Todays MH122 SYD-KUL has diverted to ASP after the right engine of the A330-300 was shut down inflight after passengers heard large banging noises coming from the engine. The aircraft landed safely in ASP and passengers will be accommodated overnight there

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-18/m ... gs/9341584

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/ ... ce-springs

MH A330s are fitted with PW engines.

[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-18/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh122-forced-to-divert-to-alice-springs/9341584
[/url]
Why divert to ASP that is 740nm away when the Curtin joint military/civilian airbase DCN with a 10000 ft runway is nearby?

Why divert to ASP that is 740nm away when the Curtin joint military/civilian airbase (DCN) with a 10000 ft runway is nearby?

I suspect the contained single engine failure wasn't catastrophic, as some passengers were reported saying, and given that circumstance, Alice Springs has accommodation to cater for the passengers until replacement aircraft arrives.

ABpositive wrote:

I suspect the contained single engine failure wasn't catastrophic, as some passengers were reported saying, and given that circumstance, Alice Springs has accommodation to cater for the passengers until replacement aircraft arrives.

Yep, this is what I would expect. Unless it's a "get down IMMEDIATELY" situation, getting to ASP offers several things - hotels and restaurants, immigration, access to domestic flights if need be until you get a new aircraft, etc. Makes sense to me.

Broome, an hours bus ride from DCN, also has lots of accommodation. Also Broome airport has a 7700 ft runway which would have been adequate to land an A330.

anplatinum wrote:

Broome, an hours bus ride from DCN, also has lots of accommodation. Also Broome airport has a 7700 ft runway which would have been adequate to land an A330.

Alice Springs still offers significantly more options as far as accommodation and onward flights to the largest cities of Australia.

When need to stop encouraging aircraft flying around on just one fully functional engine. They had a 10,000 foot runway underneath them

anplatinum wrote:

Broome, an hours bus ride from DCN, also has lots of accommodation. Also Broome airport has a 7700 ft runway which would have been adequate to land an A330.

But with no customs facilities AFAIK. So long as the situation is contained, ASP (or DRW for that matter) is a far better place to divert than anywhere along the northwest coast.

Michael

A quick check of Trip Advisor shows 24 hotels in Broome and 23 in Alice Springs. Furthermore, BRM is an international airport and is closer to KL from where they would most likely send a relief aircraft.

eamondzhang wrote:

anplatinum wrote:

Broome, an hours bus ride from DCN, also has lots of accommodation. Also Broome airport has a 7700 ft runway which would have been adequate to land an A330.

But with no customs facilities AFAIK. So long as the situation is contained, ASP (or DRW for that matter) is a far better place to divert than anywhere along the northwest coast.

Michael

ASP doesnt have those facilities would be the same as flying to Broome.

jetfuel wrote:

When need to stop encouraging aircraft flying around on just one fully functional engine. They had a 10,000 foot runway underneath them

What's the point of ETOPS then?

jetfuel wrote:

When need to stop encouraging aircraft flying around on just one fully functional engine. They had a 10,000 foot runway underneath them

Unless the failure was caused by an external issue like fuel contamination, birds, etc that could have also affected the other engine ... this point of view is irrational.

anplatinum wrote:

Broome, an hours bus ride from DCN, also has lots of accommodation. Also Broome airport has a 7700 ft runway which would have been adequate to land an A330.

Try 2 and half hours, DCN is not the ideal place to get stuck for a diverted flight, its terminal (if you can call it that) can barely handle a narrowbody let alone a A330

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

jetfuel wrote:

When need to stop encouraging aircraft flying around on just one fully functional engine. They had a 10,000 foot runway underneath them

What's the point of ETOPS then?

Yes, I was about to ask the same question - these twins flying around are ETOPS certified. So there should be no question flying them on a single engine for another 3 or 4 hours. The airline has to consider what is the best service recovery option and chose to use Alice Springs.

flee wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

jetfuel wrote:

When need to stop encouraging aircraft flying around on just one fully functional engine. They had a 10,000 foot runway underneath them

What's the point of ETOPS then?

So there should be no question flying them on a single engine for another 3 or 4 hours. The airline has to consider what is the best service recovery option and chose to use Alice Springs.

ETOPS is a regulation. That is all. It DOES not change the fact that when you lose one engine in a twin you only have one left. the SAFEST solution is to land. Merely relying on a regulation to keep you safe is fool hardy.

If they were in the Derby vicinity it still begs the question why they didn't divert to DRW which was 170 NM closer an International airport with onsite border controls and much better equipped to accommodate disrupted pax.

jetfuel wrote:

flee wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the point of ETOPS then?

So there should be no question flying them on a single engine for another 3 or 4 hours. The airline has to consider what is the best service recovery option and chose to use Alice Springs.

ETOPS is a regulation. That is all. It DOES not change the fact that when you lose one engine in a twin you only have one left. the SAFEST solution is to land. Merely relying on a regulation to keep you safe is fool hardy.

It goes a little deeper than that. Technically, from the point of the shutdown, the aircraft was operating ETOPS and its certification was very relevant (in that it would be a breach of the relevant laws/standards to divert to ASP if such diversion was not compliant with the aircraft's ETOPS certification). I've no doubt (albeit I don't know the specific circumstances of the MH flight in question) an A333 operating on one engine could physically (and within ETOPS 180) make KUL with no issues at all, and this would, of course, be the best possible service recovery outcome. However, a PIC would be ill-advised to continue the flight, given the overwater section, when several suitable alternates lie behind the aircraft and wholly over land - continuing would be a very risky decision and, no doubt, would come with a lot of difficult questions to answer.

As to why ASP vs DRW (which was my first thought on hearing the aircraft was over northwest WA at the point of diversion), I believe there were thunderstorms in the DRW area and forecast to remain in the area for some time.

Today's MH148 MEL-KUL will divert via ASP, presumably to collect some pax and crew. 9M-MTJ operating. I would imagine many other pax have already left ASP on QF flights to DRW/PER/MEL/ADL/SYD, to then travel onwards from there.

jetfuel wrote:

flee wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the point of ETOPS then?

So there should be no question flying them on a single engine for another 3 or 4 hours. The airline has to consider what is the best service recovery option and chose to use Alice Springs.

ETOPS is a regulation. That is all. It DOES not change the fact that when you lose one engine in a twin you only have one left. the SAFEST solution is to land. Merely relying on a regulation to keep you safe is fool hardy.

And land they did. It's not like they continued on to KUL.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Instead of debating where and why they landed shouldn't we be focusing on the fact that there was an engine failure and the flight ended with no other events?

sw733 wrote:

anplatinum wrote:

Broome, an hours bus ride from DCN, also has lots of accommodation. Also Broome airport has a 7700 ft runway which would have been adequate to land an A330.

Alice Springs still offers significantly more options as far as accommodation and onward flights to the largest cities of Australia.

I’m the US, the FARs require diversion to the nearest suitable airport anytime an engine fails on a twin. That doesn’t mean where are the best hotels or best connections. It means the nearest airport you can land safely at, period. Unless weather was a safety factor, must airlines would have gone to the nearest airport.

flee wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

jetfuel wrote:

When need to stop encouraging aircraft flying around on just one fully functional engine. They had a 10,000 foot runway underneath them

What's the point of ETOPS then?

Yes, I was about to ask the same question - these twins flying around are ETOPS certified. So there should be no question flying them on a single engine for another 3 or 4 hours. The airline has to consider what is the best service recovery option and chose to use Alice Springs.

Service recovery isn’t a factor when a twin loses one engine. That’s a blatant violation in most airlines.

BoeingGuy wrote:

flee wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Service recovery isn’t a factor when a twin loses one engine. That’s a blatant violation in most airlines.

Finally somebody gets the reality

BoeingGuy wrote:

flee wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the point of ETOPS then?

Yes, I was about to ask the same question - these twins flying around are ETOPS certified. So there should be no question flying them on a single engine for another 3 or 4 hours. The airline has to consider what is the best service recovery option and chose to use Alice Springs.

Service recovery isn’t a factor when a twin loses one engine. That’s a blatant violation in most airlines.

Some airlines SOP trust their pilots to be able to make a decision.

If they needed to land at a closer airport, they would. In this case the pilots decided that the situation is under control.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

flee wrote:

Yes, I was about to ask the same question - these twins flying around are ETOPS certified. So there should be no question flying them on a single engine for another 3 or 4 hours. The airline has to consider what is the best service recovery option and chose to use Alice Springs.

Service recovery isn’t a factor when a twin loses one engine. That’s a blatant violation in most airlines.

Some airlines SOP trust their pilots to be able to make a decision.

If they needed to land at a closer airport, they would. In this case the pilots decided that the situation is under control.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

As I’ve stated already, it’s not a question of the airline SOPs or trusting the pilots. Most regulatory agencies, including the FAA, REQUIRE the crew to land at the nearest suitable airport if one engine fails in a twin engine airplane.

Not sure why that is so difficult to understand. It’s pretty clear.

Supposedly having the situation under control is not justification for violating a regulation. Plus, they may be wrong.

If a crew does not land at the nearest suitable airport by flight time, they have to explain their decision. Acceptable answers could be unsafe weather or conditions. Hotels, maintenance facilities or convenience are not acceptable reason for not following the regulation.

anplatinum wrote:

Why divert to ASP that is 740nm away when the Curtin joint military/civilian airbase DCN with a 10000 ft runway is nearby?

The requirement for ETOPS is to divert to the nearest suitable airport, not the nearest airport. Curtin is a military base by name, at most times it has a limited caretaker staff of under 30 people. It has no ATC or RFF except for when the RAAF have the base fully operational, at those times civil aircraft are not normally allowed in the airspace as there is live ordnance. The airport pavement is not strong enough for an A330.

Curtin does not have 24/7 weather forecasts (we do not even include it in our flight preparation). MH would not have the Curtin approaches in their databases, and they would not carry the charts weather forecast, and NOTAMS. Under Malaysian rules nominated ETOPS alternates must be listed on the flight plan and the filed flight plan.

The pilots would have been fully aware what their legal options were, which are very limited in that area. Darwin and Alice Springs would be the closest. The forecast for Alice Springs was good (landed around 0830Z), 1800/1824 040/10KT CAVOK. The forecast for Darwin was amended to include thunderstorms which is common in the wet season for the arrival time INTER 1803/1906 2000 SHRA BKN010 SCT020, PROB30 TEMPO 1804/1822 VRB20G35KT 1000 TSRA BKN015 SCT030CB. As the wind was variable for Darwin, Forecast to exceeded the aircrafts crosswind limit on a wet runway, also 1000 m is not enough visibility to land on runway 11 from the RNAV (430ft/1900m) or VOR (570ft/2300m) approach.

MAS148 has just touchdown and backtracking to the Terminal.

EK413

The ATSB is now investigating the incident

https://twitter.com/atsbinfo/status/954149193714552832

As mentioned upthread the flight diverted to ASP due to monsoonal weather in DRW

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/aus ... -shutdown/

waoz1 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

anplatinum wrote:

Broome, an hours bus ride from DCN, also has lots of accommodation. Also Broome airport has a 7700 ft runway which would have been adequate to land an A330.

But with no customs facilities AFAIK. So long as the situation is contained, ASP (or DRW for that matter) is a far better place to divert than anywhere along the northwest coast.

Michael

ASP doesnt have those facilities would be the same as flying to Broome.

To the very least ASP does have the ability to handle widebody and they do see widebody actions (e.g. for storage & medical diversions). Broome doesn't. Simple. Not to mention what qf789 and zeke said upthread about the RAAF Curtin.

Long runway doesn't automatically translates into suitable landing sites. Other factors must be considered, and hence the wording "nearest SUITABLE airport".

Michael

Video of both A330's in ASP

https://twitter.com/AirlineExposed/stat ... 3152453632

anplatinum wrote:

Broome, an hours bus ride from DCN, also has lots of accommodation. Also Broome airport has a 7700 ft runway which would have been adequate to land an A330.

Broome is not long enough, the landing distance available is only 7200 ft.

zeke wrote:

anplatinum wrote:

Broome, an hours bus ride from DCN, also has lots of accommodation. Also Broome airport has a 7700 ft runway which would have been adequate to land an A330.

Broome is not long enough, the landing distance available is only 7200 ft.

What, an A330 can't land on 7200 feet? A 777 or 787 easily can.

However, as you and others noted, apparently the weather or pavement loading was not suitable at two closer airports. I wasn't there, but it sounds like they were justifiable in not calling them "suitable". As stated earlier, the regulations allow the Captain to use his/her judgement as to what are "suitable" conditions. However, you may be asked to justify that decision later.

Another point is that the FAA clearly states that it's the nearest suitable in terms of flying time. You don't necessarily have to spiral around to get to an airport that is closer in terms of miles.

For example, suppose you are at 30,000 feet and 10 miles north of PAE and lose an engine. It's permissible to divert to SEA, even though it's about 35nm farther than PAE because you'd likely get their just as fast in your descent.

BoeingGuy wrote:

What, an A330 can't land on 7200 feet? A 777 or 787 easily can.

Because I know the aircraft performance the level they drifted down to means they were above maximum landing weight, and they were one engine out (which means one hydraulic system out and partial spoilers)

BoeingGuy wrote:

nearest suitable in terms of flying time.

Who really cares what the FAA says, they don’t regulate MH or most of the world. You have missed out so many of the factors that are required to assess an airport to be ETOPS adequate and then suitable. No RFF or ATC for a start.

Also for beyond 240 minutes it is a requirement to also assess food and accommodation. That is so you don’t divert to remote island and have no way to get passengers off the aircraft into somewhere they can survive.

zeke wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

What, an A330 can't land on 7200 feet? A 777 or 787 easily can.

Because I know the aircraft performance the level they drifted down to means they were above maximum landing weight, and they were one engine out (which means one hydraulic system out and partial spoilers)

BoeingGuy wrote:

nearest suitable in terms of flying time.

Who really cares what the FAA says, they don’t regulate MH or most of the world. You have missed out so many of the factors that are required to assess an airport to be ETOPS adequate and then suitable. No RFF or ATC for a start.

Also for beyond 240 minutes it is a requirement to also assess food and accommodation. That is so you don’t divert to remote island and have no way to get passengers off the aircraft into somewhere they can survive.

First of all, I pretty much supported your point, so your confrontational tone is a bit misplaced. Perhaps you were so busy being confrontational that you didn’t real my posts.

Second, most regulatory agencies tend to follow FAA guidance. So likely MAS follows something similar.

Third, the requirent for a twin engine airplane to land at the nearest suitable in the event of an engine failure is not limited to ETOPS operations.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Second, most regulatory agencies tend to follow FAA guidance. So likely MAS follows something similar.

Third, the requirent for a twin engine airplane to land at the nearest suitable in the event of an engine failure is not limited to ETOPS operations.

Most regulators follow ICAO which EASA uses, not FAA. MH like most airlines in Europe, Middle East, and Asia follow EU ops. Pilot licences in Malaysia use the EU theory exams.

Nearest suitable when ETOPS is different to non ETOPS, when ETOPS there are additional requirements to be an ETOPS suitable airport which I have mentioned above.

eamondzhang wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

But with no customs facilities AFAIK. So long as the situation is contained, ASP (or DRW for that matter) is a far better place to divert than anywhere along the northwest coast.

Michael

ASP doesnt have those facilities would be the same as flying to Broome.

To the very least ASP does have the ability to handle widebody and they do see widebody actions (e.g. for storage & medical diversions). Broome doesn't. Simple. Not to mention what qf789 and zeke said upthread about the RAAF Curtin.

Long runway doesn't automatically translates into suitable landing sites. Other factors must be considered, and hence the wording "nearest SUITABLE airport".

Michael

Your original point was ASP has customs facilities, which is doesnt.

DeltaB717 wrote:

Today's MH148 MEL-KUL will divert via ASP, presumably to collect some pax and crew. 9M-MTJ operating. I would imagine many other pax have already left ASP on QF flights to DRW/PER/MEL/ADL/SYD, to then travel onwards from there.

So, assuming that MH148 had lots of empty seats left over, that flight diverted to ASP to get the remaining MH passengers from flight 122? That probably didn't make the passengers of MH148 very happy, since they could have very well missed connecting flights at Kuala Lumpur (KUL)...

If you lose one engine, I don’t think you can safely assume that the other engine (or engines) will keep running long enough to reach safety. I would think you would want to get on the deck as quickly as possible after an inflight failure in one engine, regardless of whether the aircraft has 2, 3 or 4 engines total.

Here is an example of an EAL L-1011 which lost power in one engine and soon after lost power in the remaining two for the same reason that the first engine failed, i.e. what turned out to be faulty MX. In this case, the first failure took place over water so landing immediately was not an option. After the captain turned back to Miami, the remaining two engines failed as well. They were fortunate to get one engine restarted and land safely back in Miami. If I recall the story correctly, the one engine that had been successfully restarted failed again just as the aircraft was touching down in Miami.

It doesn’t matter how well an engine or an aircraft is built, the possibility of human error during operation and/or MX is always present.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/17/us/oi ... first.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 660a9cb8c/

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... R8404.aspx

SuperGee wrote:

If you lose one engine, I don’t think you can safely assume that the other engine (or engines) will keep running long enough to reach safety. I would think you would want to get on the deck as quickly as possible after an inflight failure in one engine, regardless of whether the aircraft has 2, 3 or 4 engines total.

Here is an example of an EAL L-1011 which lost power in one engine and soon after lost power in the remaining two for the same reason that the first engine failed, i.e. what turned out to be faulty MX. In this case, the first failure took place over water so landing immediately was not an option. After the captain turned back to Miami, the remaining two engines failed as well. They were fortunate to get one engine restarted and land safely back in Miami. If I recall the story correctly, the one engine that had been successfully restarted failed again just as the aircraft was touching down in Miami.

It doesn’t matter how well an engine or an aircraft is built, the possibility of human error during operation and/or MX is always present.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/17/us/oi ... first.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 660a9cb8c/

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... R8404.aspx

ETOPS states that maintenance on both engines can not be performed by the same crew at the same place.


No Tax On Rotax

waoz1 wrote:

Your original point was ASP has customs facilities, which is doesnt.

Alice Springs is a designated international alternate airport in the Australian AIP. It has procedures in place for international flights.

Each week the USAF has a cargo flight which lands at Alice springs from/to Guam for the Australian/US Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap which is located just outside Alice Springs.

SuperGee wrote:

If you lose one engine, I don’t think you can safely assume that the other engine (or engines) will keep running long enough to reach safety.

But that's the whole point of ETOPS certification: the whole airplane, including the powerplant, is held to a much higher maintenance and operational standard than non-ETOPS aircraft are. If one engine fails, you can pretty well assume that the other engine is going to keep running just fine. Multiple engine failures are an anomaly, and occurrences of multiple engine failures for independent reasons are practically null in the last 30 years. If both engines go, they're probably going to go at nearly the same time, and there isn't going to be much you can do about it.

waoz1 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

ASP doesnt have those facilities would be the same as flying to Broome.

To the very least ASP does have the ability to handle widebody and they do see widebody actions (e.g. for storage & medical diversions). Broome doesn't. Simple. Not to mention what qf789 and zeke said upthread about the RAAF Curtin.

Long runway doesn't automatically translates into suitable landing sites. Other factors must be considered, and hence the wording "nearest SUITABLE airport".

Michael

Your original point was ASP has customs facilities, which is doesnt.

But that does NOT translate into the fact that ASP and BME are exactly the same, as you've implied. BME doesn't have the ability to handle widebody AFAIK, and I've checked the chart (although it didn't mention runway capability).

Plus, as zeke mentioned, ASP is a designated diversion airport for international flights, not BME.

SuperGee wrote:

Your example is out of date. At the time when L-1011 is in great use, there's no such thing called ETOPS. The whole point of ETOPS is when you have one engine failed, the second one should handle the entire plane for the minutes it was certified with. If you can't get the plane to ASP then there're serious issues with your ETOPS program.

Michael

The A330 is back in KL now after an engine change.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS5102