OMG - we're all going to die!
 

"Breaking News" on ABC Melbourne Radio. Passenger on board aircraft rings in to announce that a VN flight from Melbourne to Vietnam takeoff was aborted and they were told it was an engine failure on no.2 engine.

Is this the same one reported elsewhere as having blown multiple tyres in the process of pulling up - closing the airport? I'd venture to suggest that would grab the attention of the average SLF.:eek:

What would said passenger prefer:

(a) Flight to continue with failed engine
(b) Boat trip instead
(c) Perfect world with no mechanical failures

Option (c) doesn't exist... Mechanical things are subject to failure. If SLF don't want to be exposed to said risks the solution is simple - DON'T FLY...

Be grateful your dirt cheap airfare still pays for competent crew who try to do the right thing to preserve the safety of their backsides (and in turn the pax backsides) at all costs.

Oh, and one more thing: I'm sick of hearing "OMG"....

MEL now closed due VN A330 disabled at intersection of both runways.

Captain Nomad relax, nothing bad has been said. Yet!

Not that I believe them but this is what is on the front page of the Age.

"An engine failure has spread fiery debris across a runway at Melbourne Airport, disrupting flights entering and leaving.

There was an engine failure aboard Vietnam Airlines flight 780 to Ho Chi Minh City as it took off on Tuesday morning, a Melbourne Airport spokeswoman said.


Debris and small spot fires were seen coming from one of the engines, the spokeswoman said.


No one was hurt but the aircraft came to a stop at the intersection of two main runways, disrupting flights, she said.
MORE TO COME"

Its ALWAYS at the Intersection isnt it!! :ugh:

Flights have resumed.

I heard that the pilot had begun rotation, and put the nosewheels back down to abort!
Was that an echo of "V1/Rotate" I heard?

Chadzat, freakishly the one in Darwin last week missed the intersection!
(Photo HERE)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-2...darwin/5416196
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-2...darwin/5416196

There's an earlier thread for this already made 10 mins. prior to this.:ugh:

FY - Good work that man!

Ive had to hold and nearly divert for one before that decided to come to rest at the intersection. Not the drivers fault by any means just Murphy at work doing his usual.

Was it taking off on 16 or 34?


Assuming the wind favoured it and discounting any debris on 34, could it not have been opened to LAHSO ops providing the disabled aircraft had passed the limit line?

Runway fire sparks Melbourne Airport emergency
 

rejecting after v1
 

ABC is reporting that a passenger stated that the nose had risen before the takeoff was aborted.

The same in the NZ herald about the aircraft just rotating however, I don't know what is more likely;

A) Said passenger has no idea what they are talking about
B) Entirely plausible that said airline would reject after V1

Hmmmm.

A passenger ce reported that I did a go around from 20' because there was an aircraft on the runway that was going to collide with us. I put very little faith in anything reported by passengers.

Perhaps the nose came up, perhaps it was simply the acceleration and feeling of the nose being high before the rapid deceleration and feeling of the nose going back down again. Either way, until the facts come out, trust little of what is reported.

I would take that with a grain of salt. The acceleration when rolling down the runway gives the inner ear a sense of pitching nose up, particularly if there is not a good visual reference. So it might not have been true.

Got to love the reporting in the media - Age, Herald Sun to name a few - NOT.

So far I have read, blown tyre, aircraft on fire, runway and surrounds on fire, possibly caused by engine blowing up, I could go on !

It seems to be a case of "what is the scariest headline we can use" :ugh:

How long was the airport closed for. Did anyone have to divert?

It was taking off from 27. I would be extremely surprised if it had time to rotate, reject and pull up by the intersection.

Conditions did not allow for 34. Debris was all over 27 and the safety vehicle reported finding a fan blade.

It was towed back to the bay for a few hours and then towed to W2 I believe. No visible damage to the N1 fan that I could see.

I don't know if it was Melbourne Airport (whoever that is) or the ABC, but apparently the word disabled is such a sensitive issue it has to be put in quotes.

Edited to add - the next paragraph is even better!

Edited further to add - reading it again its unfortunately worded. I think they meant [debris from the plane] [hitting the runway] not [debris] [from the plane hitting the runway] which is how I read it. Maybe is like the inkblot test, what you see says more about you than the inkblot.

Newspapers earlier today had quotes saying they put the nose back on and stopped on the runway but those reports have been subsequently deleted.

Nautilus

Some of these writers should go into the comedy festival !

I honestly don't think they read before publishing.

i am consistently annoyed at the condescending drivel lambasting reporters and eyewitnesses trying to make sense of aviation emergencies. It is one of the least endearing characteristics of some alleged pilots.

By way of example, I race yachts for sport and some of the events scare the crap out of novices, but do we laugh at them?

Hear hear sunfish. If all you have to contribute is disbelief at how laypeople comprehend something as complex as aviation, don't post.

Seems a lot of initial reports are on the money though, high speed reject following a blade failure, one would definitely expect debris, burning tyres etc...

The issue is why is it published. The reason for the lambasting is the appalling inaccuracy of what is published as fact.

For example in this particular case there is a huge difference between a rejected take-off and a aircraft rotating then putting the nose on the runway and stopping as was reported earlier today.

Makes them all sound like a bunch of self important wankers doesn't it.

Surely not ? :rolleyes:

Sunfish, save your outrage. Sprog reporters are sent out by a sub-editor to find a breaking story to 1. provide copy and 2. get the jump on the opposition. Accuracy is secondary. Reporters rarely have any idea about what they are talking about and in the case of complicated subjects like aviation never get the initial reports right. Dont feel sorry for them.

Whats the problem standard unit? Fail the interview?

No, just get bored with self important wankers. I'm obviously not alone.....

An A/C had a mech problem whilst taking off, Capt decided to abort (his sole right to do so when he sees fit), A/C came to a stop on the rwy, no injures (known) some disruption to services & the media got some mileage out of it, did I miss anything??


Wmk2

Yeah right, so you did fail the interview.

Stop it George.

Your response is doing nothing but reinforcing the stereotype.

Are so so stupid that you cannot see it.......?

I understand one media outlet want so get the jump on the competition
And sprog reporter wants to impress his editor.

Why should Quality suffer ? Not just this report but most others on anything aircraft incident related.

It takes 30 seconds to look up and cross check something but even that seems too hard for them. "A 747 is find o the photo, even though it was a DC10 in the incident" as an example.

NN,

I'm guessing that to the average joe it means naught whether the A/C rotated or not prior to the RTO. I doubt many joes who hear that will be thinking......"****, the idiot rejected after V1, wtf!":eek:

With regards to the V1 decision it's still up to the Capt to continue with the T/off even after V1 as there could be an issue that would result in a far greater risk if the A/C was taken into the air as against putting it back on the ground & accepting a major overrun. The trouble is that split second decision is subjective.
Great photo BTW CCA:-)


Wmk2

Like kicking puppies....

What Sunfish said

:D