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: