Air Asia drama ex-Per

[jb747]

In the case of SQ368 fire on return to SIN, here is the TSIB report. The agency agreed with the pilot's decision to return to SIN rather than divert to BKK (page 34):
https://www.mot.gov.sg/uploadedFile...V-SWB) Engine Fire 27 Jun 16 Final Report.pdf

Sort of. What they say is that they agree given the diagnosis of an oil issue. But, they never actually worked out what the correct problem was, and the authorities are quiet on the outcome that would have been required had they reached the correct conclusion.

Simultaneous oil and fuel issues are almost invariably caused by the fuel/oil heat exchanger. They actually disregarded part of the problem.

 

[Quickstatus]

Hmm no ILS at PER. Wonder how much hand flying the PIC has done and how many non ILS landings if any. Shades of the failed 'slam dunk' OZ 772 incident at SFO. .

There is ILS at PER on the 12000 ft runway. No ILS at alternates near them
I suspect D7 and AK pilots do fly into airports without ILS but an unfamiliar airport with no ILS plus emergency plus manual landing with one engine out?
Or is there a company culture that supports the notion that a "suitable" alternate airport has to have D7/AK/major RPT presence overriding any flight deck prerogative?

......

Sort of. What they say is that they agree given the diagnosis of an oil issue. But, they never actually worked out what the correct problem was, and the authorities are quiet on the outcome that would have been required had they reached the correct conclusion.

Simultaneous oil and fuel issues are almost invariably caused by the fuel/oil heat exchanger. They actually disregarded part of the problem.

When only one conclusion is reached, without a discussion of other potential outcomes, then any learning from the incident will be limited.

 

[jb747]

Re diverts due to malfuntions:
I noted in Travel news this:http://www.australianfrequentflyer....egional-airline-strange-diversions-83532.html

Original route GVA-LHR. This was the divert (in this case both engines functional). The divert back all the way to ZRH occurred just when descent into LHR was about to commence!:


Also on 02 Feb 2017 Swiss B777 LX40 diverted to an icy YFB above the arctic circle after engine issues. Original route ZRH-LAX. Contrast with AirAsia
NunatsiaqOnline 2017-02-02: NEWS: Rescue flight takes stranded L.A.-bound passengers out of Nunavut

Loss of an engine in a twin basically means that you shouldn't go past any airport that the aircraft could reasonably use. That doesn't mean any bit of bitumen, but basically something that could be a destination. Learmonth fits the bill for all twin aircraft types.

Loss of other systems could still force a diversion, but there may be no urgency at all. An A380 could actually lose ALL of the hydraulics and continue all the way across the Pacific (though I certainly wouldn't). Generator issues may mean that you can't fly a low vis approach, and if that's needed you'll need to go elsewhere. The issue is if you are reduced to one remaining system...

 

[jb747]

If LEA was not chosen for either of these reasons alone, this would be a major concern. Wouldn't/shouldn't these sorts of issues be dealt with in sims?

I'll bet they do engine out, automatic landings off an ILS, in 99% of their sims. So, basically the answer would be no....

 

[baishakhic]

Video from inside the aircraft. People seem relatively unphased by it all.

Wow, people seem to be walking around and going about their business like it's nothing. I'd be terrified and stick to my seat lol. Maybe it wasn't as bad? Or maybe I'm trying to rationalise since I'm flying Air Asia in 4 days ha ha

 

[ermen]

How would this loss of engine affect ETOPS? Was this an in flight shut down (IFS) or something else?

I read somewhere else (probably on that SQ incident) that crews are reticent to shut down an engine in flight (in flight shutdown) as it causes some issues with the ETOPS rating. But if you set the engine to idle mode, then its not an IFS.

 

[Quickstatus]

ETOPS is a certification process that allow an airline to operate 2 engine aircraft beyond 60 minutes from a suitable airport.

The airframe and engine are type certified for ETOPS but for an airline to take an airfcraft into ETOPS conditions require the airline to be certified for ETOPS operations.

The operational certification depend on a number of factors and may include airline's history and operating procedures, previous experience with extended 2 engine operations, number of incidents relating to 2 engine operation.

The reliability of the aircraft and engine along with the airline is monitored and regulated.

So some airlines may not have ETOPS certification while operating an ETOPS approved aircraft. Sometimes an aircraft may not be ETOPS certified for a particular flight even though it usually is.

 

[Himeno]

ETOPS is a certification process that allow an airline to operate 2 engine aircraft beyond 60 minutes from a suitable airport.

The airframe and engine are type certified for ETOPS but for an airline to take an airfcraft into ETOPS conditions require the airline to be certified for ETOPS operations.

The operational certification depend on a number of factors and may include airline's history and operating procedures, previous experience with extended 2 engine operations, number of incidents relating to 2 engine operation.

The reliability of the aircraft and engine along with the airline is monitored and regulated.

So some airlines may not have ETOPS certification while operating an ETOPS approved aircraft. Sometimes an aircraft may not be ETOPS certified for a particular flight even though it usually is.

It also requires certain amounts of emergency equipment on board, such as extra life rafts on narrow bodies. eg, AA has a subfleet of A320s for flights between the US west coast and Hawaii. There was an issue with a ETOPS aircraft planned for use on one of these flights a while ago, which led to a non ETOPS compliant aircraft being subbed in without anyone noticing until after departure.
QF also had an A330 a few weeks ago with some Asia flights that had to take a longer routing due to temporary loss of ETOPS compliance for that aircraft.

 

[Flying Fox]

How would this loss of engine affect ETOPS? Was this an in flight shut down (IFS) or something else?

I read somewhere else (probably on that SQ incident) that crews are reticent to shut down an engine in flight (in flight shutdown) as it causes some issues with the ETOPS rating. But if you set the engine to idle mode, then its not an IFS.

Geepers, hopefully maintaining ETOPS for the airline was was something that never cross the pilots' minds during this incident.

 

[ermen]

Slightly off topic but I think someone did post on the SQ368 incident (Accident: Singapore B773 enroute on Jun 27th 2016, engine fuel leak into engine oil system)

Some comment from people in the comments section - it seems it is airline policy to normally not shut an engine down inflight (for twin engine aircraft), but rather set to idle mode. This is to they don't disturb ETOPS IFS figures.

Would be interesting to know if this is true for most airlines.

 

[Quickstatus]

Slightly off topic but I think someone did post on the SQ368 incident (Accident: Singapore B773 enroute on Jun 27th 2016, engine fuel leak into engine oil system)

Some comment from people in the comments section - it seems it is airline policy to normally not shut an engine down inflight (for twin engine aircraft), but rather set to idle mode. This is to they don't disturb ETOPS IFS figures.

Would be interesting to know if this is true for most airlines.

Not the first time airlines massage figures to fit a certain narrative....

 

[yohy?!]

it may be possible as well that the lack of ILS spooked the pilot out of trying for Learmonth, their level of experience would have been too strained with that level of manual flying? (which in itself is fairly scandalous given they probably shouldn't be operating to Australian ports!)

 

[Quickstatus]

it may be possible as well that the lack of ILS spooked the pilot out of trying for Learmonth, their level of experience would have been too strained with that level of manual flying? (which in itself is fairly scandalous given they probably shouldn't be operating to Australian ports!)

Yes that is a possibility - Not so much the lack of ILS. D7 operates to OOL which does not have ILS and also ILS at major airports may be inoperative from time to time, but having to manually land an aircraft on one engine while its shaking to bits to an unfamiliar non ILS airfield?.

So applying pilot prerogative they may have thought it would be better for them to proceed to PER under their circumstances. Better to have pilots who has insight and recognises their skill limitations? Who knows?. Then if D7 pilots have limited skills compared to others whats the remedy?

Speculating of course, it may well be that the pilots were quite capable/confident of doing just that, but maybe company policy applies a different prerogative?.

Interesting what the ATSB will say in Nov and also in about 1 month when it finalises its report into the other D7 flight (D7221)

 

[jb747]

Wow, people seem to be walking around and going about their business like it's nothing. I'd be terrified and stick to my seat lol. Maybe it wasn't as bad? Or maybe I'm trying to rationalise since I'm flying Air Asia in 4 days ha ha

I saw that. I guess you can get used to anything.

It will be very interesting to hear (if we ever do) of the state of the pylon. Given the way it was shaking, I'd be wondering if the engine would eventually part company with the aircraft.

 

[jb747]

How would this loss of engine affect ETOPS? Was this an in flight shut down (IFS) or something else?

Very much an in flight shut down. I'm not sure that ETOPs is actually relevant to the situation at all. He wasn't really in the middle of nowhere.

I read somewhere else (probably on that SQ incident) that crews are reticent to shut down an engine in flight (in flight shutdown) as it causes some issues with the ETOPS rating. But if you set the engine to idle mode, then its not an IFS.

And how dumb is that? I can imagine some people leaving an engine at idle so that they can avoid having to divert, but the opportunities for the situation to become much worse are far more than I'd ever accept. The engine isn't at idle because it's healthy. The SQ flight would have been much less dramatic if they'd diverted, shut the engine down, or not used it in reverse. All three would be good.

 

[jb747]

it may be possible as well that the lack of ILS spooked the pilot out of trying for Learmonth, their level of experience would have been too strained with that level of manual flying? (which in itself is fairly scandalous given they probably shouldn't be operating to Australian ports!)

What makes Australian ports special?

 

[OzEire]

Err, CASA is the regulator, not the ATSB?

Pedantic.

I was referring to the relevant government investigating body, directly in response to RooFlyer's genuine question. I didn't say CASA, but accept " regulator " was not the correct term.

 

[Melburnian1]

I....QF also had an A330 a few weeks ago with some Asia flights that had to take a longer routing due to temporary loss of ETOPS compliance for that aircraft.

If I correctly recall it was VH-QPA, the class leader.

 

[exceladdict]

What makes Australian ports special?

I would expect all airlines flying in/out of Australian ports to be at the same, high standards we require of "Australian" airlines. I'm no expert so can't accuse Air Asia of not meeting these, but if there was a 'cost saving' element to the decision and it was VA or QF, the media would be all over it. Air Asia's plane that was flying PER-DPS on shoddy equipment, that subsequently crashed, a few years ago is increasing my scepticism of their operations meeting minimum standards.

 

[jb747]

It also requires certain amounts of emergency equipment on board, such as extra life rafts on narrow bodies. eg, AA has a subfleet of A320s for flights between the US west coast and Hawaii. There was an issue with a ETOPS aircraft planned for use on one of these flights a while ago, which led to a non ETOPS compliant aircraft being subbed in without anyone noticing until after departure.
QF also had an A330 a few weeks ago with some Asia flights that had to take a longer routing due to temporary loss of ETOPS compliance for that aircraft.

It's quite a while since I had cause to look at ETOPS, but it includes most systems on the aircraft. The life rafts aren't part of ETOPs per se, but rather of a different requirement, which specifically addresses them for flights over water. The A330 that you mention may simply have had an APU that wasn't working. Of course that is normally shut down in flight, but after the loss of an engine, or a generator, it can be started to give back that power source. Even on the A380 it has some use in flight...we can start it to get back our CAT IIIB capability after the loss of an engine (though it will only be started at low level), or if we are having a really bad day, we can use it to offload the engine bleeds and get some a/c after the loss of two engines. There MELs for an aircraft also include discussion of the effects on ETOPS.

But, remember that the core point here has little to do with ETOPS. It's about the decision to fly away from a large, capable runway, in daylight and good weather, to fly to a distant airport, with one engine not only shut down, but giving very severe vibration.