737 goes down off Hawaii

We had the Italian thing out on here maybe a decade ago. I still have stigmata from the Safety Police who insisted *in no uncertain terms* that the only acceptable answer was to go flying off in to the wild blue with a burning engine (and who knows what else) rather than go berserk and land.
 
Boris Badenov said:
We had the Italian thing out on here maybe a decade ago. I still have stigmata from the Safety Police who insisted *in no uncertain terms* that the only acceptable answer was to go flying off in to the wild blue with a burning engine (and who knows what else) rather than go berserk and land.
Click to expand...
I think it just depends on the situation and that the system is more or less designed correctly. Immediate action items should be done as long as you’re in a good place for it. Those should take care of anything time critical. If it doesn’t put the fire out, then maybe it’s time to think about a really quick return.

Most of the ASAPs I’ve filed can be attributed to changing a plan and/or trying to hurry.
 
Also a good time to suggest to look at one’s engine failure on approach procedure. We have a section in our manual for that. Bottom line, flaps 15, bug 15 Ref speed, and land the sum’beech.


You’re 20 seconds to touchdown. Why go around to trouble shoot the engine? And that trouble shooting is still end up gonna lead you to do what you are about to do in 20 seconds: Land.
 
MikeD said:
Agreed. There has to be an inate flexibility to understand when the script isn’t working, whether by the given situation or whether self induced, and know how to flex properly to effect a positive outcome. In fact, the Capt had used this previously, and had been chastised for doing so (improperly, in my opinion). And that’s one of the drawbacks of 121: everything is taught as “the script”, which is fine and is the 99% solution for normal ops, but for abnormal ops, the script doesn’t and won’t cover everything, and crews aren’t taught to use flexibility……as seen by being chastised when they do use it.

121 training is great and all, but it’s been my experience and observation that they take a few of the simplest of things, and turn them into these complex monstrosities. The number of 121 pilots I’ve run into who find a go around, or a traffic pattern, or a go around to a traffic pattern, or even something like a touch and go landing, to be some sort of near-emergency of a maneuver, is perplexing.

I often wonder if the pilots we have today, could successfully manage another UA232 situation, if one wants to get into true no-script land.



They correct engine was initially identified. But due to various distractions or situational stress, was forgotten as both throttles had been brought back for level off. Personally, both throttles should’ve been being flown, so to speak, until the checklist steps of ID and securing of the bad engine are completed. Because these weren’t completed, both throttles should continue to have been manipulated so the good engine won’t be sitting at low EPR, while the bad one is overtemping

Since when is a simple traffic pattern considered a shooting from the hip maneuver? A traffic pattern is one of the most basic of basic aviation maneuvers. Far less complex and time consuming than running a checklist while heading out to sea at low altitude in the dark. If you can take an air emergency and safely turn it into a ground emergency in fairly short order, that’s a good thing. It’s not like these guys would be trying to fly a traffic pattern in Aspen or Jackson Hole. They had all kinds of maneuvering room. And had the Capt not been chastised from before, it’s highly likely this jet would’ve been safely rolling out on landing on the runway following this incident, even with the bad engine being forgotten.
Click to expand...
FWIW, my airline does hand flown traffic patterns in qual and recurrent training. Nobody I’ve flown with has been shocked or ruffled by them.

In real life 121 I’ve done them just a few times to podunk fields. We honestly just rarely get the opportunity to do a pattern.

No touch and goes but in the sim we do a go around from a bounced landing so that’s a sort of touch and go.
 
Engine fail:
Prior to v1: “ABORTIHAVETHEAIRCRAFT”
After V1: Rotate/400’ confirm or select a path/1000’ altitude hold, clean up, after takeoff checklist, declare, engine failure checklist

Super easy.

HOWEVER, I’ve seen more people get boogered up during engine failures in the initial climb. Do you climb? Do you stop climbing? When do you declare? Is it really an engine failure? Etc
 
Skåning said:
Slightly unorthodox but this Italian captain handles a 767 engine fire and immediate return really well. Great CRM too.

Accident Boeing 767-3G5ER EI-CXO, Friday 16 July 2004

4 kts before V1 the right engine exploded. The F/O was flying. The Captain elected to continue the take-off and, after completing the emergency actions, the fire was still uncontained. Th...
aviation-safety.net

Click to expand...


I’m glad it worked out, but I have questions about terrain and chugging around at 1000 for so long.
 
derg said:
Engine fail:
Prior to v1: “ABORTIHAVETHEAIRCRAFT”
After V1: Rotate/400’ confirm or select a path/1000’ altitude hold, clean up, after takeoff checklist, declare, engine failure checklist

Super easy.

HOWEVER, I’ve seen more people get boogered up during engine failures in the initial climb. Do you climb? Do you stop climbing? When do you declare? Is it really an engine failure? Etc
Click to expand...

Climb V2 to level off altitude, accelerate to flap retract speed, continue climb to at or above MSA or assigned and cleared routing, advise ATC of situation with snd request that they standby. They may issue you an MVA or vectors. It's basically aviate, navigate, and communicate.
 
Ok guys and gals. Let's run an excercise. You have been made aware of a lithium battery fire back in the cabin/cargo area that has gotten out of control. The FA's (for you passenger carrying dudes/dudettes) are fighting the fire the best they can. But it has become uncontained. Do you run the checklist as written by your company/aircraft manufacturer or do you turn direct the airport to land ASAP?
 
KLB said:
Ok guys and gals. Let's run an excercise. You have been made aware of a lithium battery fire back in the cabin/cargo area that has gotten out of control. The FA's (for you passenger carrying dudes/dudettes) are fighting the fire the best they can. But it has become uncontained. Do you run the checklist as written by your company/aircraft manufacturer or do you turn direct the airport to land ASAP?
Click to expand...
What kind of airplane? What stage of flight? I recall reading somewhere in a Gulfstream book to descend, depressurize and toss the offending piece out of the baggage door. Are we carrying a Tesla or an ornery MacBook? Do you not carry those mitts and bags for out of control PED's?
 
KLB said:
Ok guys and gals. Let's run an excercise. You have been made aware of a lithium battery fire back in the cabin/cargo area that has gotten out of control. The FA's (for you passenger carrying dudes/dudettes) are fighting the fire the best they can. But it has become uncontained. Do you run the checklist as written by your company/aircraft manufacturer or do you turn direct the airport to land ASAP?
Click to expand...
This doesn't need to be a zero sum deal.

"You have the airplane, I'm going to run the checklist, tell ATC and get us vectors towards (airport)". At bare minimum anyone in the right seat of a 121 aircraft should be able to aviate, navigate, and communicate, while the other person fixes the problem.
 
JordanD said:
This doesn't need to be a zero sum deal.

"You have the airplane, I'm going to run the checklist, tell ATC and get us vectors towards (airport)". At bare minimum anyone in the right seat of a 121 aircraft should be able to aviate, navigate, and communicate, while the other person fixes the problem.
Click to expand...

Definitely not zero sum. I'm just curious on how everyone would handle it. Dialogue and such...
 
KLB said:
Definitely not zero sum. I'm just curious on how everyone would handle it. Dialogue and such...
Click to expand...
That's fair. I feel like some of the discussion became about how 121 is apparently fly around and try to fix the problem first, but I've never really been anywhere that that's the case. The checklists may be a little more lengthy, but there's always been a distinction of "someone fly the airplane, someone fix the airplane, and is this a time vs. no time" thing.
 
JordanD said:
That's fair. I feel like some of the discussion became about how 121 is apparently fly around and try to fix the problem first, but I've never really been anywhere that that's the case. The checklists may be a little more lengthy, but there's always been a distinction of "someone fly the airplane, someone fix the airplane, and is this a time vs. no time" thing.
Click to expand...

I agree.

It's interesting to see how people handle when the best way isn't quite concise.

I was interviewing candidates at AMF back in the day and I explain and query this scenario:

"You're on an ILS approach in a chieftan and you encounter heavy icing with all anti- ice equipment operating. As you approach 200ft above mins, you notice that it is taking full power to maintain the glideslope. You get to mins and the runway is NOT in sight. What would you do?"

There was a small percentage of candidates that replied that they'd attempt to go missed. I really couldn't tell them if they were right or wrong. I could ask them to explain their reasoning though. Most said that they'd havd to go around if the runway was not in sight. They followed the script.
 
derg said:
I’m glad it worked out, but I have questions about terrain and chugging around at 1000 for so long.
Click to expand...
You'll all be unsurprised to learn that my opinion is basically "if it works, it's not stupid".

The "why"s and "wherefore"s of the Hawaii accident can be endlessly debated, but the Italian thing is cut-and-dried (as I see it). The C/A assessed the problem rationally, decided that it was a good idea to get the thing on the ground *right now*, (since the freaking engine was still on fire, according to the indications given to him) exhibited (imho) excellent CRM, and...

Actually, let's stop there. CRM is such a buzzword (buzzronym?) and has been for what seems like a thousand years (but may just have been decades) that it's become, in itself, a sort of checklist. Bear with me.

What does CRM actually mean? This isn't an interview. But if it were, we would all probably say some version of "soliciting and utilizing the input of all relevant uh 'stakeholders' (or whatever)".

I (and I fully expect to be publicly pilloried for this, yet again) think that Capt. Mario Luigicart did *exactly* that, and rapidly. I'm not thrilled with how rapidly he reached up and blew the fire-bottles (could have been the wrong engine), but after that I see nothing to criticize. Airplane is on fire, both bottles are blown. He tells (he does not ASK) the tower that they are going back to the reciprocal runway. He then solicits his F/Os opinion multiple times, up to and including "no seriously, look around, what do you see wrong?" They get a good ref, they complete all *relevant* checklists, plane lands, everyone lives.

Like, is his face going to be plastered all over the training department? Definitely no. Was everyone who was on that plane alive when it stopped moving? Definitely yes.

What would have happened if they'd gone out and flown around for 20 minutes with the fire warning still on? Who knows? Probably basically the same thing. But what if not?

I would point everyone's face directly towards American 191 when it comes to the question of slavish devotion to checklists/memory items.
 
GypsyPilot said:
Seeing US trained 121 pilots praise that Italian video is strange.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people keep saying this, but I've yet to see a full explication of why. Plane landed. All lived. If the fire indication had extinguished, we'd be on the same page, 100%. Like, when there is no reason to do something else, follow the checklist, obviously. OF COURSE, OBVIOUSLY. Shouldn't even be in contention. But sometimes things don't go by the script, however well-thought-out the script may be. And if you ask me, which you didn't, but I'll pretend you did: Mario Luigicart is a Great Airman, who did what was necessary to get his plane (and, more importantly, his passengers) on the ground in one piece. Like, what's the guidance in your QRH for "we blew the bottles, stuff is still on fire"?
 
KLB said:
Ok guys and gals. Let's run an excercise. You have been made aware of a lithium battery fire back in the cabin/cargo area that has gotten out of control. The FA's (for you passenger carrying dudes/dudettes) are fighting the fire the best they can. But it has become uncontained. Do you run the checklist as written by your company/aircraft manufacturer or do you turn direct the airport to land ASAP?
Click to expand...

Our checklist basically starts off saying if at anytime fire is uncontrollable, do not delay landing to complete the checklist.



Again, common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top