but do you pull it out each and every time the checker flames your engine out during a skill test in preparation of a routine one engine out excercise, yourself?
Normally every skills test is based around an airport and you come back and land single engine, never have I ever continued to destination in a skills test. I have diverted to a secondary airport with the closure of the primary.
That's what it's about: now you know it's fuel related, they had no clue it was. If each time an engine shows troubles we must assume it's fuel related (damage could also occur from severe contamination, you know: it's not just limited to flame out) and act accordingly, a whole lot of things will have to be done quite differently each time you lose an engine, by everybody, on all types..
Well if it is as you say they " they had no clue it was", on what basis did they know the engine was undamaged ? One cannot assume with a relight that there is no damage or no reason, jet engines will run with significant damage. Take for example a Royal Brunei 787 on departure out of MNL, they return back to MNL after a failure of one engine, when they inspected the second engine they discovered it also had several fan blades that failed. They were under an hour to the destination (short MNL-BKI sector), however returned to the point of departure.
As I have said up-thread, in my line of work, if there is doubt (and you said they had no idea), there is no doubt, take the conservative path. Unfortunately some airlines will criticize a crew for taking a safe course of action, so the captain is sitting in the hot seat.
. There's a good reason why the LAND ASAP AMBER goes away from the ECAM after an engine relight, you know. .
I can make the LAND ASAP go away with the engine shutdown simply by starting the APU and turning on an electric hydraulic pump, hydraulics, electrics, and flight controls would "appear" normal to the FWC. The reason for LAND ASAP to come up is the reduction in flight controls, hydraulics, and electrics caused by the dead engine. Relighting the engine restores these, but still leaves the engine in an unknown state, there is no way to know why it stopped in the first place from the cockpit. People can remotely log onto the aircraft and have a look, however this is not instantaneous.
We're all talking from hindsight which was not available on board: that makes a big difference in the decision making process.
The assumption you are making is the crew only saw was a rollback and relight some time later. One of our aircraft had a significant contamination issue, and as a result that A330 QRH procedure was developed. The behaviors and ECAMS that proceeded the issue were very subtle and really only became apparent with thrust changes.
Can you point to an manufacturers document or EU OPS regulation/manual that says once a engine relight is successful, the requirement for a twin engine aircraft to divert to the nearest suitable no longer applies. I do not know of one.
8. DIVERSION DECISION MAKING
Operators shall establish procedures for flight crew, outlining the criteria that indicate when a diversion or change of routing is recommended whilst conducting an ETOPS flight. For an ETOPS flight, in the event of the shutdown of an engine, these procedures should include the shutdown of an engine, fly to and land at the nearest aerodrome appropriate for landing.
Factors to be considered when deciding upon the appropriate course of action and suitability of an aerodrome for diversion may include but are not limited to:
a. Aircraft configuration/weight/systems status;
b. Wind and weather conditions en route at the diversion altitude;
c. Minimum altitudes en route to the diversion aerodrome;
d. Fuel required for the diversion;
e. Aerodrome condition, terrain, weather and wind;
f. Runways available and runway surface condition;
g. Approach aids and lighting;
h. RFFS* capability at the diversion aerodrome;
i. Facilities for aircraft occupants - disembarkation & shelter;
j. Medical facilities;
k. Pilot’s familiarity with the aerodrome;
l. Information about the aerodrome available to the flight crew.
Contingency procedures should not be interpreted in any way that prejudices the final
authority and responsibility of the pilot-in-command for the safe operation of the aeroplane.
Note: for an ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome, a published RFFS category equivalent to
ICAO category 4, available at 30 minutes notice, is acceptable.
Note it does not say once an engine is restarted a diversion is no longer required.
As I mentioned up-thread, the investigator of the JT610 (737Max) accident in Jakarta were critical of the crew on the previous sector as the completed a number of QRH procedures that did not say divert to the nearest suitable. As such they continued to the destination with the left stick shaker on continuously, and no altitude or airspeed on the Captain PFD. Would you divert or continue to destination ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News