AirAsia Engine Failure Mess
Internal operator investigation said they followed procedures. ATSB says otherwise. Essentially they did everything wrong. Thats a loooooong way on one engine. Total disregard for Amber LAND ASAP. If they lost the other one, I don’t have much faith that it would have been a survivable forced landing going of their performance. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577717...nal-report.pdf Contributing factors • In response to an engine oil low pressure (ENG OIL LO PR) ECAM, resulting from a fractured shaft within the oil pressure pump, the flight crew continued to monitor the engine parameters instead of shutting the engine down. Due to a mistaken understanding that the alert was a false indication, the flight crew subsequently increased thrust. • The Airbus A330 engine oil low pressure (ENG OIL LO PR) abnormal procedure included the conditional instruction 'if the condition persists'. This may be interpreted as either requiring the flight crew wait a certain period of time to determine the continuation of the condition, as apparently interpreted by the flight crew, or, as intended by Airbus, that the condition has not changed as a result of the previous procedural step. • Contrary to operating procedures, the flight crew made two attempts to relight the failed engine. • The crew diverted to Melbourne instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome. This increased the time that the flight was exposed to the higher risk environment of single engine operations. |
Are the pilots challenged by trying to understand English? |
Possibly Sunfish but so is Airbus.
|
Originally Posted by Lookleft
(Post 10643287)
Possibly Sunfish but so is Airbus.
”...ECAM procedure required the flight crew reduce the engine thrust to idle and, ‘if [the] warning persists’, then shut the engine down. The flight crew probably interpreted this as a temporal requirement and not a continuation of the condition, as intended by Airbus.” You mean this? Seems pretty clear to me. |
It is also worth noting that it has taken three and a half years for the ATSB to publish this report.
Is this acceptable? If not how can the time frame be improved? |
Four plus minutes at FL380, with one engine at idle. It's a pity that the report doesn't include a speed trace. I recall looking at FR24 a couple of days after this happened, and if my memory is correct, the speed decayed to a point that it was interesting.
|
It is also worth noting that it has taken three and a half years for the ATSB to publish this report. |
Originally Posted by mrdeux
(Post 10643926)
Four plus minutes at FL380, with one engine at idle. It's a pity that the report doesn't include a speed trace. I recall looking at FR24 a couple of days after this happened, and if my memory is correct, the speed decayed to a point that it was interesting.
I think the bigger story here is FBW saved the day. 5 minutes at FL38-40 at idle on the big girl, without FBW/Alpha saving the day the thing would have entered a spin. Either that or they were on the absolute verge of entering alpha. I can’t say I’d have any confidence at all they would have successfully recovered from a spin going of previous behaviour here. Eyes were most certainly not on the airspeed which is even more disturbing as I assume speed was moving toward low 200s? Automation is essentially just arse covering for poor check and training standards in the backwater operators in the far north west. A good comparison of how well this can be handled was the Jetstar 787 Engine Shutdown near Darwin. A lot of operators globally use this incident for crew training. This mob will most likely use this event as an internal training tool on how to successfully conduct this practice. After all their internal investigation said they followed procedure, so the cancer will spread to other crews and we will be back here shortly with another instalment of similar behaviour! |
A good comparison of how well this can be handled was the Jetstar 787 Engine Shutdown near Darwin. A lot of operators globally use this incident for crew training |
Heard a sim instructor say he was teaching 2 cadets who could not read or understand English very well . Translator was supplied by airline . They cancelled any caution as not important and a warning was handled by learning the shape of letters on ecam and what response was required . The report suggested it would be easier to train translator to fly ! Not AirAsia |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 10654125)
Poppa, do you have a ATSB link? The only one I could see that fits was an erratic airspeed that required landing in Darwin. Thanks.
Darwin was was the erratic airspeed which was the example being used at other operators on a well handled manual decent and landing. |
Originally Posted by wheels_down
(Post 10643230)
ATSB says otherwise.
The rule distance for the first hour are different to the second hour etc. These are defined under the operators certificate and varies between airlines. Crews are under no obligation to reach a diversion airport within the maximum approved time. My biggest criticism of the report is the apparent lack of understanding of the aircraft weight, fuel system (no fuel dump), and drift down profile of the A330. It will take around 90 minutes for a single engine drift down from FL380 at green dot. At the end of the drift down they would be TOD for MEL An immediate diversion to ASP would result in an unplanned overweight landing onto a shorter runway at night at higher density altitude with reduced flap setting at an airport they never operate into.
Originally Posted by wheels_down
(Post 10643230)
Essentially they did everything wrong.
Originally Posted by wheels_down
(Post 10643230)
Total disregard for Amber LAND ASAP.
Originally Posted by mrdeux
(Post 10643926)
Four plus minutes at FL380, with one engine at idle..
|
Originally Posted by swh
(Post 10654280)
The normal procedure is to have MCT on the other, auto thrust off, set green dot for the speed. I know what it is. I just find it hard to believe that an A330 with about 5 hours to go to destination would have sufficient excess power to remain at altitude for 4-5 minutes. And did they have MCT on the other at that point? |
Originally Posted by mrdeux
(Post 10654358)
And did they have MCT on the other at that point?
|
Originally Posted by swh
(Post 10654495)
Would it matter ? What is the target speed ? What will autothrust do ?
Not that the N1 limit is any different for the two, actually. |
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
(Post 10654517)
Not that the N1 limit is any different for the two, actually.
|
Originally Posted by swh
(Post 10654495)
Would it matter ? What is the target speed ? What will autothrust do ?
And there is a discussion of the system behaviour here, in relation to another incident: https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/4965...ng-cruise.html |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10643876)
It is also worth noting that it has taken three and a half years for the ATSB to publish this report.
Is this acceptable? If not how can the time frame be improved? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:38. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.