A fair summary :ok:

my problem with all this is that the large transport aviation community doesn't really have a regulation in their books that covers all this, thus the recommendations are just that, no hope of being mandatory.

Sqwak7700,

Sorry didn't phrase my point very well, I've read the report and yes there is a considerable content about how the fuel contamination occurred.

What I meant to say was that there hadn't been much comment in this thread.

Would be interesting to find out how the same contaminant affects different engine types. There are plenty of other operators in Surabaya, I wonder if they had any issues. Plenty of 330s as well (I can think of a few of the top of my head like GIA, SIA, MAS, EVA, CAL).

You would think something so small to pass through on-board filters would just burn int he can instead of lodging and disturbing the peace inside the FCUs. Must be some pretty tenacious stuff, surely there is other material that can be used as a filtering medium?

Oh come on...... Who do you think they asked???

The stuff is all sizes and only partially dissolved depending on pressure, temp etc.. A very small amount may get through the last chance filter and afterwards morph into a minute egg with a hard enough shell to jam a valve.

FADECs are not prepared for sticky valves.

It's certainly not everyday stuff.

According to the report, they asked a maintenance engineer at maintenance Control if it was safe to continue the flight.. So I think that is who they asked.

First, apologies to all because I have NOT read the report. For some reason, I am unable to axis the link & then when I got into a second link the report looked like 217 pages ! I just need my own thinking cleared up please by those who have read the report. Looks from gleaning other posts that the aircraft wound up with thrust problems at top of climb which lead the crew to investigate and the upshot was one engine stuck at high thrust ( uncontrollable, then) and the other stuck at low thrust. Essentially, a 50% loss of available power. ICAO definition is that this would be a Mayday & divert to the nearest suitable alternate.

I am with the RR engineer on this. Continuing to destination on one engine is not a good decision if suitable en-route alternates are available. For those who don't get it, what if the remaining engine quits ? BOAC does get it, as usual.

I would be very worried about an engine stuck at high thrust and the other at idle. Nearest suitable alternate would be the longest runway available with fabbo weather. If the engine really was "stuck" at high thrust, what consideration was given to the landing. What config ? Shut it down on touch down ? Shut it down just before touch ? And, Lordy Lordy, if it is not your day and a GA is necessary, how are you going to do that ? I would certainly want an obstacle free GA area. Straight ahead to whatever alt you like would be something I would be working on very clearly.

I would be very interested in the influence Base Engineers had on the Commander's decision making.

Tough calls on all and a terriffic discussion on "What would YOU have done" type threads. I offer my thoughts for clarification & possible discussion and re-iterate that I have not read the report. Apologies if I have got anything wrong as a result.

Landflap........mate, come on. I strongly suggest you READ the report. They did not continue on one Engine.......:D

Engage brain before opening mouth. ( or in this case before typing )

As nitpicker said, get real and read the :mad: report.

They had some very minor EPR fluctuations during the climb followed by an ENG 2 CTL SYS FAULT ECAM message and an associated ENG 2 SLOW RESPONSE message shortly after top-of-climb. They contacted the engineers in Hong Kong for advice and checked the engines for control response to thrust lever movements, which they found to be normal. In the absence of any other abnormal indications they decided to continue to Hong Kong. The other problems did not occur until they were on descent into Hong Kong.

It's one thing to read the report and then post a differing view on what transpired. It's another altogether to post a differing view while admitting that you haven't even looked at the factual information before making your (wrong) conclusions. :ugh:

From the analysis of the report I don't see that the root cause was actually identified.

It is not clear that the metering valve piston was actually seized. It may has been tight due to the observed deposit of SAP material in the fit clearance so it would be difficult to move it with hand pressure but this does not mean that the torque motor - servovalve should not be capable of moving the stuck piston - if the servo valve was functional. I don't know the exact numbers but with a servo supply pressure difference of 1000 psi and a 2" diameter piston at least a few hundred pounds of operating force should be available to move the piston and maintain some kind of partial metering control.

I think it is likely that control was totally lost because the torque motor - servovalve was plugged and according to the report nothing was done to evaluate condition of this component.

Actually, it is more like making up stuff because you are too lazy to do some reading on what actually happened, then blaming the crew as if they actually existed in this made-up alternate reality that exists only in your head.

Some psychologists would label that insane. Such posts should be deleted and referred to a mental professional as they are clearly a cry for help. :O

Let's not get into a slanging match over this. The way I see it, the crew had some relatively minor problems which, in the opinion of themselves and the maintenance team, could be carried to destination. When it all began to turn to worms in a completely unpredictable way, the crew handled the emergency in a very professional manner. Hats off to them, and I would like to think I could have done as well: but thankfully never had to.

Sq 77 and others of the same hot head brigade ; what an extraordinary knee jerk to Landflap but fairly typical of an antipodean. Hope you chaps are seriously NOT professional pilots because this is the sort of over-reaction we try to avoid on most flight-decks ! Landflap apologised at least twice for not having read the report but was commenting on the posts already offered. Some of these claim to have read the report and still publish opinions based on incorrect understanding. A bit more professionalism in puting people straight required here...............too much to expect from the lnee jerkers ! Shame but only to be expected.

After the recent BA divert to BHX, and then this incident I think we need to pay more attention to engine indications and even if there are consistent but slight EPR fluctuations, we need to question more despite engineering's assurance that it's OK to continue.

That is written with the benefit of hindsight of these two incidents.

Thanks for the lecture on professionalism, slowjet. Here's one for you:

A PROFESSIONAL would take the time to read the report and form a PROFESSIONAL opinion before commenting, rather than making ridiculous statements based on ill-informed rubbish posted on PPRuNE.

Well put Buzzbox, I guess Slowjet overlooked that slightly major point.

So what you are saying is that as long as I apologize first, I can then say whatever I feel like, even if it is completely made up, and I can't be criticized for it? This is a professional forum, or at least, it is supposed to be. People jumping into the conversation to inject imaginary scenarios that clearly did not occur do not help the discussion. :ugh:

Ah, good. Some calming down but Sqw77 still sqwaking a bit.Ease up, er, mate, & throw away your ameteur psycholgy books. There's a good chappy. Now, I have read the report. APOLOGIES to all offended. No offense intended.No imaginary scenarios dreamed up, only comment on posts previously made . Questionable but all good Pprune "rumours" and news stuff. Factually, to me, an outstanding job done by these guys. I reserve the right to comment but in all humility, accept the berating rained down on me. The lack of quality in the slap down leaves me bemused and more than a little worried.

A fantastic job by the boys in blue.
ATC getting info from IOC, what a crock of crap.
ATC gives a clearance for a mayday aircraft to use
either runway, then from the transcript " standby
for landing clearance"
A full emergency not declared by ATC and standby
for a landing clearance for a MAYDAY aircraft.
The worst aspects of an over-regulated rule driven
nonsensical ATC circus, whatever happened to common sense.
I wonder if the controllers would have given a more general
"track/speed as required cleared to land wherever you like"
if their relatives were on board?
Stand by for landing clearance my arse.
Idiots

MSD-AGIN and JPJP,

So you disapprove of the PF's use of autopilot at 1100' on departure.

Flown in Indonesia much? The most erratic ATC and RT in the world, combined with ever present TS and CB activity.

I think both pilots actively monitoring TCAS, traffic, wx radar etc in this case would be a much better option than having one head-in slavishly following the FD.

We weren't there. They were.

The PF obviously does not need more time 'hands on'. Or your condescension.