What makes you think that it wasn't the CP flying? As someone else pointed out, the PIC had spent 4 days in the office then 2 days flying.

That would make the tea and biccie session a lot more simple!

Engine out should a CP lead by example and just give away the flight at the moment and get her down if suitable places permit?

I really think that sets a bad precedent for others following the ‘push on’ mentality, which might put others on the spot when the decision is to be made, is it ok to cause mass commercial disruption and just get her down, yes always the safest option. Or should I I push on cause the boss did.

Incoming....

Nice stir, but you have made the assumption that "just putting it down in GEL" was the safest option in this case. That - as this thread shows - is a matter of opinion and an absolute line ball call when all the competing issues are considered and weighted accordingly.

I thought I'd read somewhere they were well below the OEI best speed, so I was thinking 3.5 miles a minute. As for restarting the engine that just failed for no reason, not sure about the Dutch oven but Airbus say to "consider relight" so it's not a given

Agreed

Could be the fact he hasn't flown for 4 years, I don't know :ugh:

ADBF-are you implying that the PIC was a former non-flying CP from a QF Group regional airline?

[QUOTE=airdualbleedfault;10988906]I thought I'd read somewhere they were well below the OEI best speed, so I was thinking 3.5 miles a minute.
/QUOTE]

In fact they elected to NOT reduce speed to 'green dot' but held 250KIAS at a lower altitude, as they had this performance without resorting to max continuous thrust. ATSB wrongly state that this action contributed to an increased duration of the flight. At a TAS of at least 300 knots versus probably another 10 minutes climbing at about 180-200 KTAS - que?
Now I see a local tinpot flying magazine has headlined the incident, and not favourably, merely regurgitating the ATSB report. A story about how they got to use the aeroplane again would be better, though not as sensational.

Where's GT when you need him?

Everything is a major issue in Australia Brah,

Pop on over to the lockdown threads, that'll open your eyes.

Absolutely! and it goes a bit further than you might think. Under the precedence set in maritime law, In an Emergency, the Commander may override any rule, regulation or procedure in the interests of safety, you might find that or something to that effect written in your operations manual somewhere near the preamble. The commander is still accountable for that action, meaning the action must be reasonable as determined by a jury of peers.
If you do not declare an emergency, which is what a Mayday is, what would be your excuse for going anywhere with an engine shutdown. You could argue that an emergency is implied as a consequence of that shutdown, but I wouldn't count on it if the opening argument is, "but it's only an abnormal."

Nope, the VARA CP hasn't flown for years, including the day in question.

Machevelli, my bad I misread :eek: still don't believe it was the best decision and it would seem I'm not alone

Good excuse would be go home leg of a long multi day trip.

A few years back now, when 777's were in favour with SQ, their SOP was to continue onto SIN should they suffer an EFATO departing PER due to the Engineering Support at home base.

Well done to the VARA Crew. Correct decision made :ok:

How long did that take? Up to 7 hours?

PER - SIN can be operated non ETOPS with a slight route alteration which adds a few minutes to the flight time.

Fully understand the argument given the conditions prevailing at the time of the incident, but what options would have been available posed in my previous.

And CASA approved that document?? I find that very hard to believe.

Generally speaking if you have a engine failure in a twin it's land at the nearest airport unless you have a good reason not to which is what the ATSB is getting at in their report.

hahah, nice try mate

Nearest airport? You sure about that? Are we talking a Baron or a 777 here? Because I certainly wouldn’t be landing at the “nearest” if continuing to a much better alternative was an option.