China Eastern Airlines YSSY "Engine Fooked"
 

Facebook reporting an Engine problem tonight on departure. Pilot, (I guess the fo) called ATC and said "engine fooked'....no kidding. Channel 7 has audio of the initial "pan" call.

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-chin...f-from-sydney/

https://mobile.twitter.com/S118869/s...720449/video/1

Audo is here: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ys...2017-1030Z.mp3

Pan pan around the 15:40 mark. Didn't hear the word 'fooked' though

Edit: the "fooked" moment is in in the Twitter Ozgrade3 linked

Engine number 1 FOD?

ICAO Level 6 English proficiency right there...:D

SMH write up
 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/midair-emergency-forces-china-eastern-flight-to-return-to-sydney-20170611-gwp359.html

I hear "fault".

I think they only have level 4 English. Not the greatest look but can judge as I haven't had to make a pan call with a hole in my engine and the associated vibrations shaking the entire aircraft.

Having now listened to the entirety of the exchange from live ATC... they definitely were having issues answering basic questions such as desired altitude for holding after the adrenalin had worn off...

Nope. I heard "fooked". Twice.

There may be an amusing and logical explanation - Expat Captain. Possibly an Aussie. It sounds like the F.O. was passing on what he heard. Especially the second time. Given the speakers 'mastery' of Engrish. It's possible.

Expat CA - "tell em the number one engine is ******" (not expecting a literal interpretation)

F.O. - "Engine number one is fooked".

Media report that cabin announcements regarding the emergency were not made in English.

What are the regulations regarding cabin announcement language in general and in a emergency. (Not saying this was an emergency, but had a slide evacuation been preplanned, must such forwarning be made in more than one language?

Mickjoebill

Sounds like "engine fault" to me

From video on line it seems the inner side cowl of #1let go in front of the blades, but the blades themselves appear to all be there.

FOD/Drone
 

Looks like something has hit the fan and been projected through the cowl as the inner acoustic lining is missing as well. Could it have been FOD after TO, like a drone?

I expected that recording to be much worse. Would have been a reasonably busy failure to deal with, with accompanying vibs, strange noises, burning smells etc. They planned to hold, but switched immediately to overweight landing strategy after learning of the nature of the structural damage.

I only listened to the recording once. Didn't hear "fooked".

His English proficiency is actually relatively good IMO.

Agree, I thought his English was good given the circumstances. I've played it back a few times and it sounds like he is saying fault.

The media loves to have a field day with non-English speakers. I heard "fault". Surely, you don't expect them to say "SYD TWR, engine number one, done and dusted for".

I expect our resident "aviation expert", GT to chime in during today's news.

Bit of a stretch to say it sounds like "Fooked". It sure sounds like "fault".

I hadn't listened to the twitter link, which appears to be Tower. Skydler's link seems to be Departures. I can see how people think the Tower recording is "fooked", however, I work with a lot of Chinese pilots. It's definitely "fault".

Having listened to the entirety of the ATC tape, I see no problem whatsoever with their English. Two voices on the radio, probably the Captain at first and then the FO. The FO English was slightly better; but both were very good (definitely better than ICAO 4 - I have heard ICAO 4 speakers). Their English is better than, for example, the rapid-fire accented "English" that you can hear at US airports - I have great difficulty sometimes understanding US ATC. I suspect the main difficulty for the crew in this case was in handling a difficult emergency.

The Aussie ATC was good, she spoke slightly slower and enunciated clearly.

FYI, all Chinese learn English at school and have done so for 20? or 30? odd years. The Captain on this flight was very experienced and senior, I think in charge of the flight simulators. There was no expat Captain on board.

Listening to the progress of the emergency, firstly engine at idle, then consideration of burning off fuel, then visual inspection, then decision to return overweight rather than wait - it all seems logical and measured. A good job, I think. I'd rather think better of a fellow professional than go off on imaginary tangents speculating on things that we don't know.

Oh, and it's "fault". I think many Asian speakers have difficulty with the English "L" sound, making it closer to an "R" sound. Funny responses on this thread, though.

Your possible explanation is not correct. No expat pilot onboard. Also concensus suggests you need to get your hearing checked.

I have listened many times and concur the word was likely "fault".

The only person who can provide an error-free account of the incident and the cause of it is the great aviation expert, Geoffrey Thomas :}

We've got a new live one...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-engine-casing

Loose screws?

:} :ok:

Well he is an "aviation expert"!

give me strength....

Definitely not saying "fooked", I also hear "engine 1 fault", which may have been shown on ECAM.

Bird strike - but can that happen without fan damage?

Is that you Mr Xenophon?

Just listened to the ATC audio and wondering why they initially were directed to maintain 5000 then asked by ATC to climb to 6000. If traffic separation is needed shouldn't ATC ask the other aircraft to maneuver rather than the one with one engine inopp, especially to climb?

Unless you need to keep them above class G, or MSA, or out of a danger area etc.
Or maybe you can ask them so as to keep them above a SID or STAR

probably meant cowl fasteners, lots of other possibilities. Similar damage happened with other Trent 700 engines.

Pics were shown on 7 News.

You need to see the photos to believe it, half the engine has been pulled off. Holy cow!

I didn't see any burnt areas??? Huh :ugh:

Oh and the first time I heard the recording it was obviously "fault" he said

And it ain't half the Engine cowl either.....:D

Fuel jettison- 6000ft required in Australia.

Not much chance of jettisoning fuel from a A330 though!

Jason Middleton is a pilot, it says here: University of New South Wales - School of Aviation "He has held a Commercial Pilot Licence since 1973, and flies regularly as an instrument rated pilot."

The acoustic liner of the RR eng has let go a few times on the 330. We had a 330 doing a missed approached at DXB have it let go as TOGA was applied. Lots of noise on the ground, some initial vibration, then it settles down. Looked pretty much the same as this ENG.
Fuel jettison is an option for the A332, have no knowledge of the 333.

If this was a western airline the crew would have been congratulated for a job well, done got the plane safely on the ground and all passengers and crew safe. But because it's a Chinese airline the only thing you people are concerned about is what was supposedly said over the radio....."fault" or "fooked"

Even some of the passengers interviewed on tv said the crew was calm and professional. Some of the passengers didn't even know the extent of the problem until they were safely on the ground.

Btw....to the crew....flight crew and cabin crew...congratulations on a great job getting the plane safely on the ground.

Wow... an intelligent, well formed and valid statement void of any racism.

You're not actually in Aus, are you?

Before you take cheap shots at foreign pilots, remember they have had the dedication to learn a second language as part of the training. Consider if you had to learn Japanese or Mandarin to such a level to operate in a dynamic environment. Few, including myself would be able to do so. Simply understanding their number system does my head in.
:=

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...-proc-0062.pdf

Are you sure about that?

Firstly the performance difference between 5000 & 6000 is negligible even for a twin with an engine failure.

Secondly an initial climb to 5000 is SOP for departing aircraft. When runway 34 is in use, arriving aircraft from the north on the 'Boree' arrival are flying towards the airfield and are limited to 6000 on decent. When there are no conflicts, departing aircraft are then cleared above 5000 and arriving cleared below 6000. In this case there may have been an arriving aircraft already at 6000.