Oh Asiana...

Not a 76 driver but a 73 driver, but that is LONG time be flying around on one motor imho. I find it hard to believe they couldn't find a suitable alternate in that amount of time.
 
Definite fail by the crew. Continued illumination of the Oil Filter EICAS requires a shutdown and obvious "Land ASAP". I personally would have made plans to divert as soon as I had to run a procedure that required me to continue flying with reduced power on one engine, over water.
 
Seems like the article says the engine wasn't shut down, just reduced to idle. Is this a Boeing thing? ETOPS (dispatcher in me talking) is pretty clear it's time to hit your ETOPS alt when you bag one, even if you're down to idle I think the spirit of the law would say it's time for a quick bathroom break at nearest luxurious resort island with 8k of runway. How about some @Derg isms with remaining 767 knowledge.
 
It gets better. Looking at GCMAP.com, one hour out from ICN would have put them just off the southeast coast of Japan. They would have still been about 45 min from entering the ETOPS portion of their flight. And it appears they did so with a known engine malfunction.

@jynxyjoe : The Boeing QRH directs the crew to reduce thrust until the light extinguishes. If it does, you can continue operation at reduced thrust. If not, a shutdown is in order.
 
That's insane, especially considering it happened an hour into the flight and they would have had all of Japan, or even a return to Seoul all within an hour.

edit: @chrisdahut1 beat me to it. They weren't even ETOPS yet!
 
Probably didn't cancel their IFR until after they were at the gate.

Seriously though. I hope the media is doing it's normal circles around the truth and it's better than it sounds/looks.
 
SurferLucas said:
Flying 4hrs on one engine doesn't seem like the brightest idea...what do the 767 drivers around here have to say about this?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...w-grounded-after-flying-on-one-engine-398636/
Click to expand...
I don't need to be a 767 driver to look at that and go "that's stupid." (I mean, I wouldn't fly that thing to an outstation that way, much less one surrounded by water!)

Even though 121.565 obviously doesn't apply to them, "land at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a suitable landing may be made" is an obvious course of action to take in a twin when you are suddenly without half of the thrust.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I don't need to be a 767 driver to look at that and go "that's stupid." (I mean, I wouldn't fly that thing to an outstation that way, much less one surrounded by water!)

Even though 121.565 obviously doesn't apply to them, "land at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a suitable landing may be made" is an obvious course of action to take in a twin when you are suddenly without half of the thrust.
Click to expand...

Likewise. We fly a Lear to Hawaii on a semi regular basis, and there's plenty of scenarios where you'd be better off turning around than continuing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top