That'd be the "more" suitable, would it Morno? Like passing Learmonth, Bali...

What's that supposed to mean, Kris? Are you insinuating that you just keep going provided you're within the non-ETOPS rules?

Half asleep typing that. Passing major airports like that is silly. But flying between Geraldton and Perth, why the F would you return to Geraldton if Perth is just down the road.

Certain defects may preclude an aircraft from entering the ETOPS area if they occur in flight, I’m not B777 rated but I think a failed engine is likely to be one of them. The post was for info only, PER - SIN can be either ETOPS or non ETOPS depending on the route. We would sometimes downgrade and reroute due to weather not being suitable. Non ETOPS is only a few minutes longer but obviously it adds up.

Most if not all twin jet airliners will direct you to land ASAP or nearest suitable airport (or similar wording) in the case of an engine failure. Ultimately if can land there it is the safest option after all.

Irrespective if flying an ETOPS segment or not, an airliner’s ops manual will stipulate a landing at the nearest suitable aerodrome in the event of an engine failure, for obvious reasons.

Had this event been a sim-check, I’m sure I know where the crew would have landed.

This would support the above statement, different direction, but same desire to return to SIN.

https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160627-0

That report supports nothing of the above statement. As with any commercial airline ops, the desire from operations control and the maintenance team is to have the aircraft AOG at main base or at least at a base with engineering support, this is obvious. But to say that report supports a BS statement from previous poster that it was SOP for a 777 to
continue 5 hours to SIN on one engine after having it failed on departure out of PER, is very incorrect.

CAO 20.6:

The pilot in command of a multi-engine aircraft in which 1 engine fails or its rotation is stopped, may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if, upon consideration of all relevant factors, he or she deems such action to be safe and operationally acceptable.

It then goes on to list several factors that must be considered.

Like I said earlier, as an example with Airbus, a straight engine failure is only considered abnormal. The CAO’s plus at least one manufacturer, supports the fact that you don’t have to land at the “nearest suitable”, if you can justify your decision to continue to a better aerodrome.

Obviously if the thing is shaking itself to bits (Air Asia style), its justification for a landing much sooner than sometime this week, but this notion that “you must land ASAP regardless”, is just bull**** in modern aircraft.

Let’s be a little bit more specific. CAO 20.6, para 3.2:
The CAO requires you to consider what will will happen if the second engine fails. The argument that it’s a modern aircraft, so ‘she’ll be right’ doesn’t pass muster.

FFS.

3.2 (d) isn’t meant to be read in isolation of the other paragraphs. If it was, why even bother including all the other considerations?

It’s just one of the several considerations to take into account.

NOT relevant to this event however an interesting read on the subject to carry on or divert is this report.

SQ 777 - https://reports.aviation-safety.net/...77W_9V-SWB.pdf

This one certainly flew past more than suitable airports.

If you're worried about the 60 minute rule best not fly a 350XWB that has 370 minutes. Wonder if CASA or ATSB has contemplated glide range.

What point are you trying to make? The engine didn't fail and the flight-crew didn't shut it down.

Fair call, it was meant to be more about decision making or lack of, very cryptic of me not to say so! Thanks for pointing it out.

Unless your arse is strapped to the machine you never really know the full thought process. Look at Sully, great example, head to the runway die, land in the water - HERO, yes a little over dramatic.

Point is Captains discretion is there for a reason.

Does EDTO scare you?