TheFlyingDisk wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

fiscal wrote:

I heard that the pilots felt that the aircraft was stable enough to make it back to Perth. Learmonth only has limited infrastructure, so to land there would also have created problems for passengers. In the end the call to go to Perth seemingly was a good call.

Personally if I'd be on board, I would have taken the logistical problems of being stuck in Learmonth for a few hours, instead of having the crap shaken out of me for the 2 hours back to Perth.

Sure it made it back in one piece and highly likely could've kept flying much longer, but lets be honest, this was purely an operational decision made here. It was far more convenient to have the aircraft in Perth than Learmonth and at the end of the day, to the operator that's what was more desirable. I would hope the investigation asks serious question as to why they didn't land in Learmonth over the convenience of Perth.

Is the plane still above maximum landing weight if they land at Learmonth? If it is then an overweight landing would add more risk now would it?

Do you think if it happened on departure from Perth and the vibration was like it was, would it have flown around for 3 hours to get it under maximum landing weight ?

Even it was over maximum landing weight, that is just an added to check to make on the aircraft while it's being repaired, it is a one off landing and not like they would do it every flight. It's not like the runway at Learmonth is short, 10000 ft, requiring heavy breaking or anything else to complicate a landing. The ONLY real down side to Learmonth is that it is isolated, everything else required to handle the aircraft and passengers could have been organised fairly quickly.

Learmonth was a blessing for the QF 330 that had control problems a few years back. No hesitation in using it then, they got it down asap and dealt with the inconvenience later.

jupiter2 wrote:

Do you think if it happened on departure from Perth and the vibration was like it was, would it have flown around for 3 hours to get it under maximum landing weight ?

Even it was over maximum landing weight, that is just an added to check to make on the aircraft while it's being repaired, it is a one off landing and not like they would do it every flight. It's not like the runway at Learmonth is short, 10000 ft, requiring heavy breaking or anything else to complicate a landing. The ONLY real down side to Learmonth is that it is isolated, everything else required to handle the aircraft and passengers could have been organised fairly quickly.

Learmonth was a blessing for the QF 330 that had control problems a few years back. No hesitation in using it then, they got it down asap and dealt with the inconvenience later.

Unlike QF72, the aircraft wasn't facing control problems. Why add more risks of an overweight landing if they plane could still fly on one engine? Also, there were injuries onboard QF72. It makes perfect sense for that flight to land at Learmonth.

Both incidents the QF72 & D7237 are "emergency" situations & it's usually up to the crew where they land the aircraft.

EK413

Saw this FB post from one of the affected passengers:

"My name is Madeline Wright and I was involved in the Air Asia engine incident on sunday morning (24th june) traveling from Perth to Kuala lumpur on my family's way to Vietnam. After hearing the loud bang, our aircraft began to shake vigorously and panic fell across all 359 passengers. Our reassuring captain talked us through the whole situation and gave us every piece of information he had.

The way we all cooperated and remained calm throughout the event made it easier for crew aboard to help us and for our captain to fly us to safety. No one screamed. The fact that we and other passengers paid less for a flight is not the reason for this planes accident. A technical problem like this could happen on any plane and Air Asia's cheaper flights are not to blame. The aircraft was checked thoroughly before departure like all planes are and was regulated by the same air safety organisations. People should not be criticising Air Asia for missing anything - technical problems happen all the time, even on more expensive flights. We didn't pay less for a technical problem, we paid less for no electronic devices, no meals and less leg room. Air Asia is an amazing company and i have flown with them many times before, always with great service and perfect take off and landing.

It disgusts me that people are criticising our captain for telling us to pray and are trying to get him fired. The full context was, "Everything is under control in the cockpit. If you want to say a prayer, that might help too." his ask for prayer was said in such way that it was only to make us feel better and if it helped that was an individual thing. He was professional. He was human. He was a reassuring voice during this event and gave us hope, he is the reason i am still alive and i cannot thank him enough. English was his second language and he had a little trouble speaking to us but what he said was enough. Interestingly, despite 80% of his passengers being Asian descent, he only spoke in English through the incident.

And to the people blaming Air Asia for the event, it was not their fault and they did their best to keep us comfortable during the incident and the aftermath. Yes, we did stay in an airport for several hours waiting on news of what was to happen next, but they provided us with vouchers for food and water and the wait was only to ensure the best for us. During this time it was telling that everyone was calm, tolerant and patient - not all like a standard 3-hr wait in a queue. We were given the choice of full refunds of tickets, a rescheduled flight, or to stay in the airport a little longer for a later flight. It took time because during the chaos period, they needed to work out a plan and then communicate that plan. I'd rather wait to get one correct story than get four hastily-delivered wrong stories.

For those of you criticising Air Asia, our pilot and we on board, please stop. The bravery of our crew and captain should be praised not criticised, they did the best they could for us, and everyone is safe."

juliuswong wrote:

Saw this FB post from one of the affected passengers:

"My name is Madeline Wright and I was involved in the Air Asia engine incident on sunday morning (24th june) traveling from Perth to Kuala lumpur on my family's way to Vietnam. After hearing the loud bang, our aircraft began to shake vigorously and panic fell across all 359 passengers. Our reassuring captain talked us through the whole situation and gave us every piece of information he had.

The way we all cooperated and remained calm throughout the event made it easier for crew aboard to help us and for our captain to fly us to safety. No one screamed. The fact that we and other passengers paid less for a flight is not the reason for this planes accident. A technical problem like this could happen on any plane and Air Asia's cheaper flights are not to blame. The aircraft was checked thoroughly before departure like all planes are and was regulated by the same air safety organisations. People should not be criticising Air Asia for missing anything - technical problems happen all the time, even on more expensive flights. We didn't pay less for a technical problem, we paid less for no electronic devices, no meals and less leg room. Air Asia is an amazing company and i have flown with them many times before, always with great service and perfect take off and landing.

It disgusts me that people are criticising our captain for telling us to pray and are trying to get him fired. The full context was, "Everything is under control in the cockpit. If you want to say a prayer, that might help too." his ask for prayer was said in such way that it was only to make us feel better and if it helped that was an individual thing. He was professional. He was human. He was a reassuring voice during this event and gave us hope, he is the reason i am still alive and i cannot thank him enough. English was his second language and he had a little trouble speaking to us but what he said was enough. Interestingly, despite 80% of his passengers being Asian descent, he only spoke in English through the incident.

And to the people blaming Air Asia for the event, it was not their fault and they did their best to keep us comfortable during the incident and the aftermath. Yes, we did stay in an airport for several hours waiting on news of what was to happen next, but they provided us with vouchers for food and water and the wait was only to ensure the best for us. During this time it was telling that everyone was calm, tolerant and patient - not all like a standard 3-hr wait in a queue. We were given the choice of full refunds of tickets, a rescheduled flight, or to stay in the airport a little longer for a later flight. It took time because during the chaos period, they needed to work out a plan and then communicate that plan. I'd rather wait to get one correct story than get four hastily-delivered wrong stories.

For those of you criticising Air Asia, our pilot and we on board, please stop. The bravery of our crew and captain should be praised not criticised, they did the best they could for us, and everyone is safe."

Let's hope this sort of level headedness gets more coverage in the news media as opposed to some of the pandering to fear that goes on.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Saw this FB post from one of the affected passengers:

"My name is Madeline Wright and I was involved in the Air Asia engine incident on sunday morning (24th june) traveling from Perth to Kuala lumpur on my family's way to Vietnam. After hearing the loud bang, our aircraft began to shake vigorously and panic fell across all 359 passengers. Our reassuring captain talked us through the whole situation and gave us every piece of information he had.

The way we all cooperated and remained calm throughout the event made it easier for crew aboard to help us and for our captain to fly us to safety. No one screamed. The fact that we and other passengers paid less for a flight is not the reason for this planes accident. A technical problem like this could happen on any plane and Air Asia's cheaper flights are not to blame. The aircraft was checked thoroughly before departure like all planes are and was regulated by the same air safety organisations. People should not be criticising Air Asia for missing anything - technical problems happen all the time, even on more expensive flights. We didn't pay less for a technical problem, we paid less for no electronic devices, no meals and less leg room. Air Asia is an amazing company and i have flown with them many times before, always with great service and perfect take off and landing.

It disgusts me that people are criticising our captain for telling us to pray and are trying to get him fired. The full context was, "Everything is under control in the cockpit. If you want to say a prayer, that might help too." his ask for prayer was said in such way that it was only to make us feel better and if it helped that was an individual thing. He was professional. He was human. He was a reassuring voice during this event and gave us hope, he is the reason i am still alive and i cannot thank him enough. English was his second language and he had a little trouble speaking to us but what he said was enough. Interestingly, despite 80% of his passengers being Asian descent, he only spoke in English through the incident.

And to the people blaming Air Asia for the event, it was not their fault and they did their best to keep us comfortable during the incident and the aftermath. Yes, we did stay in an airport for several hours waiting on news of what was to happen next, but they provided us with vouchers for food and water and the wait was only to ensure the best for us. During this time it was telling that everyone was calm, tolerant and patient - not all like a standard 3-hr wait in a queue. We were given the choice of full refunds of tickets, a rescheduled flight, or to stay in the airport a little longer for a later flight. It took time because during the chaos period, they needed to work out a plan and then communicate that plan. I'd rather wait to get one correct story than get four hastily-delivered wrong stories.

For those of you criticising Air Asia, our pilot and we on board, please stop. The bravery of our crew and captain should be praised not criticised, they did the best they could for us, and everyone is safe."

Let's hope this sort of level headedness gets more coverage in the news media as opposed to some of the pandering to fear that goes on.

V/F

Totally agree with you. Everyone wants to be aviation experts nowadays. Wifi combined with social media account and lack of responsibility is indeed disastrous for any companies/org. in today's society. News agencies/organisation should fact check with relevant parties before putting a sensational title. Well, that's how papers/ news sell sadly.

Actually, it is all about culture. For some culture, especially Asians, saying a prayer is a good thing whilst in others, it is a sign of insecurity. Unfortunately, in this case, there is a clash of culture between the captain's and the passengers'. Nobody should be blamed.

We in Malaysia is no stranger to such sensationalised news. We have battled MH370, MH17, Indonesia AirAsia X abrupt cancellation of SYD and MEL, data entry and navigational issues involving A330-343X 9M-XXM back in 2015, a string of other incidents and now this.

then there are some experts like this who don't really deserved to be called experts: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/a ... ia/8653278

"AVOID BUDGET AIRLINES, they are UNSAFE".

Tony Fernandes just made a FB update praising the crew for bringing down the aicraft down safely. and glad everyone is safe. He also hinted AirAsia X is returning to Adelaide. No timeline given

[quote="juliuswong"]Glad that everyone is safe and sound! Great job to the pilots and crews! I wonder couls AirAsia X hugh utilisation rate for their aircraft contribute to such in-flight fan blade separation? Currently their average utilisation rate is between 16.5-18 hours.

NO

anshabhi wrote:

then there are some experts like this who don't really deserved to be called experts: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/a ... ia/8653278

"AVOID BUDGET AIRLINES, they are UNSAFE".

Well, they are a number of incidents from budget airlines
Who you ask yourself wtf.

viewtopic.php?t=1349401
Am there are a lot more out there.
Pilots with bad contracats or hour contracts as freelancers.
So it is not bad in my point of view if this experts call budget airlines unsafe, because in some cases ...

Just thought I'd throw this little fact out there:the Trent 700 engine has the highest mean time between failure and mean time between (unplanned) removal on the worldwide A330 fleet. If an engine falls below agreed performance metrics, you can bet your bottom dollar that the airline will sanction penalties against the OEM.

I was talking to a friend who is also an AvGeek/grew up in the industry as I did, and noted that Air Asia X is about to start KL-Osaka-HNL services, and the fact that something like this happening is dissuading him from flying them.

This was my response:

"Keep in mind that if they (expletive) up like what happened last week, especially on a US bound flight, the airline is going to be in a world of hurt. Here is my guess - they will employ non-Malaysian pilots for the HNL runs that are certified for long distance flights. I will alwo gander that the standards office in HNL (FAA) will be doing inspections of the airlines procedures closely on start-up.

Also, keep in mind Malaysia is in no mood to deal with errant issues like an incident on Air Asia X. last thing they need is to be downgraded by the FAA like what happened to Philippine Airlines, not to mention having the whole country put on the European Black list".

Malaysia, having gone through its share of tragedies with Malaysia Air in the last few years, I am sure will not be standing idly by on this much less of a significant incident.

spacecookie wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

then there are some experts like this who don't really deserved to be called experts: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/a ... ia/8653278

"AVOID BUDGET AIRLINES, they are UNSAFE".

Well, they are a number of incidents from budget airlines
Who you ask yourself wtf.

viewtopic.php?t=1349401
Am there are a lot more out there.
Pilots with bad contracats or hour contracts as freelancers.
So it is not bad in my point of view if this experts call budget airlines unsafe, because in some cases ...

Not all budget airlines are alike.

KanaHawaii wrote:

"Keep in mind that if they (expletive) up like what happened last week, especially on a US bound flight, the airline is going to be in a world of hurt. Here is my guess - they will employ non-Malaysian pilots for the HNL runs that are certified for long distance flights. I will alwo gander that the standards office in HNL (FAA) will be doing inspections of the airlines procedures closely on start-up.

Not really. I happen to follow a Malaysian D7 pilot on Twitter and he had tweeted about going for HNL briefings so I do believe Malaysian pilots are going to fly the route.

I don't get it - American had an engine blowout on the runway in ORD last year and nobody bats an eyelid or declared that American is "unsafe". What's the difference between that engine failure & this engine failure?

jupiter2 wrote:

Do you think if it happened on departure from Perth and the vibration was like it was, would it have flown around for 3 hours to get it under maximum landing weight ?

Even it was over maximum landing weight, that is just an added to check to make on the aircraft while it's being repaired, it is a one off landing and not like they would do it every flight. It's not like the runway at Learmonth is short, 10000 ft, requiring heavy breaking or anything else to complicate a landing. The ONLY real down side to Learmonth is that it is isolated, everything else required to handle the aircraft and passengers could have been organised fairly quickly.

Learmonth was a blessing for the QF 330 that had control problems a few years back. No hesitation in using it then, they got it down asap and dealt with the inconvenience later.

It is like banging your head against a brick wall every time you post about an incident. There is a very good reason why a captain would not ask the opionin or anetters.

The Qantas flight that diverted to learmonth did not have control problems either. It had a problem with the crew not.turning something off the aircraft told them was faulty.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

spacecookie wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

then there are some experts like this who don't really deserved to be called experts: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/a ... ia/8653278

"AVOID BUDGET AIRLINES, they are UNSAFE".

Well, they are a number of incidents from budget airlines
Who you ask yourself wtf.

viewtopic.php?t=1349401
Am there are a lot more out there.
Pilots with bad contracats or hour contracts as freelancers.
So it is not bad in my point of view if this experts call budget airlines unsafe, because in some cases ...

Not all budget airlines are alike.

KanaHawaii wrote:

"Keep in mind that if they (expletive) up like what happened last week, especially on a US bound flight, the airline is going to be in a world of hurt. Here is my guess - they will employ non-Malaysian pilots for the HNL runs that are certified for long distance flights. I will alwo gander that the standards office in HNL (FAA) will be doing inspections of the airlines procedures closely on start-up.

Not really. I happen to follow a Malaysian D7 pilot on Twitter and he had tweeted about going for HNL briefings so I do believe Malaysian pilots are going to fly the route.

I don't get it - American had an engine blowout on the runway in ORD last year and nobody bats an eyelid or declared that American is "unsafe". What's the difference between that engine failure & this engine failure?

Well all airlines are regulated by the same set of rules and by the same authorities - if a LCC is judged to be unsafe, then so should all other airlines! Therefore, there is no logic to declaring that an airline is unsafe following an incident. The investigations have not even started and so called experts are already giving their verdicts! British Airways and Singapore Airlines both experienced dramatic looking engine fires not so long ago - are they unsafe?

It took Airasia X about two years to gain approval to operate flights to HNL because the authorities examined and audited them vigorously. They have also subjected themselves to the IATA Operational Safety Audit in 2015 and 2016 - and they passed these audits. I am sure that the FAA will oversee their operations in HNL like they do with other airlines that operate there.

I have bookings with them for flights to PER and HND in the coming months. I have no problems with them and will fly as scheduled.

I would personally never fly Air Asia X but that is 100% because I don't want to be on a 9 abreast A330 and 0% because I have any questions about their safety record.

KanaHawaii wrote:

"Keep in mind that if they (expletive) up like what happened last week, especially on a US bound flight, the airline is going to be in a world of hurt. Here is my guess - they will employ non-Malaysian pilots for the HNL runs that are certified for long distance flights. I will alwo gander that the standards office in HNL (FAA) will be doing inspections of the airlines procedures closely on start-up.

Not really. I happen to follow a Malaysian D7 pilot on Twitter and he had tweeted about going for HNL briefings so I do believe Malaysian pilots are going to fly the route.

I don't get it - American had an engine blowout on the runway in ORD last year and nobody bats an eyelid or declared that American is "unsafe". What's the difference between that engine failure & this engine failure?[/quote]

Thank you for the authoritative clarification on whether Malaysian pilots are running this flight, or not. I based my assumption on previous countries first forays into the American market and hearing more often than not that they used foreign crews, at least initially

KanaHawaii wrote:

Thank you for the authoritative clarification on whether Malaysian pilots are running this flight, or not. I based my assumption on previous countries first forays into the American market and hearing more often than not that they used foreign crews, at least initially

Sounds strange to me, can you think of an airline that has done that ?

RyanairGuru wrote:

I would personally never fly Air Asia X but that is 100% because I don't want to be on a 9 abreast A330

I have a friend who works for one of the airlines in AirAsia group who don't want to fly on an AirAsia X's A330 because of the same reason.

zeke wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Do you think if it happened on departure from Perth and the vibration was like it was, would it have flown around for 3 hours to get it under maximum landing weight ?

Even it was over maximum landing weight, that is just an added to check to make on the aircraft while it's being repaired, it is a one off landing and not like they would do it every flight. It's not like the runway at Learmonth is short, 10000 ft, requiring heavy breaking or anything else to complicate a landing. The ONLY real down side to Learmonth is that it is isolated, everything else required to handle the aircraft and passengers could have been organised fairly quickly.

Learmonth was a blessing for the QF 330 that had control problems a few years back. No hesitation in using it then, they got it down asap and dealt with the inconvenience later.

It is like banging your head against a brick wall every time you post about an incident. There is a very good reason why a captain would not ask the opionin or anetters.

The Qantas flight that diverted to learmonth did not have control problems either. It had a problem with the crew not.turning something off the aircraft told them was faulty.

So a previously unseen software issue was suddenly meant to be diagnosed by the crew while the aircraft was trying to turn everyone inside to mush ? Of course you would've been able to instantly diagnose the fault and get all the injured to care without breaking a sweat. You really are arrogant.

Did Qantas do the right thing by flying round and round in Indonesia for over an hour after it suffered an uncontained engine failure? It also suffered other damage to the aircraft. So was it dangerous not to have landed immediately after the incident? In what way is the Airasia X incident different?

Why was it OK for Qantas to continue flying after the incident and not OK for Airasia X to do the same?

jupiter2 wrote:

So a previously unseen software issue was suddenly meant to be diagnosed by the crew while the aircraft was trying to turn everyone inside to mush ? Of course you would've been able to instantly diagnose the fault and get all the injured to care without breaking a sweat. You really are arrogant.

What software fault ?

To quote the report "After cancelling the autopilot message, they noticed a NAV IR 1 FAULT caution message on the ECAM, with an associated IR 1 fault light on the overhead panel. The ECAM was also displaying other caution messages at this time."

Yet they did not turn off the IR that was detected as being faulty......

zeke wrote:

KanaHawaii wrote:

Thank you for the authoritative clarification on whether Malaysian pilots are running this flight, or not. I based my assumption on previous countries first forays into the American market and hearing more often than not that they used foreign crews, at least initially

Sounds strange to me, can you think of an airline that has done that ?

Back, probably way before, Chinese Airlines from mainland China would hire foreign crews for their China-US runs. Not all the time, but there were enough for people to mention it. It could have been a pick up of crews during recession times that needed a job. But my understanding at that time was that the US Gov't in giving landing rights, required that the crews be higher trained than what was available in the home country.

Thus, the hiring of foreign crews for airlines first starting off services to the United States. That could have pretty much changed since.

zeke wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

So a previously unseen software issue was suddenly meant to be diagnosed by the crew while the aircraft was trying to turn everyone inside to mush ? Of course you would've been able to instantly diagnose the fault and get all the injured to care without breaking a sweat. You really are arrogant.

What software fault ?

To quote the report "After cancelling the autopilot message, they noticed a NAV IR 1 FAULT caution message on the ECAM, with an associated IR 1 fault light on the overhead panel. The ECAM was also displaying other caution messages at this time."

Yet they did not turn off the IR that was detected as being faulty......

Your quote above came for actions after the event, not before. To quote from the report, Section 5.5.3, "With the information available to the flight crew at the time of the occurrence, it was not reasonable to expect that they, or most crews in the same situation, would have made that selection in the available time. With very few exceptions, abnormal and emergency procedures on the A330 were carried out in response to ECAM messages. There was no ECAM message advising the flight crew of a NAV ADR 1 FAULT, or otherwise requiring the crew to select the ADR OFF. There were also no other procedures available for the situation they were experiencing."

My point is, that airlines are abusing the wording for the requirement to divert to the nearest suitable airfield. The wording is to open for abuse and has become the nearest suitable airfield of convenience for the operator.

jupiter2 wrote:

My point is, that airlines are abusing the wording for the requirement to divert to the nearest suitable airfield. The wording is to open for abuse and has become the nearest suitable airfield of convenience for the operator.

A Malaysian newspaper interviewed the pilot which could help answer some of your questions

The incident began while the plane was in Carnarvon airspace near the west coast of Australia while Ibrahim was writing a report and his assistant was eating.

Asked why he decided to return to Perth instead of landing at the airports of Geraldton or Learmonth which were significantly nearer, Ibrahim said that the decision was made after consulting Low [the FO] and weighing various factors.

“The emergency that we were undergoing did not require immediate landing. Based on Airbus’ and AirAsia’s SOP (standard operating procedure), emergency landings are permissible in cases involving fire and smoke.

“I had also not landed at Geraldton or Learmonth (because I was not familiar with) their locations or runways, and the plane was heavy. There was also a possibility that more equipment would get damaged in landing,” he added.

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2017 ... -airasia-x

Based on data indicating L engine failure at 0016Z at FL380, they would have been around 185 NM from YPLM Learmonth diversion airport (joint military and commercial airport) and around 470 NM from returning to YPPH Perth airport. From flight data, it took around 1 HR 41 Min from the time of L engine failure to land back at YPPH Perth. The estimate of an YPLM Learmonth landing is approximately 35 minutes after engine failure with an estimated landing weight not that much above maximum landing weight. Both YPLM and YPPH airports had good, clear weather and no ceiling at est. landing times, and long runways. YPPH had ILSZ 21 approach, and YPLM had a RNAVZ approach to runway 18.

I’m not going to second guess the crew for the decision to return to YPPH Perth with a 1 hour+ additional flight time (as opposed to landing at YPLM) after the engine failure, because we don’t have all the facts yet. But assuming there were no extenuating circumstances, it would seem that a diversion direct to YPLM Perth Learmonth would have been prudent especially in light of the overall vibration levels. At least with choosing YPLM, one would have been over the nearest diversion airport quickly in case more serious results developed after the L engine failure.

It will be interesting to read the ATSB investigation facts regarding the root cause of blade failure and the decision to return to YPPH Perth instead of land at the nearest diversion airport which was YPLM. Just my opinion.

KanaHawaii wrote:

Back, probably way before, Chinese Airlines from mainland China would hire foreign crews for their China-US runs.

I suspect that was to have someone with English language on the flight deck, some airlines also had interpreters on the flight deck.

jupiter2 wrote:

Your quote above came for actions after the event, not before. To quote from the report, Section 5.5.3, "With the information available to the flight crew at the time of the occurrence, it was not reasonable to expect that they, or most crews in the same situation, would have made that selection in the available time. With very few exceptions, abnormal and emergency procedures on the A330 were carried out in response to ECAM messages. There was no ECAM message advising the flight crew of a NAV ADR 1 FAULT, or otherwise requiring the crew to select the ADR OFF. There were also no other procedures available for the situation they were experiencing."

My point is, that airlines are abusing the wording for the requirement to divert to the nearest suitable airfield. The wording is to open for abuse and has become the nearest suitable airfield of convenience for the operator.

Firstly FCOM states that for a NAV IR1 FAULT, you are to turn the IR off. They also received a NAV ADR 1 FAULT.

'The PFR for the flight showed two caution messages associated with the operation of the ADIRUs: • NAV IR1 FAULT (at 0440). Given that ADIRU 1 consistently flagged the IR parameters as invalid, it is likely that it self-detected the problem. • NAV ADR 1 FAULT (at 0513). Subsequent analysis determined that this message was generated by the IR part of ADIRU 3 (section 1.12.6) and not by ADIRU 1 itself. "

Flying around without one ADR or IR is not an emergency, in fact you can distpatch with one IR and one ADR inoperative. The ATSB failed to look at the reasons why the crew did not follow the manufacturers procedures for the IR and ADR faults.

The only person who can determine the nearest suitable airport is the PIC, and the requirement to divert to the nearest suitable is not required for an IR or ADR fault.

cat3appr50 wrote:

Based on data indicating L engine failure at 0016Z at FL380, they would have been around 185 NM from YPLM Learmonth diversion airport (joint military and commercial airport) and around 470 NM from returning to YPPH Perth airport. From flight data, it took around 1 HR 41 Min from the time of L engine failure to land back at YPPH Perth. The estimate of an YPLM Learmonth landing is approximately 35 minutes after engine failure with an estimated landing weight not that much above maximum landing weight. Both YPLM and YPPH airports had good, clear weather and no ceiling at est. landing times, and long runways. YPPH had ILSZ 21 approach, and YPLM had a RNAVZ approach to runway 18.

I’m not going to second guess the crew for the decision to return to YPPH Perth with a 1 hour+ additional flight time (as opposed to landing at YPLM) after the engine failure, because we don’t have all the facts yet. But assuming there were no extenuating circumstances, it would seem that a diversion direct to YPLM Perth Learmonth would have been prudent especially in light of the overall vibration levels. At least with choosing YPLM, one would have been over the nearest diversion airport quickly in case more serious results developed after the L engine failure.

It will be interesting to read the ATSB investigation facts regarding the root cause of blade failure and the decision to return to YPPH Perth instead of land at the nearest diversion airport which was YPLM. Just my opinion.

Well based on the interview article with the Captain that I linked, AirAsia's SOP only require diversion to nearest suitable airport for engine fires & smoke in the cabin.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Asked why he decided to return to Perth instead of landing at the airports of Geraldton or Learmonth which were significantly nearer, Ibrahim said that the decision was made after consulting Low the FO and weighing various factors.

“I had also not landed at Geraldton or Learmonth (because I was not familiar with) their locations or runways, and the plane was heavy. There was also a possibility that more equipment would get damaged in landing,” he added.

Geraldton is a small country airport, the taxiways are gravel and will only take aircraft up to 22 tonnes. Learmonth does not have ATC normally, it is only open when the base is open. Most of the time the base is not open, it just has a small skeleton caretaker staff.

What we look at in making a decision is the following considerations should be met at the expected time of use:
− availability of the airport,
− overflying and landing authorizations,
− capability of ground operational assistance (ATC, meteorological and air information services offices, lighting.),
− availability of navaids such as ILS, VOR, NDB (at least one let-down navaid must be available for an instrument approach),
− airport category for rescue and fire fighting (ICAO Doc 9137 - AN/898 Part 1).

The following criteria may also be considered:

− capability of technical assistance,
− capability of handling and catering (fuel, food, etc.),
− ability to receive and accommodate the passengers,
− other particular requirements applicable to each individual operator.

Suitable airport

A suitable airport for dispatch purposes is an airport confirmed to be adequate which satisfies the ETOPS dispatch weather requirements in terms of ceiling and visibility minima (refer to weather reports and forecasts) within a validity period. This period opens one hour before the earliest Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) at the airport and closes one hour after the latest ETA. In addition, cross-wind forecasts must also be checked to be acceptable for the same validity period.

Field conditions should also ensure that a safe landing can be accomplished with one engine and / or airframe system inoperative (refer to possible NOTAMs, SNOWTAMs, approach procedure modification).

"I was not panicking. I was only thinking of passengers' safety": Pilot of AirAsia X Flight D7237

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2017 ... -airasia-x

'The PFR for the flight showed two caution messages associated with the operation of the ADIRUs: • NAV IR1 FAULT (at 0440). Given that ADIRU 1 consistently flagged the IR parameters as invalid, it is likely that it self-detected the problem. • NAV ADR 1 FAULT (at 0513). Subsequent analysis determined that this message was generated by the IR part of ADIRU 3 (section 1.12.6) and not by ADIRU 1 itself. "

Flying around without one ADR or IR is not an emergency, in fact you can distpatch with one IR and one ADR inoperative. The ATSB failed to look at the reasons why the crew did not follow the manufacturers procedures for the IR and ADR faults.

The only person who can determine the nearest suitable airport is the PIC, and the requirement to divert to the nearest suitable is not required for an IR or ADR fault.[/quote]

The only real reference the report made on the crews actions, was that the fault displays they were getting they were not familiar with and hadn't trained for. They were in the processes of going through the fault messages being displayed when the event happened. The report did also state that there wasn't any warning light activated on this particular flight. Two other flight with similar equipment failures had warning lights activated and the crews took the appropriate actions. This was quite a while ago now, were training procedures changed after this event ?

I'm not going to argue that the ultimate decision as to where to divert is up to the PIC. But I also don't want a PIC thinking he's doing the right thing diverting to what they believe is a more appropriate airport (ie : convenient airport for the pax/airline), for the situation to further deteriorate due to an associated fault, or a completely new fault arising and lives being lost while enroute. While I doubt anyone is putting into the question the robustness of the aircraft, there "could" have been further complications being caused by the constant shaking this particular flight was put through.

jupiter2 wrote:

'The only real reference the report made on the crews actions, was that the fault displays they were getting they were not familiar with and hadn't trained for. They were in the processes of going through the fault messages being displayed when the event happened.

Standard Airbus ECAM handling will have them look at OEBs, Manuals, and Resets. They will have seen ADR/IR inop before as that is how stall training is done.

jupiter2 wrote:

The report did also state that there wasn't any warning light activated on this particular flight.

Yes it did, I quoited the text before, after the autopilot disconnect they had the NAV IR1 fault ECAM and a FAULT illuminated on the IR button. The ECAM and FCOM procedure directs them to turn the IR off if it faulty. Why the crew did not do that was not covered by the ATSB.

jupiter2 wrote:

This was quite a while ago now, were training procedures changed after this event ?

No, turning ADRs and IRs off have been part of initial and recurrent training for decades. One of the IR issues you do in you training is realigning the IR in ATT mode, that is a basic IR mode, backup NAV is also looked at during training.

jupiter2 wrote:

But I also don't want a PIC thinking he's doing the right thing diverting to what they believe is a more appropriate airport (ie : convenient airport for the pax/airline), for the situation to further deteriorate due to an associated fault, or a completely new fault arising and lives being lost while enroute.

That is nothing more than you assertion. Between PER and KUL at all times the aircraft is within 180 minutes of both the departure and arrival airports (they might use CGK or SIN for depress ERA), apart from that they dont need to carry any charts, weather, or NOTAMS for airports like YPLM. That is the way ETOPS works, if they supported that ETOPS segments with PER and KUL, PER was the closest. I go past airport all the time that are long enough to land an aircraft at, but I would not have gone to YPLM in either the QF or D7 case unless I was on fire. PER is much better equipped to handle the aircraft due to the RFF, ATC, and approaches available. What most people also do is to have the route being flown in the primary flight plan, and in the secondary flight plan in the MCDU build a return back to the departure airport, if you have an issue after departure, you know where you came from, what the conditions were, you had just landed there on the previous sector. The mental workload is reduced dealing with the arrival which can go into troubleshooting the issue. Did the D7 crew even have charts, weather and NOTAMS for YPLM ? Was YPLM approaches and airport in their navigation database ?

jupiter2 wrote:

While I doubt anyone is putting into the question the robustness of the aircraft, there "could" have been further complications being caused by the constant shaking this particular flight was put through.

Even more reason to do an ILS approach in PER so the autoppilot can fly the vertical and lateral profile.

Aircraft is on the move again:


https://twitter.com/AviationSafety/stat ... 7018443777

Looks like it may be heading for Lufthansa Teknik in Manila.

KarelXWB wrote:

Not just the engine got damaged:

AirAsia X has released few details of the incident which is understood to involve the failure of a fan blade in the No.1 engine.

It destroyed hydraulic components and an oil pump before being ingested by the engine.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 2288c00b0a

Hydraulic and oil pumps tend to be located in the engine nacelle, being driven by the engine.

After spending five days in Lufthansa Teknik Manila since 11th July, 9M-XXE was put back into service on 17th July 2017. Visited Perth a few times since then.

Interim report has been released today

The cause has been blamed on metal fatigue of a fan blade for the engine failure

The engine manufacturer found that a section of the fan blade separated at about one quarter of its length from the blade base. The blade section and associated engine debris were retained within the engine cowls. Examination of the retained fan blade section identified that the separation was likely due to metal fatigue that originated within the blade’s internal structure. Investigation and analysis of the failure mode are on-going.

Final report to be handed down in several months from now

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 768e7af995

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/in ... -2017-066/