Article: NTSB: Emirates 777 continued flight after loud bang, messages
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..I'm a taxi driver on the motorway ..
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a taxi driver on the motorway with a passenger and I get an oil level low warning and I decide to to carry on to the next service station. On checking it is noted that I do in fact need a litre of oil. No drama.
A colleague of mine has the same warning the next day but decides to pull over onto the hard shoulder and call out the AA for a tow to the service station.He also needs a litre of oil. No drama.
A colleague of mine has the same warning the next day but decides to pull over onto the hard shoulder and call out the AA for a tow to the service station.He also needs a litre of oil. No drama.
Having been a person who was responsable for dealing with the results of such decisions, but on much larger equipment, I can say the second driver made the correct initial decision.
Why, because there where two possible occurances, one the warning system was faulty, two the system was indeed low on oil. If it was indeed low on oil then there are two main possibilities, one it had systematicaly got lower over a long period, or oil is drastically being lost for some reason, like a lost sump plug.
A engine under high load can be damaged in a very short time, even if the oil pressure light comes on and you get it shutdown. Hence the correct course of action is pull over, verify you still have adequate oil with the dipstick and then continue on to where you want to deal with it.
The first driver made a guess, that unless he had other information was just that.
p.s this is not meant to reflect on the actions of this crew.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@sax Get over yourself man....!! Really.... What a troll....
I know it's difficult for some in our community to accept but i think sAX's outside comments looking in are refreshing and a worthwhile insight into who pays our wages might be thinking...and so eloquent 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizofoz said:
Turkish did 
How nice to see good argument well presented, thanks Wizofoz!
You also can't dispatch with only one RAD ALT- would you land ASAP on some marginal wilderness strip if THAT happened in flight?
How nice to see good argument well presented, thanks Wizofoz!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@woo hoo
A while ago I was on my way to MKJP to present a paper to a professional institute. Ironically enough it was a T7 departing from LGW. 20mins before touchdown the plane encountered heavy turbulence and dropped like I've never experienced before or since. Thankfully we did go on to make a perfectly safe landing.
In the baggage hall at arrivals the Captain and FO were standing right next to me, so I took the opportunity to ask what had happened. The Captain ignored a request for conversation (surname Dawg perhaps!), but the FO explained it had been a little wild and that the command to FA's to immediately seat was because they were unsure if someone had been hurt, or how long the turbulence on descent would last. It was incredulous to me how anyone could take that experience as routine. His final anecdote was that flying was extremely safe and encouraged me to read an aviation blog to get a better look behind the 'scenes', hence PPRuNe ever since.
Reviewing a number of PPRuNe threads has not actually made me feel anymore comfortable when I fly and it is the type of mis-placed arrogance demonstrated by some here, that is a disservice to the aims of a true safety culture. Periods of enlightenment cease when we take ourselves more important than we ought, so my apologies again to all if this appears to be the hallmark of a troll, but at approx 6 posts/pa I am remarkably ill-equipped to lay any claim to even a modicum of success in that direction.
A while ago I was on my way to MKJP to present a paper to a professional institute. Ironically enough it was a T7 departing from LGW. 20mins before touchdown the plane encountered heavy turbulence and dropped like I've never experienced before or since. Thankfully we did go on to make a perfectly safe landing.
In the baggage hall at arrivals the Captain and FO were standing right next to me, so I took the opportunity to ask what had happened. The Captain ignored a request for conversation (surname Dawg perhaps!), but the FO explained it had been a little wild and that the command to FA's to immediately seat was because they were unsure if someone had been hurt, or how long the turbulence on descent would last. It was incredulous to me how anyone could take that experience as routine. His final anecdote was that flying was extremely safe and encouraged me to read an aviation blog to get a better look behind the 'scenes', hence PPRuNe ever since.
Reviewing a number of PPRuNe threads has not actually made me feel anymore comfortable when I fly and it is the type of mis-placed arrogance demonstrated by some here, that is a disservice to the aims of a true safety culture. Periods of enlightenment cease when we take ourselves more important than we ought, so my apologies again to all if this appears to be the hallmark of a troll, but at approx 6 posts/pa I am remarkably ill-equipped to lay any claim to even a modicum of success in that direction.
Sax
Arrogance?
It's fine to come on here and ask questions, but when when the answers rebuff your preconceived opinions and you continue with the same opinion what do you expect.
Arrogance?
It's fine to come on here and ask questions, but when when the answers rebuff your preconceived opinions and you continue with the same opinion what do you expect.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seconded, lomapaseo.
sAx, maybe five times out of ten departing Heathrow, an aircraft will be instructed by ATC to stop climb at around 5,000' because of conflicting traffic. This involves a major reduction in power, which, (the sudden loss of engine noise), quite a few passengers perceive to be a major emergency. (I had the wife of a colleague, [who you'd think would know better] assure me that "The engines failed!!!!")
Although it's absolutely no big deal, I accepted that for many pax, it was - (a bit like the turbulence that so affected you and the FO quite correctly told you it wasn't). So, if things were looking busy (when aren't they at Heathrow?), I got into the habit, if time permitted, of telling my passengers to expect the reduction in power when I made the 'cabin crew take your seats' call immediately before takeoff, usually finishing with the comment that since I'd warned them, it probably wouldn't happen today.
It's not arrogance that people responding to your REPETITIVE posts are displaying. They're just trying to tell you something you should by now, (by page 6!!!,) appreciate - passenger aeroplanes quite often fly, (I'd go so far as to say on a daily basis) with bits and pieces missing or not working. Airlines have a very comprehensive document called a Minimum Equipment List that, before departure, a crew and the engineers may refer to to see if those very clever men and women who built the aeroplane consider it is safe to set out without.
After the aeroplane has moved, that list is no longer the decider. On a 777, in most (but obviously not all) cases, it's a wonderful little screen that comes up with all manner of messages called the EICAS, and on the Airbus, the ECAM.
I've suffered (I use that word quite accurately!) a major lightning strike immediately after takeoff and I can assure you, the bang we felt when it hit the aircraft (both me and the passengers!) right under the FO's windshield was major, I'd go so far as to say extreme. (It felt like we'd hit a solid object.)
I assumed our radar and radios at the very least would have been fried. However, a check of all systems - and a check of the STATUS page - assured me everything was still functioning. However, using your (apparently unchangeable) logic, I should have dumped fuel (as the Moscow crew would have had to) and returned to land immediately, "because you never know..."
sAx, maybe five times out of ten departing Heathrow, an aircraft will be instructed by ATC to stop climb at around 5,000' because of conflicting traffic. This involves a major reduction in power, which, (the sudden loss of engine noise), quite a few passengers perceive to be a major emergency. (I had the wife of a colleague, [who you'd think would know better] assure me that "The engines failed!!!!")
Although it's absolutely no big deal, I accepted that for many pax, it was - (a bit like the turbulence that so affected you and the FO quite correctly told you it wasn't). So, if things were looking busy (when aren't they at Heathrow?), I got into the habit, if time permitted, of telling my passengers to expect the reduction in power when I made the 'cabin crew take your seats' call immediately before takeoff, usually finishing with the comment that since I'd warned them, it probably wouldn't happen today.
It's not arrogance that people responding to your REPETITIVE posts are displaying. They're just trying to tell you something you should by now, (by page 6!!!,) appreciate - passenger aeroplanes quite often fly, (I'd go so far as to say on a daily basis) with bits and pieces missing or not working. Airlines have a very comprehensive document called a Minimum Equipment List that, before departure, a crew and the engineers may refer to to see if those very clever men and women who built the aeroplane consider it is safe to set out without.
After the aeroplane has moved, that list is no longer the decider. On a 777, in most (but obviously not all) cases, it's a wonderful little screen that comes up with all manner of messages called the EICAS, and on the Airbus, the ECAM.
I've suffered (I use that word quite accurately!) a major lightning strike immediately after takeoff and I can assure you, the bang we felt when it hit the aircraft (both me and the passengers!) right under the FO's windshield was major, I'd go so far as to say extreme. (It felt like we'd hit a solid object.)
I assumed our radar and radios at the very least would have been fried. However, a check of all systems - and a check of the STATUS page - assured me everything was still functioning. However, using your (apparently unchangeable) logic, I should have dumped fuel (as the Moscow crew would have had to) and returned to land immediately, "because you never know..."
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 92
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article: NTSB: Emirates 777 continued flight after loud bang, messages
This could have been a disastrous ending. Ignoring engine "bang" followed by multiple messages "advising" the crew could have resulted in
any kind of engine disintegration either in the air, or when reversing thrust on touchdown. Consider secondary damages also.
Not being a 777 driver, I nevertheles would have thought it prudent to
land the aircraft ASAP and assess the damage. Better safe than sorry ,even if it costs the airline some money !
By admission of learned crew members, they would not have departed with the aircraft with the engine in the condition it turned out to be.
Enough said.
any kind of engine disintegration either in the air, or when reversing thrust on touchdown. Consider secondary damages also.
Not being a 777 driver, I nevertheles would have thought it prudent to
land the aircraft ASAP and assess the damage. Better safe than sorry ,even if it costs the airline some money !
By admission of learned crew members, they would not have departed with the aircraft with the engine in the condition it turned out to be.
Enough said.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I am way off here, but this incident/episode kind of reminds me of the the BA 747 that shut down an engine out of LAX and then attempted to continue to LHR on the remaining 3 engines.
My quick opinion is that at least the BA crew knew what their deficit was, one engine out of 4. This crew really did not know what their actual issues were.
My quick opinion is that at least the BA crew knew what their deficit was, one engine out of 4. This crew really did not know what their actual issues were.
When and if we become aware of just what the crew knew and exactly when they knew it, then perhaps some of the above conclusions will be vindicated and some will be repudiated. Until then, my own opinion as to the propriety of this crew's actions under the conditions specific to this occurrence will remain open to revision pending the receipt of additional facts.
I just fail to see the logic in either condemning or supporting what was done without knowing what facts were available to the crew at the time of the occurrence or at any time during the flight thereafter.
I just fail to see the logic in either condemning or supporting what was done without knowing what facts were available to the crew at the time of the occurrence or at any time during the flight thereafter.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MTOW
It's not what sAx says that is important, it is what your colleagues say that is. This thread was started by someone I presume to be rated on type. He/she amongst other pilots in this thread are of the view that they wouldn't. Yourself and others alike feel that all possibilities had been considered, and that all eventualities were foreseeable. But as you rightly imply, 'chattle' don't possess your oversight on the FD and perhaps would rather have lined up and taken their chances with those who wouldn't. It is pure fallacy to suggest that all knew that all would be well, as I have read your contributions on many other threads, where what is known is accurately dissected in minutiae in the last few seconds before impact. The arrogance is to be dismissive of this truth, when immediately surrounded by other threads that continue a cyclical review.
My perspective of the aviation industry's safety culture, is my reality of the aviation industry's safety culture! Your perspective and hence your reality, may actually have been helped if you had digested the views of your learned peers from page 1!
It's not arrogance that people responding to your REPETITIVE posts are displaying
My perspective of the aviation industry's safety culture, is my reality of the aviation industry's safety culture! Your perspective and hence your reality, may actually have been helped if you had digested the views of your learned peers from page 1!
Last edited by sAx_R54; 7th Sep 2011 at 10:14.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the views of your learned peers from page 1
and
I don't possess your insight
You want a safe flight, believe it or not, so do we! If it all goes belly up, I intend to get home to my wife and kids so I'll do what I've been trained to do to make that happen. That means you're coming along too. Even if the problem has a specific procedure to deal with it, the hard fought and gleaned experience of the crew is used to gather info, assess and decide on an appropriate response. We don't have the option to pull over and dip the oil! We do however, have people to read a realtime data download for things we can't see. All part of the decision process.
You're entitled to your view, but please don't expect it to detemine mine
Move on folks, there's nothing else to see here .......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrogance doesn't belong in the cockpit
There are a lot of ways to get killed in a transport aircraft, usually extremely well mitigated by well-designed, well-manufactured, well-maintained machines flown by two or more extremely well-trained highly-competent professionals who can co-operatively handle the situation when something does go wrong.
As "slf" (amusingly insulting, imo) I would not choose to fly behind those among you who've developed arrogance as part of your life-style. If you enjoy smarting off at someone expressing an opinion you disagree with here, I don't trust you to not treat your colleage in the other seat any better.
John
As "slf" (amusingly insulting, imo) I would not choose to fly behind those among you who've developed arrogance as part of your life-style. If you enjoy smarting off at someone expressing an opinion you disagree with here, I don't trust you to not treat your colleage in the other seat any better.
John
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real problem here is that the non-pilots think they were flying a crippled aircraft back to homebase just to save some bucks (or be in time for dinner).
Reread the earlier posts about status-messages. They mean really nothing: 99 out of 100 times they are cleared after landing with one push on a button in the onboard maintenance computer.
A status message in not an indication of a problem or a failure.
A status message isn't even presented directly to the pilots; it has to be manually called up on a special page in a secondary display.
Now the load bang is something else.
It is usually associated with stall and that can be destructive.
We have however several cockpit indications (vibration and EGT would be my direct focus), and as long as they remain normal you just keep on trucking'.
BTW the aircraft will automatically downlink engine data at certain trigger values and also most probably the pilots will have discussed the engine health with homebase maintenance as they have access to enormous amounts of engine data which can also be downlinked on request.
That is standard for any technical issue; via satcom anytime, anywhere.
It is not like 20 years ago that you are on your own on the other side of the globe; there has been progress and we have instant access to advise by specialists, be it f.i. operational, medical, security or in this case technical.
Anyway, we are not an arrogant bunch of cowboys.
We use our experience, airmanship and good judgement to make cooperative decisions in situations like this.
You'll gather that experience when flying day in, day out for years like we do, not by reading a pilots forum (not meant to be arrogant).
Reread the earlier posts about status-messages. They mean really nothing: 99 out of 100 times they are cleared after landing with one push on a button in the onboard maintenance computer.
A status message in not an indication of a problem or a failure.
A status message isn't even presented directly to the pilots; it has to be manually called up on a special page in a secondary display.
Now the load bang is something else.
It is usually associated with stall and that can be destructive.
We have however several cockpit indications (vibration and EGT would be my direct focus), and as long as they remain normal you just keep on trucking'.
BTW the aircraft will automatically downlink engine data at certain trigger values and also most probably the pilots will have discussed the engine health with homebase maintenance as they have access to enormous amounts of engine data which can also be downlinked on request.
That is standard for any technical issue; via satcom anytime, anywhere.
It is not like 20 years ago that you are on your own on the other side of the globe; there has been progress and we have instant access to advise by specialists, be it f.i. operational, medical, security or in this case technical.
Anyway, we are not an arrogant bunch of cowboys.
We use our experience, airmanship and good judgement to make cooperative decisions in situations like this.
You'll gather that experience when flying day in, day out for years like we do, not by reading a pilots forum (not meant to be arrogant).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I am way off here, but this incident/episode kind of reminds me of the the BA 747 that shut down an engine out of LAX and then attempted to continue to LHR on the remaining 3 engines.
My quick opinion is that at least the BA crew knew what their deficit was, one engine out of 4. This crew really did not know what their actual issues were.
My quick opinion is that at least the BA crew knew what their deficit was, one engine out of 4. This crew really did not know what their actual issues were.
BTW the BA crew had an actual failure, this crew NOT.
Think to put some of this in simple terms a reasonably sized chunk of FAIRING inside the exhaust area broke away. If one looks at a very simple example look at the A320 series engines and compare the CFM 56 nacelle and the IAE V2500 one is very short and one is long . The engines are a similar size. So the loss of some of the nacelle doesnt have a major effect on the physical operation in this area. I'M sure if the crew had sight of the damage they wouldnt have carried on but , the damage was not visible so the only choice is to go with what you can see , a good set of engine parameters and a few status messages.