359 souls on that AirAsia flight obviously value their life at $200, so it would seem a prayer or two would be wise indeed.

Perhaps if the skipper had taken a walk back in the cabin past the wings, he may have reevaluated his decision, if he had finished praying, that is.

So many posters absolutely sure their opinion is correct and the Captain's was wrong. Interesting.

I know of two major airlines, not LCC, that virtually never use Learmonth as an alternate for Perth- they use Adelaide or Melbourne unless absolutely necessary. They've made the decision that it's not a place they want their A/C going unless it's absolutely necessary. Qantas would almost always use Learmonth. Who's right? Are the others wrong?

'Nearest Suitable' is a subjective term, no doubt that's intentional. Someone posted what Boeing says about it and, in my opinion, the Captain here made a reasonable decision.This Captain decided Perth was the best option. You might have made a different decision, I might have made a different decision, doesn't mean he's wrong. As evidenced by the different opinions here, it's not as straightforward as too many are making it out to be.

TineeTim that is the most sensible post on this thread.

It amuses me the way operators employees go quiet on this board when one of theirs is involved in an incident :eek:

You can't blame everyone going against the crew here.

I mean the past few incidents have all resulted in errors on the company's behalf and there's still more investigations to come. There are serious procedural breakdowns in every report that materialises, my main gripe with this mob is they continue to roll on even after acknowledging they have implemented new safety procedures. It's just not happening.

I encourage you to read past investigations (moreso if on the Airbus) to really see the issues at play. I've not seen such poor display of piloting in my entire career.

Very unprofessional by the crew to return to Perth. The crew should have a good knowledge of alternates en-route and be aware of the runway capabilities and approaches available (3047 x 45m runway with RNAV-Z approaches at Learmonth!!) and probably have them loaded into the secondary flight plan ready to go. I doubt this crew had that knowledge, based in the decision they made.

Dumb question, would they have to dump fuel to land at Learmonth? If so, how long would it take and where are they allowed to do it?

A number of major non LCC carriers don't use YPLM as an alternate because mainly due to state regulations requiring certain levels of RFF and approach capabilities. This may exclude it from being an EDTO alternate for planning purposes however once airbourne all bets are off with a major failure. Middle of the day , CAVOK with 3 km of runway and a engine with vibrations strong enough to cause a lot of alarm strewth how much suitable does it need to be !

All very interesting.
I personally know a pilot that had an engine failure with return to land in Singapore. A day or two later he departed in the same aircraft once it was fixed and the OTHER engine failed!!
Work out the stats for that! ;)

Thats a very good point. Do we know if he went back to do a visual inspection and vibe appraisal? I sincerely hope he did, I suspect he didn't.

If the captain did put it down in Learmonth, what possible punishment could he be dealt?

Little or non is my guess.

Not a great look for an airline firing someone for putting their customers safety first I would have thought?

There's a big difference between nominating an airport as an alternate and using it as a diversion port in an emergency.

"Nearest Suitable" is clearly defined in at least one major Australia airline's procedures, there's nothing subjective about it. Flying past an Adequate or EDTo Alternate is subjective, flying past a Suitable is not.
I do however acknowledge that Learmonth may not have been designated as Suitable or equivalent to AirAsia, and that other factors may have precluded a landing in Learmonth or favoured a return to Perth.
But hopefully not those factors affecting safety, like passenger convenience, accommodation etc.
Then, with an Airbus, you get this ECAM alert..."LAND ASAP" in either red or amber, depending on the severity of the situation.
I've heard a number of interpretations on this one, to me it's pretty clear.

On a different but not unrelated question: when Qantas start their non-stop flights to Perth from the UK soon what is their alternate for a full 787 if, having reached Perth and found that they can't land, they are forced to divert?

Presumably similar questions have been asked (& answered) about Learmonth's suitability etc irrespective of the situation the aircraft and/or passengers are in?

AMM Requirements
 

There is an inspection criteria in Chp 5 and/or 71 of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual for failure of engine post a blade off event. The whole engine, fan cowlings, nose cowl, C Ducts and Common Nozzle Assembly must be removed and quarantined (the CNA is matched to the engine so would be replaced anyway). The Engine pylon mounts will also be removed and replaced. There is then a progressive inspection of the pylon which will require deeper inspections depending on level 1 findings up to level 3 (from memory) if required. A pylon replacement would be dependent on inspection level findings. I would also think Airbus have requested the QAR/FDR data to determine the level and frequency of vibration which they will then base further airframe inspection requirements on also.

Ditching
 

Several credible sources have referred to the possibility of the flight ditching being raised at some point.

- If - the capt was contemplating ditching one moment then a diversion to Perth the next, then the thinking is definitely questionable. No doubt the return to Perth was for commercial reasons instead of the much closer and adequate alternate, YPLM.

The ditching talk has gone quiet though.

Matt, this fad of referring to "souls" on board is repugnant and as unprofessional as the capt asking everyone to "pray" that he'll be able to do his job and get them on the ground in one piece. Unless you have wings growing out of your shoulders, let's leave religious claptrap out of aviation please.

You are kidding me, Souls on Board has been a common reference for ATC services in many countries.

Let go of anti-religious clap trap, its tiring.

Page 34/65 -

This test must be run with the high speed and low speed main engine rotors unbalanced to generate at least 90 percent of the applicant’s recommended maintenance vibration levels. Additionally, for engines with three main engine rotors, the intermediate speed rotor must be unbalanced to generate at least 90 percent of the applicant’s recommended acceptance vibration level.

**************

I've reached vibration limits and they weren't noticeable. Ninty percent would be a lower figure.

So what level is the pylon and wing certified to when the entire plane is shaking?

How long is the good engine certified to operate when exposed to level X vibration? What level are they tested to, especially for 90+ minutes.

I don't know the answers. I doubt 1/100, perhaps 1/1000, or 1/10,000 pilots know the answers. Absent that knowledge I'd do whatever I could do reduce the vibrations and land ASAP. We don't operate with " I think it will stay together" as a hope. Absent knowledge, or if there's significant doubt about the safety of the aircraft, landing and solving the trouble shooting, or investigation, on the ground is the most prudent course of action.

And none of this addresses the requirement to land at the nearest suitable after the lose of an engine.

You don't dilly-dally dumping fuel when it's not required. An overweight landing, even single engine, isn't a dire emergency. It's standard risk assessment. With the much vibration I'd land overweight vs delaying and subjectng the aircraft to additional stress from the vibration. And it's not like an overweight inspection will delay the next departure because that airplane isn't going anywhere for days.

Hopefully the investigation gives flight crews more insight into what is, or isn't, acceptable limits if we experience this ourselves.

The industry has diverted airliners into towns who's population numbers less than the passenger total of the a/c diverting.

Here's an aviation truth - being on the ground is better than wishing you were on the ground.

This Captain decided Perth was the best option. You might have made a different decision, I might have made a different decision, doesn't mean he's wrong.
••••••••••••••

We won't know who's right or who's wrong until the pylons, engine mounts, wing, etc are inspected.

That's the point - if you don't know the answer/outcome why continue for 300 nm?

You seem to be talking about one single running engine's vibration. That concern is that it may lead to some accessory tubing break and the need to shutdown that engine.

This thread is about an engine already shutdown for cause (fan rotor wobble) and it's vibration level is at a very low frequency not likely to cause the loss of another critical system including another engine position (lots of damping through all the joints between isolated systems)

Passenger cooperation
 

For one thing, if there's a water landing impending, the captain may announce it, including "...it is very important not to open any doors or move from your seats until floating attitude stabilizes and instructions are provided."

People are different. Some passengers probably found some comfort in the captain's announcement. Please submit a good statement to make during this incident...or suggest silence on the subject of the shaking.

This particular aircraft would now make a good test subject. Put it on a shake table, or maybe hang it from cable(s), and make the bad engine spin to quantify what the aircraft saw during the flight. Then put on some more time to see how much margin there was. Then vary speed and/or eccentric mass until something fails.

Out of interest what is the paperwork required for a foreign registered aircraft to pick up stranded passengers and drop them domestically - e.g. KUL - Learmonth - Perth (or vice versa)

How do those commenting on the Captains decision to fly for 90 minutes back to Perth reconcile that with the fact that it may have a 240 etops approval? 90 is a lot, lot less than 240.

SORRY, not necessarily. Right/wrong surely depends on more than "did some thing break eventually". Because people Have to take the correct decision, before having that inspection done.

Oh please. This isn't about statistics. This is about airmanship and conservative thinking. If one engine is carrying the load of two, especially with all that vibrating and shaking going on, it IS subject to more stress and loads than it normally operates with. It makes it more likely to fail than it did.

And Captains don't go on statistics and all that other waffle you put up. They think of the worst case scenario and plan for it. No Captain I know would have flown past a suitable runway on one engine with hundreds of kms to go to destination.

I understand that. But I also said with the information they had they obviously decided that PH was a better option.

I have yet to see anything definitive say that the vibration we saw in 2 short videos was that severe and continuous for the other 89 odd minutes to return to PH.

For the time being, I am going with the crew made what they thought was the best decision at the time.

Nothing definitive, no. But can I suggest that you take a look at my post #63
But I'll recap with a small part of that post anyway.

More passenger quotes to substantiate that assumption at post #63
Are you suggesting that we should presume that the vibration only started 1:10 after the failure, because there is nothing definitive to show otherwise?

And also, with regard possibility of a water landing:

And finally, just to be pedantic, return time was more like 1:43, not 90 minutes.

To back you up wingnut, I read somewhere that the vibration levels were uncomfortable until Flap 2, that's the whole flight in my book. I'll put my house on the fact that Air Asia use Learmonth as a planning alternate for wx etc when it suits them.

How many suitable airports are you allowed to fly by, with any ETOPS aircraft, after losing an engine?

4.........

Some airlines use Forrest as an adequate so that they can fly to Perth non-etops. There is no way anyone is going to land at Forrest single engine even if over the Bight. It will be ADL KGL or PTH.

I was a passenger on this plane
 

I have not read all posts on this thread but I was a passenger on the plane and can clarify a few things first hand.

First, there was an initial loud bang followed quickly by the vibration. I imagined that a cargo door had blown off. The vibration did last the entire return flight except for the approach to landing when it all but stopped. Presumably lower airspeed reduced the windmilling force.

The vibration was fairly constant and low frequency - maybe 5 to 8 Hz I am guessing. It did seem so wane and surge. During the surging it was extremely unnerving. The toilet block behind me was wobbling so much that the noise prevented me from always hearing properly whatever was being said. In fact, during the emergency briefings from the crew they had to deliver it in person to a couple of rows at a time so we could hear them.

At times the vibration of my seat back was too much to be able to rest against. I had to sit forward in the seat.

The captain did suggest we pray on two occasions. I was not upset that he said that except that I hoped it did not mean that he was substituting reliance on a higher being over his own effort. He did sound emotional on one of his announcements when he appeared to have to stop mid sentence and then compose himself to continue. Then again it could have been something else that diverted his attention.

He did initially describe the number 1 engine as having siezed. Although I could not see it - I was sitting in the middle, intuitively I imagined that it was still spinning asymmetrically and that must be causing the vibration. I did not know why it could not be stopped but presumed the captain could not contain it.

The passengers around me were discussing why we were not landing at a closer airport. We though we must be close to Learmonth.

The cabin crew did an excellent job. You could tell they were worried but they performed well.

My gut feeling was that we had a 50:50 chance but really I had no idea. I knew the captain was in control but with all the wobbling and vibration I was worried something would break and he would lose control.

Landing was sweet. The captain stood at the door and shook the hands of every single passenger. The crew got hi 5s and the passengers were giving hugs all round.

It's good to be alive!

ETOPs/EDTO training around the world is based on ICAO annex 6 part II and compliance guidelines by EASA AMC 20-6 and (the far clearer)FAA AC120-42B.
The confusion around diversion airport selection is largely caused by the ICAO and EASA EDTO documents. This document is misleading when interpreted without context. They appear to suggest En-route alternates to be used are pre-determined by the dispatcher and that flight crews are expected to use the ones on the filed flight plan in the event of an engine failure. The glaring point easily missed is that it is written purely in the context of providing a legal minimum standard for dispatching a flight.
In practice dispatchers tend to reduce the number of nominated ERAs to the minimum required in order to reduce flight plan clutter. Often the NOTAM and weather package do not include non-nominated ERAs.
Many asian airlines training departments actually train their pilots based on this misconception. Compounding this is an institutional deferral to their 'OC' for diversion decisions.
In this case the crew may not have had the information at hand to properly evaluate Learmonth, especially under the physiological circumstances. It may well have been safer from a human factors perspective to follow the simpler option of returning to Perth.

Unlikely to be recovered in that way, simpler and cheaper to use a Perth based carrier to fly them back to Perth from Learmonth.

uhhh yes is not so good and is not so bad, icao is engrish, wellington english not so well rejected from mother england. whoops did i just say that

I think you would have a hard time justifying that decision if it happened at the furthest distance out from KGI and ADL. If you have nominated Forrest as an alternate, then fly past it for another 1.5 hours plus on one engine, when the checklist says land at the nearest suitable I would suggest you may come in for some scrutiny.

Obviously if there wasn't much in it then ADL or KGI is the better option but if the engine fails in the worst possible position then it will be tough to justify pressing on. The other consideration is if you press on then something else goes wrong that leads to an accident you are going to get smashed in an inquiry or court case.

The "aviation expert" Neil Hansford at it again. ABC lowering its standards to news.com

AirAsia engine malfunction prompts expert warning on booking budget air travel - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)