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......

Outstanding job?
 

Both engines had EPR fluctuations and therefore were not operating normally.
The EPR fluctuations continued on both engines and it appears the ECAM on engine 2 was discounted. Clearly at this point an outstanding job would have included a diversion to the nearest suitable airport.
The EPR fluctuations continued on both engines and the ECAM on engine 2 was again discounted. Again at this point an outstanding job would have included a diversion to the nearest suitable airport.
There's nothing outstanding about ignoring problems that manifest themselves on both engines of a twin engine aircraft. There's nothing outstanding about the advice the crew received from Maintenance Control either - looks like commercial considerations were put ahead of flight safety. It is fortunate for the passengers and crew that this incident did not result in fatalities and a hull loss.

So yi gung you want a discussion. But firstly state your altitude (2000'/1500'/ 1000'/ 500'?) and what speed are you at?

Oh why bother....:confused:

Zygote (Google it...): Yawn. Move along now, nothing new here. Go back to MS FltSim and your virtual airline:

Wannabe Airlines Inc.

Excellent post WF. Did you think that up all by yourself?:D

Looks like he referenced a dictionary...that book containing words and definitions. You'll learn about it in Year 12. You've made a right fool of yourself Bograt.

Bograt; I was one too :ok:

Hint- Not everyone comes from GA.

Well
 

I have to agree with Zygot with this one having dealt with CX operations for over a decade.:{

I bet the Flight Crew, knowing what they know now, would have made a different decision WRT continuing to VHHH.:ok:

I have personally had IOC MC ask to bring the aircraft back outside the MEL (no dispensation). We have all seen the same history defect in the logbook with the rectification as “C/B pulled and connections cleaned, ground check serviceable” for the same defect over the last week.:zzz:

How many times has an aircraft been dispatched under the wrong MEL in order to keep the show on the road until some keen Captain has questioned someone?:D

On a two engine aircraft and both engines are having EPR fluctuations, how does someone in IOC MC/Pilots know it is not something more sinister. It usually does not happen to both engines at the same time, if it does, something more sinister is at work. Take the precautions and live with them. Live is the key word.:D

Use your superior judgment so not to use your superior skill.

Barring that, good job of getting themselves out of a difficult situation BUT it could have been avoided. It only had to take one person to break the chain of events. You decide who it should be.:confused:

Mr Bloggs

I think might have been avoided would be a better call, as no-one knows what would have happened had they decided to return to SUB - maybe a similar predicament in which they eventually found themselves, only 4 hours earlier and 20 or so tonnes heavier.

Other than that, I agree with your sentiments.

STP

Or they could have found themselves with two stalled engines when told to descend to FL320 at VINIK.....you can play out a bunch of scenarios to suit an argument. Not blaming the crew, most likely all of us would have continued given the same circumstances, but fact is, it was not the right decision. Lets learn from this and lets not be so complacent next time. We often have a false sense of security that just because we're flying a wide bodied twin-engine aircraft, failures like this cannot happen.

Good post Mr. Bloggs...check your six though, 404 Titan is lurking high and above ready to pounce. :E

Not saying they should have returned to SUB. This happened after TOC and they had time to think. With two eng being suspect, maybe a SIN or Borneo would have been a good choice.:bored:

Be suspect of the advise you get from IOC, they are not looking at you best interest.:hmm:

The place to be with unexplained problems on both engines of a two engine aeroplane is on the ground as soon as possible. Pressing on to destination was not wise. Even if the situation had not deteriorated, the decision was still not wise. The proof? Give MC a call now with the same symptoms and see what they say.

Exactly.

The advice from Engineering won't be repeated. That appears to be a systemic error. With flight following, we are all encouraged to check before diverting. They did. Question of whether or not they should have taken the advice is for the next player.

Individual operator error? No; systemic, though if repeated I'd say 'all' would frown. So to the end game, the landing.

Bear in mind the real problems occured at top of descent. At TOD! Not a lot of time to figure out the curved ball. Keeping your cool at that stage must not have been simple. But they did, and that is what's outstanding.

Identifying systemic errors usually only happens after the event.

On PPRuNe.

fastman737

My opinion hasn’t changed since the preliminary report if you had bothered reading my previous posts. Mind you I can’t expect too much from someone that is obviously illiterate. Next.:ugh:

Management Lurking Behaviour
 

fastman737 thanks for the input but 2 posts in 10 years??? Smells a bit like "management lurking behaviour".

Mark H "chief 747 lurker" has had his say by the look of it.

Would shutting down the one working engine prior to landing have been the right decision?

FOR: slow it down

AGAINST: dual hydraulic low level
alternate law
2 spoilers per wing
outer ailerons only(if G+B lo pr)
inner ailerons only(if G+Y lo pr)
nose wheel steering inop
anti skid inop(if G+B lo pr)
flaps slow(if G+B lo pr)
right elevator only(if G+B lo pr)
left elevator only(if G+Y lo pr)
sloppy controls made worse by flap demand

All those FOR..............all those AGAINST

AGAINST has it

Well done to those in the hot seat.:D

Badluck for those in the armchair seat. :(

Hey NEWS you forgot reverse thrust. Heard from the safety department that the combination of landing close to the numbers and reverse thrust helped prevent an overun.

Well to the boys involved.:D

Brave man Flyhardmo who would have considered reverse thrust to function under those conditions.
To have reverse work was a bonus not a given.

Would shutting down the one working engine prior to landing have been the right decision?

Well Done News....you have proven that you can beg / borrow / steal an Airbus FCOM and pick out all the "highlights" of a Double Engine Failure.....clever Lad indeed!

Only one very small problem with your otherwise bulletproof arguement.....

Shutting down the one at 70% would have still left one Engine RUNNING, (albeit at Idle) and supplied you with G Hyd and either Yellow or Blue as well
( depending on the one shut down) and all the electrics etc etc etc.

Therefore, your very exciting, and drama filled list of problems would not have occurred!

But hey....lets never let the FACTS get in the way of a great story:ok::ok: