returned to base.... right or wrong
 

I was on a low cost airline flight on friday night from Stansread to Brescia. The flight had already been delayed by two hours.

About 45 mins in to the flight we were told we were returning to Stanstead (the flight was subsequently cancelled). I later found out the recovery was due an overheated oil indication. Now, I know that's not too serious a problem and the flight could have been continued.

I think that the recovery back to Stanstead was instructed as it would be too inconvenient and costly to repair in Italy.

Do airlines put their needs before customers ? Now I've written it down it sounds a bit obvious.... of course airlines put cost savings ahead of customer convenience. Opinions ?

Pretty much all airlines prefer, if possible, to get their u/s aircraft back to a main base.

If the a/c in question had landed at Brescia and the snag had turned out to be a bit more serious and say required an engine change, the costs and more importantly time involved in getting a repair team together and down to the aircraft can be considerable.

Whilst you may feel that the customer was inconvenienced - say that a part was needed - if the aircraft returns to main base the sapres are available and the aircraft can be put back into service as quick as possible (hopefully in time for the next service) - if a part is needed at an outstation, the delay in getting the spares and maintenance crew out may mean that the aircraft is out of service for the whole day.

So you can see that by returning to main base the greater majority of customers are helped by protecting the integrity of the operation.

Is this a safety issue? If in doubt, what is the safest option?

Not in the MELs - no ADD possible. Sounds like a sensible choice from the information available.

Not quite true Jet II, the airline I work for positively encourages us to continue to destination if at all possible. Then hand over to the engineers. I can see why the low cost carriers would want to do this though. If there had been a safety issue here then I am sure an on route diversion would have been appropriate. The fact that the aircraft flew all the way back to Stansted would indiacte that cost was the driving factor !

erm.......surely without the exact details from the cockpit crew we have no way of judging the merits or otherwise of the decision.

On a general note, I agree with JetII's explanation.

flapless, in an ideal world what you say also holds true, but falls apart when you're faced with the prospect of a destination with no engineering cover. Then the nightmare truly begins at three in the morning trying to organise outsourced engineers, spare parts etc. and explaining your decision to the company blah blah blah. I've seen delays of two or three days as a result of this sort of thing. The knock on effects can be enormous.

buzzc152, in answer to your question, in view of the above points, a company will generally take the option that causes the least overall disruption, with safety obviously taking priority over everything else.

If the oils hot, theres something wrong that is causing it. It could very easily lead to shutting down the engine. I think you are under estimating the situation.

I have to agree with West Coast.
An over limits oil temperature in a turbine engine is a very serious and abnormal condition.
The only sensible and legal thing to do is land the airplane in a timely manner.

Sincerely, Stearperson

flappless

I would assume that we are talking about Ryanair here - I doubt very much that there is much in the way of Engineering cover at Brescia.

Many airlines nowdays are cutting back on engineering support at outstations, some only have cover on an 'as and when' needed option, so spares and support are very limited. Just one of the joys of the new competetive marketplace.
:hmm:

a twin-engine
 

assuming it is a twin-engined jet...i would have thought it called for 'land ASAP at a suitable airport' situation.

the chaps would not have much to choose. would they?