[Gobbledock]

What a mess of an accident;

Gustavo Vargas Gamboa, LaMia's chief executive, was jailed pending trial earlier this month on manslaughter and other charges, which he has denied.

His son Gustavo Vargas Villegas, a former official with Bolivia's aviation authority, is also being held on charges that he misused his influence in authorising the license of the plane that crashed.
He also says he is innocent.

Criminal charges have also been brought against LaMia co-owner Marco Antonio Rocha Benegas, whose whereabouts are unknown, and air traffic controller Celia Castedo, who fled Bolivia after the crash and is seeking asylum in Brazil.

Authorities also detected an excess of baggage, but did not relate it to the accident.

According to its plan the flight was expected to reach 30,000 feet, an altitude the plane was not certified for.

The plane was over its weight limit by nearly 400 kilograms.

[Kharon]

It is absolutely disgraceful

That the law swings into action - after the fact. Prevention is always better than cure.

Where was the media and governmental hysteria before the accident occurred?

This was not a one off aberration – but a total; failure of ‘system’, before the fact.

This is what happens when the ‘regulator’ is reactive rather than pro-active; relying on the ‘law’ to escape the very real responsibilities to prevent, not prosecute.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

An undesirable headline: Crew ‘spaced out’ on toxic fumes

Not an accident but a fairly disturbing (headline) incident for legacy airline British Airways...

Sunday Times via the Oz:

British Airways flight crew ‘spaced out’ on fumes


Flight crew displayed bizarre behaviour including “stuffing” food into their mouths while using oxygen masks and wandering around “lost” in the cabin.

Mark Hookham
The Times
12:00AM January 2, 2017

British Airways flight attendants on board an Airbus A380 superjumbo vomited, became “spaced out” and had to use emergency oxygen after suspected “toxic fumes” were detected in the cabin during a long-haul flight, a leaked report reveals.

At least one crew member became so ill that he curled up on the floor and put a blanket over his head. Others displayed bizarre behaviour, including “stuffing” food into their mouths while using oxygen masks and wandering around “lost” in the cabin.

The report was written by the cabin service director, the most senior grade of flight attendant, who was in charge of 22 cabin crew on a flight from San Francisco to London last October 25.

About 40 minutes after take-off, while the airliner was over Canada, crew detected a strong noxious smell similar to burning plastic and the flight was diverted to Vancouver.

The captain declared an emergency, telling air traffic control the problem was “toxic gas-type fumes”. After the aircraft landed safely, all the flight attendants and the three pilots were taken to hospital.

BA later described the incident as an “odour event”, prompting claims by the Unite union that it was downplaying the health risks.

The cabin air in most passenger jets is supplied from the compression section of the engine in a process known as “bleed air”. If seals inside the engine leak, it is believed heated oil fumes can enter the air supply, contaminating it with chemicals that some experts believe can cause serious health problems.

The leaked report graphically details how 12 crew members displayed symptoms that gave “cause for concern” and that eight of the nine crew members on the upper deck plus the captain used emergency oxygen. After the smell was detected by a door towards the back of the main cabin and on the upper deck, the report says, “it soon became apparent that more crew were behaving in a non-normal manner ... (with) reports of dizziness, light heads, headaches, nausea, itchy red eyes, metallic taste in mouth, floating-type feelings, aggression and, most worryingly, forgetfulness and confusion, an inability to think straight and converse in normal manner”.

One crew member said something “completely out of context” and seconds later had forgotten he had said it. Senior flight attendants would “lose” colleagues who would say they were going to the toilet but ended up at the other end of the aircraft “not knowing how they got there”, the report adds. The CSD described “crew in corners on (the) floor with blankets over their heads” and “crew ‘stuffing food’ in their mouths while on oxygen”.

Publicist Ciara Parkes, who has represented actors Jude Law and Ewan McGregor, was on the plane and said she feared they were being hijacked because the crew were so panicked. “That’s probably the most terrified I’ve been in my life,” she said.

She said her chest became “incredibly tight” and she struggled to stand. She claimed some passengers had bloodshot eyes. Four days later, a blood test showed Ms Parkes had elevated levels of ­enzymes, which can indicate liver problems. She has had regular headaches since.

BA said its engineers had inspected the aircraft and “no fault was found”.

The Sunday Times

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Drone vs B737 radome -

To what is tick, tocking towards a regular event via Avherald.. :  

Incident: LAM B737 at Tete on Jan 5th 2017, collision with a drone

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Jan 6th 2017 12:22Z, last updated Saturday, Jan 7th 2017 21:39Z

A LAM Linhas Aereas de Mocambique Boeing 737-700, registration C9-BAQ performing flight TM-136 from Maputo to Tete (Mozambique) with 80 passengers and 6 crew, was on final approach to Tete when the crew heard a loud bang, no abnormal indications followed. The crew suspecting a bird strike continued the approach for a safe landing.

A post flight examination revealed a drone had impacted the right hand side of the radome.

The airline confirmed the occurrence, a replacement aircraft was dispatched to Tete to perform the return flight. The occurrence aircraft is being repaired.

In the region there are frequently drones weighing around about 10kg/22lbs operated for mining survey. Ground witnesses describe those drones are being operated without regard for the aerodrome and aircraft traffic.

The radome damage:


The damage stretches down the right-hand side of the fuselage (Photo: The Aviation Herald)

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Good couple of articles added into the aviation mix gents, well done.

The BA flight;

"British Airways flight attendants on board an Airbus A380 superjumbo vomited, became “spaced out” and had to use emergency oxygen after suspected “toxic fumes” were detected in the cabin during a long-haul flight, a leaked report reveals".

On a risk scale this one wouldn't be at the top. Bleed air related malfunctions are nothing new, but that still doesn't make this a non-concerning incident. More concerning from what I've heard is how BA's spin masters tried to cover over the incident. Anyone who regularly crewed the 'whisper-jet' BAe 146 would be familiar with the term 'Aerotoxic syndrome', and it was a common issue considering you had 4 engines on the whisper-jet of which any could suffer compressor problems at any given time, and often they did. Many former crew will have not-so-fond memories of fragrant hydraulic oil polluting the cabin. There are some that have had their health severely impacted. The bleed air practise hasn't deceased in overall aircraft design except for on the 787 I believe.

LAM 737 vs Drone;

Well, it had to eventually happen officially, didn't it?

"Incident: LAM B737 at Tete on Jan 5th 2017, collision with a drone"

Bloody miracle the drone hit just the radome. But of course, had it happened in Australia (of which it will), the ATsB would've considered this a non-event, a 'light touch', a pithy little occurrence to be treated as such; nothing to see here, move on, go home, put the kettle on and watch Home and Away.

What do you think Minister Chester, won't happen on your watch old mate will it? Your big 'R' Regulator got all the risks covered ey? You still hoping to be retired in the Maldives before an incident as such occurs in the 'lucky country'? Good luck with that you Muppet. Can you hear the drums Fernando.......

Tick Tock hums the Drone clock NFI Chester

[Cap'n Wannabe]

In the interests of fairness, an update on the Mozambique drone strike story here

Damage to a passenger-carrying Boeing 737-700 in Mozambique that was widely reported as being a drone strike…was not.

On January 5, internal domestic flight TM-136, from Maputo to Tete, was descending when a loud bang was heard. Upon landing, extensive damage to the radome was observed.

Such damage can be caused by bird strikes, but there was an absence of feathers or blood. It was concluded, based on clearly a brief and inadequate investigation, that the damage was caused by a collision with a drone. It was also noted that several nearby mining companies operate large industrial drones that could – possibly – have caused such damage.

But the conclusion – and the widespread reporting – was false.

Today (January 10), The Digital Circuit went back to follow up on the story. We found a new “update” on the AV Herald website. It states the following:

“On Jan 10th 2017 Mozambique’s Civil Aviation Authority reported that they concluded the radome most probably failed as result of a structural failure caused by air flow pressure, contributing factors probably were a defective installation of the radome and inspection of the ribs.

“A foreign object damage was ruled out.”

TDC is relieved to see this news, but troubled that an inaccurate conclusion, one potentially damaging to the UAV industry, was reached and reported so quickly.

TDC did originally report this story, but was careful to use qualifying language – and note that no debris had been found.

There have now been multiple instances where drones have been blamed for collisions, or near-collisions with manned aircraft, which have later turned out to be false. One of the more widely reported incidents, near Heathrow, turned out to be a plastic bag.

TDC urges aviation officials to investigate any such reported collisions or near-collisions thoroughly prior to releasing any conclusions.

In this case, the damage wasn’t merely to the radome – but to an industry that prides itself on safety, innovative technology, and following the local aviation regulations.

So the question remains....what the hell was it?

[Peetwo]

The Swiss cheese model & anomalies in AAI -

Good catch CW, although IMO there is still some passing strange anomalies with that AvHerald update that will hopefully get ironed out as the investigation continues.

I also find it passing strange that the UAV industry has taken such a defensive stance, perhaps it was because of the inference to the local mines using drones commercially.

I would suggest to TDC that it is inevitable that there will be a serious collision between a drone and a commercial aircraft.

However it is also highly probable that it won't be a drone that is being operated by a responsible commercial UAV operator but more likely a rogue drone that is being operated through naivety or in direct contravention of State and/or local laws.

Moving on to another international investigation FR, brought to my attention by Baldwin Aviation, into a B737-800 runway overrun in 2013 at Pardubice in the Czech Republic, via SKYbrary:

Description
On 25 August 2013, a Boeing 737-800 (OK-TVG) being operated by Travel Service on a passenger flight from Burgas, Bulgaria to Pardubice as TS2907 failed to stop before the end of the runway after landing off an approach in day VMC and continued onto firm grass for 156 metres beyond the end of the paved surface to the left of the extended runway centreline. None of the 194 occupants were injured and the aircraft was undamaged.

Investigation
An Investigation into the Serious Incident was carried out by the Czech Air Accident Investigation Institute (AAII). FDR and CVR data were successfully downloaded to assist the Investigation.

It was noted that both pilots had accumulated most of their flying hours on the Boeing 737, the 52 year-old Captain 8,175 hours out of a total of 14,778 hours and the 47 year-old First Officer 6,000 hours out of a total of 7,320 hours. Both pilots were "performing their duties for the airline company on a temporary basis" and both were familiar with Pardubice, a military aerodrome approved for civil air transport use. The First Officer was acting as PF for the investigated flight.

It was established that three days earlier, the aircraft had been released to service with the right engine thrust reverser deactivated in accordance with the MEL requirement for this action to be taken in the case of an inoperative reverser light. This was placarded as required and the crew were aware. A subsequent examination of the aircraft found no evidence of any other airworthiness deficiencies.

For the arrival at Pardubice, the ELW was 65,000 kg, just within the permitted MLW of 66,360kg. The ATIS received gave a tailwind for the approach to runway 27 which varied but wind checks from ATC gave it within the maximum permitted at all times - and it was subsequently shown from FDR data to have remained between 5 and 9 knots throughout.

There was, and had been for some time, intermittent light rain and the runway was wet.

After considering the various aspects of landing performance on the 2,500 metre long runway, it was decided to select Autobrake2 and use 30° land flap. A stabilised approach was flown and the aircraft crossed the runway threshold 46 feet agl before touching down very smoothly 821 metres into the runway - with almost one third of the 2,500 metre runway behind the aircraft. The pilots stated that they were not convinced that the speed brakes had deployed automatically and so they were selected manually and performed normally. No evidence of any system fault was subsequently discovered and it was considered possible that the two activations overlapped. Both pilots detected a deceleration which was slower than usual and Auto Brake 3 was selected. As the end of the runway approached, the Captain took over control, selected full manual braking and the operative left engine thrust reverser in what can be described as an attempt to direct the aircraft clear of the approach lighting on the extended centreline. The aircraft left the end of the paved surface at a recorded ground speed of 51 knots and came to a stop with the nose "turned by more than 90 degrees to the left". Once stopped, a PA - reported to have been inaudible in the passenger cabin - was promptly made stating "Cabin Crew at Stations". The Senior Cabin Crew then went to the flight deck and was informed (after the flight crew had established that there was no sign of fire or fluid leaks around the aircraft) that an emergency evacuation would not be necessary. Passengers were subsequently disembarked via a set of steps brought to the aircraft and then taken to the passenger terminal.



The aircraft as finally stopped showing its deviation to the left of the extended runway centreline to avoid the 09 approach lighting after leaving the end of the paved surface [Reproduced from the Official Report]

The Investigation noted that various details of the flight crew response once the aircraft had come to a stop, for example not shutting down the right engine until reminded to do so by a ground technician and instructing the senior cabin crew to disarm the slide and open Door 1L prior to the delivery of steps, were contrary to the Operator's applicable SOPs.

The FCOM landing performance data applicable to the landing made was examined and it was found that at the prevailing ELW, a flap 30 landing with auto brake 2 pre-selected plus a 70 kg addition for the inoperative thrust reverser would have required 90 metres more runway than was available even if the touchdown had been made within the TDZ. It was noted that a flap 40 landing in the TDZ with either auto brake 3 or full manual braking would have required only 1,840 metres plus an adjustment for the inoperative thrust reverser. A landing in the 09 direction would have avoided a tailwind component.

In respect of the deceleration actually experienced, it was also noted that the final approach had been intentionally flown "one dot low" which would have had the effect of delaying the touchdown, especially in the presence of a significant (although allowable) tailwind component. It was also considered that "braking action might have been influenced by the uneven distribution of the water layer on the runway profile" but noted that runway friction had been tested and found to be above the standardised Minimum Friction Level throughout.

It was noted that another of the Operator's Boeing 737-800 aircraft had been involved in a landing overrun event at Katowice, Poland earlier in 2013 but although this was known to be under investigation by the Polish authorities, "the results of (this) investigation had not been discussed with the Czech AAII up to the date of issue of this present Report".

The Cause of the overrun was formally recorded as "non-compliance with SOP by the crew and an incorrectly selected landing configuration for an aircraft of the Boeing B737-800 type under the given conditions at Pardubice".

Five Safety Recommendations were made as a result of the Investigation as follows:

• that Travel Service should adopt internal guidelines for monitoring of flight data and compliance with SOPs by their B737-800 crews.
  
• that Travel Service should, given the repeated occurrence of similar incidents, review training curricula for flight crew and the methodology for calculation of the distance needed for landing on contaminated runways.
  
• that Travel Service should adopt measures for flight and cabin crew training which are aimed at mastering the abilities to be applied to emergency procedures and disembarkation in the case of an aircraft (landing) overrun.
  
• that the Military and Civil Operators of Pardubice Airport should, on a regular basis, review the system of collecting data about the condition of aerodrome movement areas.
  
• that the CAA and the Military Aviation Authority should jointly propose procedures for the measurement of braking action at the national level given the regulatory changes in this area made by ICAO.
  

The Final Report of the Investigation was issued on 17 March 2014.

{P2 comment: Now beside the obvious breakdown in SOPs and possible indications of a culture of 'normalised deviance' within the airline's flight crew ops, that picture and the non-standard use of the 'operative left engine thrust reverser' gave me cause to reflect on another recent B737-800 runway excursion event, with similar picture and possible contributing factors, except it was in the TO roll - see HERE} 

Okay so another incident with elements of non-compliance and possible normalised deviance of SOPs in the causal chain. This would seem to be the theme that SMS company Baldwin Aviation are endeavouring to pick up on in yet another of their excellent safety awareness initiatives...  

MTF...P2  

[P7_TOM]

Whoa; hang on a minute - can we find the following in the 'origional' language and try to translate.  

CW - “On Jan 10th 2017 Mozambique’s Civil Aviation Authority reported that they concluded the radome most probably failed as result of a structural failure caused by air flow pressure, contributing factors probably were a defective installation of the radome and inspection of the ribs.

Be buggered if I can work out what, exactly, is meant. 'Passing strange' is what I'd call this 'failure'.

[MrPeaBody]

Whoa; hang on a minute - can we find the following in the 'origional' language and try to translate.  

CW - “On Jan 10th 2017 Mozambique’s Civil Aviation Authority reported that they concluded the radome most probably failed as result of a structural failure caused by air flow pressure, contributing factors probably were a defective installation of the radome and inspection of the ribs.

Be buggered if I can work out what, exactly, is meant. 'Passing strange' is what I'd call this 'failure'.

Reminds me of an incident many moons ago that occurred on a DC9.

An over zealous technician had applied a liberal coating of silicone sealant to the entire perimeter of the radome/fuselage attachment. The aircraft took off on it's merry way, climbing off to cruise; expanding air broke the lower part of the improvised seal.

Descent resulted in a different scenario; the improvised seal was tight as a drum and on the ensuing approach the the poor old radome could take no more and imploded.

Made a hell of a mess of the radar!

[P7_TOM]

Cheers Mr. PB – that makes perfect sense and explains much; that DC 9 incident was long ago, good catch. Must see if we can hunt down the report. But the drone story to good an opportunity to pass up and the boys had fun while it lasted – just as a wake up call.

[Peetwo]

Case of the exploding headsets? -

To be fair to the bureau they were quick to get out the following presser on a matter where they lack jurisdictional (ICAO Annex 13) rights to investigate (correction - " they were slow to get out the presser - waiting nearly a month... " - WTD?):

Battery explosion mid-flight prompts passenger warning
As the range of products using batteries grows, the potential for in-flight issues increases.


On a recent flight from Beijing to Melbourne, a passenger was listening to music using a pair of her own battery-operated headphones.

About two hours into the flight while sleeping, the passenger heard a loud explosion. “As I went to turn around I felt burning on my face,” she said. “I just grabbed my face which caused the headphones to go around my neck.

“I continued to feel burning so I grabbed them off and threw them on the floor. They were sparking and had small amounts of fire.

“As I went to stamp my foot on them the flight attendants were already there with a bucket of water to pour on them. They put them into the bucket at the rear of the plane.” The battery and cover were both melted and stuck to the floor of the aircraft.

Flight attendants returned to check on her wellbeing. For the remainder of the flight, passengers endured the smell of melted plastic, burnt electronics and burnt hair. “People were coughing and choking the entire way home,” the passenger said.

The ATSB assessed that the batteries in the device likely caught on fire. The ATSB reminds passengers using battery-powered devices that:

• batteries should be kept in an approved stowage, unless in use
  
• spare batteries must be in your carry-on baggage NOT checked baggage
  
• if a passenger’s smart phone or other device has fallen into the seat gap, locate their device before moving powered seats
  
• if a passenger cannot locate their device, they should refrain from moving their seat and immediately contact a cabin crew member.
  

More information about Travelling safely with batteries and portable power packs.
Other ATSB news stories and investigation reports about lithium ion batteries:

• Aviation incident sparks lithium battery warning
  
• Personal electronic device fire in-flight involving Boeing 747
  
• Crew’s prompt in-flight response to smoking device.
  

 
 
 


Last update 15 March 2017
 

 
Bit hard to workout how any of the safety risk mitigation bullet-points could have helped to prevent this incident but I guess the ATSB is caught between a rock and a hard place with very little to go on. Maybe in this case the responsible authority (representative State AAI) may end up delegating this investigation to the ATSB...

The following article from tech savvy EFTM online, perhaps highlights some of the absurdities of a potentially serious international inflight incident, with cross-jurisdictional issues and a commercially neutered, politically correct, obviously non-independent State AAI:

Case Closed: Battery explosion mid-flight and we’re not going to know what brand

ATSB not investigating - CASA has no information to inform Australian passengers
by Trevor Long March 15, 2017

Get this.  Despite a woman receiving injuries from an exploding battery while wearing headphones on-board a flight to Melbourne, we’re not going to know what brand of battery or headphones she was using because it didn’t happen in Australian airspace
EFTM has spoken to representatives from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau who have confirmed the incident occurred on a flight from Beijing to Melbourne – and specifically happened around two hours into the flight.

Why this matters?  Because that puts the plane over Chinese airspace, or at the very least not in Australian airspace.  Additionally, the flight was not an Australian airline, so the ATSB is not obligated and may not even have the authority to investigate such an incident on a Chinese airline.



I also spoke with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority who would normally put out warnings to passengers about issues such as the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 dramas late last year.

Because there has not been (and will not be) an ATSB investigation they have nothing to report on.

The passenger reported that she had been listening to music on her battery operated headphones.  Two hours into the flight she heard a loud explosion. “As I went to turn around I felt burning on my face,” she said. “I just grabbed my face which caused the headphones to go around my neck.

“I continued to feel burning so I grabbed them off and threw them on the floor. They were sparking and had small amounts of fire.

“As I went to stamp my foot on them the flight attendants were already there with a bucket of water to pour on them. They put them into the bucket at the rear of the plane.”


The ATSB notification reports that the battery and cover were both melted and stuck to the floor of the aircraft.

All we know formally is that the ATSB assessed that the batteries in the device likely caught on fire, and have issued a reminder that passengers using battery-powered devices:

• batteries should be kept in an approved stowage, unless in use
  
• spare batteries must be in your carry-on baggage NOT checked baggage
  
• if a passenger’s smart phone or other device has fallen into the seat gap, locate their device before moving powered seats
  
• if a passenger cannot locate their device, they should refrain from moving their seat and immediately contact a cabin crew member.
  

Frankly, none of that is satisfactory.

The brand of headphones has not been reported, that is because it is not the headphones which were deemed to be at fault.  The headphones were a brand that allows external batteries (AA for example) to be inserted – thus, it was those batteries at fault.

However, at the same time, the brand of batteries is also not being reported.

Surely for a battery to explode and or catch fire is a serious enough incident for passengers to be given more comprehensive warnings.

There are so many possibilities:

• The batteries were faulty
  
• The batteries were low grade
  
• The batteries were damaged before use
  
• The headphones were faulty
  
• The headphones were damaged before use
  
• The passenger sat in such a way which caused the batteries to react this way.
  

Mostly far-fetched, but if we have another incident – who’s to blame?
Seems like we deserve to know a bit more.  What do you think?

&..via the Oz:

Headphones explode mid-flight

3:48pmChris Griffith

Woman suffers dramatic injuries as she was listening to music on board a flight from Beijing to Sydney.

The issue of exploding batteries on an aircraft has played out dramatically with a woman suffering facial injuries when her headphones exploded on a flight from Beijing to Melbourne.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has revealed that the passenger was listening to music with her battery-powered headphones when the explosion took place on the flight on February 19.

It occurred about two hours into the flight while the woman was sleeping. “As I went to turn around I felt burning on my face,” she said in a statement provided by the bureau.


The female airline passenger says she felt burning to her face as she listened to music on her headphones.

“I just grabbed my face which caused the headphones to go around my neck. I continued to feel burning so I grabbed them off and threw them on the floor. They were sparking and had small amounts of fire.”

She said aircraft staff reacted quickly to the incident. “As I went to stamp my foot on them the flight attendants were already there with a bucket of water to pour on them.


The exploding headphones left burns in the victim's hands.

“They put them into the bucket at the rear of the plane.”

The battery and cover were both melted and stuck to the floor of the aircraft.

For the remainder of the flight, passengers endured the smell of melted plastic, burnt electronics and burnt hair, the bureau said in a statement.

“People were coughing and choking the entire way home,” the passenger said.

The bureau said it had assessed that the batteries in the device likely caught on fire. It said batteries should be kept in stowage unless in use, and must be in carry-on baggage, not checked baggage.

The ATSB says the incident wasn’t deemed investigable and hence there is no follow-up with the manufacturer.

We asked the bureau if there was any issue about others taking the same branded headphone on flights. A spokesman said this wasn’t a problem.

He refused to reveal the brand of headphones and that of the battery. And he did not provide the name of the airline.

The bureau didn’t want to release the details because it didn’t want them to overshadow its main concern, namely the safety message about carrying batteries on aircraft.
He said the woman had complied with aircraft battery regulations.

"..ATSB not investigating - CASA has no information to inform Australian passengers.."  - Not a good by-line...


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

P2:

"..ATSB not investigating - CASA has no information to inform Australian passengers.." - Not a good by-line...

Of course they aren't. Well not until the first Australian commercial airliner turns itself into a smoking crater and they discover that a piece of our wonderful 21st century lithium powered technology caused it.......

[Gobbledock]

40 years since Capt Jacob van Zanten turned aviation on its head

On March 27, 1977, two Boeing 747 jets collided on the runway Tenerife Airport in the Spanish Islands. The crash killed 583 people, making it the deadliest accident in aviation history. As a result of the complex interaction of organizational influences, environmental conditions, and unsafe acts leading up to this accident the disaster has served as a textbook example for looking at Human Factors.

R.I.P

[Peetwo]

AAI probity & 'safety fish' porkies -

Given the latest developments with the ATSB Essendon B200 investigation - see CASA non-liability rule 101: Always blame the 'other guy' & A stitch in time saves - five? nine? ten? twenty? - I find there is a somewhat passing strange irony that the following excellent article has been published in the CASA Flight Safety Australia (FSA)online magazine... :

Truth and consequence
Apr 3, 2017
2404



A Hawker 700A that crashed into an apartment in the US state of Ohio was airworthy. But the organisation that operated it was broken.

‘We’re completely at a loss for words. We are very confident that they’re a good crew and it’s a very good airplane.’ Augusto Lewkowicz, chief executive, Execuflight Aviation

‘Life you may evade, but Death you shall not.
You shall not deny the Stranger.’

T.S. Eliot, choruses from The Rock

It was 10 November 2015 and the company chief executive was responding to the media. He had lost one of his Hawker 700A corporate jets to an accident just short of the main runway at Akron Fulton in Ohio. The catastrophic impact destroyed a four-unit apartment block, while the seven passengers and two pilots on board were killed by blunt force trauma and inhalation of combustion products. It could have been much worse, but when the Hawker broke cloud base at 400 ft and crashed into the building, all the apartment’s residents were miraculously out for the afternoon. News media had been quick to seek comment from the company and the chief executive had been quick to respond. ‘We are very confident that they’re a good crew and it’s a very good airplane … we are just as shocked as anyone else.’

The statement was made within hours of the accident and the media cleverly juxtaposed the chief executive’s words with security camera images showing the impact fireball. The startling irony in his comments was as glaringly obvious as the gloomy black smoke rising steadily upwards. A good crew flying a good aeroplane? Why then was the burning wreckage of Execuflight 1526 embedded in the side of an urban apartment block?

To be fair, one shouldn’t scrutinise too heavily comments made under the pressure of television cameras. But that was the thing, some six months later, when the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) released its accident report detailing the numerous organisational failures within the company, the chief executive responded, ‘At the time of the accident, Execuflight had in place a robust safety culture, sent its pilots to an industry-leading training center, had well-proven standard operating procedures (SOPs), and used effective check and balance measures to ensure the above standards were implemented. These were designed, if followed, to prevent an occurrence such as Execuflight 1526.’

The formal response was pretty much the same as the informal one—we’ve got great crews and a ‘robust’ safety culture and we’re not really sure why the accident occurred. The chief executive then went further and suggested NTSB investigators had over-stated key facts and perhaps it ‘would be in the best interest of aviation safety for the NTSB to address the actions of air traffic control as a contributing cause to this accident’.

His comments, as we shall see, focused on the pimples in other organisations rather than the cancer in his own, only accentuating the irony of the original statements. Robust safety culture? Effective checks and balances? Why then such a catastrophic accident?

The damning accident report into the Hawker 700A cited, among many other things, multiple deviations from SOPs, failed supervision, failed training systems and a ‘casual attitude towards compliance’. NTSB board members in the media conference were unequivocal. ‘Protections built into the system were not applied … and they should have been … passengers expect, and should expect, to be flown by well-rested, well-trained, competent professional pilots within applicable regulations.’

They then went on to demonstrate comprehensively that the accident aircraft was actually flown by fatigued, inadequately trained pilots who breached numerous applicable regulations on the back of a legion of systemic failures. An NTSB board member described the company as being ‘infested by sloppiness … from the cockpit to the corporate offices’.

Several lawsuits were soon to follow as was the public testimony of a former captain who alleged the company destroyed and altered records after the crash. He publicly alleged, ‘They made such a scramble to change records and eliminate stuff right after that accident, it would make your head spin. I know they created false weight and balance. I know that for a fact … they were doing everything they could to make sure that they weren’t putting [the] company at fault.’ But according to the company chief executive, ‘Execuflight had in place a robust safety culture … well-proven SOPs … and effective check and balance measures.’

In the 1800s, when fisherman over-stated catch sizes, a new idiom emerged which we know today as a ‘fish story’—an exaggerated story or an improbable, boastful tale. Under the microscopic scan of the NTSB investigation, it become clear the chief executive of Execuflight was greatly exaggerating the condition of his company’s safety culture—he was telling a safety fish story. It was with further irony then, that a month after the NTSB released its report, the Oxford Dictionary released its word of the year: ‘post-truth’. Post-truth describes circumstances, normally political ones, ‘in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.

In at least three truth-distorting ways, the Execuflight 1526 accident demonstrated post-truth seepage into the unforgiving world of aviation safety. Firstly, in disaffirming objective facts. In the immediate aftermath of the accident, and then again when the investigation was complete, the company chief executive consistently disaffirmed any suggestion the accident pilots were under-checked and under-trained. Instead, he drew attention to the fact the company used accredited simulator training and stated again the accident captain was a competent, well-trained pilot. He further emphasised the fact the captain had, at one point, flown a check ride under the observation of a Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) official without adverse comments. Likewise, there was no concern over the hiring of a copilot with a suspect career history since he was to be employed as second in command. As far as the chief executive was concerned, the company’s ‘robust’ safety culture was keeping everyone safe. But the objective facts of the matter insisted on a different story—the captain and the copilot had both been fired from previous jobs and their background information was never thoroughly checked despite a legislative requirement to do so. If the background check had been done, the company would have known the copilot had been fired because of serious concerns regarding his ability to conduct basic flight sequences.

This systemic failure meant that on the day of the accident, the cockpit voice recorder showed multiple deviations from procedure with the captain constantly having to explain, then re-explain, the basics of the approach to the copilot. At one point, the controls of the aircraft were being so badly mishandled by the copilot that the captain, clearly exasperated, exclaimed, ‘Look you’re going one twenty. You can’t keep decreasing your speed … we’re gonna stall!’ To which the copilot, task-saturated and not noticing the imminence of the stall that would kill them replied, ‘How do you get one twenty?’

The captain dutifully explained the basics of how he’d arrived at an observed airspeed of 120 kt as the aircraft continued its unstable approach. The copilot should have known the speed himself without having it explained and by now, with the aircraft in an unsafe condition, the captain needed to take over. Especially when the captain noticed an extreme rate of descent and exclaimed, ‘You’re diving. You’re diving. Don’t dive. Two thousand feet per minute buddy …’

Assertiveness and leadership, both basic tenets of crew resource management (CRM), would have seen the captain take over and make the decision to fly a missed approach. It was surprising that he had even let the copilot fly such a challenging, down-to-minimas approach in the first place. Then again, perhaps his lack of assertiveness wasn’t that surprising considering the company’s ‘tick and flick’ CRM program which solely comprised a ten-question exam. Investigators found the captain had scored a 40 per cent result but then inexplicably been marked up to the pass rate of 100 per cent. There were many more crew deficiencies which are well reported in local newspaper reporter, Paula Schleis’s story of the accident and is well worth a read. In any case, when the aircraft exited cloud a few miles short of the runway it was already stalled without hope of recovery. Still, even on learning this from the accident report, the chief executive insisted on disaffirming the causal factors with the highly tweetable, post-truth comment, ‘We have a robust safety culture’.

The second post-truth dynamic that could be seen is the delegating of blame and responsibility to other parties, such as the FAA and Air Traffic Control (ATC). In some ways it is understandable that the company would point out that an FAA inspector had observed the pilot on a training flight and had nothing to say. The NTSB also highlighted this fact and observed the FAA’s supervision of low-capacity charter operations was lacking. This fact though was a pimple compared to the cancer-cluster of problems within the company and, as the NTSB correctly pointed out, ‘the operator is the first line of defense against procedural noncompliance by setting a positive safety attitude for pilots’.

This post-truth re-delegation of responsibility went even further when it came to ATC. The chief executive suggested in his formal response that ATC were a ‘probable cause’ in the accident and this should be documented by the NTSB. Again, he was attempting to leverage off an element of truth.

ATC, during a heavy workload period and a crew changeover, failed to update the pilots about a slightly lowered ceiling. Regardless of this, the pilots had more than enough weather information from other sources to know the approach was going to be all the way to the minimums. As the NTSB concluded, ‘the air traffic controller’s handling of the flight was not a factor in this accident’.

The third post-truth distortion came in the way the company superficially over-stated its commitment to safety while under-stating its very real deficiencies. To put it another way, the company exaggerated its safety preparedness. This was evident in the chief executive’s submission introduction, ‘Through this submission, we wish to describe some of the rigorous safety protocols that are in place at Execuflight’.

And later, ‘Execuflight has a strong safety record and is committed to continuously improving its systems and enhancing its safety culture’.

Six months of investigation, 137 pages of reporting and 29 findings detailing breached SOPs, excessive duty times, failed supervision, failed management, inadequate training and perfunctory human-factors training were completely understated by the chief executive in classic post-truth fashion. While the NTSB asserted ‘Execuflight’s casual attitude towards compliance with standards illustrated a disregard for operational safety’, the chief executive insisted they had ‘rigorous safety protocols’ in place. If only the time and resources spent on embellishing safety had been proportionate to the time and resources spent enacting it.

Execuflight’s safety fish story—its post-truth attempt to disaffirm, delegate and play loose with objective facts, teaches a critical lesson for a post-truth world: aircraft don’t hold together because of pleasing rhetoric and flashy buzz words. There’s really no place for safety fish stories in aviation. Such stories might convince shareholders, board members and casual observers, but they can’t convince physics any more than they could convince a stalled Hawker 700A to climb safety away from a legion of systemic failures. Words are words, actions are actions and actions always outweigh words when it comes to safety. If your company is into ‘post-truth’ and safety fish stories they may be avoiding the consequences of an audit but they will never avoid the consequences of crumpled metal and blunt force trauma.

Share this article 

Hmm...I wonder if the NTSB & FAA will be distracted from spotting the 'fish story' in the attempted Essendon blamegame/cover-up...


MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

QF stick shaker incident inbound Honkers -

ATSB investigation:

Stick shaker activation involving Boeing 747, VH-OJU, 110 km SE of Hong Kong Airport, on 7 April 2017
 
Investigation number: AO-2017-044
Investigation status: Active
 

• Tab - Summary
  

Summary

The ATSB is investigating a stick shaker activation involving a Qantas Boeing 747, VH-OJU, 110 km SE of Hong Kong (BETTY IFR), on 7 April 2017.

While holding at flight level 220, the flight crew received a stick shaker activation and detected airframe buffeting. The flight crew disconnected the autopilot and manoeuvred the aircraft in response. Fifteen passengers received minor injuries.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the flight crew and gather additional information.

A report will be released within several months.
 
General details

Date: 07 Apr 2017
 
Investigation status: Active
 
Time: 9:50 UTC
 
Investigation type: Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map): Hong Kong International Airport, SE 110 Km
 
Occurrence type: Stall warning
 
State: International
 
Occurrence category: Serious Incident
 
Report status: Pending
 
Highest injury level: Minor
 
Expected completion: Aug 2017 
 
Aircraft details

Aircraft manufacturer: The Boeing Company
 
Aircraft model: 747-438
 
Aircraft registration: VH-OJU
 
Serial number: 25566
 
Operator: Qantas Airways
 
Type of operation: Air Transport High Capacity
 
Sector: Jet
 
Damage to aircraft: Nil
 
Departure point: Melbourne, Vic.
Destination: Hong Kong, China
 
 
 


Last update 13 April 2017

  

Much media coverage on Qantas B747-400 stick shaker incident/

Via ABC  

ATSB investigating Qantas 'turbulence' that left 15 injured
Posted Thu at 6:55amThu 13 Apr 2017, 6:55am | Updated Thu at 12:02pmThu 13 Apr 2017, 12:02pm

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating an incident on a Qantas flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong in which 15 people were injured.

---

Qantas passengers recall scenes from 'stick shaker' incident
By Rebeka Powell

Posted about 9 hours agoFri 14 Apr 2017, 11:13am | Updated about 5 hours agoFri 14 Apr 2017, 2:52pm

Passengers who were onboard Qantas flight QF29 from Melbourne to Hong Kong recall mixed scenes from inside the fuselage during the 'stick shaker' incident that left 15 people injured, with one saying people were "tossed out of their seats" and another describing it as "nothing out of the ordinary".

---

Aviation specialist Peter Marosszeky talks about the problems the Qantas flight may have
encountered


Video

ABC News
5min 17sec

Posted Thu at 11:43amThu 13 Apr 2017, 11:43am | Updated yesterday at 9:53pmThu 13 Apr 2017, 9:53pm

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating an incident on a Qantas flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong in which 15 people were injured.

---

What is a 'stick shaker' and how serious is it?

Posted Thu at 11:43amThu 13 Apr 2017, 11:43am | Updated about 10 hours ago

Fri 14 Apr 2017, 10:52am

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating a "stick shaker" incident on a Qantas flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong that left 15 people injured. We asked an aviation expert to explain what could have happened on board.

& yesterday via the Oz:

What made Qantas plane stall
4:08pm

The Qantas 747 that suffered a “stick shaker” stall was likely hit by turbulence that ruptured the delicate balance of air pressure.

---

15 injured on Qantas flight
8:12pmEmily Ritchie

The ATSB is investigating after a rare “stick shaker” warning activated during a flight from Melbourne.

MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

Idiot media may ask Google; or, as Confucius says – “engage brain before opening mouth”.

Stick shaker information - 675,000 results in 0.38 seconds.

Wing stall – 3,120,000 results in 0.47 seconds.

Wake Turbulence – 1,730,000 results in 0.50 seconds.

Dumb as a hammer - 12,100,00 results in 0.27 seconds.

Journalists in the world – 82,400,000 results in 0.54 seconds.

Do the maths…82::12 = %? dumb, lazy journalists.

15 out of a potential 400 hurt, in seven seconds – a bloody miracle.

Well done Big Q crew; good catch, nice recovery. Bravo.

A’yup, it’s a numbers game alright.

[Peetwo]

QF stick shaker incident inbound Honkers -

ATSB investigation:

Stick shaker activation involving Boeing 747, VH-OJU, 110 km SE of Hong Kong Airport, on 7 April 2017
 
Investigation number: AO-2017-044
Investigation status: Active
 

• Tab - Summary
  

Summary

The ATSB is investigating a stick shaker activation involving a Qantas Boeing 747, VH-OJU, 110 km SE of Hong Kong (BETTY IFR), on 7 April 2017.

While holding at flight level 220, the flight crew received a stick shaker activation and detected airframe buffeting. The flight crew disconnected the autopilot and manoeuvred the aircraft in response. Fifteen passengers received minor injuries.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the flight crew and gather additional information.

A report will be released within several months.
 
General details

Date: 07 Apr 2017
 
Investigation status: Active
 
Time: 9:50 UTC
 
Investigation type: Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map): Hong Kong International Airport, SE 110 Km
 
Occurrence type: Stall warning
 
State: International
 
Occurrence category: Serious Incident
 
Report status: Pending
 
Highest injury level: Minor
 
Expected completion: Aug 2017 
 
Aircraft details

Aircraft manufacturer: The Boeing Company
 
Aircraft model: 747-438
 
Aircraft registration: VH-OJU
 
Serial number: 25566
 
Operator: Qantas Airways
 
Type of operation: Air Transport High Capacity
 
Sector: Jet
 
Damage to aircraft: Nil
 
Departure point: Melbourne, Vic.
Destination: Hong Kong, China
 
 
 


Last update 13 April 2017

  

Much media coverage on Qantas B747-400 stick shaker incident/

Via ABC  

ATSB investigating Qantas 'turbulence' that left 15 injured
Posted Thu at 6:55amThu 13 Apr 2017, 6:55am | Updated Thu at 12:02pmThu 13 Apr 2017, 12:02pm

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating an incident on a Qantas flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong in which 15 people were injured.

---

Qantas passengers recall scenes from 'stick shaker' incident
By Rebeka Powell

Posted about 9 hours agoFri 14 Apr 2017, 11:13am | Updated about 5 hours agoFri 14 Apr 2017, 2:52pm

Passengers who were onboard Qantas flight QF29 from Melbourne to Hong Kong recall mixed scenes from inside the fuselage during the 'stick shaker' incident that left 15 people injured, with one saying people were "tossed out of their seats" and another describing it as "nothing out of the ordinary".

---

Aviation specialist Peter Marosszeky talks about the problems the Qantas flight may have
encountered


Video

ABC News
5min 17sec

Posted Thu at 11:43amThu 13 Apr 2017, 11:43am | Updated yesterday at 9:53pmThu 13 Apr 2017, 9:53pm

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating an incident on a Qantas flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong in which 15 people were injured.

---

What is a 'stick shaker' and how serious is it?

Posted Thu at 11:43amThu 13 Apr 2017, 11:43am | Updated about 10 hours ago

Fri 14 Apr 2017, 10:52am

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating a "stick shaker" incident on a Qantas flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong that left 15 people injured. We asked an aviation expert to explain what could have happened on board.

& yesterday via the Oz:

What made Qantas plane stall
4:08pm

The Qantas 747 that suffered a “stick shaker” stall was likely hit by turbulence that ruptured the delicate balance of air pressure.

---

15 injured on Qantas flight
8:12pmEmily Ritchie

The ATSB is investigating after a rare “stick shaker” warning activated during a flight from Melbourne.

MTF...P2

Idiot media may ask Google; or, as Confucius says – “engage brain before opening mouth”.

Stick shaker information - 675,000 results in 0.38 seconds.

Wing stall – 3,120,000 results in 0.47 seconds.

Wake Turbulence – 1,730,000 results in 0.50 seconds.

Dumb as a hammer - 12,100,00 results in 0.27 seconds.

Journalists in the world – 82,400,000 results in 0.54 seconds.

Do the maths…82::12 = %? dumb, lazy journalists.

15 out of a potential 400 hurt, in seven seconds – a bloody miracle.

Well done Big Q crew; good catch, nice recovery. Bravo.

A’yup, it’s a numbers game alright.

A380 wake turbulence - hmm maybe related..


There seems to be a growing trend of A380 wake turbulence incidents, via the Oz today:

Learjet flipped over Oman ‘in wake turbulence of Sydney-bound Airbus’

The Bombardier Challenger 650 business jet at an aviation exhibition. Picture: AFP.

• Jacquelin Magnay
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM April 20, 2017
  
• @jacquelinmagnay
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/16d86289419ba47b6c80c0175034a333/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
  

The fierce mid-air turbulent wake of an Australia-bound A380 aircraft­ is believed to have caused a dramatic near-death roll of a Learjet over Oman, raising concerns about short separation distances near such “super’’ aircraft.

The Learjet, a Bombardier Challenger 64 with nine passengers and one crew member, was flipped upside­-down at 34,000 feet, rolling three times. It suffered such structural damage during the ensuing­ 10,000 feet plunge and flame-out of an engine that it has been written off by insurers.

[/url]Before and after scenes from the interior of a Bombardier Challenger 64 which suffered damage after flying into the wake of an Australia-bound A380.

Several passengers were hurt, one seriously, and were taken to hospital after the pilot was able to restart an engine and perform an emergency landing at Muscat ­airport on January 7.

Pictures of the inside of the Learjet show the effect of tremendous G-forces that wrecked the interior­. German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation officials have taken charge of the mid-air drama.

• [url=http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/link/00ffb63cfed0af5e4aa13d7004c849d0?domain=theaustralian.com.au]‘Wake turbulence’ on the rise
  

The plane, registered to Munich­ firm MHS Aviation, was travelling from Male in the ­Maldives to Abu Dhabi. The crew told investigators that shortly before losing control, a large aircraft, known as a “super’’, passed 1000 feet above it and slightly to the left.

The large aircraft believed to have caused the disastrous wake turbulence was the Emirates Airbus­ A380 flight EK-412 from Dubai to Sydney.

The Aviation Herald reported that the A380 “continued the flight to Sydney without any apparen­t incident and landed safely’’. It reported that air traffic controllers around the world had recently been instructed­ to exercise particular care with A380s crossing above other aircraft.

The seriousness of the incident was not immediately made public. Last month Bombardier advised that its plane experienced temporary loss of control, resulting in significant loss of altitude, abnormal flight attit­udes and accelerations beyond the certified flight envelope.

An Emirates spokesman said the incident was under investigation. “Safety is our No 1 priority and all of Emirates’ flight operations are carefully managed within all applicabl­e regulations and protocols. The incident … is under investigation by the relevant authorities,” the spokesman said.

Veteran commercial pilot Byron Bailey said wake turbul­ence had caused crashes at lower altitudes. “The wake turbulence which comes off each wing tip in the form of a rolling vortex is most severe when the wing is clean — that is, no flap — and when flying more slowly,’’ he said.

“It has caused crashes of smaller aircraft on final approach to a runway after a large aircraft or after taking off too soon after a larger aircraft. The vortex moves down and outwards and is more likely to interfere with a following aircraft if there is a light crosswind above the runway.

“The vortex can produce a rapid severe rolling moment which the unfortunate following aircraft cannot control and crashes have occurred.’’

While there has been recent recalibration of aircraft separation distances within Europe to “safely increase efficiency’’ at airports for more arrivals and landings, the issue of separation levels mid-flight is of significant concern as the wake from large aircraft can persist for two to three minutes.

Wake turbulence has been blamed for a Qantas 747 “stick shaker” stall warning and airframe buffeting that injured 15 people flying from Melbourne to Hong Kong this month.

MTF...P2

[ventus45]

Further to post #131. Heat in a Smartphone is worth a read.

[Kharon]

Food for thought-

Or; fuel to the flames? The lack of building control around airports is, once again in the headlines. The aerodrome in question has been there and operational for 98 years, slowly development has crept closer and closer as the airport has become, steadily busier. There is no chicken and egg debate – the airport was there first, the crash presents a clear picture of what can happen if development is not controlled. The most dangerous parts of any flight are take off and landing; they are even statistically have the highest rate of bird strike – almost anything can happen during the first and last two, critical miles. The juxtaposition is clearly defined in the very next story; a speeding car has killed and injured many more people in Time Square NY. That story immediately follows the air accident.


We certainly seem to kill and maim more folk on the roads – but the roads do carry more vehicles than airports. It would be an interesting study – percentage per capita based analysis – road transport accidents v air accidents. Impossible to do of course, just a stray thought as I wonder how best to prevent aircraft hitting buildings. The short answer is take the buildings out of the danger zones and stop development in those areas; alas…..


Right; I’ll just crack on with my knitting then.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

AirAsiaX FL D7237: "Shake rattle and roll!"

Technically not an international incident but it does involve an international low cost carrier, I thought it worth showing a bit of the MSM coverage of yesterday's Air Asia X inflight incident abeam West of Carnarvon and around 370km SSW of Learmonth ( FR24 ref link https://www.flightradar24.com/data/fligh...7/#dda2d15 )...

---

Via ABC:

AirAsia flight returns to Perth due to 'technical issue', passenger says 'blade came off turbine'

Video: Damos Stevens said the flight was 'nerve-wracking'. (ABC News)

A passenger says an AirAsia X plane was shaking like a "washing machine" when it experienced a problem with its engine, and was forced to turn back mid-flight to Perth.

Key points:

• AirAsia X flight D7237 from Perth was forced to turn back one-and-a-half hours into flight to Malaysia
  
• Passengers say the captain announced one of the engines had seized, plane started shaking violently mid-air
  
• AirAsia said plane landed safely, turn-back due to "technical reason", guests being transferred to new flights
  

AirAsia X flight D7237 took off just before 7:00am (AWST) on Sunday, bound for Kuala Lumpur, but experienced a "technical issue" one-and-a-half hours into the trip.
The Airbus 330 landed back in Perth about 10:00am, with emergency services on site as a precaution.

Water Police said marine emergency services north of Perth were put on standby to prepare for a possible water landing.

Passenger Sophie Nicolas described the ordeal as "terrifying".

"I could just tell by the cabin crew's reaction that it was really bad," she said.

"[Crew] said 'I hope you all say a prayer, I'll be saying a prayer too, and let's hope that we all get back home safely'.

"I was crying a lot, a lot of people were crying, trying to call their mums and stuff but we couldn't really do anything just wait and trust the captain."

She praised the captain for getting them back on the ground.

"He delivered us home safely which is amazing, everybody burst into applause when we landed," she said.

'I heard a loud explosion'

Photo: Passengers say a blade came off the left-hand engine's turbine. (Supplied: Dave Parry)

Passenger Brenton Atkinson, 24, said the whole plane started shaking, far more than standard turbulence.

"It was essentially the engine seized up I think, that's what they told us anyway," he said.

"It was literally like you were sitting on top of a washing machine. The whole thing was going. We could see the engine out the window which was really shaken on the wing."

"Once we landed we realised one of the blades had actually come off the turbine."

Mr Atkinson, who was hoping to make a connecting flight to Istanbul, said the flight turned around about an hour-and-a-half into the journey.

He praised the professionalism of the crew.

"No-one was freaking out too much. It was a bit nervy. [The crew] handled it really well," he said.

Passenger Tzeyau Chung was on his way home to Kuala Lumpur.

"I heard a loud explosion I think on the left-side engine," he said.

"After the explosion it started to shake, it started to bounce, but overall the captain did a very good job.

"Of course we were a bit worried but at the end of the day ... we safely landed. I think that is the most important thing."

Passenger Damos Stevens, who filmed some of the juddering flight, said while the pilot did a great job, AirAsia had not followed through, and their communication with passengers on the ground had been poor.

'Brace for landing'

Photo: Passenger Dave Parry said the captain announced one of the plane's engines had seized mid-flight. (ABC News: Emily Piesse)

Karrinyup resident Dave Parry was on the plane with his wife, three children and mother-in-law.

"There was sort of a bang, and you could see the cabin crew were startled, and then a shudder started straight away, and I had a sense the plane was turning around," he said.

Mr Parry said the captain made an announcement shortly after, saying there appeared to have been an engine seizure.

He said they were told to brace for impact on landing.

'Technical reason' grounds aircraft

A spokeswoman for the airline said emergency services were called in as a precaution only, and only as normal procedure.

She would not confirm if the plane's engine was affected, responding only that it was a "technical issue".

In a statement, AirAsia said the flight was forced to turn around for a "technical reason".

The airline said the plane, carrying 359 passengers, landed without incident. Passengers were being transferred to later flights.

In 2015, An AirAsia plane which had made 78 trips between Perth and Bali crashed during a flight from Surabaya in Indonesia to Singapore.

The final report into the crash found the aircraft had a fault with its rudder limiter which went unfixed for 12 months before the crash.

---

Via PT:

Why didn't that AirAsia plane land immediately, instead of going back to Perth?

Did the AirAsia X plane really land as quickly as it could once it discovered it had engine trouble?

Ben Sandilands



There are so many things that are wrong about yesterday’s incident involving an AirAsia X A330 trying to fly from Perth to Kuala Lumpur that it is possible Australia’s air safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), and incident investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), could be forced to haul the Malaysian carrier into line.

The twin-engine wide-body Airbus began to shake violently (as shown in passenger videos) after a fan blade broke apart and flew, according to the commentary from the flight’s captain, into the core of the engine.

But instead of landing at the nearest suitable airfield, which in this case was Learmonth (near Exmouth), the jet carrying 359 passengers flew all the way back to Perth.

The ATSB investigation will determine the exact times and distances. However, the jet was at 38,000 feet, about 370 kilometres from Learmonth, when a loud bang followed by strong vibrations caused the engine to be shut down.

The flight had left Perth at 6.50pm local time, and it didn’t land back at its airport until 10pm, after flying about 720 kilometres and at a reduced altitude to return to its point of origin.

According to passenger accounts, some airline crew urged passengers to pray for a safe landing, and inside information reported by the Aviation Herald website says Perth airport wasn’t given precise information as to the nature of the problem.

However, maritime emergency services were reported as preparing for the possibility that the flight might ditch in the sea before the roughly 90-minute return leg had been completed.

Exactly who told the airport and emergency services what was going on aboard the AirAsia flight is unclear at this stage, but the seriousness of the incident is beyond doubt, backed up by in-cabin videos that were quickly posted on social media and had thus bypassed any control or vetting by the airline.

AirAsia X issued a statement this morning that said, among other things, that the flight had returned to Perth “shortly after take off due to a technical issue”.

But the “shortly after” reference is contradicted by the passengers and the airline’s own, more detailed commentary:

“Our flight crew were in constant communication with air traffic control. Perth Airport was the most suitable airport after assessing all possible options and requirements. The management applaud the decision made by the flight crew that brought the aircraft to land safely at Perth Airport.”

That assertion needs to be put beside the regulatory requirements of twin-engine airliner flights and the evidence of the seriousness of the situation as shown by the video evidence and the information passed to WA’s emergency services.

There is no doubt that Perth was the more distant but much more commercially convenient option for the AirAsia X diversion than landing at Learmonth.  However, Learmonth proved its suitability as an emergency airport in 2008 when a flight computer component on a Qantas A330 went berserk, injuring more than 100 of those onboard before it was able to land.

The Rolls-Royce engine type used on the AirAsia X flight, a Trent 772 to be precise, is the same as that which experienced a different failure mode on a China Eastern flight as it took off from Sydney Airport for Shanghai on June 11.

Australia’s aviation authorities, CASA and the ATSB, are notoriously reluctant to criticise airlines over incidents in which obvious issues with operational standards arise. This AirAsia X incident may test that reluctance.

MTF...P2