Onur Air Engine Failure Manchester
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
best to make the turns with the working engine low.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ...
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never heard that??? Missed something during ATPL training. Vmca ring a bell??
Anyhow was one of the first lessons I learned on twin engine flying.
Very true that on the md80 / any tailmounted jet this is less of an issue. And Isaid if you can choose it is best. I did not say you can't turn with the dead engine low.
Anyhow was one of the first lessons I learned on twin engine flying.
Very true that on the md80 / any tailmounted jet this is less of an issue. And Isaid if you can choose it is best. I did not say you can't turn with the dead engine low.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the time stamps on the first 2 posts are accurate then only 15 mins elapsed between t/o & safe landing
Suggests a go-around to check controls, run check list etc. Chose 3,000 to burn max fuel in time avail, not to achieve min landing weight?
Also if 23R was closed, presmably gave ATC more time to create safe gap on remaining runway, assuming he didn't land 23R to pick up his litter.
IMO good call
PS Any herons reported missing?
Suggests a go-around to check controls, run check list etc. Chose 3,000 to burn max fuel in time avail, not to achieve min landing weight?
Also if 23R was closed, presmably gave ATC more time to create safe gap on remaining runway, assuming he didn't land 23R to pick up his litter.
IMO good call
PS Any herons reported missing?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: planet igloo
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Mr Oblaspoop's benefit
Oh dear Oblaspoop..
Except it's neither..and you've CLEARLY stated, you have NO working knowledge of the MD-80
then...
I didn't realise this was a measuring contest....or are you suggesting that because you fly REALLY big aeroplanes, you have a big...um opinion of your own opinion?
Then the peach..
Why should I take advice from someone who clearly views the size of his machine, as the pertinent point to make? and for what its worth, my plan unless there are OVERIDING safety issues at hand i.e. an uncontrolled fire, is not to rush...but then thats common sense to most people, even I would have thought in an A340-500
Finally...
No they don't...they say on the 757's I've flown "plan to land at the nearest suitable airport"
You are indeed correct, I have no working knowlege of MD-80 aircraft, however I would be surprised if a 'light twin' like that couldn't make a landing at or close to MTOW (all modern Airbus' and most Boeing A/C can and those that can't have fuel dumping systems installed for that very reason).
then...
On the contrary, the fuel alone in the A330 I operate weighs more than your B757 (I won't even mention the A340-500 I also fly)!
Then the peach..
All I will suggest is that next time you're in the sim, once you've finished all your checks and other good stuff, that you suggest taking up the hold for an hour or so to burn fuel
Finally...
Remember, the ECAM/EICAS/ and QRH all say LAND ASAP for good reason
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320/A330 will give LAND ASAP and B757 QRH states plan to land at nearest suitable airport.
In my company we were not encouraged to even consider dumping on the A330 for an engine failure, and certainly not encouraged to take up the hold to burn fuel in the A320.
Now recently on B757 and still not encouraged to lower landing weight prior to making approach.
Don't know about Onur SOP's. But maybe he wanted to hold to secure the engine etc.... but rightly thought he would burn more fuel at a lower alt whilst doing so (2 birds with one stone).
Anyhow, looks like job well done.
In my company we were not encouraged to even consider dumping on the A330 for an engine failure, and certainly not encouraged to take up the hold to burn fuel in the A320.
Now recently on B757 and still not encouraged to lower landing weight prior to making approach.
Don't know about Onur SOP's. But maybe he wanted to hold to secure the engine etc.... but rightly thought he would burn more fuel at a lower alt whilst doing so (2 birds with one stone).
Anyhow, looks like job well done.
This is the sort of thread on pprune that makes me want to puke!
We have a set of spotters, unpromising hysterics and aeronautically illiterate persons pontificating upon something they don't know the first thing about.
"Why go into the hold when everyone knows you have to get on the ground as soon as possible" they say. Have you ever heard of completing the QRH? Have you ever heard of the dangers of starting an approach before you are fully ready?
Do you know what a WAT limit is? Have you ever heard of being at such a weight that an emergency go-around would be impossible on one engine?
I have never flown an MD-80 but I am sure that they have such a limitation.
I certainly wouldn't commence an approach unless I knew that I could make a go-around should a further emergency arise.
I would only ever commit myself to an immediate landing if my arse and the rest of the aircraft were seriously on fire.
What really depresses me about these bl**dy amateurs pontificating on pprune is the fact that some of them are already on the "everything the Turks do is bad and everything the Brits do is good" line.
I have spent nearly 50 years of my life flying with pilots from all over the world and I can tell you that I have flown with some Turkish pilots who were excellent in every way and would make a lot of you out there look like a bunch of Boy Scouts!
Please, please, if you don't know what you are talking about then keep quiet and learn from those who do.
We have a set of spotters, unpromising hysterics and aeronautically illiterate persons pontificating upon something they don't know the first thing about.
"Why go into the hold when everyone knows you have to get on the ground as soon as possible" they say. Have you ever heard of completing the QRH? Have you ever heard of the dangers of starting an approach before you are fully ready?
Do you know what a WAT limit is? Have you ever heard of being at such a weight that an emergency go-around would be impossible on one engine?
I have never flown an MD-80 but I am sure that they have such a limitation.
I certainly wouldn't commence an approach unless I knew that I could make a go-around should a further emergency arise.
I would only ever commit myself to an immediate landing if my arse and the rest of the aircraft were seriously on fire.
What really depresses me about these bl**dy amateurs pontificating on pprune is the fact that some of them are already on the "everything the Turks do is bad and everything the Brits do is good" line.
I have spent nearly 50 years of my life flying with pilots from all over the world and I can tell you that I have flown with some Turkish pilots who were excellent in every way and would make a lot of you out there look like a bunch of Boy Scouts!
Please, please, if you don't know what you are talking about then keep quiet and learn from those who do.
Don't you understand son, it is not a question of landing overweight. All aircraft can do that without serious penalty.
It is a question of being too heavy to make a single-engined go-around if something unthinkable like some pillock in a PA-28 making a runway incursion in front of you for example.
All commercial aircraft are quite capable of making a landing at max take-off weight in an emergency.
Perhaps you should take my advice and keep quiet and learn?
It is a question of being too heavy to make a single-engined go-around if something unthinkable like some pillock in a PA-28 making a runway incursion in front of you for example.
All commercial aircraft are quite capable of making a landing at max take-off weight in an emergency.
Perhaps you should take my advice and keep quiet and learn?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
Dont tar everybody with the same brush. I have had more runway incursions by pillocks in big aeroplanes, who should no better, than a Pa28 driver who is starting out in aviation.
That aside, could not agree more with the rest of your posts on the subject.
Dont tar everybody with the same brush. I have had more runway incursions by pillocks in big aeroplanes, who should no better, than a Pa28 driver who is starting out in aviation.
That aside, could not agree more with the rest of your posts on the subject.
opnot:
I am very happy to agree. I too have had more problems with pillocks in large aircraft.
In any event, now that I am semi-retired, I am the proud owner of a PA-28 which is probably why it came to mind!
I am very happy to agree. I too have had more problems with pillocks in large aircraft.
In any event, now that I am semi-retired, I am the proud owner of a PA-28 which is probably why it came to mind!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know everything there is too know about the md-80, but I once recall a captain running over to stop the fueling of one after he realised he would be over weight on landing, during a flight from MAN - EDI on to somewhere else. All this a while back now when I was dispatching. (i am of course not surgesting that a over weight landing due to a mix up of figures is anything like landing over weight after a donkey stops!
at the end of the day, an engine failed as they sometimes do, the crew (who at the moment are the only ones who really now what happenend) did what they thought was required to get the ac back on the ground, remember a captain can break any rule or reg he wants (broadly speaking) if he feels the a/c is an danger.
job well done.
at the end of the day, an engine failed as they sometimes do, the crew (who at the moment are the only ones who really now what happenend) did what they thought was required to get the ac back on the ground, remember a captain can break any rule or reg he wants (broadly speaking) if he feels the a/c is an danger.
job well done.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi JW411
I see where you are coming from, but surely if he has just taken off from MAN they can also make an approach and go around.
If they have terrain issues which cause a significant RTOM penalty with a straight climb out they will have an emergency turn which will keep them away from obstacles below 1500'AAl (this probably wouldn't be the case off 23 but we have one off 05). They might not be able to fly the published missed approach but you can always tell ATC your intentions if you go around.
I've probably got the wrong end of the stick.
I see where you are coming from, but surely if he has just taken off from MAN they can also make an approach and go around.
If they have terrain issues which cause a significant RTOM penalty with a straight climb out they will have an emergency turn which will keep them away from obstacles below 1500'AAl (this probably wouldn't be the case off 23 but we have one off 05). They might not be able to fly the published missed approach but you can always tell ATC your intentions if you go around.
I've probably got the wrong end of the stick.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part The First
If it has suddenly gone twang on takeoff, you have shut it down, you are not on fire, you are overweight and can't dump - then yes I most certainly would go and hold somewhere. I would want to compose myself, run the checks, talk to the handling agent and lose some weight 'cos you can't dump and maybe can't land overweight without big engineering input - don't forget, the MD is not the latest of creations.
We practise this in the sim every 6 months and I spend plenty of time in a Bus sim swanning round the hold sorting things out before we make the approach - it is good airmanship, good crm and good safety.
History has shown that when people have been hurried into an approach mistakes have been made and the problem has got suddenly worse.
Part The Second
Now, on another tack, I would like to know why MAN went into meltdown from an operational point of view - don't you practise scenarios like this ? After all, there are 2 runways, once the guy taxied in - which I saw, we seemed to be delayed for an inordinate period of time with loads of confusion on the radio.
It smacked of the 'Airport' saying one thing and the guys in ATC being frustrated by not being allowed to deal with it in a practical manner - (comments welcome offline). I think ATC worked extremely hard, just disappointed that the 'Airport' didn't seem to be able to cope - again
If it has suddenly gone twang on takeoff, you have shut it down, you are not on fire, you are overweight and can't dump - then yes I most certainly would go and hold somewhere. I would want to compose myself, run the checks, talk to the handling agent and lose some weight 'cos you can't dump and maybe can't land overweight without big engineering input - don't forget, the MD is not the latest of creations.
We practise this in the sim every 6 months and I spend plenty of time in a Bus sim swanning round the hold sorting things out before we make the approach - it is good airmanship, good crm and good safety.
History has shown that when people have been hurried into an approach mistakes have been made and the problem has got suddenly worse.
Part The Second
Now, on another tack, I would like to know why MAN went into meltdown from an operational point of view - don't you practise scenarios like this ? After all, there are 2 runways, once the guy taxied in - which I saw, we seemed to be delayed for an inordinate period of time with loads of confusion on the radio.
It smacked of the 'Airport' saying one thing and the guys in ATC being frustrated by not being allowed to deal with it in a practical manner - (comments welcome offline). I think ATC worked extremely hard, just disappointed that the 'Airport' didn't seem to be able to cope - again
Where did this "catastrophic engine failure" come from?
I had a little wander around said a/c today, no sign of a fire, no big holes in the nacelle. All very civilised really.
The reason it all went pear shaped on the ground is because at the busiest hour of the day they closed a runway! Couple that with the work in progress on the taxiway and you have a right royal mess.
Well done to all concerned, no one died not even a Heron/Crow etc etc etc.....
I had a little wander around said a/c today, no sign of a fire, no big holes in the nacelle. All very civilised really.
The reason it all went pear shaped on the ground is because at the busiest hour of the day they closed a runway! Couple that with the work in progress on the taxiway and you have a right royal mess.
Well done to all concerned, no one died not even a Heron/Crow etc etc etc.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it all sounded quite orderley
The main problem was that there was debris on the runway that could not be moved therefore closing 23L for quite dome considerable time.
The problem was that quite a large number of aircraft were on the southside and could not get back very easily while a large number of aircraft were put in the holds while the Onur Air made up his decision on what to do and of course now only 1 runway ( at least we have 2 ) otherwise the airport would have been closed for a couple of hours
Ian
The main problem was that there was debris on the runway that could not be moved therefore closing 23L for quite dome considerable time.
The problem was that quite a large number of aircraft were on the southside and could not get back very easily while a large number of aircraft were put in the holds while the Onur Air made up his decision on what to do and of course now only 1 runway ( at least we have 2 ) otherwise the airport would have been closed for a couple of hours
Ian
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Javelin,
As I understand it, Manchester did not have two runways at their disposal. 23L became sterile due to to extensive FOD contamination, pending arrival of AAIB. The aircraft then returned on RWY23R (the only available runway). As you would expect, the Authority inspected the runway before allowing operations to resume. Several aircraft which had already crossed RWY23R for a departure from RWY23L were repositioned to HZ. I too listened to the RTF transmissions on 118.625 and did not here any confusion?????? I was actually quite impressed by the response by ATC/Airport/Fire Service etc.
Airport operations will always suffer during an incident, recovery will always depend on external factors such as AAIB requirements, AFS Cover and so on. Perhaps we all need to be a little more patient otherwise "mistakes will happen and suddenly get worse".
As I understand it, Manchester did not have two runways at their disposal. 23L became sterile due to to extensive FOD contamination, pending arrival of AAIB. The aircraft then returned on RWY23R (the only available runway). As you would expect, the Authority inspected the runway before allowing operations to resume. Several aircraft which had already crossed RWY23R for a departure from RWY23L were repositioned to HZ. I too listened to the RTF transmissions on 118.625 and did not here any confusion?????? I was actually quite impressed by the response by ATC/Airport/Fire Service etc.
Airport operations will always suffer during an incident, recovery will always depend on external factors such as AAIB requirements, AFS Cover and so on. Perhaps we all need to be a little more patient otherwise "mistakes will happen and suddenly get worse".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AeroManc
I never said there was any confusion, just that it was difficult to get aircraft back Yes I agree ATC were very good as always
What I meant by 2 runways that if we had only one the airport would have to close and the airport would have come to a halt for 3 hours AND the Onur would have to have gone somewhere else
Anyway to end on a happy note pax got way not too late on replacement aircraft this eveing
Good night all and I look forward to reading the AIB report when it is released
Ian
I never said there was any confusion, just that it was difficult to get aircraft back Yes I agree ATC were very good as always
What I meant by 2 runways that if we had only one the airport would have to close and the airport would have come to a halt for 3 hours AND the Onur would have to have gone somewhere else
Anyway to end on a happy note pax got way not too late on replacement aircraft this eveing
Good night all and I look forward to reading the AIB report when it is released
Ian
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'confusion' was on delivery/ground due to the high volume of aeroplanes asking what was going on, where they were in the queue, etc.
In hindsight - a better coordination of who has the tug, who has a slot, who can push and park - hey Brussels, we need to launch out of sequence etc etc would have launched and landed more aeroplanes.
We always learn - hopefully, a practical outcome can be achieved - I don't criticise the ATC, I do however have issues with the Airport who have demonstrated spectacularly dull decisions in the past.
Perhaps it is they who should visit the ATC and come on Fam Flights
In hindsight - a better coordination of who has the tug, who has a slot, who can push and park - hey Brussels, we need to launch out of sequence etc etc would have launched and landed more aeroplanes.
We always learn - hopefully, a practical outcome can be achieved - I don't criticise the ATC, I do however have issues with the Airport who have demonstrated spectacularly dull decisions in the past.
Perhaps it is they who should visit the ATC and come on Fam Flights
I don't trust rumors, but holding a runway inoperative for the AAIB to have a look doesn't sound right.
The only runways that I have come across that were held inoperative awaiting an investigation, had burning aircraft at the end of them and not just for a ho hum engine failure.
In all my experience the airport operator simply cleans up the bits, perhaps with a photo or two and does his best to avoid placing other aircraft in a pressure cooker situation. It's really not a big deal for an investigator to arrive later and have a look at the bits still lying in the grass alongside the runway as well as the runway sweepings. For the more serious stuff a later look at gouge marks can also be made.
The only runways that I have come across that were held inoperative awaiting an investigation, had burning aircraft at the end of them and not just for a ho hum engine failure.
In all my experience the airport operator simply cleans up the bits, perhaps with a photo or two and does his best to avoid placing other aircraft in a pressure cooker situation. It's really not a big deal for an investigator to arrive later and have a look at the bits still lying in the grass alongside the runway as well as the runway sweepings. For the more serious stuff a later look at gouge marks can also be made.