Passenger and motorists say there were, airline says there weren't
Were there or weren't there?
20 posts
• Page 1 of 1
by ZK-MAT » Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:17 am
Pics or it didn't happen!
The dumping fuel comment by the passenger raises the question... would they dump fuel after nearly completing the flight? - or does that comment just enforce the view that the passenger didn't know what was going on, as the plane did land as scheduled? The Manakau resident's comment that the plane was 400m up when the event occurred also raises the question as to what's the minimum before going around in a 747?
The dumping fuel comment by the passenger raises the question... would they dump fuel after nearly completing the flight? - or does that comment just enforce the view that the passenger didn't know what was going on, as the plane did land as scheduled? The Manakau resident's comment that the plane was 400m up when the event occurred also raises the question as to what's the minimum before going around in a 747?
-
ZK-MAT - Senior Member
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:41 pm
- Posts: 1690
- Location: Papamoa
by SA227 » Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:19 pm
Must have happened as the engine was shutdown so there must have been some indication of a problem on the flight deck.
In terms of seeing flames, the passenger was probably in the best position to see them, any cabin crew seated at the exits have the worst view of things going on outside. Flames coming out the back of an engine is not going to result in a fire warning on the flight deck, it's only when the heat escapes the hot section of the engine that you will get a fire warning so the crew probably wrote up the event as a surge of some sort and flames / fire never got a mention.
As for going around in a 747, Cowpatz will confirm a 3 engine landing is the same as a 4 engine landing
In terms of seeing flames, the passenger was probably in the best position to see them, any cabin crew seated at the exits have the worst view of things going on outside. Flames coming out the back of an engine is not going to result in a fire warning on the flight deck, it's only when the heat escapes the hot section of the engine that you will get a fire warning so the crew probably wrote up the event as a surge of some sort and flames / fire never got a mention.
As for going around in a 747, Cowpatz will confirm a 3 engine landing is the same as a 4 engine landing
Last edited by SA227 on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- SA227
- Forum Addict
- Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:11 pm
- Posts: 368
by connor » Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:34 pm
BigBird wrote:QUOTE (BigBird @ Sep 22 2011,10:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Passenger and motorists say there were, airline says there weren't
I believe this isn't the first time Air NZ have had a Public vs Company dispute.
- connor
- Senior Member
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:01 am
- Posts: 1616
- Location: Christchurch
by cowpatz » Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:50 pm
"I saw what I thought was an emergency beacon - but then realised it was flames coming out of the outer starboard engine," he said.
That statement sort of sums up the reliability of this eye witness account.
Surging or stalling is not uncommon and you may recall that a 767 had a similar event on departure a short time ago. During this event you can expect "sheets" of flame licking around the wing or fuselage and even out the front of the engine (due to flow reversal within the engine core). It is not a fire situation unless the damage has holed the hot section and allowed hot gas to enter the cowling area.
I am surprised that they went around as a 3 engine landing is a non event and to continue to land would be straight forward. It is possible that they did not consider themselves to be stable at 1000 ft AGL as required by our SOP's. Their call and they would have had a valid reason.
That statement sort of sums up the reliability of this eye witness account.
Surging or stalling is not uncommon and you may recall that a 767 had a similar event on departure a short time ago. During this event you can expect "sheets" of flame licking around the wing or fuselage and even out the front of the engine (due to flow reversal within the engine core). It is not a fire situation unless the damage has holed the hot section and allowed hot gas to enter the cowling area.
I am surprised that they went around as a 3 engine landing is a non event and to continue to land would be straight forward. It is possible that they did not consider themselves to be stable at 1000 ft AGL as required by our SOP's. Their call and they would have had a valid reason.
Last edited by cowpatz on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Remember the 50-50-90 rule. Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong!
-
cowpatz - NZFF Pro
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:28 pm
- Posts: 3739
by scon » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:06 pm
QUOTE
"We circled around for quite a while, so obviously they were dumping fuel.[/quote]
Ah yea, clearly a well informed individual. Wouldn't imagine a 744 operating a 2:30 sector from Sydney would need to dump fuel to get down to MLW even on departure from Sydney let alone on arrival into AKL especially with only 218 on board, but happy to stand corrected on this.
There may very well have been flames, who knows, but I think the Herald is letting passenger dictate a bit to much of the facts in that article,
Ah yea, clearly a well informed individual. Wouldn't imagine a 744 operating a 2:30 sector from Sydney would need to dump fuel to get down to MLW even on departure from Sydney let alone on arrival into AKL especially with only 218 on board, but happy to stand corrected on this.
There may very well have been flames, who knows, but I think the Herald is letting passenger dictate a bit to much of the facts in that article,
QUOTE
power surge in one of the four engines[/quote] who says it was a power surge? she does? or does Air NZ? If an engine had been shut down, I imagine there would have been an increase in power noticed by the passengers on the remaining engines. Is that the apparent power surge?
QUOTE
with 282 people on board[/quote] but yet only 1 person noticed when
QUOTE
"huge flames" erupted on the wing[/quote] ......
Fishing for compensation maybe?
Fishing for compensation maybe?
- scon
- Sim-holic
- Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:16 pm
- Posts: 963
- Location: NZ
by HamiltonWest » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:18 pm
QUOTE
who says it was a power surge?[/quote]
Apparently Air NZ?
An Air New Zealand spokeswoman said the shut down was the result of a "technical issue".
"Prior to landing, the pilots experienced a power surge in one of the four engines and as per standard procedure shut down the engine involved.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/new-zealand/...and-plane-lands
Apparently Air NZ?
An Air New Zealand spokeswoman said the shut down was the result of a "technical issue".
"Prior to landing, the pilots experienced a power surge in one of the four engines and as per standard procedure shut down the engine involved.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/new-zealand/...and-plane-lands
Last edited by HamiltonWest on Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Awesome in NZ
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49222841@N06/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49222841@N06/
- HamiltonWest
- NZFF Pro
- Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:15 pm
- Posts: 4170
- Location: HAMILTON NZ
by Daniel » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:21 pm
I was on this particular flight and all I can say is this has been taken way out of proportion. The incident happened on the final approach and I didn't even know about it until the captain told us at the gate that they had experienced an 'engine misfire' and that they had subsequently shut down the engine and landed normally. I hadn't heard or seen anything and considered it to be a normal landing. Even when the Captain told us, people looked at each other wondering whether it was a joke. A few passengers further down the plane said they heard a few bangs. Never at any stage did we do a go around or dump fuel as the witness in the article suggests. There is no reason to dump fuel in the first place, as you plan to arrive until the landing weight. Also the aircraft was ZK-NBT, one of the RR powered 744's.
- Daniel
- Sim-holic
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:42 pm
- Posts: 946
- Location: New Zealand
by cowpatz » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:31 pm
Ah the truth at last. Thanks Daniel. As if fuel would be dumped with "flames around the engine and wings".
You can see why TAIC pay very little attention to layman accounts of aircraft incidents.
Just think Troy Davis was executed today in Georgia USA and probably with the same standard of eye witness testimony.
Even after witnesses re-canted their testimony they still killed him. God bless America!
But I digress........
You can see why TAIC pay very little attention to layman accounts of aircraft incidents.
Just think Troy Davis was executed today in Georgia USA and probably with the same standard of eye witness testimony.
Even after witnesses re-canted their testimony they still killed him. God bless America!
But I digress........
Last edited by cowpatz on Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Remember the 50-50-90 rule. Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong!
-
cowpatz - NZFF Pro
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:28 pm
- Posts: 3739
by Venge » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:36 am
Either way though, for a passenger who does not know planes or heavies at all other than to pay for a trip on one, any sort of flame that is not the usual would definitely be a huge "WTH" for them.
Chris
Near Whangarei
-
Venge - Forum Addict
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:36 am
- Posts: 257
- Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
by chopper_nut » Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:10 pm
I remember reading somewhere that eyewitness accounts are amongst the most unreliable forms of evidence....
-
chopper_nut - NZFF Pro
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:58 pm
- Posts: 2977
- Location: Wherever the work is
by chopper_nut » Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:46 pm
My Great Grandfather was killed in France with the Aussies in WW1 and I have copies of most of his documents. The funny thing is that there are probably four or five after action reports written by guys who were with him when he was killed. They cover everything, where he was, who he was with, how he was killed etc... NONE of them are the same!!
-
chopper_nut - NZFF Pro
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:58 pm
- Posts: 2977
- Location: Wherever the work is
by J7G » Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:49 pm
Wartime is quite different to anything you might make notes about in everyday life...much more confusion and stress. I'm coming from an evidential point of view, tip top notes makes all the difference in court 
Last edited by J7G on Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
J7G - Forum Addict
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:49 pm
- Posts: 449
by cowpatz » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:41 pm
Yes it is amazing how things get so distorted in aviation.
Things such as .........." The pilot wrestled with the controls" or "it hit a huge air pocket" (what the hell is one of those....a section of sky with no air in it?)
Following an emergency landing or runway overun.......... " The pilot was a real hero". Of course we are *cough, cough* but no one pauses to think why they are in that predicament in the first place.
Watching anything on TV or the movies, whereby the engine quits, always results in a screaming, near vertical dive with locked controls (there is that pilot wrestling with the controls thing gain and of course he is sitting there with his headphones, uniform jacket and hat on) until it impacts the ground in a ball of fire.
Usually the shots consist of many different aircraft types and when the jet engines stop or hiccup we get the sound of some piston engine choking and spluttering to death.
I'm surprised anyone flies thanks to Hollywood and the likes.
Things such as .........." The pilot wrestled with the controls" or "it hit a huge air pocket" (what the hell is one of those....a section of sky with no air in it?)
Following an emergency landing or runway overun.......... " The pilot was a real hero". Of course we are *cough, cough* but no one pauses to think why they are in that predicament in the first place.
Watching anything on TV or the movies, whereby the engine quits, always results in a screaming, near vertical dive with locked controls (there is that pilot wrestling with the controls thing gain and of course he is sitting there with his headphones, uniform jacket and hat on
) until it impacts the ground in a ball of fire.Usually the shots consist of many different aircraft types and when the jet engines stop or hiccup we get the sound of some piston engine choking and spluttering to death.
I'm surprised anyone flies thanks to Hollywood and the likes.
Last edited by cowpatz on Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Remember the 50-50-90 rule. Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong!
-
cowpatz - NZFF Pro
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:28 pm
- Posts: 3739
by chopper_nut » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:09 pm
I get it all the time where people think that if the engine stops on a helicopter your going to die. God damn media....
-
chopper_nut - NZFF Pro
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:58 pm
- Posts: 2977
- Location: Wherever the work is
by cowpatz » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:29 pm
chopper_nut wrote:QUOTE (chopper_nut @ Sep 23 2011,6:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I get it all the time where people think that if the engine stops on a helicopter your going to die. God damn media....
Of course not. It's when what it is connected to stops .....or disappears.Remember the 50-50-90 rule. Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong!
-
cowpatz - NZFF Pro
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:28 pm
- Posts: 3739
by chopper_nut » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:32 pm
Yeh a bit like when a wing falls off an aeroplane... the outcome is the same.
-
chopper_nut - NZFF Pro
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:58 pm
- Posts: 2977
- Location: Wherever the work is
20 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to New Zealand Aviation
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests