2B2 engines and the Air NZ engine was a CF6-80A2.
Boeing to join Air NZ safety review panel
11.12.2002
By CATHY ARONSON transport reporter
Giant planemaker Boeing will help Air New Zealand to review its engineering systems in the wake of Sunday's engine failure.
The findings will be made public, a move the national carrier says is important for its credibility.
Air NZ announced the review after an engine on a Boeing 767-200 failed at 3000m after takeoff from Brisbane for Auckland. It was the fifth scare in as many months.
The airline said yesterday that Boeing would send a senior representative next week to help to set up the review terms and timetable.
Operations and technical vice-president Craig Sinclair said Air NZ would make the findings and recommendations public for the sake of "credibility and transparency".
Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union national secretary Andrew Little said the Air NZ engineers welcomed Boeing's participation.
"They know they are in a job where there is no margin for error, and they take it very personally. I think they welcome a fresh pair of eyes to review the process."
Images on a website found by the Herald yesterday show the level of damage caused when part of the turbine disc broke off.
The website - www.members.optushome.com.au/vhrmm/nz767/ - also shows damage to the aircraft's leading wing edge.
An international transport accident expert, Professor Colin Boyd, who is visiting the University of Auckland from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, said the accident could have been disastrous if the rotating disc holding in the engine blades had broken off on a different angle and struck a fuel tank.
"The really scary thing is what if it had come out on a different angle and had shot out on the inside rather than the outside of the wing root where the fuel tanks are.
"That could have been disastrous. It was only luck that stopped it."
Mr Sinclair was not willing to speculate on what would have happened if the disc fragment had come out at another angle, saying the airline had to concentrate on why the accident happened.
"That's why they are called uncontained failures, because anything that breaks through an engine casing can create further damage, so that's what makes this so serious."
The airline believed it had met maintenance and airworthiness directives but would review its compliance as part of the investigation, led by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and including the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission, Boeing and General Electric, makers of the engine.
The engine has still to be released back to the airline and is expected to take three to four weeks to repair.
Mr Sinclair did not believe there was any link to an incident in Philadelphia two years ago on a Boeing 767 when a high-pressure turbine disc broke during a ground test and the metal hit a fuel tank, causing an explosion and fire. That aircraft had CF6-80C2B2 engines and the Air NZ engine was a CF6-80A2.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: BNE
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An international transport accident expert, Professor Colin Boyd, who is visiting the University of Auckland from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, said the accident could have been disastrous if the rotating disc holding in the engine blades had broken off on a different angle and struck a fuel tank.
Looks like AirNZ weren't to happy about the photo's being posted on the web. Some nasty e-mails from legal types in my inbox, plus about a dozen offers for the originals.