Pixy.

Can you not publish your excellent posts and analysis anonymously to the papers and the aviation publications?

You have the unique talent to summate the thoughts of all the level-headed aviators on this forum into structured concise statements that pilot associations could only dream of producing on our behalf.

At the risk of bringing some facts into the discussion:

The first indication was 'THRUST ASYM COMP' as an Advisory and Status meassage and a 'ENG EEC C1 R' Status. This was followed by an 'ENG EEC MODE R' Advisory and Status a few minutes later with 'ENG R EPR BLANKING'. Lastly a few minutes later 'TURB OVHT SNSR ENG R' Status.

Given that none of the messages were Land ASAP and the Engine continued to perform correctly (in degraded mode) the only real discussion is about the size of the 'bang' - and as only the crew on the day know what that was any monday morning quarterbacking is really a bit pointless surely?

Wizofoz:

I'm not sure of the full facts but I have been sort of reliably informed that the crew in the 'Bangkok-melted-fuse-plugs' incident several years ago lost their bonus despite their safe outcome during a similar situation where they decided to return, landed overweight and wasted a few tires.

As a trainer, you might be in a better position to shed some light on the truth about that one?

I stress that I do not know the full facts... However if it is true I'm disappointed that this will play on my mind the next time I read the ECL footnote 'Land at the nearest suitable airport'.

I don't rely on my bonus but I do consider it punitive action to remove it due to a decision I made that was less commercially favourable for the managers' bonus pot.

Thanks Jet II. Posting on holiday without reference to manuals and making a Horlicks of it in places!

Agree entirely with that.

MGC,

That incident pre-dates my training appointment, but is certainly often cited when discussing Overweight/jettison decisions.

I have no better info than you, but have never heard that the crew were disciplined in the incident. Indeed it would be disappointing if they had.

It's easy when reading AHM :ok:


Just another thought - in the original report in Flight Global, the author seems to think that the 'THRUST ASYM COMP' message means the system has operated, when it in fact means that the system has failed.

"and included a thrust asymmetry compensation message that is issued when the flight control computer automatically uses rudder input counter the yaw effects of a failed engine." :eek:

I am surprised that nobody appeared to point out that there was a sizable hole in the cowling to the crew, assuming that the report stating this was present on the inboard side was correct?
Was the Bulletin regarding this issue present before this incident?

Mr Good Cat

If there was a interest I certainly would be happy to do so.

But to keep our industry honest and preserve our professional integrity the race is long. We must all run with the baton. In whatever forum we can.

A drop of rain is hardly noticed but a deluge cannot be ignored.

may I point few things here. as far, as I heard about the case, the pilots heard no 'bang' on flight deck on TO, the 'bang' message came from the CC. How loud was the 'bang' its a personal sense of the people involved. I heard few RTs when pilots reporting severe turbulence flying through a moderate one. few birds, I run over did a loud bang as well, that could be one of the reasons. at some altitude the guys got TAC on EICAS, while both ENGs were turning, and some time later IPR blanked, and the ENG EEC came on. all NNCs were done, and both ENGs had very similar indications. the RWY inspection was done with no findings, and a visual inspection of both engines was done inflight, as far, as you can see them at night trought the wing. apparently both of them were hanging below the wings with no visible damage. the crew was aware, that something has happened to the ENG, but not the extend of the damage, all available gauges were indicating the right ENG is turning in ALT mode as smoothly, as the left one. I guess, at this point everyone has a choice to continue, or dump fuel and return....

Wiz, my dear austronaut, I know you have a type rating on the Soyuz but still status are part of the EICAS system as the status clue appears on the same display.... See you on the International Space Station...

Great post Pixy
Thanks

This is what generally happens when you fly in a non-union environment. IMHO, I'm thinking perhaps the the pilots were worried about company retributions if they were to air-return a full 777.

At my airline, we don't hesitate such decisions, we know the union has our back... even though our union has been pretty weak lately.

By contrast, I gather things are different at other carriers... from what I read on here and other boards.

For myself, I flew on a non-union position while on LOA last year. It seemed like every move I made as a Captain was judged and question by middle management. What a way to work. IMO, highly unsafe.

If I'm wrong in my assessment of non-union flying, feel free to correct me.

That's one of the best posts I've read on here Pixy, wise words.

I wonder if this is a case for putting 5 or 6 cameras around the aircraft to allow flight crew to actually see whats going on beneath, above and at the back of an aircraft. Such devices really wouldn't be that expensive espetially since the new breed of wide-bodied jets almost all have a camera installed on the tail. Just add a few more to give the pilots a good view of the engines and a few other critical points, namely the landing gear and you've saved a lot of head ache. Sometimes just being able to look at the part in question as opposed to trying to sit in the cockpit and diagnose problems from the resources would make things a lot easier, especially when one look would be enough to diagnose a problem that would otherwise take much longer to figure out, best example is landing gear issues, which almost always require a low and over. It would have been an easy situation in this case, turn on the camera look at the engine, see that parts were missing, land the aircraft. Quite simple.

A strong union is integral part of the safety apparatus of an airline.
ME airlines are therefore unsafe. Being in the hands of pilots constantly taken from their balls is not what passenger wants.

Don't give me that sewage.

I got sh@fted twice in my career. Both times the key player, selling out everybody, was the top union official - in bed with higher management.
This happened at (so called) first world major airlines and global alliance leaders.

It's not difficult chaps.......

NONE of us are paid enough to put our own lives at risk doing this job.

I'm positive that like any of us would do in the same situation (in a 'unionised' airline or not:hmm:), the crew on the day made an assessment based on available information at the time, and having gathered that info from MANY different sources not least their own vast experience as to whether it was safe to continue or not, they made a decision........... Clearly it was safe! Nuff said??

Matmax, I can't believe I'm lowering myself to even attempt to engage you in conversation, but as you seem so vocal on other nationalities pilots being so unsafe, may I suggest you look a little closer to home? You are from France aren't you? How's AF's pilot error/crash ratio holding up these days?:E

I agree with post #64 regarding the comments in posts 60 and 63. Its utter BS to suggest Unions make operations safer.

The Union as a special interest group, is one of the last remaining bastions of socialism whose days are numbered... i worked in both environments for sometime, and while without a Union you are definitely 'exposed' to all kind of sh*t, i found Unions equally dangerous running into the office everytime some member who deserved termination or demotion got himself in trouble, struggling to find reasons to blame airplane design, faulty SOPs, fatigue (even after 4/5 days off and flying 40 hrs a month), etc. Of course when none of that would hold water, then its the technicalities of the contract... guy didn't have representation during a meeting, letters written outside the allowed time frame, etc., etc. All Unions did IMHO and experience is give a good number of guys a free ride....

Its a no-win situation gentlemen as i see it ... with or without a Union its every man for himself at the end of the day.

Mr Oblaaspop,
I am not saying that French pilots are the best , i even use to think that another nationality is ...
Thats a question of safety culture.
Please , do not mix different situations.
Now in the present case , as nobody knew exactly what was going on , why not coming back to the departure airport or divert , as until the aircraft is on the ground , nobody can really know what the "damages" were ?
Nope ?
I do not agree that it was safe to continue ...
Even a "broken" engine can still run ...

Winton..
 

Hey Winton I know that Dubai can make you lose the sense of reality but looking at what is happening around the world it appears to me that is actually the wildest form capitalism to have its days counted and being Dubai "the" worst examples... start counting. No oil ...no UAE anyway.
It may help you remember that Sweden , the most socialist of modern mature society is one of the best performer in Europe with an annual growth of 5 % and virtually 0% unemployment followed by Germany wixh has as well a very strong social system. So keep discovering..go the MOE to waste your money or to a Tea Party if you don't know what to do but don't say bull****.
The Air France accident could have happened to any airline... I really would like to see how a couple of UAE local EK cadets , the one going directly from a C172 to the Airbus 330 with no real experience in between would have handled it...
Air France remains one of the best employer of the world and has a excellent safety record. So far EK has been lucky.. but with the lowering of the bar I wouldn't be surprised. This accident is another lucky shot...loud bang, strange parameters and alerts, put your ass on the ground, calmly, but asap. I bet that the only factor pushing them to continue was the possible tea and biscuits if it turned out to be an overreaction and I still think passengers prefer overreaction than the opposite.

I actually recieved this aircraft on it's return to DXB, so a few more facts to throw into the pot. Firstly the damage was not readily visible from the cabin, yes it had lost a lot of material but it was all at the rear inbd end of the thrust reverser and the primary exhaust so was hidden by the wing. In fact the thrust reverser translating cowl (the bit that moves when you deploy reverser) outer skin had no visible damage to my recollection. The crew had the messages as Jet II has already stated but they had no abnormal vibration and all other parameters were ok. So given that they couldn't see damage and the engine appeared to be operating normally, opted to carry on. Seems pretty reasonable to me given the information they had.

When I showed the crew extent of damage they were, to say the least, rather surprised!!:ooh:

Another Consideration
 

It does not appear that anybody has yet mentioned another consideration: what kind of ramifications - namely, assistance and technical expertise to get you out of there ASAP - can you expect if you return? I would think that, in the case where there was a bang and everything, including engine performance paramaters, seemed normal after that, the crew could have suspected compressor stall or some other ambient factor and decided that it is better to continue to home base than to return to SVO to get stuck for who-knows-how-long?

If my own kids would have been on board alone , i would have no problem if Mr sheikmyarse would have been the Captain as he looks to be a responsible guy (that is not the case with wiz...).
Wiz , would you have continued this flight with your own children O/B ?
As Mr sheikmyarse said , ek has been lucky on this one...
Now Gents , please wonder yourself , why and how an aircraft type is accepted to be ER , yes wiz , EMH is called an ER but before , she was "only" an IGW and why not ER directly ? , it is not because that manufacturers are "leaving" you a "chance" or doing their best for their own products to be reliable as possible that you should "play" with the limits.
Mr Waste Management , is it a major problem "to be stuck for who-knows-how-long" ?
I would say no , as it is always better to arrive late than to never arrive ...
That is the job of the MCC , to send a team of Engineers with all the necessary parts (including an engine) and to organize things to make it fixed.
The pilots job will then be finished properly after landing the A/C safely ASAP !
If you do not want to wait too long , just send another aircraft.
But , of course , this has a cost.
Air France did it in some worse places than DME ...
As far as i can remember it was in 2006.
Please , think again about Passengers and safety.
Waouh , this airline has sent another aircraft for us to fly back !
They are not leaving us and not taking us for idiots who are just buying tickets...
Can you see the difference ?
Anyway , this did not happened in this case just to avoid some "extra costs" ... i would say , what a shame for an Airline , with a large A...

Heard that before from someone in MAS...was he the infamous turbanless sick guy known as some kind of string?

Wiz


Take my advice and retire hurt on this one:}

While I often disagree with the Wiz he certainly has the right to his opinion. He comes from a 1st world country and has the right to free speech. By a first world country I mean a country that allows free and unhindered speech. Sorry middle east you are out, you don't even allow free speech on the internet.
An old politician once said i might disagree with your opinion sir but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I totally agree with free speech. When you allow it the speaker allows you into his mind by his speech and the listener knows what the speaker is really thinking. You know what he is all about.
Just because the Wiz has a different view point does not mean he should be silent or shut up. Something the governments (unelected) we all live in now could pay service to.

Alconguin Crusader,
I agree with you , everybody is free to speak.
Now , some people gave already their point of view about what we are talking about here and i will be interested in knowing about some more point of views.
Lets say that there are 2 groups:
Group 1 is thinking that it was safe to continue and group 2 , that it was not.
Which group are you in ?
Everybody is welcome , Pilots , Cabin Crews , Engineers , Passengers , etc ...

Max,

I would have thought that the groups would be:
1. Those that have been trained/tested in the aircraft operation and associated decision making.
2. Those who are not.

Which group would you be in?

The Don

Matmax NOT everyone is entitled to free speech. If one comes from a country that does not allow free speech back home they have absolutely no right to free speech here or anywhere. One should fix their problems back home before they pontificate here. Get rid of the un-elected dictators that hinder so much of their lives and then one can speak their mind.
On your note of which group I am in I better sit this one out. You and others have a lively debate going on this topic and I would just ruin that debate.

Don,
I will try not to piz u ov ...
But as you are "answering" to a question with another question , here i am:
When you call a Maintenance Control Centre to have some technical advices:
1/ Are you speaking with an Engineer ?
2/ Are you speaking with a Pilot ?

Please , answer to this one then i will answer to yours.
The Mat (Maintenance Access Terminal).

MAT,

And if that MCC advises you that, given the information available, in their opinion the Aircraft is safe to continue to destination, and you agree with them, what would YOU expect a pilot to do?

Max,
You do understand those who work in MCC do not make decisions with respect the flight don't you? They are there to provide any extra information that can not be sourced from the ECAM, STATUS, QRH, FCOM or MEL. MCC is a resource that the Captain can use (if he wants to, as there is no requirement to contact them if he hasn't the time or need). I would have thought MCC would have been explained to you when you were with EK. I hope this clears it up for you. :ok:

Just as I wouldn't want a pilot swinging spanners on my aircraft when he is not trained on how to do so, I would not want an Engineer making decisions with respect the conduct of a flight, as he is not trained to do so.

You are very much entitled to your opinion with respect this incident. But you must also understand you fall in the group 2. As it would seem you have not been trained and tested in aircraft operation and its associated decision making.

I have no conclusion with respect this incident as I have not seen any full report on what actually happened. Making a decision on what you would have done after the event isn't too hard is it. But we have much more information once the event has been completed and much more time and less stress than the crew had. The outcome was successful. And it certainly adds to experiences we can all learn from. Anyone who judges the crews actions with fully knowing all the information of the event is a horses @rse ...oh wait there he left didn't he?



The Don

Wiz,
As you say , "given the information available" , does it mean enough informations to take the right decision ?
Mate , i have jumped already in a pool full of sharks and survived , you can do it too ...

The "right" decision? Perhaps not.

The best decision given the information available? More likely.

As for this-

Ermmm...I'm sure you THINK you are making a point, but I for one have NO idea what that is supposed to mean...

Don,
If you do not want to contact "the Maintenance Specialists" when you have , a major technical problem , thats your own choice...
If you do not want to "work" in a team environment , thats your own choice...
But then , you will have to carry alone the responsability of the end of the story.
Banzai !
FYI , when i was with ek , the MCC was calling the Line Mtce Dpt to ask some stuff to the Lineys , yes Sir , i have lived it.
Anyway , there are no stupid questions ...
FYI , the MCC was taking care of outstations only ...
FYI , before ek , i was sometimes working as an MCC Engineer ...
After ek , i was an MCC Engineer and a Duty Manager and i have grounded and delayed A/Cs because they were not serviceable...no banzai !
According your question , i note that you never replied to mine , sorry Sir , but i am not in group 2 : Engineers , before , were doing apprenticeship and are doing training regularly , for any kind of our types training , there is always a test at the end and you pass it only if you have 75 %.
About decision making , when an Engineer is signing a release to service , he takes the decision and as i said already , he is signing for it , that the aircraft is fit to fly.
Moreover , to keep our approvals valid , we must stay current.
So , i would say that all your requirements are fulfilled no ?
As you say , the outcome was successful but maybe really lucky no ?
I think that i have replied to all your questions now it is your turn.
Just a simple Engineer.

Come on Wiz , to speak clearly , it is not because some guys brought back to base already an aircraft with a broken engine with multiples holes in fairings , with multiples dents on the stabilyzer and on the wing that it should be done again , no ?
"Banzai" spirit is acceptable for you ?

Well, that's a LITTLE clearer.

Would it happen again? No, as we have learned from the incident, and a bulliten has been issued reccomending a RTL if the same thing happens again.

That does not change the unfairness of your critisizm of these guys on the day.


You have artfully dodged my question (as you did the 200ER Engine affair)- If MCC were happy fot the Aircraft to continue (and they are made up of fine, experienced Engineers like yourself) why are you critical of the crew for doing so?

Sorry Wiz , but "RTL" is not an usual acronym for me , could you please explain it to me ?
About the engine affair , sorry but maybe you have missed it :"EMH is called an ER but before , she was "only" an IGW".
The unfairness of my critisizm , i can fully understand that you want to protect your colleagues but as you said , a bulletin has been issued , didn't they read it ?

MAT,

Yes they WERE IGWs, are now ERs. You seemed implied that either this aircraft was NOT an ER, or did not have Rollers.

RTL= Return to Land.

The Bulletin was issued AFTER and IN RESPONSE to this and several other incidents of TR inner wall failure, so they would have had trouble reading a bulliten that wasn't wrtten yet.

It was a judgement call, and they did their job.

I think we will call it a draw chaps:{

Really guy's.

Start your own Damn thread already.
This is crazy.