Etihad Plane (EY461) has issue after takeoff - Melbourne

p--and--t said:
…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.
Click to expand...
Not sure if your tongue in cheek.

But wife and I could see the plane turning over the Mordialloc/Aspendale area and back across the bay from our front yard. Was definitely something continuous coming from both wings, certainly looked like fluid, not usual cloud fluff type. Was rather low flying, well as low all the planes in the area from Moorabbin airport nearby.

The fact that it didn't seem to cross land, stayed over the water seemed obvious to us that dumping fuel (into the bay, or does it someone dissipate at it falls to ground? How does that work, physics, science aviation buffs?)
 
Sprucegoose said:
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?
Click to expand...
Maybe there was a doctor onboard? I also wonder too the logistics of a medical diversion enroute. It certainly may not be as easy as returning to the gate as they did. If it is serious enough like a seizure or something then it’s unlikely they could’ve pressed on.

For me the red flag that this wasn’t a mechanical issue is we don’t yet see a report for it on the Aviation Herald which nearly every such mechanical issue like this would be reported within hours:

The Aviation Herald

Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation
www.avherald.com www.avherald.com

Sprucegoose said:
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?
Click to expand...
The pilots have to balance the safety of everyone onboard with the health of a passenger. Yes you’d like to get down quick but if you do an overweight landing that does increase the risk. At the same time, it will take time for medics to get airside so you may as well dump fuel. From the CBD you’re looking at what maybe 20 minutes? I wonder too if ironically landing right away may result in it taking longer for the patient to deplane. I’m not a pilot but I suspect braking a fully loaded jet will cause immense heat to build up on the brakes potentially leading to a fire. So now we got to get the fire brigade out to put out that fire to “save” a few minutes.
 
Toaster496 said:
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.
Click to expand...
‘Etihad Two November Lima Request Maintain 5000 due Engine Problem’

I’m just saying, that’s what is on the playback. Plus associated comms after that, it was an engine issue. Ground units conducted inspections also after takeoff and and landing.

You don’t stop a climb at 5000 due to a medical issue either unless it is one of the Pilots. Cabin Crew attend initially in the cabin then advise PIC a later stage which certainly is not a few minutes after takeoff.
 
Last edited:
MooTime said:
The fact that it didn't seem to cross land, stayed over the water seemed obvious to us that dumping fuel (into the bay, or does it someone dissipate at it falls to ground? How does that work, physics, science aviation buffs?)
Click to expand...
I believe there’s a minimum altitude where dumping fuel is allowed because it will dissipate by the time it hits the ground. There was a 2020 case of an aircraft in the US that kept dumping fuel on its approach and people on the ground were splashed with aviation fuel.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Delta Air Lines Flight 89 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Saab34 said:
You don’t stop a climb at 5000 due to a medical issue either unless it is one of the Pilots
Click to expand...

I dont see how you could identify a medical issue and advise the pilots during that phase of the flight within three minutes; the numbers dont add up in my non-pilot brain.

I am not suggesting anyone wasn't anyone taken ill on the flight, but it may not be why the plane levelled out and dumped fuel.

Toaster496 said:
Nope. It was a medical issue. The child was rushed to the royal children's hospital
Click to expand...

Hi, Toaster496. Can you elaborate further on this occurrence? Was the medical issue the reason the plane returned to the field, or did it occur after the decision to return was made, given a pilot on this forum has reported comms confirming it was an engine issue that was (possibly) the
first matter requiring attention.
 
Check out the latest credit card signup bonus point offers
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

kangarooflyer88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't even answer the phone in that time frame.
RooFlyer said:
I believe there’s a minimum altitude where dumping fuel is allowed because it will dissipate by the time it hits the ground. There was a 2020 case of an aircraft in the US that kept dumping fuel on its approach and people on the ground were splashed with aviation fuel.
Click to expand...
There's no minimum if you declare an emergency.

Engines can be fixed quickly. I've seen 4 fan blades replaced on a CF6 in about an hour (take off/hit birds/return/fix/depart again). I don't know our overall delay but it was only two man crew, and we were going to Asia from Oz, so we didn't have a huge amount of spare time

Brakes get hot, but there's no reason for a fire unless you mishandle them. 34 is long, and uphill.
 
Sprucegoose said:
I dont see how you could identify a medical issue and advise the pilots during that phase of the flight within three minutes; the numbers dont add up in my non-pilot brain.

I am not suggesting anyone wasn't anyone taken ill on the flight, but it may not be why the plane levelled out and dumped fuel.



Hi, Toaster496. Can you elaborate further on this occurrence? Was the medical issue the reason the plane returned to the field, or did it occur after the decision to return was made, given a pilot on this forum has reported comms confirming it was an engine issue that was (possibly) the
first matter requiring attention.
Click to expand...
Well they might have had a medical issue while the fuel dump was taking place etc. But the poster is a troll regardless, information like what hospital people go to isn’t broadcast. Either way, the Pilots advised engine problem to ATC so I’d take that vs some random one post wonder on a forum who claims otherwise.

They didn’t advise medical either to any of the ATC. That is also something that would be said to arrange for the appropriate teams to be at the gate on arrival.

You can see how misinformation spreads these days.
 
Last edited:
Saab34 said:
Well they might have had a medical issue while the fuel dump was taking place etc. But the poster is a troll regardless, information like what hospital people go to isn’t broadcast. Either way, the Pilots advised engine problem to ATC so I’d take that vs some random one post wonder on a forum who claims otherwise.
Click to expand...
Do we have a recording of the pilots declaring the emergency? If not, then I think that's just as speculative as someone claiming it was a medical issue. Additionally, I have yet to see a single post on the Aviation Herald chronicling this issue which is surprising.

-RooFlyer88
 
Any idea why they run with the whole Etihad Two November Lima callsign?

I thought it was only for specific operators to use to avoid confusion with similar flights in the area, ie Emirates might have a few flights on the same frequency with a near similar callsign.

Etihad doesn’t have that many flights here. You can hear the pilot keeps getting it wrong and reverts back to the 2NL callsign.
 
Right Engine issue and request to dump fuel starting at T24:00 on the Live ATC

No mention of medical issue at T30:00.
45minutes fuel dumping
Predumping fuel endurance 15hrs, on landing fuel endurance 6hrs
 
Last edited:
Impressive amount of gas dumped! Glad it’s not my money! Certainly would have been a nice loss making flight that’s for sure.
 
Saab34 said:
But the poster is a troll regardless
Click to expand...

I am sure the site managers are aware of authoritative first posters taking a definitive tack.

Boeing has substantial issues in its business, and no less with the 787; Qatar has a significant application before the government. Not sure of the engines on the QR788; Rolls has ongoing engine reputational issues.

There is ample material for bad third-party actors to troll about - shutting down the noise can sometimes be reputationally more damaging than transparent and honest corporate communications.
 
I'm sure middle east airlines equip themselves with Jet fuel a lot better on currency than non middle eastern airlines.

Doubt that aspect an issue.

More so the connections they'd have to deal / compensate with.
 
Saab34 said:
Etihad doesn’t have that many flights here. You can hear the pilot keeps getting it wrong and reverts back to the 2NL callsign.
Click to expand...
It seems not too many airlines here use Alphanumeric callsigns, which are more commonplace in Europe and the Middle East.

I've consistently seen EY, EK and QR use alphanumeric callsigns for flights between AU and ME.

One exception was the QR908 reposition from BNE to SYD the other day, after being diverted to BNE due to WX, then getting stuck in BNE due to a maintenance issue (APU problem I think).

Introduction of alpha-numeric call signs | ATSB

www.atsb.gov.au www.atsb.gov.au
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

... and 8 more.
Total: 350 (members: 58, guests: 292)
Back
Top