Lufthansi From Germany, joined May 2002, 454 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3473 times:
A few days ago I've been told that a Germanwings A320 once got engine problems after take-off. So the pilots had to cut one engine and requested an emergency landing at CDG. That should have given them priority on landing. But the ATC just said: "We got traffic in to land for the next 20 minutes. So you have to wait." So I guess the ATC wanted them to enter a holding pattern or something like that. Flying a holding pattern with only one of two engines running is maybe nice for training but not the safest way for passengers on board. And I think the auto pilot will automatically turn off if one engine is cut. Or is it just on Boeing planes? Anyway the pilot got angry about it and found another way to make it into CDG NOW! He just said "Mayday! Mayday!" and got a clearance to land immediately because this is law. He made a good landing on only one engine WITH NO FIRE BRIGADE AT ALL... That's CDG. So dear pilots: Never choose CDG for an emergency landing. You just cannot count on them. I had to call the fire brigade myself one time. The phone agent couldn't speak English... So I tried my best in French language. It worked. But I don't think that everyone else can speak French. Especially in those situations. Back on ground the police went to the plane and, according to a colleague of mine, wanted to arrest a pilot or technician.
I don't know when it happened. I just heard of it a few days ago. Maybe someone knows more details of it? Just share them with us.
BDKLEZ From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 1735 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3409 times:
Engine failure on take-off is the predominant factor taken into consideration when caluculating aircraft performance data, in that the aircraft will still climb with an engine out to a safe minimum altitude and subsequently perform normally. If there were no other technical faults or problems associated with the second engine, then there is no reason why the aircraft could not have taken up the hold to await further approach clearance.
As with all reports of such a nature, it's more how the facts are actually and factually reported which will determine how safe or otherwise the situation will be perceived to be.
Were there associated fuel shut-off problems? Did the second engine continue to operate normally? etc etc etc...
When you say....
Quoting Lufthansi (Thread starter): Anyway the pilot got angry about it and found another way to make it into CDG NOW!
...I have to ask myself a few questions.
Was the pilot an inexperienced commander?
Why was he so impatient?
Were there other unreported facts that need consideration by the pilot?
Was he frightened?
Quoting Lufthansi (Thread starter): He just said "Mayday! Mayday!" and got a clearance to land immediately because this is law.
Again, without knowing all of the facts the justification for this is very hard to determine, however if a mayday call was not necessary then it should not have been made, and as such was a very irresponsible action of the commander to make that call.
Quoting Lufthansi (Thread starter): He made a good landing on only one engine WITH NO FIRE BRIGADE AT ALL... That's CDG
No, that's because the aircarft will perform normally with an engine out. If the fire department did not attend the scene, it will be because the commander will have advised ATC that it was not necessary for them to attend.
Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again!
You're right too! I don't know all the facts. But imagine you're a pilot and have this failure. Wouldn't you like to land very soon too? No matter if you are very experienced or not you won't have much fun flying this way. And thinking of 4 parallel runways there should be a way to make it in. I'm sure the pilot could fly with this failure of course. That's what they're trained for. But flying on one engine longer as required isn't ok too. But if the pilot reported this Mayday call there's no question of if he wanted the fire brigade along the runway. If I call Mayday to the ATC (if french or not...) I don't want to have to call again for the fire brigade. If you ask for a coke at MC Donald's you don't have to ask for the cup...
Tu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1256 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3311 times:
BDKLEZ, with all due respect, and aircraft that has lost one of two engines will be very screwed when it looses the last one. Yes, it is designed to stay in the air under those circumstances, but that does not mean that it should not be given priority unless ofcourse there is another aircraft that has declared an emergency. I do not know about france, but here ATC will automatically give you priotity on landing but will provide emergency vehicles ONLY if you have declared an emergency (mayday, mayday, mayday) regardless of your emergency.
I completely agree with the captain unless there is something that we do not know. He figured that keeping an aircraft with 120 passengers up on one engine was a senseless risk and decided that it was better to be safe than sorry.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
ManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3012 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3264 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
I'm only a private pilot, but there are rules for everything. If company procedures (or Airbus checklists) say that a single engine failure with no other consequences should be dealt with by issuing an urgency call (pan pan, pan pan, pan pan) and no emergency (mayday), then the pilot should do just that. He will be given priority, but not the same kind of priority as if it was an emergency like when you have an engine fire or other similar, more critical trouble.
Please note that I don't know Airbus checklists or Germanwings company procedures, so I'm only supposing what it might be here.
The plane is designed to be able to fly on a single engine. What if the failure happened 1 hour from the nearest airport?
I mean, I'm pretty sure there must be something not entirely complete/accurate in the OP's story. Probably the plane started having some other trouble if the pilot went "mayday". And again, a mayday call is the only official way to get absolute priority at an airport. If you need to land *now*, you make a mayday call. Simplifying somewhat, if you don't make a mayday call, ATC (correctly) assumes that it's not *that* urgent after all.
Echster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3225 times:
Let me play the bad guy and support the French ATCers. See, what commonly occurs is folks think just because they declare an emergency we (ATCers) are going to part the skies for them. It's not nearly as easy as it sounds, especially when you have a lot of traffic.
Even though the pilot reported an engine out, as a controller, I'm thinking it is still a multi-engine aircraft. When declaring an emergency, usually an ATCer will state, "say intentions" unless the pilot says, "we lost an engine and need to land ASAP." We're not mind-readers. The pilot needs to express his desire to land immediately or in with the flow they go.
Don't forget the emergency aircraft still needs to be manuevered back to the runway. During this time other aircraft can land. As you start breaking aircraft out of the arrival flow for a hole to put this guy, you still have to maintain separation requirements between aircraft. Yep, no free pass here.
It's not as easy as it sounds, or even in hindsight. Controllers do the best they can with the information they have. If a pilot doesn't state what they want to do, we do the best we can while still maintaining separation standards.
Rdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 905 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3058 times:
I was shut out from a comment about the french last time I wrote but I still feel that if the aircraft was an Air France one there would have been a runway immediatment!In addition the fire brigadewould have been there still it is CDG!!!!
Jdwfloyd From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 837 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2952 times:
Quoting BDKLEZ (Reply 2): then there is no reason why the aircraft could not have taken up the hold to await further approach clearance.
Yeah, lets just have an A/C with 120 people in it hold for a bit. What if the other engine had an issue? What if for so reason the engine that was shut down caught on fire due to the problem it was shut down for? Lets just wait for the abnormal situation that is all ready in effect to get worse. I am a air traffic controller and from day one we were taught that an A/C in distress takes priority over all other A/C. They should have been given priority handling, no questions ask.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4677 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2839 times:
Typical flame thread.
Although I have not a lot of sympathy for CDG ATC, I'm quite amazed at the rant level here.
Thread starter, please, we need sources, date.....
If you can't provide anything but a hearsay from one of your fellow technicians, I suggest you open another thread on frankfurter sausages (I like them but I can't find good ones here, probably another conspiracy from Toulouse... ).
Lufthansi From Germany, joined May 2002, 454 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2767 times:
Quoting BDKLEZ (Reply 15): And where did he hear the story from? We should all be aware of "Chinese Whispers".
No my colleague was on this aircraft after arrvial and hat some discussion with the Gendarmerie. Sadly I'll not meet him the next days due to our shift. That's why I wanted to ask you guys. As we also have many users from France maybe someone knows all the details.
777jaah From Colombia, joined Jan 2006, 1403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2715 times:
Quoting ManuCH (Reply 5): mayday call is the only official way to get absolute priority at an airport. If you need to land *now*, you make a mayday call. Simplifying somewhat, if you don't make a mayday call, ATC (correctly) assumes that it's not *that* urgent after all.
This in a little bit out of the topic I know, but still related.
AV's 707 accident in Long Island some years ago, which the FAA ruled that one of the reasons, was the lack of fluent english speaking crew, and lack of declaring a mayday at the right time (iirc, the crew never did). Resulted in fuel starvation over Long Island, no good results for the pilots and some pax that didn't make it.
A few years after, during the civil trial, the judge split hte "blame" 60% for AV 40% for the ATC. Why?? He said to both attourneys: "If i said to a kid that I'm low on gas, what do he'll understand for that?? I hope that I'm low on gas". Wasn't much room left for discussions after that. Lifes were lost on a technical detail, much needed on aviation, but still was a critical situation, never well explained by the crew, never well understood by the ATC.
Next flights: AV BOG-ADZ-BOG, AV-UA BOG-IAD-ORD-IAD-BOG, BOG-FLL-BOG, LA BOG-MIA-BOG J
ATCRick From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 772 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2574 times:
Quoting Echster (Reply 6): Even though the pilot reported an engine out, as a controller, I'm thinking it is still a multi-engine aircraft.
Being a retired ATC-er, I have a question. It would appear that this aircraft is no longer "multi engine if it has shut one down. And without knowing why one was shut down(for sure), why wouldnt this aircraft be given priority? Telling them that its busy and would be another 20 minutes seems like it indicates that the aircraft would be resequenced in the normal flow of traffic. If that was the case then I must disagree. Aircraft that declare an emergency receive priority. Should the declaration of an emergency prove to be fruitless, then the pilot and the airline should suffer penalties. Controllers don't have time to determine on their own who is a real emergency or not.
ManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3012 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2467 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting ATCRick (Reply 18): Aircraft that declare an emergency receive priority.
According to the OP, the aircraft didn't declare an emergency at first, but only (so I assume) an urgency. Which, if I remember correctly, is quite a difference.
Quoting 777jaah (Reply 17): "If i said to a kid that I'm low on gas, what do he'll understand for that?? I hope that I'm low on gas".
This is obviously also true. But formally and legally, "I've lost an engine" is not the same as "mayday". Should be changed maybe... but then again, the controller would receive an additional burden: what if it's a 747 or an A340 saying "I've lost an engine"? He would then have to keep in mind if it's a 2, 3 or 4-engine aircraft, and depending on that, decide if it deserves a mayday-equivalent treatment or not. Sounds too complex for me. They invented the magic "mayday" word for a reason I guess: have the controller understand that it's *really* urgent.