Etihad Plane (EY461) has issue after takeoff - Melbourne

[MooTime]

…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.

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?)

 

[kangarooflyer88]

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?

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

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?

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.

 

[Saab34]

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.

‘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.

 

[Flyfrequently]

Another welcome to AFF @Toaster496

 

[RooFlyer]

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?)

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.

Delta Air Lines Flight 89 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Sprucegoose]

You don’t stop a climb at 5000 due to a medical issue either unless it is one of the Pilots

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.

Nope. It was a medical issue. The child was rushed to the royal children's hospital

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.

 

[straitman]

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.

An interesting and authoritive first post. Are you able to elaborate an information source?

Welcome to AFF.

 

[jb747]

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.

They wouldn't even answer the phone in that time frame.

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.

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.

 

[Saab34]

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.

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.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

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.

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

 

[Saab34]

Starts 19.40. Change the Z time in the URL by increments of 30 to hear the following periods after.

https://archive.liveatc.net/ymml/YMML3-Nov-16-2024-0800Z.mp3

 

[p--and--t]

Starts 19.40. Change the Z time in the URL by increments of 30 to hear the following periods after.

https://archive.liveatc.net/ymml/YMML3-Nov-16-2024-0800Z.mp3

Very clear and unambiguous - “we have engine issue”

 

[Saab34]

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.