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.