Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Middle East
Reload this Page >

Ey flight return to Auh 3 hours before landing manila

Middle East Many expats still flying in Knoteetingham. Regional issues can be discussed here.

Ey flight return to Auh 3 hours before landing manila

Old 27th Jul 2011, 16:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 272
Ey flight return to Auh 3 hours before landing manila

Just heard on the rumour mill, that an ey flight out of Auh was 3 hours before landing at manila, and had some sort of engine technical fault, so they decided to turn around and fly back to Auh.
Only just happened so could be true, or may not be. something for you fixed wing guys to chew on.

fluffy5 is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2011, 16:30
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 540
That sounds highly improbable. Whats the time and distance to Manila from AUH, 9/10 hours? having an engine problem 6/7 hours into a flight and then turning around for another 6/7 hours back totaling 12/14 hours doesn't at all seem likely. Can a 330 even stay in the air for that long without being severely close to running on empty?
Airmann is online now  
Old 27th Jul 2011, 23:58
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S.O.E.
Posts: 139
A 330-200 would have no probs with a 12 to 14 hour flight. Not so with a 330-300.

IF the story is true, it would be a bit "odd" to fly for 6 hours and then return to AUH.
Dale Hardale is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2011, 04:22
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portacabin
Age: 51
Posts: 97
It was a B777 heading to Manila that turned back to Abu Dhabi with engine problems. Our aircraft do not tanker fuel to Manila so he would never have had the fuel to return whilst only a few hours from Manila. In reality he was not too far from Abu Dhabi.
Severely Jetlagged is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2011, 05:07
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portacabin
Age: 51
Posts: 97
For the EY guys, do you fly 3 pilots to MNL?
Yes we fly with 3 pilots to MNL.
Severely Jetlagged is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2011, 10:46
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Ex UAE
Posts: 36
This Story is as good as the 340 out of AUH some time ago now that got all the way to Sri Lanka and then had, what turned out to be a spurious tyre hot indication, descended, lowered the gear and then flew back to AUH at 250 knots; total turnaround time of 9 hours! This is true though!!
Oh! (Edit) he was bound for SYD or MEL so no problem with fuel before we get into that discussion!

Last edited by slimy; 29th Jul 2011 at 09:26.
slimy is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2011, 11:01
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 242 ft amsl
Posts: 15
Anything for a good story.
Skylight Dome is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2011, 00:22
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NA
Age: 50
Posts: 12
Fluffy? Honestly... do you really think airplanes carry round trip fuel? DUH
ThreeStones is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2011, 19:32
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: london
Posts: 5
Still a rumour but a friend down there told me they returned to AUH three hours out of AUH. Three hours from AUH heading to Manila would put you roughly over Mumbai. Why would you fly three hours single engine back to base bypassing numerous suitable airports ? Must be more details to this story...
newton99 is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2011, 21:11
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 540
Rumors Rumors and more Rumors. I don't know too many pilots or airlines that would fly 3 hours on a single Engine, especially over the Arabian Sea. Imagine if that plane was flying out of Mumbai and had just reached cruise when an engine failed, do they continue to AUH. No Chance.
Airmann is online now  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 05:36
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: out there somewhere...
Posts: 761
Airmann...as you stated in another thread, you have just graduated from flying school, or just received your CPL? Try to keep in mind such issues (for the diversion) for example, as maintenance or passenger convenience and what is available in the area of operations. In addition, 3 hours is pretty much the 180 minutes ETOPS rule...so not much issue for cruising along with 1 engine shut down...I'm pretty certain the crew was trained to do it AND it's allowable. In this case it may have been a company request to return to AUH...no one wants an airplane sitting in a place where it's hard to return to service, or put up 300+ passengers while scrambling to repair whatever caused the diversion in the first place. IF (big IF) there was no urgency (i.e. a fire or situation requiring an immediate landing) AND the flight crew and company were in agreement, there would be few issues except fuel and duty time that would impact the return to a main base where the availability of parts, people and support are there to use. (As opposed to someplace else where it's simply not!) It's easy to Monday morning quarterback from a distance isn't it? Fly safe...LC
Left Coaster is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 06:57
  #12 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: moonbase
Age: 52
Posts: 51
Ok people lets get some facts. The aircraft was gone for about 5 and a half hours, block to block. So the 3 hours out of Manila theory and 3 hours out of AUH are shot. Second of all engine problems does not always mean they were operating single engine. A high engine vibration could cause a a/c to turn back without having to shut it down just throttle back some. Also depending on the track used that day it is very possible if they did have to shut down later that a suitable airport was only 1 to i 1/2 hours away max (see OPKC, OOMS, VAAH).
Last of all the company policy would have had them put in at the nearest suitable if they were single engine (commercial considerations, or maintenance are not considered in this case). Something to think about before criticizing our colleagues without facts.

auh_to_auh is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2011, 19:35
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Three degrees of North
Age: 60
Posts: 16
i always believe pilots are naturally wired to solve problems the best way they possibly can and thru training to solve them safely therefor when applied in work wld normally make such decisions the best decisions taken at the material time under extenuating circumstances and pressure so it wld not be fair for us to make retrospective decisions after days hv gone by from the comfort of our a-cond room and give judgements. am sure the said capt did what he thought was safest for the pax and crew and most viable for the company hopefully in that order even if there was pressure from company for him to act othrwise. also am sure not many of us wld like to be second guessed if the same were to happen to us
Stratocruzer is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.