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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
The vibration continued because the shut off turbine was windmilling, AFAICS. Nothing you can do. Except reducing airspeed to zero AKA landing the bird.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> it's still significantly safer than the taxi driving you to the airport.
That's a bit of a myth, or a misunderstanding at any rate, as far as I can tell.
Jets are much safer than cars per passenger kilometre - so for a given distance, you're better off to go by airliner than by car.
However, per vehicle hour, fatality rates are the same order of magnitude (plane is actually 3x worse). So, if you take a 1/2 hr cab ride to a several-hour flight, you're more likely to die on the flight.
I'd like a better source for that information than Uber, as I'd like a better source for the information on the safety of air travel than air carriers.
Btw, neither measure is very good for comparing cars to planes. Airliners carry many times more passengers per kilometer, on average, than cars do; and cars take many times longer to complete a route than airlineres do. If we are to assume that the probability of dying rises the longer you travel then obviously the vehicle that goes faster will have a better record... except of course for the fact that going faster may kill you faster too. Then again, it doesn't make much sense that the probability that a given person will be killed in an accident should vary with the number of people in the same vehicle as them!
Overall, what you really need to know to decide whether one or the other type of vehicle is safest is the probability to be involved in a serious accident given that you board a vehicle of that type. I don't think there's a good way to measure that, so measures like the ones above are just proxies, I guess. Which leaves them open to some degree of exploitation from industry bodies, that can claim that their vehicle type is the safest, even if it's really just a matter of perspective.
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.
Yes, I see that; but toomanybeersies was replying to jpatokal's post about Air Asia's safety record, so I assumed part of his comment about AA "running a tight ship" is in relation to that.
SE Asia carriers -- specifically Indonesian and to a lesser extent Malaysian operators -- have a reputation for cutting corners and poor training. Garuda Airlines, Indonesia's flagship, was even banned from flying to Europe by the EU for poor safety standards [1].
As jpatokal said though, AirAsia has one of the better safety records of Asian airlines.
I was just adding that they're not just safer (apparently), but also a more pleasant airline to fly with.
Let's not forget that Qantas also managed to have a turbine failure in 2010. Even if you fly with a reputable airline, there's always the risk of terrorist attacks, suicidal pilots, or getting shot down. At the end of the day, no matter what airline you're with, it's probably safer than driving a car.
You're more likely to die in one of the destinations that AirAsia serves than on the plane itself, ~30 Australians die every year in Bali alone.
...and my whole point was that Air Asia is a cut above the average Indonesian carrier, some of which are seriously shoddy, like the late, unlamented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Air. By contrast, Air Asia's maintenance is done by a subsidiary of Air France/KLM:
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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
It depends on the religion and the culture. In some parts of the world, it is considered perfectly normal for people to make religious statements to one another, especially when something dangerous is happening.
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".
Communicating panic and lack of control to your passengers is never safe. You will be absolutely honest and clear with ATC and any escorts/emergency vehicles regarding your current status, but you cannot ever let that bleed into your communications with the passengers.
In all communication with passengers, you need to be about as calm as if you're just taking a walk in the park. "Folks, we're making an unexpected detour to check out some technical issues that came up. We might be delayed a few hours, but the ground crew will book you on the next flight available, and work with you on rescheduling your transfers."
To quote Eric Moody, captain of what was at the time the world's largest commercial glider after a quadruple engine failure:
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."
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.
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.
> I'd feel like a real jerk if I just said no, instead of just going, um sure?
When the authority figure resorts to praying and asking you to pray to help them out of a tight spot, it's implicitly implying that they've lost control of the situation and there's no backup.
This is absolutely horrible from a control perspective. As the person who knows most about the operation of the airplane, it's your job to curb panic in the passengers and project a calm confident air.
The passengers are pretty much relying on your hands and your abilities as a pilot, and they have no opportunities to solve any problems. When you ask them to pray, you're basically throwing in the towel and pretty much saying you have no control over the situation, causing them to freak out and not adding anything to the situation. You need to project calm competence at this point, reassuring all the passengers that everything is under control and that everything is going to be fine.
This has nothing to do with religious beliefs and everything to do with command. Something that you might want to consider. It's as if in a combat situation your commanding officer asked you to pray for the safety of the platoon - panic is infectious.
I enjoy how you conflated religious freedom with maintaining order and discipline though. I guess we all read what we want to read into the situation.
That depends on the culture and what kind of response the pilot expects from the passengers. If one of the engines is spewing smoke and rattling like a broken washing machine, there's probably enough panic already. Everything is obviously not going to be fine! Starting a prayer might actually have a calming effect in a deeply religious culture.
In my not-so-religious country, there's been a few highly publicized disasters where authority figures tried to look as if they had the situation under control when they didn't, and only made things worse by making everyone underestimate the severity of the situation. People here don't trust anymore any authority figure who says everything is under control.
> and what kind of response the pilot expects from the passengers.
and
> only made things worse by making everyone underestimate the severity of the situation.
The point is that there is absolutely no action that the passengers can take the influence the result in a good way, and plenty of actions that the passenger can take to influence the result in a bad way.
At this point, the pilot is thinking that he's trying to get the airplane working again, and if he doesn't he'll have to ditch somewhere and evacuate the plane.
If everybody is calm and follows the orders of the stewardesses, the chances of survival are much higher than if people freak out and try doing actions to maximize their own personal survival.
Again, the main point is that your credibility after this accident is of little import. And you want people to underestimate the severity of the situation - since nothing they can do can help the situation.
> If one of the engines is spewing smoke and rattling like a broken washing machine, there's probably enough panic already. Everything is obviously not going to be fine!
Considering that most two engine planes can land and fly for considerable distances with one engine, everything _is_ going to be fine, and your job is to calm everybody down. A simple statement saying that we're having technical issues with one engine, but we're equipped to make a safe landing with one engine and to expect a lot of turbulence is infinitely better than screaming over the intercom "We're fucked, get your prayer beads out. Only God can save us now"
> Whether he's religious or not, or decides to pray or not - is separate to how good a pilot he is.
I totally agree with this. A pilot can be religious, he's free to pray in a bad situation, particularly if it helps him calm down. However this is separate from the pilot's work. His religion should not affect his decision making as a pilot.
> In terms of asking somebody to pray - I've never been particularly offended by that, no matter what the faith of the person.
It's not that praying is offensive, it's that his suggestion that the passengers pray implies that their survival is at least somewhat dependent on divine intervention. Going back to my first point, it's fine for the pilot or passengers to believe this in a personal capacity but in a professional capacity it's the pilot's responsibility to remain purely in a realm of fact.
Plus, this implication could (and very well should) scare the shit out of the passengers. You definitely don't want them panicking.
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!"
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.