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

QR920 11th August Doha-Auckland turns back shortly after takeoff

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

QR920 11th August Doha-Auckland turns back shortly after takeoff

Old 23rd Aug 2019, 18:07
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UAE
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by casablanca View Post
Boeing QRH has term nearest suitable airport which doesn't seem to imply a time.
In case of time critical items like smoke/fire they also use terminology "earliest"/ and 'Immediate" which implies immediate diversion to a runway or in a severe situation flight crew should consider over-weight landing, tailwind landing, or even ditching. This is in the checklist instructions -non normal checklist
See the FAA definition and Boeing fctm for “nearest suitable “ meaning nearest in time in aviation terms that is . Immediate implies something else I.e ASAP
Jack D is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 11:11
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 291
Jack ; although signing off you are back in, immediately.Worrying. And, you still seem unable or unwilling to seperate "nearest" and "suitable" but start tying the two together. Very worrying. I suggest also that the FAA is not Boeing. "Suitable" never brings in a time element. You head off to a more suitable airfield because you calculate that you will get there quicker. Really ? What if the lovely tailwind doesn't materialise . What if you didn't get the quickest route and full co-operation of a foreign ATC....eooops, and what if the remaining donk on MCT or idle in a driftdown also fails ? All that & you turn away from a field under your arse. Not good .

I know LF very well & we both worked for a company where a 73 jock suffered an engine failure almost overhead destination, CDG. He took up the hold, completed all drills & went back to LGW on one, presumable at MCT. I am sure you will have enjoyed the discussion that ensued as to nearest, suitable etc. He was supported by his best mate, the CP no less. There's a surprise.Official Fleet comms urged us ordinary Line bods to consider very carefully the meanings of "nearest" and, "suitable. We were all outraged but the company went bust anyway.

More stuff on this on the Rumours & News forum, "Smartwings "thread .

On thread, Doha was the nearest, definitely suitable but I too would not have circled around on one donk burning fuel to a lower landing weight, IF, that is what he did. Safe outcome though and is that not what we all aim for (?).

For other jibe warriors ; not a PPRuNe Armchair A&I commentator but like LF, around 40 years in the industry with about 22500 hrs, all heavy, all transport.

Off to the nearest, most suitable taverna. Blimey, hell of a discussion opening up with this one !
Gordomac is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 11:18
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 370
Gordo ; c a m e down. See you up there. Lithos is closest but the barmaid is not suitable . Russian chicks at the High Heels Bar are more suitable & I think, downhill from your res, you will get there quicker. So, it IS the nearest.
slowjet is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2019, 14:33
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UAE
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Gordomac View Post
Jack ; although signing off you are back in, immediately.Worrying. And, you still seem unable or unwilling to seperate "nearest" and "suitable" but start tying the two together. Very worrying. I suggest also that the FAA is not Boeing. "Suitable" never brings in a time element. You head off to a more suitable airfield because you calculate that you will get there quicker. Really ? What if the lovely tailwind doesn't materialise . What if you didn't get the quickest route and full co-operation of a foreign ATC....eooops, and what if the remaining donk on MCT or idle in a driftdown also fails ? All that & you turn away from a field under your arse. Not good .

I know LF very well & we both worked for a company
where a 73 jock suffered an engine failure almost overhead destination, CDG. He took up the hold, completed all drills & went back to LGW on one, presumable at MCT. I am sure you will have enjoyed the discussion that ensued as to nearest, suitable etc. He was supported by his best mate, the CP no less. There's a surprise.Official Fleet comms urged us ordinary Line bods to consider very carefully the meanings of "nearest" and, "suitable. We were all outraged but the company went bust anyway.

More stuff on this on the Rumours & News forum, "Smartwings "thread .

On thread, Doha was the nearest, definitely suitable but I too would not have circled around on one donk burning fuel to a lower landing weight, IF, that is what he did. Safe outcome though and is that not what we all aim for (?).

For other jibe warriors ; not a PPRuNe Armchair A&I commentator but like LF, around 40 years in the industry with about 22500 hrs, all heavy, all transport.

Off to the nearest, most suitable taverna. Blimey, hell of a discussion opening up with this one !
You're right it is a worry ! but I was talking definitions only, not decision making. I did mention that there are many variables at play . I was interested in your colleagues upgrade interview question seemed a bit
how do you say “ wrong” the answer he was looking for seemed a bit subjective hard to say as long as there is a sensible process that’s the main thing

Just for fun, 45 yrs in the business 25 k mostly heavy jet, proper old legacy carrier and latterly the sandpit ((for my sins) so not exactly an armchair commentator, but your taverna quest sounds like much more fun to be honest .

All the best and this time definitely out ..

Jack D is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2019, 10:21
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 490
Nicely bowed out Jack. Refreshing to observe Officers & Gentlemen getting heated but remaining calm and retaining some humour. Reminds me of Schoolboy boxing where we were taught the art of self defence but later, had to turn into aggressive fighters in order to survive. Go to the Fragrant Harbour forum and it is sheer bare-knuckle fighting ! Cheers.
Landflap is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2019, 15:57
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CYYZ
Posts: 272
To the few here saying they would not spend time dumping fuel.
Have you ever considered the mess you would be in if you took
that plane down to 200 feet, at max take off weight on one engine
and then had to go around.

Trust me, you don’t want to be there !!
Obbie is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2019, 10:39
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 370
Obbie ; "The "few" (?)....c'mon, where are the "few" ? Consider the mess if you lost the other donk while circling about dumping fuel. Twin engine, one out..........don't mess about !
slowjet is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2019, 18:13
  #28 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,591
But his argument is real. The reason fuel dumping system installation may be required is the OEI climb gradient. I have no knowledge or comment about the actual weight or limits on that night.

The debate will rage on regardless: Is such delay just getting ready for the missed, or lining up one's self for a failure on the remaining one? On an ETOPS maintained frame, ... da .. da ... Probably the most value is if we can learn something new from the other opinion's camp.

Meanwhile,
- does it make sense to ask the CC to prepare PAX for a possible evac - for a "simple" OEI but grossly overweight landing?
- is it prudent to delay the approach to for the above to finish, if the cockpit drills are done quicker?

I hear the cabin setup will take 8 - 13 minutes. (Limited) personal experience suggests the guidance to the above from the manuals is rather inconsistent across operators.

My choice: Cabin EVAC preparation only if it is foreseen. OEI overweight does not require that.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2019, 06:18
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CYYZ
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by slowjet View Post
Obbie ; "The "few" (?)....c'mon, where are the "few" ? Consider the mess if you lost the other donk while circling about dumping fuel. Twin engine, one out..........don't mess about !
So are you saying single engine aircraft should never takeoff in the first place ?

What are the odds of losing both engines, from two independent causes, on the same flight ?

What are the odds you will screw up your first attempt at an approach that is unlike any other you have done before ?

One is highly unlikely, the other is fairly probable. In my airline, you will have a hard time justifying a rushed overweight
return on a perfectly healthy, working engine.

Obbie is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2019, 10:40
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 490
I, for one, Obie, very glad not to be with your airline. Nothing "rushed" in my entire career, normal, non normal or in regular comp exercises. T/O, engine failure, drills complete, land as soon as. Very simple for the reasons expresed many times but still appear to be wooshing over your head. If your airline gives a hard time to a Captain for "flying the aircraft", cognicent of his mayday situation, operates in accordance with approved procedures, "your" airline looks to looked at very carefully. Maybe "your" airline does not approve of standard Boeing procedures which were written for airmen across the regions. They were written for simplicity, ready understanding and if followed would almost certainly lead to a safe outcome.

In my airline, there would be vigorous investigation of anyone not following the above. Some of the reasoning you give for not adhering to well defined procedure would have us showing you the door. Circling about, on one, which might also fail, burning off fuel because a possible single-engine GA at heavy weight worries you...............er, .........worries me.
Landflap is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2019, 13:51
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: between supple thighs
Posts: 236
Snoop

A review of the FCTM for Overweight Landings gives all the guidance that is required.

Overweight landings may be safely accomplished by using normal landing procedures and techniques. There are no adverse handling characteristics associated with overweight landings. Landing distance is normally less the takeoff distance for Flaps 20,25 or 30 landings at all gross weights. Brake energy limits will not be exceeded under normal or non-normal conditions.

The overweight landing NNC requires a check of the landing weight against the landing climb limit weight, and a check of the Vref 30 plus additives for at least a 10kt margin on the limit speed.

If the landing distance is a concern, Boeing's guidance is to reduce the landing weight as much as possible.

An overweight auto land is not recommended due to lack of testing and certification.
sleeve of wizard is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2019, 15:32
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Far East
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by sleeve of wizard View Post
A review of the FCTM for Overweight Landings gives all the guidance that is required.

Overweight landings may be safely accomplished by using normal landing procedures and techniques. There are no adverse handling characteristics associated with overweight landings. Landing distance is normally less the takeoff distance for Flaps 20,25 or 30 landings at all gross weights. Brake energy limits will not be exceeded under normal or non-normal conditions.

The overweight landing NNC requires a check of the landing weight against the landing climb limit weight, and a check of the Vref 30 plus additives for at least a 10kt margin on the limit speed.

If the landing distance is a concern, Boeing's guidance is to reduce the landing weight as much as possible.

An overweight auto land is not recommended due to lack of testing and certification.
And Boeing went to all that nonsense trouble of installing a fuel dump system.
CDRW is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2019, 10:08
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 490
There's some good stuff on the Rumours forum; "Al Haynes" tributes, Jet2 diversion and the Smartwings threads.Heartened that the "majority" view is obvious.
Landflap 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

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