Another Emergency Landing

[TravelGirl21]

Thursday jun7,, flight 688 from EWR/PHX
Full boat/crew

 

[N924PS]

I cannot think of a better station to handle such an unusual request. You all are to be commended. Well done.

But,

my comments are directed to the "managers" who made the decision. Diverting to PIT or CLT (at most, 40 minutes away) would have given the passengers a chance to hop another plane to their eventual destination(s). A reserve crew with aircraft, with minimal transfer difficulties, could have minimized the inconvenience.

Instead the a/c held for 30 to 40 minutes. Long time but it seems PIT/CLT was about 45 minutes wheels up to wheels down.

Either land now or the "nearest suitable" gets expanded widely to include the holding time.



BTW, when did this happen? The only record I have is the flight operating on 01Jun07.

It's one thing to circle over the nearest suitable airport while you complete checklists and prepare for an emergency landing, and quite another to proceed enroute 30 to 40 minutes to a more "convenient" airport.

I think the FAA would be all over that one.

The only manager that counts is the Pilot In Command. He/she is charged, by law, as the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft, under FAR 91.3.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

They landed at Louisville, maybe the pilot was thinking that they can be shipped out by UPS and be at their location by 10:30am the next day!

 

[ussnark]

It's one thing to circle over the nearest suitable airport while you complete checklists and prepare for an emergency landing, and quite another to proceed enroute 30 to 40 minutes to a more "convenient" airport.

I think the FAA would be all over that one.

The only manager that counts is the Pilot In Command. He/she is charged, by law, as the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft, under FAR 91.3.

If you are to violate the ECAM "Land Now" in order to not have to make a write-up for overweight landing you might as well cruise to a more suitable destination. Reckless under the FAA would be imposed on violating the first. The second might actually help you out of the first by giving you a reason to not land right away.

I am not certain what "convenience" you are talking about, "convenience" for US mx by landing at Louisville or "convenience" for the passenger by going somewhere that they can actually complete their plans?

If you are a pilot and cannot figure out a reputable answer to an FAA inquiry, then perhaps you might consider a less demanding career.

Actually, the FAR is somewhat different concerning planning a 121 flight. But go ahead, see how far you get depending on part 91 whilst operating under part 121. No wonder you guys seem so unable to tie your own shoes.

 

[nostradamus]

If you are to violate the ECAM "Land Now" in order to not have to make a write-up for overweight landing you might as well cruise to a more suitable destination. Reckless under the FAA would be imposed on violating the first. The second might actually help you out of the first by giving you a reason to not land right away.

I am not certain what "convenience" you are talking about, "convenience" for US mx by landing at Louisville or "convenience" for the passenger by going somewhere that they can actually complete their plans?

If you are a pilot and cannot figure out a reputable answer to an FAA inquiry, then perhaps you might consider a less demanding career.

Actually, the FAR is somewhat different concerning planning a 121 flight. But go ahead, see how far you get depending on part 91 whilst operating under part 121. No wonder you guys seem so unable to tie your own shoes.

The crew of the flight did a great job. Monday morning quarterbacks be damned.

To explain this in your own terms, this is anoter version of 'Get R Done'.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Apparently they attempted an air-restart so that certainly took several minutes. Source: chief pilot in PHX.

 

[ussnark]

The crew of the flight did a great job. Monday morning quarterbacks be damned.

To explain this in your own terms, this is anoter version of 'Get R Done'.

But, they did not, "Get R Done".

The crew adopted a sub-optimal solution that was actually less safe than the optimal solution, going somewhere else. They seem to have erred, in many ways.

 

[N924PS]

But, they did not, "Get R Done".

The crew adopted a sub-optimal solution that was actually less safe than the optimal solution, going somewhere else. They erred, in many ways.

So which is it snarkie? Are you a lawyer or a pilot?

How much PIC time do you have in an Airbus 320? Who are you to second guess the crew of this flight?

The crew bent no metal, no one was hurt, and everyone ultimately arrived safely at their destination. Sounds optimal to me.

 

[ussnark]

Apparently they attempted an air-restart so that certainly took several minutes. Source: chief pilot in PHX.

I believe the ECAM should have suggested that, well before they realized they needed to land. Are you trying to say that several minutes in holding were burned attempting a restart? That is something they should have accomplished well before any definitive plan was hatched.

I hope your comment was not a dishonest attempt to deflect blame for not going somewhere else because it certainly reads that way.

 

[ussnark]

So which is it snarkie? Are you a lawyer or a pilot?

How much PIC time do you have in an Airbus 320? Who are you to second guess the crew of this flight?

The crew bent no metal, no one was hurt, and everyone ultimately arrived safely at their destination. Sounds optimal to me.

Pilot, 3700 hours left seat minibus.

Ultimately and optimal describe the giant difference between a professional pilot and you. Ultimately describes a bus drivers excuse for not having the experience to do the right thing. Optimal describes a situation that not only saved the company money but actually complied with the passengers expectations, in a safer manner than the "ultimate" pilot did.

a simple example of why experience can save a company money while complying with the passengers expectations, all well within the federal regulations, something you may wish to acquaint yourself with, if you are a pilot.

 

[N924PS]

Pilot, 3700 hours left seat minibus.

Ultimately and optimal describe the giant difference between a professional pilot and you. Ultimately describes a bus drivers excuse for not having the experience to do the right thing. Optimal describes a situation that not only saved the company money but actually complied with the passengers expectations, in a safer manner than the "ultimate" pilot did.

a simple example of why experience can save a company money while complying with the passengers expectations, all well within the federal regulations, something you may wish to acquaint yourself with, if you are a pilot.

Did the pilot land at the most suitable airport, in point of time, based on the FAR 121 or not? If he did, then this discussion is over.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your enormous ego.

Sounds as if you may have some first hand experience dealing with your decision making and the FAA. Care to elaborate?

 

[nostradamus]

But, they did not, "Get R Done".

The crew adopted a sub-optimal solution that was actually less safe than the optimal solution, going somewhere else. They seem to have erred, in many ways.

Are you privy to the NTSB report. You know nothing. The crew and flight attendants are a credit to the industry, in my opinion. They handled a situation that can not possibly be handled by instructions in a book.

 

[exB717Flyer]

I believe the ECAM should have suggested that, well before they realized they needed to land. Are you trying to say that several minutes in holding were burned attempting a restart? That is something they should have accomplished well before any definitive plan was hatched.

I hope your comment was not a dishonest attempt to deflect blame for not going somewhere else because it certainly reads that way.

Wow, it's amazing to watch you in action. I presented a fact without editorialization and you take it as a personal attack. I have no idea why they chose SDF but I'm quite certain they did nothing improper nor anything that would ire the FAA. You seem quite keen on telling all of cyberspace how much better your judgement would've been had you been the Captain. Says a lot about you.

 

[EastUS]

Are you privy to the NTSB report. You know nothing. The crew and flight attendants are a credit to the industry, in my opinion. They handled a situation that can not possibly be handled by instructions in a book.

My first thought's merely proper kudos for a decent job, and a flight that ended safely for all concerned.

"They handled a situation that can not possibly be handled by instructions in a book."

That's utter nonsense sir...any single engine loss isn't any horrific event, and can be, and should be handled "by the book"..with an awareness of surrounding factors/circumstances.

I've no notion of exactly what/where piece of the sky these guys were in when the failure occurred. 30 minutes may well have been required just to get to an acceptable landing field. If they took the proper actions and were immediately heading to an available runway, then they performed very well. I refuse to believe what was actually suggested earlier in this thread, that they held for 30 minutes, rather than get on with it, so as to rummage through checklists/restart attempts/etc, prior to heading for safe terra firma. That makes no sense, and is most likely chat thread total BS.

The simple concern for "What TF caused this failure/flameout?"..."perhaps fuel contamination?/etc" properly prevents anyone with "any clue" from flying around single engine for any unecessarily protracted period of time. Restart attempts don't require any holding pattern. Real Life ain't any simulator checkride...it's actually serious business.

All this after-action speculation does the guys who flew this no service. They got their people down safely...that's all that we now know for certain...and that ain't any bad thing.

 

[mastertrust]

I refuse to believe what was actually suggested earlier in this thread, that they held for 30 minutes, rather than get on with it, so as to rummage through checklists/restart attempts/etc, prior to heading for safe terra firma. That makes no sense, and is most likely chat thread total BS.

The simple concern for "What TF caused this failure/flameout?"..."perhaps fuel contamination?/etc" properly prevents anyone with "any clue" from flying around single engine for any unecessarily protracted period of time. Restart attempts don't require any holding pattern. Real Life ain't any simulator checkride...it's actually serious business.

All this after-action speculation does the guys who flew this no service. They got their people down safely...that's all that we now know for certain...and that ain't any bad thing.

Greetings all. I'm the passenger who posted the trip report on Flyer talk that was quoted earlier in this thread. I can assure you that while I may be off on a few details (engine failure might have been closer to 1 1/2 hours after take off) my summary regarding the actions and information supplied by the flight crew is accurate. Once arriving at SDF we circled the airport for at least 45 minutes, with the airport runways clearly visibile through the windows for most of that time. We were told by the flight crew that we were too heavy to land. The pilot gave us the current weight, told us the burn rate of the fuel and said at that burn rate we would need to circle for about 45 minutes. Later, he came back on, announced we had burned off enough fuel, cabin crew gave normal landing instructions and we landed. Emergency crews were out on the runway; we were told they were going to inspect the engine for fire threat and then we taxed to the gate and were met by USAIR gate crew.

I felt pretty good about the experience until reading the reactions to this thread. I have no idea if proper procedures were followed but once again I can assure you that I've posted what was relayed to us by the flight and cabin crews.