Onur Air Engine Failure Manchester

[portquartercv67]

Some of these posts are just another example of:

"pilots are our own worst enemies"

[Oblaaspop]

757 Man, YOU are the one that mentioned size first (just remember mine's bigger than yours)

JW411

I refer you to my post of (oh, 20 posts back) which clearly mentions approach climb gradient considerations(which I think is the technical term you were struggling to remember)!

[JW411]

gatbusdriver:

If you are telling me that you can take-off at MTOW for a given day on a given runway in your A330, lose an engine and then go straight round the pattern and make a single-engined go-around then I am very happy to accept that and may I say that this a nice position to be in.

Now then, I will make a confession. Since 1962 I haven't flown a twin (except for fun). Until I retired last year I have been fortunate enough to have had four engines to play with apart from nearly 8 years on the three-engined DC-10.

I am therefore guilty of extrapolating a four-engined aircraft on two engines (50% power) as being the same as a twin on one engine (50% power). It is certainly the case that not all four-engined aeroplanes can immediately make a two-engined approach and go around after losing two engines.

I am now retired but I teach BAe146 part time in the simulator. After losing two engines the QRH refers the reader to Card 7A which is entitled "Maximum Weight for Go-Around With Two Engines Inoperative". This is in graph form. You enter with the airfield altitude, go across to the temperature condition and then emerge with a max possible weight at the bottom.

If that is not a WAT limit graph then I don't what else it could be. Certainly a go-around at MTOW even at S.L. and 0°C would apparently not meet with much success. Of course, nowhere does it say that you can't land at MTOW if your ar*e is on fire.

I apologise if I have misled you with my suppositions.

oblaaspop:

You are obviously looking for someone to have a fight with and it is not going to be me. I actually didn't have any particular issues with your contributions apart from your statement that "I think it would be sheer folly to hold".

You didn't help your case very much when you decided to throw your toys out of your pram with the "mine is bigger than yours" statement. On reflection, don't you think that maybe this was a bit childish and did nothing to reinforce your views?

I suppose you also think that the crew of the 757 that swallowed a heron took far too long to get back on the ground?

The trouble is that none of us can give a precise definition of "ASAP". I am grateful that I have never had to operate to ETOPS rules but I suppose being up there for 3 hours after a catastrophic engine failure also constitutes "landing at the nearest suitable airfield ASAP"?

However, none of us so far seems to know much about the MD-80.

[gatbusdriver]

JW411

Hope no offence was caused.

Not on the Bus anymore, lucky to get command on 757 recently. Having only ever flown Bus and now Boeing, I haven't come accross this issue. Therefore I quite wrongly assumed all aircraft are the same in that respect.

The B757 at 115,000kg can still give 2.7% climb gradient at 30C at S/L single engine.

[Back at NH]

Pardon me for being just a mere ops manager, but basic language interpretation does suggest that "land as soon as possible" is not "land immediately". It implies land as soon as what needs to be sorted in order to land SAFELY. Personally, if I was SLF on that flight, crew taking the time to sort things out on a heavy aeroplane with one out rather than rushing into an ill judged approach would get my vote anyday.

SAFE SAFE SAFE not TIME TIME TIME

[Oblaaspop]

JW,

Not looking for a fight mate, just trying to put a point of view accross......

Indeed a 2 eng GA on a 4 pod would be damn near impossible at MTOW, tried it in the A340-300 sim and it wasn't pretty (mind you the A343 performance isn't pretty with all 4 running), which is why engines on 2 engined A/C are generally much more powerful than those on a 4 eng A/C.

Cheers

BTW the "Mine's bigger than yours" quip was just that, a joke of the 'manhood' variety

[AeroMANC]

Ian Boorks,

Thanks - I wholeheartedly agree with your posts, as you will see, my comments were intended to discuss the points raised by JAVELIN.

Javelins suggestion that the Airport should spend more time with ATC/Fam Flights etc. is a great idea - equally I'd be interested to know if any pilots have taken the time to 'shadow' the Airport Authority/Airfield Ops? I have, on one occasion, and found it surprisingly enlightening.

Spoke to an Airfield Ops rep today and he stated that some of the debris on the runway was on fire on arrival at the scene, he also said the AAIB were very specific about how debris should be collected and recorded, this slowed down the clear-up process somewhat.

[mack3630]

Just picking up on the suggestion of familiarisation flights and spending more time with people in the industry but from different backgrounds.

Does anyone have any points of contact to suggest, based at Manchester, to possibly arrange tagging along on a flight as an observer ?
I know a little about the procedures and methods for flight and navigation but it would be a terrific learning experience to see it in action.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

On another note ... is my first post here so hello all

[Helen49]

The majority of flight crew take little or no interest in the business of Airfield Operations. They don't visit airfield ops, know little about the procedures and constraints imposed by Licensing Regulations and then have the audacity to criticise the poor beggars!! Come to think of it.....reminds of too many of the contributors to this thread......lots of comments and even criticisms without knowing the facts by people who insinuate that they reside at the pointy end......worrying!!
H49

[A-3TWENTY]

Oblaaspop,

Despite I don`t agree with some of your positions , I would like to remember you that an eng.failure on the airbus is considered an abnormal , not an emergency.

When you say that the turkish pilot should have come back mediately and you compare this with the airbus , you are wrong two times.

1.You weren`t sat on that cockpit to judge what he should have done.
2.In the airbus (despite my nickname I´ve flown A-330 as well) , despie on the ECAM you hava LAND ASAP, this is an AMBER LAND ASAP.
So you don`t have urgency to return.Actually , the only one predictable emergency which shows a RED LAND ASAP that could obligate you to return immediately is a fire.

Cheers

[757manipulator]

The majority of flight crew take little or no interest in the business of Airfield Operations. They don't visit airfield ops, know little about the procedures and constraints imposed by Licensing Regulations and then have the audacity to criticise the poor beggars!!

On the contrary Helen, most of us have to be reasonably familiar with specific airfield procedures relating to the operation of aircraft, we even have a few very detailed pages to refer too.

[Ian Brooks]

Aeromanc
Thank you for the nice comments
you have now confirmed what I thought had happened re the fire

Ian

[Ignition Override]

I've only read a few posts on this incident, but if this was not already stated, keep in mind that if you depart an airport that has only short runways and another airport is just a few minutes away with a much longer (suitable) runway, you might decide to go there instead. You would/should not be criticized for going to a nearby military base with a long runway in this situation. In the US, after you "declare an emergency" as a precaution, you can do whatever you need to (except in one part of Nevada...).

You can call for your "Engine Failure" or Eng Fire" procedures, and have these done, in about the same time as you would flying a fairly long downwind at the departure airport, while the Non-Flying Pilot goes through all 'clean-up' items, (and quickly briefs ATC and the cabin, then reviews the instr. procedure) prepares to land at the other nearby airport.

[mikeyuk]

Well all the engine tests were done today and the new engines fine, Now all they need to do is fix the wing where a forklift hit it today

[RoyHudd]

Manchester Airport???

[tommyb1967]

I am not a pilot so my view is purely from being a passenger on the Onur Air flight OHY 380 which blew an engine on take off 11/06/07 which was not a pleasant experience but in the same way i have to commend the flight crew for their professionalism and calmness with which they handled the situation.

From reading the many comments posted by yourselves i think the main fact is that the pilots got the aircraft safely down without any further damage to the aircraft and more importantly to their passengers.

I have flown many times and this was the first time i have experienced a situation of this nature and i'm sure nobody does,but the crewkept the passengers informed of the situation and their plans.

So once again well done to your colleagues for their sterling work.

[Paradism]

First I must declare that I am not a pilot and have no intention of telling pilots how to drive an aircraft so please consider my post with that in mind.
This incident seems to have generated a plethora of views and opinions and that immediately raised a query in my mind. What seems to have caused so much discussion is the question of landing "ASAP". From a QA point of view the use of "ASAP" in a procedure, if indeed it was used, has created an ambiguity that could have disastrous consequences.
If the aircraft constructor and the certifying authority mean "land immediately" that is what the procedures should say. If that it what they mean by "ASAP", they have unintentionally created a situation where the pilot in command may make decisions based incomplete information provided by observable indications and symptoms.
Whilst procedures cannot address every specific event, the constructor has to make his manuals address situations based on his risk assessments of the danger arising from a failure to structure, equipment and services in any particular area.
Let me pose an example. An uncontained engine failure in a heavy twin. The uncontained element being outboard of the engine causing severe damage to the underside and internal structure of the wing. No fuel, hydraulic or electrical failures evident to the pilot or crew. There would be no indication to the pilot that the wing might be in danger of imminent failure. So, in this situation, "land immediately" would be more apt than "ASAP", and that is what the manual should state.
Certainly, the pilot has to make decisions based upon the procedures provided and the situation in which he finds himself, that is his responsibility and is almost infinitely variable, but he does need clear and concise guidance for predictable situations.
Just to round things off, in the UK ambiguities in airworthiness manuals are subject to Mandatory Occurrence Reporting procedures in accordance with CAP 382 as mandated by the Air Navigation Order. As pilots, you folk are in the best position to identify such ambiguities, but a cautionary note, pilots are not necessarily the best people to resolve them.
Finally, I congratulate the subject pilot on a safe conclusion to his incident.

[yankeeclipper747]

NITS?

As a Yank, I'd like to ask,What in the hell are NITS?

[OBK!]

Is holding with flaps/gear down acceptable to burn off fuel quicker?

[javelin]

NITS

N - Nature of the problem
I - Intentions
T - Time left
S - Special Instructions

Standard emergency brief given by the Skipper to the Purser.

We now include another S to include Signals - any special calls etc before the landing.