It does make one wonder about training when pilots think that because the ETOPS area was determined using 310kts that they then have to fly 310 kts. It's tempting to write them off as slack pilots but more likely I think is that their Airlines have not invested in effective training and a misunderstanding that occurs early in their training ( probably as an F/O or S/O) sits there for years without being detected by the checking/training department.
|
framer, another training shortfall according to the FAA. There was a specific concern relating to engine vibration after an inflight shutdown, which had led one flight crew to question the structural integrity of the airplane.
Although the vast majority of propulsion system malfunctions are recognized and handled appropriately, there is a shortfall in some pilot’s abilities to recognize and handle propulsion system malfunctions. The shortfall from initial expectation is due to improved modern engine reliability, changing propulsion system failure characteristics (symptoms), changes in flight crews’ experience levels, and related shortcomings in flight crew training practices and training equipment. Industry has not provided adequate pilot training processes or material to ensure pilots are provided with training for powerplant malfunction recognition. This shortfall needs urgent action to develop suitable text and video training material which can be used during training and checking of all pilots for both turboprop and turbofan powered airplanes. There is generally no airframe or powerplant manufacturers’ input into realistic engine failure/malfunction scenarios as represented in simulators. Furthermore, the engine failures currently addressed in most training do not cover loud noises and the onset of heavy vibration. Complete and rapid loss of thrust is currently being trained and is probably the most critical from an airplane handling perspective; however, this failure is not necessarily representative of the malfunctions most likely to be encountered in service. There is also evidence that this lack of realism in current simulations of turbofan propulsion system malfunctions can lead to negative training, increasing the likelihood of inappropriate crew response. |
Ironically megan the FAA training video talks specifically about the points in your quote. Paraphrasing one of the comments in the video is that vibration IS NOT a problem for the flight crew (10:38 in the video), and there is no chance of a structural failure from vibration, although it states that altering speed and or altitude can significantly reduce vibration.
The vibration section starts at 9:38. |
Air Asia A330 just landed in Brisbane with an apparent engine fire out of Cooly. More prayer required for their engineering perhaps.
As an aside, the small amount of r/t I heard from them was all very professional on what would have been a stressful and short sector into an airport they've probably never been to before. |
Inappropriate crew response, or not, seems to be the prime subject here. i.e. inappropriate judgements by untrained PPruners. For all we know the pilots might have been aware of the issues in the video just above and controlled the flight and vibration accordingly. Yet many are second guessing their assessments of the symptoms available to them in the conduct of obtaining safe flight and landing. |
ATSB : Investigation number: AO-2017-066
FOR REFERENCE ;
ATSB : Investigation number: AO-2017-066 Summary The ATSB is investigating an engine malfunction involving Airbus A330, registered 9M-XXE, near Carnarvon, Western Australia, on 25 June 2017. As a result of an in‑flight engine fault, the aircraft was subjected to moderate airframe vibration. The flight crew elected to return to Perth. As part of the investigation the ATSB will: •interview personnel involved •examine the engine damage •download and analyse data from the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. A report will be released within several months. Aircraft is still on the ground |
Originally Posted by framer
(Post 9819272)
It does make one wonder about training when pilots think that because the ETOPS area was determined using 310kts that they then have to fly 310 kts. It's tempting to write them off as slack pilots but more likely I think is that their Airlines have not invested in effective training and a misunderstanding that occurs early in their training ( probably as an F/O or S/O) sits there for years without being detected by the checking/training department.
For 25+ yrs our SOP's have said "set xyz speed" during a single engine divert. The FAA document governing ETOPS stated that the operator chooses the speed for it's ETOPS distance/time and the FAA approves the procedure. If the company chooses to select a different speed it goes back to the FAA for approval. Granted, that is to define the ETOPS distance/time. The example given in the FAA document was slowing to allow a higher s/e cruise altitude due to terrain clearance. Do you have a clarification from the FAA stating which speeds are acceptable to actually use during a divert? I'm curious as to why our SOP's state a specific speed if it's not a FAA requirement. Sometimes the answer is "we choose it." The ETOPS document itself does not specify, or restrict, using any speed except for the speed used to the ETOPS distance/time. |
The ETOPS document itself does not specify, or restrict, using any speed. It refers to the speed used to establish the ETOPS area but does not specific any speed to be used once the divert starts.
|
Another engine problem with airasia x.. divert to Brisbane after takeoff from gold coast
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...127baf07018d24 |
Air Asia A330 just landed in Brisbane with an apparent engine fire out of Cooly. More prayer required for their engineering perhaps. Difficult to blame a bird strike on engineering but you go ahead and try... i.e. inappropriate judgements by untrained PPruners. Imagine if you actually had to be a professional pilot to post on here, sigh. |
Originally Posted by Lomapaseo
For all we know the pilots might have been aware of the issues in the video just above and controlled the flight and vibration accordingly. Yet many are second guessing their assessments of the symptoms available to them in the conduct of obtaining safe flight and landing.
Originally Posted by Misd again
ETOPS divert is at 320-335 KIAS.
|
Am current on the same type as the Air Asia aircraft. VMO/MMO is only used to establish the rule distance (in our case, 1272nm for 180 min EDTO). It is NOT a requirement to fly at VMO/MMO during an EDTO diversion; furthermore, the newer types in the fleet (A350/777ER) are based on VMO - 10.
In addition, as VMO on the A330 is 330 KIAS, a diversion at 325-335 KIAS isn't doable. FWIW, our company policy is initially a driftown at Green Dot. Thereafter, flight beyond the nearest 'suitable airport' is only justifiable following consideration of numerous factors related to increased safety. Would have been hard-pressed justifying a decision to continue past Learmonth. But I wasn't there, so I don't have all the facts. |
Surely that means land at nearest suitable (I'm not a bus pilot; their procedure may say "land an nearest convenient". Mine certainly doesn't)?. |
Hi Misd-agin,
Veruka summed it up. The speed you are referring to is only used to determine the area. What you do in practice is up to you. Do you want to drift down slowly at green dot to avoid a mountain range and then cruise at s/e best range speed to arrive with more gas in tanks? Go for it. Do you want to go flat out because there is smoke in the cabin? Go for it. |
Our SOP says 'set xyz' after diverting. As Veruka stated it appears to be in the range of Vmo minus 15-25(?) kts depending upon the aircraft type.
CA Bloggs - s/e LRC speed isn't provided to us in our performance pages. It is available in the FMC. |
Christ. Think I'm going to start taking the bus.
|
Think I'm going to start taking the bus. |
12?? days and still sitting engineless in the rain
Well, actually, it does have one. |
Originally Posted by WingNut60
(Post 9823098)
12?? days and still sitting engineless in the rain
Well, actually, it does have one. I've dealt with a number of AOG recoveries for engine incidents. Two weeks plus is not unusual. In this case the ATSB may have quarantined the aircraft for a few days first before releasing it for repair. Insurance assessors may have wanted to see the aircraft before any repairs were carried out. Engine manufacturer probably wanted to attend and inspect. Basic engine, reversers, cowlings and all the additional parts that normally get swapped over (starter, IDG, EDPs) will have to be sourced as the ones on the damaged engine will be quarantined for investigation. Maybe additional spares required for any damage found in the wing/pylon. And then all will have to be air freighted from all over the world due to their size (have you seen the shipping containers for these items?) and getting them customs cleared. Then there is getting the manpower, heavy lifting equipment, specialist tooling, sourcing access/maintenance stands.......and Perth is not exactly local to the main sources for these items with no large aircraft hangar or heavy maintenance equipment. Even dealing with the airport authority to get airside passes and escorts while in the secure area. Local Engineering support and liaison to assist? Then there maybe additional inspections specified by Airbus/RR and resolving the findings from those inspections. And they are doing the same for the aircraft in BNE! You have no idea. |
Originally Posted by IAW
(Post 9811702)
I won't believe this is real until a bonafide expert such as GT weighs in.
It's in his home turf after all. |
Originally Posted by airdualbleedfault
(Post 9811705)
Passenger said a turbine blade came off, did they google that?
Interview 50 pax and get 50 versions |
Originally Posted by 0ttoL
(Post 9811707)
Video from onboard shows a severe vibration.
That says to me that the engine wasn't shut down. Why would the crew continue to run an engine with that vibration? I realise that 2 is better than 1 but the vibration could cause other damage? |
Originally Posted by Capt Basil Brush
(Post 9811734)
Anyone seen the Flightradar24 track? They must have been not far from Learmonth if they were an hour or so into the flight.
|
Originally Posted by pax2908
(Post 9811744)
From that article - "[Crew] said 'I hope you all say a prayer, I'll be saying a prayer too".
Wow ... is that a standard thing to say to calm people ? |
Missing blade
Originally Posted by tomcat264
(Post 9824301)
WTF would a passenger know they all make it out to be 100x worse to the media.
Interview 50 pax and get 50 versions I recently heard it unofficially that the blade was ingested and did quite a lot of damage including destroying the oil cooler. |
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
(Post 9824053)
And????
Seems like you read a bit more into it. You have no idea. But thanks for your comprehensive contribution anyway. There was an engine next to the aircraft but I suspect it was the damaged unit. It was a bit hard to distinguish through the p.....ing rain. At least Learmonth weather would have been kinder. |
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
(Post 9824053)
And????
I've dealt with a number of AOG recoveries for engine incidents. Two weeks plus is not unusual. You have no idea. Being an LCC it would not surprise me that they don't have a spare engine which is the real delay. Another issue sometimes is no main deck loader, most airports have loaders that do under floor loading, not all have loaders that can handle an engine from the main deck. |
PER outbound - 9M-XXE
For the record, it seems that the aircraft left Perth for Manila as flight D7688 on Tuesday evening 11 July and appears to be still in Manila.
|
Back to work
And is now back in service, as of 17 July following 5 days in Manila.
|
ATSB Report due for release - Jan 2018
ATSB indicating final report due for release within this month - Jan 2018
Revised date for report - April 2018 |
Originally Posted by WingNut60
(Post 10020933)
ATSB indicating final report due for release within this month - Jan 2018
Revised date for report - April 2018 Meanwhile it's business as usual for Air Asia in Australia. |
Originally Posted by IAW
(Post 9811702)
I won't believe this is real until a bonafide expert such as GT weighs in.
It's in his home turf after all. |
Originally Posted by tomcat264
(Post 9824320)
A British Airways Capt once said "Ladies & Gentlemen we have a slight problem we've lost all 4 engines and we are working on rectifying the sitauation as soon ass possible thank you"
|
Originally Posted by kirkc
(Post 10197965)
Annnd now it says 4th quarter of 2018.
Meanwhile it's business as usual for Air Asia in Australia. What's to stop something like this happening again in the meantime? I'm wondering if someone at the ATSB has shares in Air Asia or something. |
Still waiting for this one. I know Mr Hood reads here if someone could give us an eta? https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-084/ |
Originally Posted by kirkc
(Post 10339444)
Is this normal? It now says expected completion of the investigation is the 1st quarter of 2019. They just keep pushing it out every 3 months.
What's to stop something like this happening again in the meantime? I'm wondering if someone at the ATSB has shares in Air Asia or something. Edit: If these clowns can't even provide an ETA accurate to within 18-24 months for the report how the hell can we have confidence in their ability to keep us all safe? |
You rely on them to keep you safe???? Really??? Good luck with that plan........
|
Originally Posted by kirkc
(Post 10197965)
Annnd now it says 4th quarter of 2018.
Meanwhile it's business as usual for Air Asia in Australia. Now 3-1/2 years for a report.
Originally Posted by kirkc
What a joke, they just push it out each quarter. ATSB now says the report is due out 4th quarter 2019...for a 'Serious Incident'...that occurred 2 years ago. Good thing aviation safety isan't important or anything.
Edit: If these clowns can't even provide an ETA accurate to within 18-24 months for the report how the hell can we have confidence in their ability to keep us all safe? |
I assume they have all but given up on this one as the due date was 2 Quarters ago.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-084/ How hard can a separation review be? We are not dealing with the steam gauge technology of 70 years ago. There must be some form of trade deals underway between Indo land and Malaysia. Wouldn’t want to get the government offside by slapping sanctions or bans on its carriers. I mean safety comes last right? |
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
(Post 10588286)
How hard can a separation review be? We are not dealing with the steam gauge technology of 70 years ago
Politics will be involved in getting agreement from Air Asia regarding the final report - they will be strongly against any detrimental findings against them. I imagine that getting agreement on the final report may even require money to change hands; Australian agencies don’t work like this. The delay is likely not the fault of the ATSB. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.