Preliminary report on Cathay Pacific aircraft accident released
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball
I venture to say that I would have shut down Engine No.1 on short final, rather than touch down with the power stuck at 70% and travelling at 230kts. . . .
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what further problems would there have been by shutting down the 70% engine on short finals...Imagine the ECAMs at that critical stage of the flight? Im away and dont have the FCOMS handy, but why add to your problems at 500ft just to touch down 30kts (if that) slower? Lets be practical about this, there are lessons to be learned, and we have the advantage of sitting at our desks banging out how we woud have done this and that, but none of us were there, and none of us were under the tremendous stress the crew must have been under (dont forget, both engines had just rolled back to idle at Limes). How can you argue with no fatalities and no hull loss? A few burst tires and a bit of a fire on the brakes? And just at what point do you shut down that engine? 500ft, 300ft, 50ft? I for one think the crew did a magnificent job with all the information available. Ive flown with the Captain and he is a sharp cookie and a very nice bloke, and I note there are posters here questioning his command skills relating to his age and experience, I can assure you, the Cathay command course is no walk in the park.
It amazes me the posters here, probably half not even professional pilots, less with Airbus experience, and even less again having flown in the region, questioning the actions of this crew, even to the point to taking cheap shots at the pilots reputation attached to working for Cathay.
Its a bit redundant to now ask if we had similar ECAMS if we would continue, knowing now what we do, but give the crew credit for a job very well done and by all means, learn from this incident, but dont try to hang this crew on a job well done in conditions most of us will never experience. Its quite frankly insulting to professional pilots worldwide.
Nosey
It amazes me the posters here, probably half not even professional pilots, less with Airbus experience, and even less again having flown in the region, questioning the actions of this crew, even to the point to taking cheap shots at the pilots reputation attached to working for Cathay.
Its a bit redundant to now ask if we had similar ECAMS if we would continue, knowing now what we do, but give the crew credit for a job very well done and by all means, learn from this incident, but dont try to hang this crew on a job well done in conditions most of us will never experience. Its quite frankly insulting to professional pilots worldwide.
Nosey
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look NoseGear, I've read Glueball, potteroomore and Molokai posts, and nowhere do they say the pilots were mistaken or call them silly names or whatever. They were simply speculating on what might be done in that siutation. That is not condemning the pilots. Ok, with 20/20 hindsight people may of course say different things, but I don't see why you should get so worked up over it.
Why do I get the feeling that you CX pilots are so arrogantly perfect and wonderful that we cannot even speculate as to what actions to take? We are not denouncing the pilots. We are not asking for their names. We respect their professionalism and privacy. We are not even saying we could have done better if we were in their shoes. We know they did a good job under tremendously stressful circumstances. We are just investigating the possiblities. But no, CX pilots are so great that we are not even allowed to investigate the possibilties.
And Ping pong and HKAforever, ever heard of "fuel contamination"?
Why do I get the feeling that you CX pilots are so arrogantly perfect and wonderful that we cannot even speculate as to what actions to take? We are not denouncing the pilots. We are not asking for their names. We respect their professionalism and privacy. We are not even saying we could have done better if we were in their shoes. We know they did a good job under tremendously stressful circumstances. We are just investigating the possiblities. But no, CX pilots are so great that we are not even allowed to investigate the possibilties.
And Ping pong and HKAforever, ever heard of "fuel contamination"?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North of 0
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I got annoyed at reading all the armchair pilots' responses and skipped a few posts, therefore forgive me if it has been said already.
All the comments coming from them suggesting an engine shutdown should have been made on shortfinals is the dumbest thing in that scenario I can think off. It's obvious both engines had ENG CTL SYS FAULT's.
From the report it states that they stopped within a short distance of the upwind threshold. They also were able to select maximum reverse until the aircraft came to a stop and the engine remained at 70% N1. I wonder what would have been the stopping distance had they shut down the engine. Even if they went of the runway by 10 meters that would have put a serious bent in the nose wheel structure and I'm pretty sure a bent nose wheel is a lot more expensive than a few blown tires. Imagine how they would have been criticized by the same armchair pilots if they did shut the engine down and bent the frame! (Read the following with a Homer Simpson armchairpilot voice) "Well maybe the engine was stuck at 70% N1 but they still would have had reverse and been able to stop within the remaining tarmac, DUHHH"
I know economics and airline budgets were the last thing on their minds during approach but surely having control of the aircraft and at least one engine running while racing towards the tarmac over water still, albeit at 230kts, is very reassuring still. Who cares about FCOM 1 explaining tire limit speeds in a situation like that!!?? C'monn!!!
In conclusion, having shut the remaining engine down would have been unwise. They made excellent decisions and can not be criticized in the least. No board of inquiry will question their actions - this is not the air force.
All the comments coming from them suggesting an engine shutdown should have been made on shortfinals is the dumbest thing in that scenario I can think off. It's obvious both engines had ENG CTL SYS FAULT's.
From the report it states that they stopped within a short distance of the upwind threshold. They also were able to select maximum reverse until the aircraft came to a stop and the engine remained at 70% N1. I wonder what would have been the stopping distance had they shut down the engine. Even if they went of the runway by 10 meters that would have put a serious bent in the nose wheel structure and I'm pretty sure a bent nose wheel is a lot more expensive than a few blown tires. Imagine how they would have been criticized by the same armchair pilots if they did shut the engine down and bent the frame! (Read the following with a Homer Simpson armchairpilot voice) "Well maybe the engine was stuck at 70% N1 but they still would have had reverse and been able to stop within the remaining tarmac, DUHHH"
I know economics and airline budgets were the last thing on their minds during approach but surely having control of the aircraft and at least one engine running while racing towards the tarmac over water still, albeit at 230kts, is very reassuring still. Who cares about FCOM 1 explaining tire limit speeds in a situation like that!!?? C'monn!!!
In conclusion, having shut the remaining engine down would have been unwise. They made excellent decisions and can not be criticized in the least. No board of inquiry will question their actions - this is not the air force.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North of 0
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IGSdude, I'm not a CX pilot. I fly for a carrier far far away from HK but I recognize the actions taken by the CX crew on that flight as outstanding airmanship. They did an unbelievable job.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPS?
With 2 engines malfunctioning simultaneously on a twin-engine aircraft, how come CAD are still allowing us to fly 180 minute ETOPS on the A330?
Surely flying to a 60-minute rule-distance (at most) until we know what caused the engine control problems, would be appropriate until more is known!
Surely flying to a 60-minute rule-distance (at most) until we know what caused the engine control problems, would be appropriate until more is known!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IGSdude...you say "but I don't see why you should get so worked up over it" and the very next sentence you say "Why do I get the feeling that you CX pilots are so arrogantly perfect and wonderful that we cannot even speculate as to what actions to take?"
You are a hypocrite and simply proved my point.
You know what? We are good pilots.
Thats nothing to be ashamed of, and the acid test, I would put my family onboard any CX flight, or Dragon flight, without worry.
You are a hypocrite and simply proved my point.
You know what? We are good pilots.
Thats nothing to be ashamed of, and the acid test, I would put my family onboard any CX flight, or Dragon flight, without worry.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoseGear and H8HKG, you guys seem to have reading comprehension problems. Where did I say the pilots in question did'nt do a good job? I agree they did do a good job. I'm not questioning that. Look, I'm sure most respectable pilots would would also allow their own families and friends fly their own airline, (unless if it is China Airlines or Garuda, gulp!)
Speculating is not attacking the professionalism and credibility of the pilots. And you have to differentiate between insulting pilots worldwide and insulting CX pilots.
Speculating is not attacking the professionalism and credibility of the pilots. And you have to differentiate between insulting pilots worldwide and insulting CX pilots.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am staggered at the stupidity, arrogance and ignorance of non professional jet pilots who express any sort of opinon on this sort of thing. It's a bit like having an opinion on your brain surgeons technique.
Airline jet operations involve judgement and knowledge beyond what most other professions require. You really have NO idea what you are talking about and some of you here are looking foolish trying to "debate" this issue.
Airline jet operations involve judgement and knowledge beyond what most other professions require. You really have NO idea what you are talking about and some of you here are looking foolish trying to "debate" this issue.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am staggered by the stupidity, arrogance and ignorance of CX pilots who presume to know what's best. Telling others who have a different opinion that they are "non professional pilots". Oh that's rich. This is just a pathetic excuse to silence dissenting opinions, and we are not scared by you, &&&.
Bwanah Kumbaya
Another “New Boy” smart a**e first poster. Nothing has changed from the preliminary report therefore there is nothing else to say at this stage. Once the final report is released in about a year’s time I’m sure people will post something for you assuming of course you could be bothered reading it in the first place.
Another “New Boy” smart a**e first poster. Nothing has changed from the preliminary report therefore there is nothing else to say at this stage. Once the final report is released in about a year’s time I’m sure people will post something for you assuming of course you could be bothered reading it in the first place.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: HKG
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuel contamination...
Wow, 3/4's of this thread is a complete waste of space. What a shame.
Management over-heard talking in hello kitty city...
HLL fuel lines, tanks, engine plumbing full of contamination.
Third world airport like Juanda, it really doesn't surprise me.
Management over-heard talking in hello kitty city...
HLL fuel lines, tanks, engine plumbing full of contamination.
Third world airport like Juanda, it really doesn't surprise me.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: aus
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Captain and FO did an outstanding job, as did the cabin crew who executed a seamless evacuation.
This was a curve ball anomoly. Not specifically trained for, which at times must have defied all natural instincts of the pilots.
By all means once the final report is out, any responsible airline will analyse the data, and attempt to train crews with a view to mitigating against such anomolies if they were to occur again. Without the experiences of crew who were left to make a horse race of it on the day, how would we as an industry come so far in terms of training systems delivering such high levels of safety?
Specifically in this case, the end result speaks volumes for composure under immense pressure. One "wrong" decision, would have ended in disaster. There was no disaster, therefore no "wrong" decision.
I know the Captain well, and have heard the sequence of events straight from the horses mouth. It would indeed put the hairs up on the back of any experienced Airbus pilot's neck. One minute a potential ditching, next elation at securing a level of power ensuring arrival at terra firma, to again faced with a prospect of ditching or overrun...
I'd be really careful with too much open uneducated speculation - some here are hovering on borderline libel.
This was a curve ball anomoly. Not specifically trained for, which at times must have defied all natural instincts of the pilots.
By all means once the final report is out, any responsible airline will analyse the data, and attempt to train crews with a view to mitigating against such anomolies if they were to occur again. Without the experiences of crew who were left to make a horse race of it on the day, how would we as an industry come so far in terms of training systems delivering such high levels of safety?
Specifically in this case, the end result speaks volumes for composure under immense pressure. One "wrong" decision, would have ended in disaster. There was no disaster, therefore no "wrong" decision.
I know the Captain well, and have heard the sequence of events straight from the horses mouth. It would indeed put the hairs up on the back of any experienced Airbus pilot's neck. One minute a potential ditching, next elation at securing a level of power ensuring arrival at terra firma, to again faced with a prospect of ditching or overrun...
I'd be really careful with too much open uneducated speculation - some here are hovering on borderline libel.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why oh why are these people permitted to post?
Try not to let the non-aviating armchair experts get you down.
Glad to see you made it...
Outstanding job.
You know that already.
Try not to let the non-aviating armchair experts get you down.
Glad to see you made it...
Outstanding job.
You know that already.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely No Question about the Outcome!!! Well Done
Playing the Devils Advocate here for a moment though...there are a lot of people suggesting that it would have been foolish to shut down the Engine stuck at 70% due to the fact that " he wouldn't have got reverse and therefor would have overrun the rwy"
So who knew that he was going to get reverse??? They had already tried to bring that engine to idle in flight and it didn't respond....so what is the guarantee that reverse is going to work on the ground?
I agree that at 230kts without the reverse, he most probably would have overrun.... but by shutting down the one stuck at 70%( Once the Landing Was Absolutely Certain) at 2000'/1500'/ 1000'/ 500' and allowing the speed to bleed back, obviously the landing run shortens...slower speed and the flaps would've run to 2...more help etc...
As for the ecams? What ecams? You've got Gear Down, Flaps Out ( as much as you can) Hydraulics for the Brakes from the Idling other Eng/ part Spoilers....Emergency Cancel the Ecams and Land. They are nothing more than a distraction at this point. Ignore them!!!
Again, no problems with what the crew did from my side...Thank God it wasn't me, is what I have been telling myself. Great Job!!! But this is a discussion forum.So who knew whether or not the reverse was going to work???? I would've assumed that it wouldn't as per the previous attempts.
Big Man to shut down the one producing the power I know, but at 230 kts, on a 3 * G/S you've got a hell of a lot of margin for speed reduction. Trade 50 kts of speed away by going slightly low and then pulling the nose up, and your landing run is now almost a non event.
I flew that day, and the winds were snotty... a lot easier to chew up runway with even a slightly misjudged flare at 230 kts than 180
My Two Bits
And here it comes......
Playing the Devils Advocate here for a moment though...there are a lot of people suggesting that it would have been foolish to shut down the Engine stuck at 70% due to the fact that " he wouldn't have got reverse and therefor would have overrun the rwy"
So who knew that he was going to get reverse??? They had already tried to bring that engine to idle in flight and it didn't respond....so what is the guarantee that reverse is going to work on the ground?
I agree that at 230kts without the reverse, he most probably would have overrun.... but by shutting down the one stuck at 70%( Once the Landing Was Absolutely Certain) at 2000'/1500'/ 1000'/ 500' and allowing the speed to bleed back, obviously the landing run shortens...slower speed and the flaps would've run to 2...more help etc...
As for the ecams? What ecams? You've got Gear Down, Flaps Out ( as much as you can) Hydraulics for the Brakes from the Idling other Eng/ part Spoilers....Emergency Cancel the Ecams and Land. They are nothing more than a distraction at this point. Ignore them!!!
Again, no problems with what the crew did from my side...Thank God it wasn't me, is what I have been telling myself. Great Job!!! But this is a discussion forum.So who knew whether or not the reverse was going to work???? I would've assumed that it wouldn't as per the previous attempts.
Big Man to shut down the one producing the power I know, but at 230 kts, on a 3 * G/S you've got a hell of a lot of margin for speed reduction. Trade 50 kts of speed away by going slightly low and then pulling the nose up, and your landing run is now almost a non event.
I flew that day, and the winds were snotty... a lot easier to chew up runway with even a slightly misjudged flare at 230 kts than 180
My Two Bits
And here it comes......