Etihad Plane (EY461) has issue after takeoff - Melbourne

[Sprucegoose]

Yes, my apologies for trying to have a life outside of AFF.

Apology accepted.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

There seems to be an issue with the Etihad flight leaving Melbourne this evening—it's circling over the bay and dumping fuel.

Dammit, I was fooled! I thought this post was about an Etihad fuel dump but instead it was an emergency on board! So much for the days of Canada Dry fuel dumps.

-RooFlyer88

 

[DC3]

I thought this post was about an Etihad fuel dump but instead it was an emergency on board!

Plane in trouble apparently. Do we have a link that explains the emergency on board?

 

[Forg]

Given it'd just taken off & I presume it's fuel tanks were pretty close to full (as I assume it was heading to the Middle East which is a decent distance) ... it can't be good having that much avgas dumped? I mean obviously better than a giant full 'plane consumed by a fireball ploughing into a crowded airport terminal, but it still can't be good?

 

[Saab34]

Would the same crew really be allowed to operate MEL-AUH with a duty time 5 hours longer than planned?

Good question, @jb747 might have some intel.

I think it’s unlikely EY would have a set of 787 crew here on standby.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Given it'd just taken off & I presume it's fuel tanks were pretty close to full (as I assume it was heading to the Middle East which is a decent distance) ... it can't be good having that much avgas dumped? I mean obviously better than a giant full 'plane consumed by a fireball ploughing into a crowded airport terminal, but it still can't be good?

just about every aircraft is designed to land safely fully loaded. I mean if you are dealing with a serious issue, you’re not going to waste an hour dumping fuel (some aircraft’s were lost due to pilots making this error). However, the issue with such arrivals is that you cannot bring them back into service right away, inspections have to be completed to determine whether the heavy landing damages aircraft components like the landing gear.

So I suspect in this case the crew made a calculated decision, the issue wasn’t severe enough for them to require an immediate landing but was serious enough that they couldn’t make it all the way to Abu Dhabi. So in such instances dumping fuel to perform an uneventful landing resulting in the issue being fixed and the bird refuelled in a couple of hours made the most sense.

-RooFlyer88

 

[Mattg]

just about every aircraft is designed to land safely fully loaded. I mean if you are dealing with a serious issue, you’re not going to waste an hour dumping fuel (some aircraft’s were lost due to pilots making this error). However, the issue with such arrivals is that you cannot bring them back into service right away, inspections have to be completed to determine whether the heavy landing damages aircraft components like the landing gear.

So I suspect in this case the crew made a calculated decision, the issue wasn’t severe enough for them to require an immediate landing but was serious enough that they couldn’t make it all the way to Abu Dhabi. So in such instances dumping fuel to perform an uneventful landing resulting in the issue being fixed and the bird refuelled in a couple of hours made the most sense.

-RooFlyer88

With respect, there are issues with overweight landings and I would suggest leaving it to the pilots and other appropriate experts to comment on the technical aspects.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

With respect, there are issues with overweight landings and I would suggest leaving it to the pilots and other appropriate experts to comment on the technical aspects.

To be fair… this isn’t the ‘ask the pilot’ thread!

IIRC in that thread (ask the pilot) it was stated by one of the pilots that planes can land ‘overweight’… but requires inspection etc.

KF88’s proposition makes sense… if the lives of all those on board were in immediate danger, an overweight landing would be better than no landing at all?

 

[jb747]

Well it ended up departing 2328pm local after an assumed engineering check. Sure will be one heck of a long duty for the crew.

Would the same crew really be allowed to operate MEL-AUH with a duty time 5 hours longer than planned?

The duty period would have been somewhere around 20 hours. The CASA limits were 20 hours, but who knows what (or indeed if) the UAE limits are. I'll see if I can find out.

I am guessing their hours are regulated by their local aviation authority.

Yes, although it's pretty much a department of EK/EY.

I think it’s unlikely EY would have a set of 787 crew here on standby.

Of course they wouldn't. Nobody does.

just about every aircraft is designed to land safely fully loaded. I mean if you are dealing with a serious issue, you’re not going to waste an hour dumping fuel (some aircraft’s were lost due to pilots making this error). However, the issue with such arrivals is that you cannot bring them back into service right away, inspections have to be completed to determine whether the heavy landing damages aircraft components like the landing gear.

So I suspect in this case the crew made a calculated decision, the issue wasn’t severe enough for them to require an immediate landing but was serious enough that they couldn’t make it all the way to Abu Dhabi. So in such instances dumping fuel to perform an uneventful landing resulting in the issue being fixed and the bird refuelled in a couple of hours made the most sense.

All aircraft can be landed at their MTOW immediately after takeoff.

Overweight (NOT HEAVY) landings require inspections, depending largely on the assessment of just how smooth the landing was. For that reason, it's generally recommended that they be autolands. An overweight and heavy landing is the worst of both worlds, and wouldn't be back in the air any time soon.

The decision on whether to return immediately or not is up the the Captain. Not all that many things really force an immediate return, and virtually all involve fire of some sort. An engine issue, even including a shutdown, doesn't need to be hurried. I'd know what their issue was, but looking at the approach numbers, it doesn't look like they had a shutdown. Perhaps they just realised it was a 787 and got scared.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Perhaps they just realised it was a 787 and got scared.

Is that a demonstrable Airbus bias I detect?

 

[kangarooflyer88]

KF88’s proposition makes sense… if the lives of all those on board were in immediate danger, an overweight landing would be better than no landing at all?

I would be shocked if any aircraft would be allowed to be manufactured if it could not land at or near the MTOW. Emergency situations on aircraft are rare, but when they occur pilots need to have the ability to make split second decisions safely. That's generally why there is a safety margin built into most aircraft.

The duty period would have been somewhere around 20 hours. The CASA limits were 20 hours, but who knows what (or indeed if) the UAE limits are. I'll see if I can find out.

What rules generally apply for these flights? Would it be CASA since they are departing from an Australian port or would it be the nation of the carrier (i.e. UAE)?

All aircraft can be landed at their MTOW immediately after takeoff.

Great to hear confirmation on that.

Overweight (NOT HEAVY) landings require inspections, depending largely on the assessment of just how smooth the landing was. For that reason, it's generally recommended that they be autolands. An overweight and heavy landing is the worst of both worlds, and wouldn't be back in the air any time soon.

I'm guessing that's why generally if the pilots deem it is safe to do so, they'll jettison fuel first then land at a safe weight.

The decision on whether to return immediately or not is up the the Captain. Not all that many things really force an immediate return, and virtually all involve fire of some sort. An engine issue, even including a shutdown, doesn't need to be hurried. I'd know what their issue was, but looking at the approach numbers, it doesn't look like they had a shutdown.

I could think of a couple examples where that would be necessary. For instance, dual engine failure (e.g., miracle on the Hudson or Gimli glider). If you're in a situation like that, weight doesn't matter any more, it's all about getting the right glide into the airport.

Is that a demonstrable Airbus bias I detect?

More like a bias against Boeing.

 

[jb747]

Is that a demonstrable Airbus bias I detect?

I'm guessing that's why generally if the pilots deem it is safe to do so, they'll jettison fuel first then land at a safe weight.

I'd jettison the fuel to increase my margins of error. Someone else may choose to save the fuel.

I could think of a couple examples where that would be necessary. For instance, dual engine failure (e.g., miracle on the Hudson or Gimli glider). If you're in a situation like that, weight doesn't matter any more, it's all about getting the right glide into the airport.

Neither of those involved a great deal of choice. The 'miracle' was simply gravity at work.

More like a bias against Boeing.

I prefer old Boeing, to old Airbus. But, I'm not a fan of any new Boeing. Use about 2010 as the changeover date.

 

[Toaster496]

Playback on ATC has them saying they had an engine issue.

Nope. It was a medical issue. The child was rushed to the royal children's hospital. I can not confirm what the issue was but it was significant enough for them to return.

 

[RooFlyer]

Welcome to AFF @Toaster496

 

[DC3]

Nope. It was a medical issue. The child was rushed to the royal children's hospital. I can not confirm what the issue was but it was significant enough for them to return.

Child in trouble. Thank you for clearing this up and welcome to AFF.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Nope. It was a medical issue. The child was rushed to the royal children's hospital. I can not confirm what the issue was but it was significant enough for them to return.

That would seem to make the most sense. If it was something mechanical, I just don't see them being able to depart 5 hours later. Engines generally don't get fixed that quickly. And remember too you have to refuel, re-board and everything else.

 

[Forg]

That would seem to make the most sense. If it was something mechanical, I just don't see them being able to depart 5 hours later. Engines generally don't get fixed that quickly.

A comment just for @p--and--t ... maybe they just took the tool out which was floating 'round in the engine?

 

[Sprucegoose]

Nope. It was a medical issue. The child was rushed to the royal children's hospital. I can not confirm what the issue was but it was significant enough for them to return.

Thanks for the update, Toaster, and welcome to our site. I am a novice here but have a few questions for our pilots.

I have flown on a number of flights requiring medical assistance, and these situations, if they worsen, seem to graduate in seriousness with decisions based on the availability of information and over time. In the case of EY461, the plane only reached 5000 or so feet, which is only around 2-3 minutes.

How can serious medical conditions be assessed, and the appropriate decisions made during that time?

Additionally, suppose the pilot had accepted a medical assessment that necessitated a return to the field in such a short time; what criteria would they apply to delay landing within MTOW in favour of a decision to dump fuel for an additional 70 or so minutes?

 

[p--and--t]

A comment just for @p--and--t ... maybe they just took the tool out which was floating 'round in the engine?

…as per my premonition I haven’t yet seen a single report in MSM about a plane dumping fuel over Melbourne polluting the skies and returning to the airport and hundreds of passengers inconvenienced, delayed flight interviews with frustrated passengers as would be typical if an Aussie carrier had been involved.

 

[DejaBrew]

Welcome aboard AFF @Toaster496 and thanks for the info