Asiana 767 crew suspended for ignoring engine warning

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The pilots of an Asiana 767-300 have been suspended pending the outcome of an investigation after flying four hours on one engine.

The aircraft, operating as OZ603, was operating from Seoul Inchon to Saipan on 19 April with 253 owners. About an hour into the flight, they received a warning related to the left engine. They reduced power, but the light stayed on. Instead of diverting to Japan, the crew chose to fly four hours and land in Saipan.

Maintenance crews found metal shavings in the the engine, and a replacement had to be flown out.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
While it seems distressing on the surface, I think most any modern passenger jet is able to fly fine on just one engine. I would guess the pilot had a hot date waiting in Saipan.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

They're required to be able to fly 180 minutes on one engine for ETOPS 180 certification, which allows long overwater flights.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to when there are airports you can divert to nearby. If you have other options it's never a good idea to press on, down an engine. You don't know what caused it, so you don't know if it will affect your other engine(s).
edit on 4/28/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe so, but I am quite certain that safety procedures dictate a landing at the earliest convenience.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe so, but I am quite certain that safety procedures dictate a landing at the earliest convenience.


Maybe they can use that to argue against their suspension.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Which was the point of the rest of my post. They have to be within three hours of an airport in either direction for ETOPS certification. That's so that they can reach an airport when they're past the point of no return. That doesn't mean it's safe or a good idea to do when you don't have to.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
While it seems distressing on the surface, I think most any modern passenger jet is able to fly fine on just one engine. I would guess the pilot had a hot date waiting in Saipan.


sure...as long as that 1 engine doesn't develop a fault of some sort in the mean time........

Safety factors and redundancy are there for good reasons!!



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe so, but I am quite certain that safety procedures dictate a landing at the earliest convenience.


Can't quote the rule at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the requirement is not one of "convenience" - it is a requirement to divert to the nearest suitable airport (although sometimes the destination will be closest so it's not really a diversion!) if an EDTO significant item becomes inoperative.....period.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Another airline I'll never fly.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Which was the point of the rest of my post. They have to be within three hours of an airport in either direction for ETOPS certification. That's so that they can reach an airport when they're past the point of no return. That doesn't mean it's safe or a good idea to do when you don't have to.


They were one hour out. The continued on for four hours. They should have turned around and gone back. The airline was correct to suspend them.

Let's say you have a flat tire on your car and put the little donut spare on. It says you can run the spare for 500 miles at 50 mph. So do you drive your car for 500 miles at 50 mph with that tire on? Maybe if you're a broke-ass redneck, but otherwise you would get a new tire on there as soon as you can. Just because you CAN do something means you SHOULD do it.

We're basically agreeing.


edit on 29-4-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join