Summary
- The ATSB’s final report on Qantas flight QF-144 noted the crew’s effective decision-making prevented additional risk and allowed for a successful single-engine landing.
- Qantas flight QF-144 experienced an unexpected engine shutdown en path to Sydney, with the pilots selecting to proceed onwards as an alternative of diverting to a better airport.
- Investigation findings highlight the importance of effective decision-making and located the crew’s handling of the incident in step with testimonies despite CVR data being overwritten during maintenance.
Australia’s Transportation Safety Bureau (ATSB) highlighted the crew of Qantas flight QF-144’s inside its final report into the January 2023 engine shutdown.
Published on Friday, the ATSB noted the flight crew’s decision to not divert to nearby Norfolk Island Airport (NLK) in favor of continuous onto Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport (SYD) prevented additional risk to the stressful situation, allowing for the crew to perform a successful single engine landing on the airport.
Incident details
While en route from Auckland Airport (AKL) to Sydney on January 18, the flight crew of QF-144 noted a pop sound prior to the autopilot and autothrottle disengaging. The Boeing 737-800’s left CFM International CFM56-7B engine was stated to not be operating. Cabin crew members and passengers reported an analogous loud bang and yaw coinciding with the shutdown, described as to the ATSB by the flight’s cabin safety manager.
After declaring MAYDAY, the crew carried onto Sydney amid poorer operational conditions and limited emergency response options on the closest diversion airport, Norfolk Island.
The aircraft continued to operate safely on one engine because the crew worked through its checklists. Nevertheless, the cabin safety manager noted several related incidents, corresponding to the increased temperature within the cabin and limited power across the galley and rear bathrooms. Conditions were subsequently primarily solved by the flight crew adjusting the temperature controller.
Photo: Seth Jaworski/Shutterstock
Despite unsuccessfully attempting to restart the engine, the decision was downgraded to a PAN PAN before arrival in Sydney, though the crew requested emergency services upon arrival as a precaution. QF-144 landed safely and uneventfully on the airport at 15:26 AEDT, just over an hour after the emergency was declared, with no injuries reported.
The ten-year-old 737 operating the flight, VH-XZB, remained grounded at Syndey for six days following the incident, allowing for ATSB investigators to download the information from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). VH-XZB returned to service on January 26.
ATSB findings
Throughout the ATSB investigation, it was found that the CVR had been inadvertently overwritten by maintenance crews, stopping direct evidence on the flight crew’s management and decision-making throughout the flight; nonetheless, the ATSB found the handling of the incident was consistent with relevant testimonies, adding that
Photo: PolmnOz | Shutterstock
Several probable causes of the incident were highlighted; the separation of the radial driveshaft affecting the engine core and accessory gearbox, causing a lack of fuel pump pressure, and a failed driveshaft stopping the crew from restarting the engine.
Qantas briefly got here under fire following the January incident, which followed two similar engine-related issues on one other 737 and 717 across a three-day period.
In an announcement shared in January, Qantas Domestic CEO Andrew David reaffirmed the carrier’s commitment to safety, emphasizing the necessity to put the incidents into context.
“
Engine shutdowns are relatively unusual events, with CFM International citing in a 2004 blog post that the CFM56-7B engine’s shutdown rate is around 0.002, or one flight every 500,000 flight hours.
Qantas has been approached for comment.
What are your thoughts on the ATSB’s findings? Did the crew of QF-144 handle the incident well? Tell us within the comments.