Why did AirAsia fly a crippled jet away from a nearby airport yesterday?

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2017/06/26/airasiax-fly-crippled-jet-away-nearby-airport-wa-yesterday/

by CPAhem • 9 years ago

54 54 9 years ago

blogs.crikey.com.au

jw2k• 9 years ago

Al Jazzera has a great exposé on the issues of quality and supply / demand for pilots in Asia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSZ-R5HdPQU

It's truly frightening, and makes me think twice when any of these airlines come up when I'm searching for flight deals.

jpatokal2• 9 years ago

Grain of salt time: Air Asia has one of the better safety records in Asia, with one accident since they started, despite being one of the region's largest carriers and flying into a lot of minor airports.

But since we're making generalisations about "Asia", it's worth noting that pilot hiring is screwed up all over the world. Did you know the pilot flying your regional jet in the good old USA is likely barely making minimum wage?

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/skift.com/2013/08/28/the-u-s...

But regardless of how predatory airlines get, pilots have pretty strong incentives not to crash!

toomanybeersies2• 9 years ago

Air Asia is certainly a budget carrier, but unlike other budget carriers, they actually run a tight ship.

I've flown with them quite a few times, and know plenty of other people who have flown with them, and none of us have had any complaints. The planes are bare-bones, the seats are small, and you pay for everything on the plane, but their service is perfectly fine, and they usually run on time, or close enough.

I can't say the same for Jetstar, all I hear about them is complaints. They seem to always be late, or cancelling flights, or screwing up their customer service and screwing over their customers. I will go out of my way to fly with another airline if possible.

chrismeller• 9 years ago

That article is specifically about co-pilots, not the captain. For better or worse the airline pilot market is heavily seniority based, so you're expected to do your time before making anything significant.

None of that inherently makes anything more or less safe. Statistically it's still significantly safer than the taxi driving you to the airport.

org34322• 9 years ago

I flew Sriwijaya Air last month, the crew appeared stressed out, irritated, and a bit disorganized. Which if that wasn't concerning enough, their flight safety routine includes asking everyone to pray for a safe flight. And if you thought delayed flights were annoying, how about flights that leave an hour early? Yep, let that one sink in.

If you do need to positively get some place without crashing, Garuda Air is a normal international standards airline, and actually a top 10 airline worldwide.

org34322• 9 years ago

And here's cnn documenting crews asking pasangers to pray for the flight: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/25/asia/air-asia-flight-turns-bac...

simlevesque• 9 years ago

In Canada we train chinese pilots for cheap in a city called St-Hubert... Two of them crashed over a mart a couple of months ago.

"It was a storm of good weather [...] doesn’t seem to be a mechanical problem"

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/flight-school-stu...

CraftThatBlock• 9 years ago

Am from St-Hubert and there's not much training here. We have an airport, but it's main purpose isn't training. That crash was a single off accident, could've happened anywhere (I live about 10 minutes away from the crash site).

sitharus3• 9 years ago

At at guess, because the maximum landing weight of a A330 is 187,000 kg but the maximum takeoff weight is 242,000 kg. They'd have to burn off fuel before landing or risk crushing the landing gear.

The A330 doesn't have fuel dumping nozzles as standard equipment so that may not have been an option.

Edit:

From a slightly dodgy source http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/117765-a330-fuel-consumption.... they'd burn 6 tonnes on takeoff and another ~7 in the 1.5 hours before the engine failed, and approx another 7 before landing but I don't know what the consumption would be like for a single engine return.

That gives 20 tonnes total fuel burn. At those figures the 5:40 flight would take 41.5 tonnes of fuel, plus a bit extra.

skykooler• 9 years ago

So why not circle above the airport it's already near, instead of heading off for another one and just hoping it makes it?

ubernostrum3• 9 years ago

If the other engine goes, odds are they're not going to make any airport, even the nearby one, even if they're circling it. If Perth has better facilities for handling the problem, and it's "we'll make it there or we won't make it anywhere", might as well go back to Perth.

sitharus3• 9 years ago

That I can't say. Perhaps Perth was a much better equipped airfield. If you're going to hang around in the air for two hours you may as well get somewhere better able to handle your emergency. The chances of a dual engine failure on an ETOPS-240 (240 minutes single engine operation) certified plane are very small.

ubernostrum3• 9 years ago

You are almost certainly correct. Getting rid of fuel to get down to max landing weight is a concern any time there's a problem this early in a long flight.

And needing to sometimes fly a bit before you can land safely is, well, the whole idea behind ETOPS. For those unfamiliar with the acronym (officially: "ExTended OPerationS", sarcastically: "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim"), it refers to a certification process for twin-engine aircraft, to demonstrate that they can safely operate far from any airport, since their engine reliability is sufficient to allow extended periods of single-engine flight if and when necessary.

An ETOPS rating is given in minutes. For example, ETOPS-60 would mean the plane is approved to fly routes that might require up to 60 minutes of single-engine flying in order to reach a landing site after one engine fails. The Airbus A330 is approved (depending on the exact variant and configuration the airline buys) for either ETOPS-180 or ETOPS-240.

nayuki• 9 years ago

ETOPS is covered in this easy-to-digest video by Wendover Productions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g

uhnuhnuhn2• 9 years ago

You can land safely above maximum landing weight, although it might cause damage to the tires or in extreme cases to the landing gears. Overweight landings are performed frequently[1] in emergencies, especially when an emergency occurs on or right after take-off.

There may still have been other overriding reasons not to land at the closest airfield in this case. We just don't know enough yet.

[1] http://avherald.com/h?search_term=overweight+landing&opt=0&d...

sshanky• 9 years ago

ETOPS originally meant "Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards". Just a way to get approval to fly planes with only two engines over large bodies of water, with rules specifying how far they can be from the nearest airport where they could land in case of an emergency.

CPAhem• 9 years ago

The odd issue is why the vibration continue after he shut down the engine?

Was it an avionics issue instead? Two previous issues[1] have occurred in the same airspace (near Learmonth) with similar Airbus aircraft from Qantas.

"The incident again fueled media speculation regarding the significance of the Harold E. Holt facility, with the Australian and International Pilots Association calling for commercial aircraft to be barred from the area as a precaution until the events are better understood, while the manager of the facility has claimed that it is "highly, highly unlikely" that any interference has been caused."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72#Subsequent_Qa...

jwildeboer• 9 years ago

The vibration continued because the shut off turbine was windmilling, AFAICS. Nothing you can do. Except reducing airspeed to zero AKA landing the bird.

cryptonector• 9 years ago

One would think that fuel dumping nozzles should be required equipment.

My other thought as to why they went back is that they could get the aircraft repaired more easily there.

Anyways, glad it turned out alright!

sitharus3• 9 years ago

It depends on the aircraft. The FAA requires (and therefore every airline that wants to fly to the US has) fuel dumping if the aircraft cannot perform a go-around (aborted landing) after an engine failure. A modern twin-engine aircraft can do this so they omit the complexity and weight of the fuel dumping system.

If the worst happens an overweight landing is an option, it's just not desirable. The landing gear should be able to handle it without collapsing but may take significant damage.

anatari• 9 years ago

Why didn't they turn off the engine to stop the vibration? To a layman that would seem safer than having an engine violently shake the wing!

sifex• 9 years ago

They did, assumedly as soon as they could've. The shaking came from the plane having effectively a giant scoop for the air to catch below one of the wings.

Source: http://avherald.com/h?article=4aac9f14&opt=0

ithinkinstereo5• 9 years ago

The captain apparently informed the passengers he was praying for their survival and asked that they pray too[1]. This tells you everything you need to know about the quality of AirAsia pilots.

Anytime I fly in that area of the world, I make it a point to avoid Malaysian and Indonesian airlines at all costs. Fly Cathay or SingAir and their affiliates if you can. The cost premium is well worth it.

1)http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/a-boom-in-midair--th...

coffeevradar• 9 years ago

Some AirAsia pilots are religious!?

My word!

ithinkinstereo5• 9 years ago

You're missing the point; it's completely unprofessional.

xupybd• 9 years ago

I'm religious, but would refrain from such a statement to avoid creating panic among the passengers. Unless things were really bad, in that case this does speak volumes about the air line.

goblin89• 9 years ago

This tells you everything you need to know about the quality of AirAsia pilots.

Setting aside that this might just have been part of the checklist (given airline’s home country is predominantly Muslim), your comment reads as if you suggest causal relationship between pilot’s abilities and religious views.

SyneRyder2• 9 years ago

I didn't read it that way - more that asking the passengers to pray is likely to induce fear in the passengers, rather than reassure them and keep them calm.

KyeRussell• 9 years ago

I can't even fully grasp what you're getting at. It really feels like you're grasping at straws.

ithinkinstereo5• 9 years ago

How so? It's perfectly okay for pilots to be spiritual/religious. It's not okay for pilots to take time, in the middle of dealing with an engine failure, to ask passengers to "pray" for a safe resolution.

The golden rule for pilots when dealing with an in-flight emergency is to "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" [1], not "Pray".

https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=...

dingaling• 9 years ago

Just as an aside, that's not technically a rule but a guideline.

For example at a busy airport, failing to communicate during an emergency might prove more dangerous ( to self and others ) than failing to navigate.

Veratyr2• 9 years ago

I don't think this is grasping at straws. It's absolutely unprofessional for a pilot to suggest that the plane's survival is reliant on divine intervention. A pilot should be operating the plane and making decisions solely on well accepted science and should definitely not be scaring the passengers with talk like that.

victorhooi• 9 years ago

To me, the two points are completely orthogonal.

Whether he's religious or not, or decides to pray or not - is separate to how good a pilot he is. (And honestly, sometimes these things are outside of his hands).

There are plenty of religious people who are good pilots.

There are plenty of non-religious people who are good pilots.

Unless you have some meaningful data, you can't really make a conclusion either way.

In terms of asking somebody to pray - I've never been particularly offended by that, no matter what the faith of the person. (I have my own faith). Unless of course they were asking me to pray for something that in itself is offensive - such as say, death to all Jews or something.

If they're asking me to pray for say, the safe return of their husband, or that their puppy dog might recover - I'd feel like a real jerk if I just said no, instead of just going, um sure? If they want me to pray with them in their language, sure.

ClassyJacket• 9 years ago

Pretty straightforward - the pilot said he was relying on magic to save them all instead of doing it himself. That's pretty unprofessional. He should be focussed on doing the job.

He can be religious at home but he should not bring that up with the passengers any more than he should say "Hey everyone, we might crash, but my friend Steve, who isn't a pilot, and isn't here, will fix this!"

dang• 9 years ago

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? Especially on divisive topics, where they predictably act as flamebait.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14633958 and marked it off-topic.

uhnuhnuhn2• 9 years ago

It's too early to tell what factors went into the decision to divert to Perth. Aviation is incredibly complex and armchair speculation by people outside the industry is almost always going to get it wrong.

As per usual, more well-founded technical discussion on this incident is ongoing over at AV Herald: http://avherald.com/h?comment=4aac9f14&opt=0

Why did AirAsia fly a crippled jet away from a nearby airport yesterday?

Related Stories