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.
A heavily vibrating engine is a dangerous situation. The pilot really has no way of assessing how close it is to the engine falling from the wing due to increasing weaknesses caused by the continuing vibrations.
We don’t know all the facts yet, but I would have thought it prudent to land the aircraft ASAP at the nearest alternative airport, before the engine separated from the wing, possibly causing catastrophic damage.
Then again, maybe the aircraft is fitted with a warning system which indicates the “chances” of the engine falling from the wing.
If the engine is vibrating so badly, why wasn’t it shut down? Surely a better option than having it fall off…
Bref, the article states:
“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.”
If you look at the picture you can see that this particular model aircraft has just two engines. One engine had been shut down because it blew up. It appears the aircraft flew back to Perth powered by a single engine. During this time the aircraft was vibrating badly. If they shut down the second engine they would have had to land pretty soon after as gliding doesn’t last very long.
Thanks Hugh, I missed the engine had shut down. I wouldn’t have suggested shutting down the other one :-). Cheers
I’m guessing that the damaged engine had lost some vanes from the rotating shaft, and this out of balance condition caused the vibrations. Even though they had (I assume) shut down the fuel supply to that engine, the ram-air may have kept it rotating fast enough to cause the vibrations. But I could be wrong.
Aircraft like that can fly safely (and land) on 1 good engine, no real drama, and pilots are (normally) well trained to handle the situation.
From what I have read on Aviation Herald, the engine was shut down but was still windmilling due to the airspeed – hence the continuing vibration. This sounds to be consistent with a lost fan blade.
It was appalling for the crew to ask passengers to pray – if the passengers know that the crew themselves are shit scared then it causes them enormous and unnecessary distress.
What a contrast to the professionalism shown y the crew of QF32.
ARFF at LEA is not A330 standard and neither do they have medical capability for a large number of casualties. If he had gone there and spread the jet all over the airfield he would have been pilloried for not going to Perth.
Sort of damned if you do and damned if you don’t!
Correct, Chris. Also, LEA is what is called a ‘Bare Base’, meaning that it is staffed on a care-and-maintenance basis by a minimal number of personnel, to be activated in time of war. I very much doubt that LEA would have the capability to properly manage the 359 passengers on board, as the 2008 Qantas emergency was a computer glitch, not a badly damaged engine. There is also the fact that a damaged aircraft generally needs the longest runway available, particularly so for a twin-engine a/c when one engine is out, as reverse thrust is not available on that side and full asymmetric reverse thrust is not recommended. Given that PER is almost 400 meters (1,302 feet, to be precise) longer than LEA and has better ARFF than LEA, in my book the PIC made the right choice. There is also the reality that PER has full engine change facilities for the Trent and LEA does not. But he’ll still likely be castigated for it, though not by the airline.
Why would anyone fly Air Asia these days?
Another factor to be considered is the need to consume or dump fuel before landing a damaged aircraft. Faced with the choice of circling over Learmouth to do so or returning to Perth, it appears that the Captain made a sensible choice.