Asiana Crew in Trouble
 

Well, it seems they are not goin' to flying so soon...:bored:

Asiana 767 crew grounded after flying on one engine - 4/28/2014 - Flight Global

SAIPAN?!? What were they thinking?!?

No much I would guess.....:{

At least they kept the tail of their aircraft attached to the fuselage.

Could this be a demo of 'trained monkey syndrome'? They didn't shut down the engine; thus they never reached the point in the QRH which says consider a relight; If unsuccessful land at nearest suitable airport.

There was a similar incident many many years ago of a European based B767 that had an engine vibration indication at TOC out of the Canaries. Reduced thrust reduced the vibration and the a/c continued to its homeland. I don't know if it made destination, but it made it to a home engineering base. The argument was the engine was providing power and thus might have been available in an emergency with the other engine. MIGHT being the operative word.

One wonders if the commercial consideration proved mightier than the airmanship one; the same in this case. Is it that, as an NTSB accident investigator explained, pilots are 'mission orientated'. They want to complete the mission. This can lead to hero-nics and get home-itis. We know the consequences, often. However, in both these events there was a completion of the mission so they could say "what's the fuss?" I guess that's what captains are paid for and the company + XAA will decide.
I wonder what would have happened if it had been a new FBW generation a/c. It would have sent a signal back to base that the a/c was feeling sick and Ops would have got on the phone. Then what? Hm?

The SK government will take this very seriously in the wake of the recent ferry disaster. All government companies have been placed on high alert to revise and institute Emergency evacuation plans. There is a large public outcry about the ferry incident so anytime anybody within the Korean workforce now puts another person at risk, there will be heads a rolling......

Sad that something catastrophic had to happen before drastic steps are taken.

Not sure of the relevance in this case where they continued from near their departure to a remote island in the Pacific.

Putting it another way...

BA crew fly thousands of miles on -1 engine = no problem.
Asiana crew fly hundreds of miles on -1 engine = deep in the mire

:ooh:

Which BA crew?
 

I think the BA situation you are referring to involved a B744. A four engined aircraft which is fully certificated to continue to destination if only 3 engines are working.
But I stand to be corrected.

I wonder what was the fuel endurance upon arrival?

Super VC-10


4 engine aircraft as opposed to 2 engine aircraft!!!:=

From a risk management standpoint, that flight was going to spend a great deal of time over water/open ocean.
I can see the Chief Pilot calling these gents in and asking: "Guys, what were you thinking?"

Likely no tea and no biscuits during the meeting.

This is clearly Boeing's fault for designing an aircraft that will continue to fly with an engine warning light on. It's confusing - I'm sure - for the aircraft to otherwise perform normally when things aren't just right.

No fault of the pilots here. Nothing to see - move along.

On the contrary, I'm not surprised at all if that's what the Chief Pilot (or company) wanted.

Ask anyone who has working experience in either KE or OZ will reveal that an important decision to press on to destination lies very much with the company than PIC. Most locals won't even question the decision, and are not capable of doing so due to lack of knowledge and for fear of repercussion.

In this case, some heads will roll due recent events of SFO (did they learn anything?) and ferry incident, but nothing will change. Lip service and boxes ticking will still be the focus, sadly.

fair go
 

Everything depends on which warning light and the Asiana procedure.

Finally it is up to the captain.

Actually, the crew is not at fault. They are deeply embedded is an ancient system of cultural peculiarities, unable to speak up or think for themselves due to mandatory respect towards elderly people.
Waiting for the next disaster.
The Korean Air safety issue, and "solutions"of the nineties temporarily made it appear as if the problems were solved, but nope. It runs deeper than that.
Boats, planes, trains, nuclear reactor plants etc. are all at risk as long as it is impossible to speak up as a low ranking individual. The fear of punishment imposed by management is not going to help either.
Do I have a solution then??? No.

Super VC 10
 

The incident you are referring to was a B744 which on three engines has more redundancy than a 767 fully serviceable on take off!!
Probably not a course of action most crews would take, but flight safely completed. Crew finger trouble over fuel management at the end of trip marred a text book operation.

so right
 

Fox niner you are so right, talking to the suits that don't listen and some them were never in the sharp end. :ugh:

What I know, the problem was OIL FILTER CLOG.

In the case A 330 with PW engine, the only ECAM response is "Crew Awarness", nothing else (i.e no LAND ADSAP, STS PAGE etc).

If it would happen to me (A 330) I would continue to destination as well.

What do A 330 Gurus think?

JABBARA

It didn't really say what the warning light was and I'm not sure if the 767 has a chip detector indication but it was serious enough to warrant an engine change rather than continue 4hrs over an open ocean. I would understand had they turned around and gone back to ICN passing hundreds of airports within a stones throw away.

Any drivers/engineers with 767/CF6 knowledge can enlighten us on warnings and procedures in this situation?