Back on August 22, a Smartwings Boeing 737-800 took off from Samos, Greece. Flight QS1125 was headed to Prague with 170 people on board. About 100 nautical miles northeast of Athens the aircraft’s left engine shut down while at 36,000 feet.
The crew tried to restart the engine while descending to 24,000 feet. The engine wouldn’t restart. The captain decided not to declare an emergency. Regulations require they head for the nearest suitable airport. They did not. Instead they continued for another 2 hours and 20 minutes, flying mostly at 24,000 feet, until they made it to Prague.
The Aviation Herald reports that they determined intermediate airports wouldn’t have the necessary parts, and didn’t want the delay. The captain who made the decision not to divert, when forced to fly on a single engine, was serving as the airline’s head of flight operations at the time.
The plane passed by “major airports including Sofia, Belgrade, Zagreb, Budapest and Vienna.”
None of the air traffic control centres en route was notified by the crew about the engine failure, adds UZPLN.
The pilots only transmitted a ‘pan pan’ urgency message, mentioning the failure, after entering the Prague flight information region and contacting the Prague area control centre.
The number one engine failed due to an obstructed fuel filter and failure of the fuel pump.
It seems really weird that the headline reads “Boeing 737 Pilot” instead of “Smartwings Pilot”. The fact that it was a Boeing 737 really has nothing to do with the story; it could have been any plane and the story would have been the same.
I agree with Farnorthtrader Gary your not a “drama queen” like many of the other bloggers but for heavens sake. So I guess your coupling this incident of an engine failure to the other issues with the 737?
There are (at least) TWO good reasons to identify the plane in the headline!
1) Some planes have four engines. But a 737 has only two. There is significantly greater risk in flying a 737 with only one engine.
2) Identifying the plane gives the reader a sense of scale and potential loss of life.
Those criticizing the headline are the ones being dramatic, no?
I am confident he would have declared an emergency when / if the Second engine failed
“SMARTWINGS PILOT DECIDED TO KEEP FLYING 800 MILES AFTER LOSING AN ENGINE”
there, I fixed it for you.
I seem to remember a British Airways 747 lost an engine right after takeoff from LAX and continued to LHR (5400 mi). But it had to stop at MAN; fuel burn on three engines was too high.
Have to agree with others here. What was the using “Boeing 737 pilot” and not “Smartwings pilot”? So many questionable headlines and even stories (one so embarrassing that you quietly deleted it) recently. Are you OK?
@tommyleo, I think that the first reason you offered makes sense if most readers would know that a 737 operates on two engines, although might have been clearer if it had said “decided to keep flying 800 miles on a single engine”.
On the other hand, your second reason is exactly backwards. There are plenty of B737s that fly with no passengers at all and from the headline, I actually assumed that it was not a commercial flight, but a Boeing test flight or something similar. Finding out that it was a Smartwings pilot brought into focus the danger involved and scale of potential disaster.
Right below the post title is the excerpt. This goes right on the front page of the blog. It goes out in emails with the post. And it’s part of the RSS feed.
“Back on August 22, a Smartwings Boeing 737-800 took off from Samos, Greece. Flight QS1125 was headed to Prague with 170 people on board. About 100 nautical miles northeast of Athens the aircraft’s left engine shut down while at 36,000 feet.
The crew tried to restart the engine while descending to 24,000 feet. The engine wouldn’t restart. The captain decided not to declare an emergency. ”
The LEAD is smartwings, folks.
Don’t know why you bother replying to them, Gary. You’ll never make these folks happy.
Every time a person flies and every time a person gets in a car, they’re at risk of dying. And although they have extremely minimal control over that risk, everything “likes” to think they control their own fate. But you really don’t. Ever.
If I was on the plane that landed safely and didn’t have to incur the immense delay, I’d be glad. Sometimes the risk is just worth it. I believe there’s more to this story.
And also, I believe if you don’t want to let a pilot bear a risk for you, then you shouldn’t be flying. You’re fooling yourself if you think policies minimize your risk.
Really didn’t mean for it to be a big thing, just an observation, had no idea that people would get quite so heated about it. Wasn’t even a criticism, just an observation that it was weird.
The point being missed here is that the pilot (Captain) violated regulations (and common sense) by not landing at the nearest suitable airport. BTW I am a commercial airline pilot, certified in the B-737, among others. The fact that he is (was) the director of flight operations is telling.
The captain, who is still with Smartwings but no longer chief of flight operations, was gambling with the passengers lives for the airline’s convenience. He was flying over some very rough terrain and for much of the flight and most of the time was not within range of a suitable airport if the other engine failed or another failure occurred that necessitated landing the plane. I’m sure this airline makes some claim like “Safety is our number one priority.” Like love, flying should mean never having to say you’re sorry.
It is a bit surprising that none of the controllers on the route asked about the nature of the situation that required flying at Flight Level 240 and maintaining a much slower than normal cruising speed for a 737.
I guess SMARTWINGS Administration and Pilots put Prophit over Peoples Lives. NICE GAMBLE. I hope that I never fly on an Airline that they are connected to.
Tommyleo thats a lame unsupported comment., Where have you been How many planes flying today have four engines other than older models on their way OUT. Long Haul 777 /350/787/767/757 All have count them Two (2) engines. Proportion of potential deaths ? Can we have a formula for that one ?
Yes, but the BA aircraft was a 747 with 4 engines. Losing one is usually not a big deal.
Ghostrider: I saw a 747 in the air yesterday just over I-295 in New Jersey. So there are obviously still planes in the air with four engines.
Ghostrider: I saw an A340 and two 747s in the air yesterday just over the 405 in Los Angeles. Not to mention a cargo DC-10. So there are obviously still planes in the air with four engines.
“Smartwings pilot flies single-engine plane. Fails to declare emergency when engine quits”
That would have been pretty cool click-bait
What really happened:
That barely legal stunner at Karlovy Lazne whispered in the pilot’s ear, “Hurry back and you can fly me” and at that point he wasn’t going to let a silly thing like a blown engine break that date.
A pilot will only “declare an emergency” if lives are in immediate danger, like if there’s a fire on board. Pan-pan is an emergency declaration, but slightly less urgent. I’d be inclined to give the pilots the benefit of the doubt. An engine out is not immediately life-threatening and flying on one is not inherently unsafe. The pilot and copilot consult with each other, weigh their options, and upon making a decision to keep flying they’ll calculate their fuel burn on one engine. Evidently they had enough margin to make their destination safely. Let’s wait until the facts are in before passing judgement.
@John – the facts are in, the investigatory agency has concluded its report. There is absolutely no question that they should have diverted.
Is there not a fuel filter bypass in case of emergency? If one one fuel filter is obstructing what are the chances of a second filter being obstructed. Same fuel to both engines after all.
What grade are y’all in
If they were over land and passed a couple of large and suitable airports to Prague they probably would be ok with a second engine failure given the 24,000 altitude gives 12 minutes of time to glide. It was a risk but a calculated risk. Dual engine failure is extremely rare so I understand the thought process to continue.
This is rediculous the pilot not informing an emergency landing to the nearest airport. Pilot (how much experienced let him be)should never test his might risking the lifr ofpassingers without knowing the cause of the engine failer.He might have decided to glide the plane to prague if the other engine failed !!!!!!!
What most folks are missing are the differences in aviation regs around the world. Had this flight been operated under US FAA Part 121 rules, the flight’s dispatcher could have declared the emergency independently of the captain.
On a twin-engine airliner with one inop, convenience of repair sites isn’t a consideration and it’s land at the nearest suitable airport in point-of-time. The pilot of that Hapag-Lloyd A310 had his own reason for continuing flight with gear down, and he ran out of fuel and ruined a perfectly good aircraft, not to mention risking the safety of his passengers. No, dispatchers aren’t infallible, but neither are pilots, and abnormal situations are best resolved when they can collaborate.
The PIC, FO AND OPS PERSONNEL ARE GOING FOR AN IMMEDIATE DRUG TEST. UNBELIEVABLE.
There was no emergency to declare if he was flying on a single engine. There would have been a story to report if that single engine had faioed. But even so, as you reported, there were MANY airports along the way where the pilot could have safely landed the aircraft. So what’s the big deal?
As passenger I’d thanks the pilots bringing me home and not left me stuck for several days in an unplanned stop. I guess 737 have an ETOP rating and they stayed within the limits.
Engine failure because of a clogged fuel filter would let me think that it clogged from contaminated fuel
There is a risk that the second engine will have the same fuel problem and that it’s just a question of time.
After having had repairs done in Athens, I can understand why the pilot wanted to clear Greek airspace at all cost.
Is not obliged to inform traffic controls you fly only with 1 engine?
Some people are missing the point here.
Diverting to the nearest airport in case of one engine failure is mandatory. It’s written on procedures manual, and procedures on an aircraft operation is there to be followed. Some aircraft operation procedures and airspace laws are written on blood, they’re there for the safest operation, all the time.
I don’t believe someone here mentioned it’s even safe at FL240, so there’s a plenty of gliding altitude if second engine dies. This is not a flight simulator, it’s 170 people lives, with their families counting on them.
I’m pretty sure if it was on some other airlines, the PIC should lost his job.
The Smartwings chief of operations was not so “smart” gambling with his passengers lives.
Those saying this was a nonevent are foolish in the extreme.
Aviation regs (globally) and Boeing certification and instructions are quite clear – on a twin engine aircraft suffering an engine failure, you MUST land at the nearest suitable airport. Ease of repair, passenger handling,minimising delays and operational convenience can only be considered if you have numerous suitable airports at similar time-to-land distances.
This crew must be stripped of their licences before they kill people through their recklessness.
Relax chill…no need to be sarcastic, for me it’s not about the f***ng headline, it’s about the safety of all passengers…let’s thank God that one was hurt, simple as that peace bro!
The headline is the attention grabber. “Boeing 737 Pilot…” is purposefully meant to stir the reader into getting the full scoop by linking relevance to an existing narrative. Which could be the reason why the author didn’t mention the specific type of 737 in the headline.
Most people don’t know the difference between an 800 or MAX type aircraft.
One does what one can for clicks.
…thank God no one was hurt rather
I wont commend the pilot for risking 170 SOB. What if he lost the 2nd engine, given the opportunities it had by flying past major cities and not declaring an emergency.
I dont think this article is clear enough. In many cases continuing with the planned journey is much safer than landing at the nearest airport, there is no law saying the pilot must land at the closes airport.
Reasons for continuing include:
-Higher fuel burn, so less chance of overrun (as only 1 reverse thrust is operational)
-Wider Runway, with only 1 reverse thrust the aircraft may veer, so wider runway is safer
-Pilot familiarity, a captain who knows the airport approach well may choose to make a landing further as there is less chance of having to perform a go around with one engine
-Altitude, it takes time to descend!
Therefore, it is clear that a pilot has the right to make choices that he/she thinks is safest.
So this article is very badly informed and may even be wrong, so lets get a 737 pilot’s opinion!!
Mentioning Boeing 737 flew 800miles with one engines shows Boeing make quality planes.
Very old aviation saying :-
On a
twin engined aircraft which looses an engine you can be sure the remaining engine will have enough power to fly the plane to the scene of the crash.
The pilot was a BOZO….you land ASAP to the nearest suitable airport.
If something is wrong land the darn plane.
Retired American Airlines Captain
A320
Phoenix AZ
To All those here saying no big deal flying on one engine in a two engine airplane : Y’all are not pilots for sure.
Airplane manufacturer’s procedures are there for a reason and its always for the safety of souls on board .
and the people who made those procedures are not idiots
Such an irresponsible attitude, to gamble on an single engine, while the passengers life was on stake.
The cockpit crew should’ve been fired, no buts, no ifs… They violated / ignored multitude of must-do regulations.
Certainly won’t be flying with Smartwings. If they can’t get passengers safety first, they are not professionals.
This is a gross violation of the standard Safety guidelines. It’s like risking over 170 lives. No business or operations is more important them human lives…
There should be serious action against the flight pilots and and other responsible for this major blunder.
The thing is that pilot saved a looot of money. If he would landed they need to get people to hotels, feed them and get other plane with crew to fly the next day and get them. And pay the 300$ to every passanger as EU law says. He did what was the best. BTW with that altitude he could glide about 60 miles to nearest airport and in EU there is a big Airport at every corner. So if you don’t like it just don’t fly.