777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11676 posts, RR: 16 Posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15900 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
A Jetstar 717s engine blew up inflight on friday night and caused the 717 to plunge 1200m. The JQ 717 was flying from Launceston to MEL. The flight was halfway to MEL when the engine blew up. The JQ pilot is now in the firing line from Australian Safety Authorities because he continued to MEL which has a 24 hour Fire and Rescue centre. The JQ flight issued a 'mayday' distress call. JQ is standing by the pilots choice.
ETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15773 times:
I am not familiar with the geography and whether or not there were other airports in between they could have diverted to, but did they simply expect him to stop, hit the reset key, and continue on as normal?
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15665 times:
Almost all airlines will leave the choice of what airport to divert to in the case of an emergency in the hands of the flight crew. Sure the NTSB and other agency's can flip a bitch about choices after accidents but the fact of the matter is that unless they were up there dealing with the wx conditions, stress, restrictions, location, etc. they have no real place to stand on the issue. Incidents like that of the BA 744 that flew LAX-LHR on one engine and ended up diverting due to head winds and slower than expected speeds at lower alt. are examples of when this idea can get a bit touchy.
Regarding this incident, I feel that the crew did a great job. You can't question the crew's choice if the outcome is positive (safe with as little damage as possible) and as long as the pilot didn't break any "Set In Stone" rules such as the distance allowed with only one engine with that a/c and other restrictions that would require an immediate divert.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15601 times:
Quoting ETStar (Reply 1): I am not familiar with the geography and whether or not there were other airports in between they could have diverted to, but did they simply expect him to stop, hit the reset key, and continue on as normal?
I wasn't either, but looking at maps on the net, if we're talking about Launceston in Tasmania, there doesn't appear to be anything between there and MEL but water...
I don't know what the Aussie reg is, but if it's anything at all like the US FAR 121.565, an engine failure on a twin necessitates landing at the nearest suitable airport in point of time. One article says they were at top-of-climb, and another says they were about halfway, and assuming a similar reg down there, countinuing to MEL doesn't sound all that unreasonable....
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11676 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15582 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting UA777222 (Reply 3): Regarding this incident, I feel that the crew did a great job. You can't question the crew's choice if the outcome is positive
Considering MEL was the best and safest option. Maybe the Australian Safety Authority need to grow up over this incident and accept the pilot made the best choice in considering the engine blew up and MEL was the closest and safest option because of 24 hour crash rescue units. The depature airport doesn't have a 24 hour crash unit.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9202 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15547 times:
Hmm I wonder what "engine blew up" or "explosion" really means? Engines just don't go out and explode very often, especially at cruising altitude so is this over exageration of the facts, or was this an uncontained catastrophic failure?. Does anyone know what happened? If it was a bad explosion then it could have seriously damaged the 717 which has the engines placed on the fuselage and right next to the tail. Something could have happened to cripple the plane other then just a typical engine shut down, if this was in fact a catastrophic failure. I am curious to know.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11966 posts, RR: 100 Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15076 times:
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 13): Apparently the engine had one or more fan blades break/disentergrate then the bits went thru the turbine, thereby creating a bit of a mess!
Wow! and to think in another tread the blade-out test was called a waste of an engine.
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 13):
It was reportedly the fifth such failure, world wide, in the last 12 months. It is supposedly undetectable until it lets go.
Interesting... there are notch criteria on fan blades... Do you have a source on the engines that had such failures? Normally the blades are x-rayed at service intervals or initial manufacture... If there is this high of a failure rate, the root cause MUST be found and eliminated. I'm all for acceptable risk, but fan blades failing create a lot of engine damage!
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11676 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14952 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 12): Have they no ability to recall the crash crew in the event of an emergency? I would think this works like normal firefighting work. You may not be at the station house, but you could get called.
Yes, thats what the Australian Safety Authorities said should have happened, instead of contining to MEL
AA717driver From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1566 posts, RR: 13 Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14933 times:
These engines are so new, I doubt they have been pulled off and totally disassembled.
Again, the press--"plunged". Oh, forget it...
It was emphasized in my training that the nearest suitable airport in point of time may not be the closest. If you can continue in your present direction, it may take less time to get on the ground than turning around to land at the closer airport.
AND... A 10,000' runway 50 miles away is more suitable than a 5,000' one 10 miles away.
BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14754 times:
I think someone is blowing this way out of proportion... AirTran has had some engine failures, where there was a loud boom, and the engine quit... The engine was simply replaced... Did this engine actually blow up leaving holes in the cowling, or was this just another "failure". Lets get some facts straight here...
BMW715... I think I'm going to have a heart attack. If anything, it should now be called RR715
M404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2218 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14060 times:
Distance seems to be about 280 miles. At that TOC would probably have been possibly less than 100 mile from TO rendering Launceston 80 closer. I have no idea what time this flight departed and whether that played a factor on availability of a fire/rescue facilities but a guess would be that runway length played a much larger role than mentioned. Crew would be concerned about hydraulics availability for control, reversers, and brakes. Decisions about any possible leakage would be made after any emergency descent (if it was ever made) was recovered from. All this time he presumably is going in a straight line. This would put them very, very, near the halfway point which would make the longer runway the deciding factor. If it was any concern at all the field elevation at Launceston may very slightly have come into play. A lot surmising on my part here so don't jump too high
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 40 Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14032 times:
My spy assures me the ATSB is not wound up about this.
It is apparently concerned about problems with the engine world wide, but the decision to continue to Melbourne from top of climb was perfectly proper and indeed the best option under the circumstances.
Haj96 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 71 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12555 times:
Quoting UA777222 (Reply 3): Incidents like that of the BA 744 that flew LAX-LHR on one engine and ended up diverting due to head winds and slower than expected speeds at lower alt. are examples of when this idea can get a bit touchy.
When did this happen??? I guess you meant it flew with one engine out, right?
Danny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3488 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12060 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 2): There could have been other airport in the area, but MEL was the best option because of its bigger crash rescue resources.
This is very dangerous thinking and should be avoided. When an aircraft is in real trouble it should land asap at any airport.
Thinking that "other airport has better rescue services" caused a crash of LOT IL-62M in 80s. They could have landed at few airports but decided to return to Warsaw for better rescue services. They crashed 5 miles before the airport and no rescue services were needed as no one survived.
25 Rootsgirl: I flew Friday night...we were cruising at 38,000 ft, suddenly out of the corner of my eye, I saw sparks which looked like firworks outside ( it was da
26 UA777222: So sorry about getting my facts wrong on that one. Yes I will stand corrected in that it flew with one out. Thanks for cacthing that one, Matt
27 Antares: If anyone had half a brain they'd look up Launceston-Melbourne, its not hard, its in a thing called an A-T-L-A-S and see that with a short block time
28 Bucchinij: Well, I guess he might have been able to go on if the 717 is ETOPS rated (if it isn't). After all, that's why they created ETOPS, for twins that are a
29 Lightsaber: Ok, mea culpa! BR715! :P Yes, I'm well aware of the deal. Its when one of my better boss' returned to Pratt from BMW aerospace. Oh, as a BMW car owne
30 Antares: Bucchinij, I find the notion of a 717 with a full load of passengers of 125 passengers and baggage able to actually fly for 207 minutes amusing. Antar