wysiwygA couple of points spring to mind…
1) Does this company not have an SOP to receive a wave off from an engineer before calling for taxi clearance or if so was this clearance not waited for?
2) Did the FO not look right to check it was clear before taxi?
Looks to me to be a pure pilot error couple with pilot/engineer communication problem.
wysiwygA380 has 3 jumpseats (A330/340, B777, B744, B757/767, A320, etc have 2). That pseudo laptop looks like a ground engineers tool for access ACMS parameters (aircraft condition monitoring system). Pilot access to ACMS is usually done through one of the MCDU’s so I guess that item would not be carried in flight.
The B744 cockpit is very narrow due to the fact that upstairs on a 747 is effectively a narrowbody. A330/340 and B777 have considerably more room laterally. I believe the A380 cockpit is positively huge in comparison to all.
wysiwygI uplift fuel from locations all over the world and am not suspicious of anything I have ever seen so far in terms of quality. I don’t think there is an contaminated uplift issue, just possibly an issue with it once in the tank (long term unchecked water condensation or temperature issue). We usually pick up fuel with a freezing temp of -47 in China. I would be interested to know if this was definitely the case with the fuel uplifted on the day. The most problematic fuel uplifted is the standard American (US) fuel with a freeze temp of -40. We have to consider the last 2 fuel uplifts and use the higher freeze temp so this can be a problem if picking up an aircraft that has arrived from the US and then you head out to the Far East on a northerly Siberian routing. It shouldn’t be an issue inbound to the UK as the last 2 uplifts would have been in the Far East and before that back at LHR, unless Beijing had an unusual fuel delivery at the time.
wysiwygIn light aircraft circles aeroplanes are usually refuelled after a flight in order to reduce the airspace in the tanks where moisture in the air can condense on the side of the tank when left overnight. One of a light aircraft pilots pre-flight check is to use a fuel strainer to drain off any crud and water content from the bottom of the tank. Commercial aircraft leave tanks in a very low tank quantity state due to the fact that we carry very precisely calculated fuel loads and too much fuel would lead to having to leave passengers or freight behind. Consequently engineers have to (weekly?) drain the water from the bottom of the tanks due to extreme changes we experience between take off temp and cruise temps. So how much water could you expect to drain off? I remember in the early 90’s being told about a 747-200 having been drained of a figure quoted as ‘several tonnes’. Now this was probably subject to embellishment and hearsay but it does make you wonder. The only thing we can be sure at the moment is that something previously unthinkable did actually happen.
wysiwygFreak glitch in the FADEC anyone?
I work with differing types of software day in day out and every day there are little surprises. Software thats been stable for-(just about)-ever suddenly develops a kink, but after a restart, no problem is evident.
I just don’t buy this idea. I still think it’s an excessive water in the fuel issue. If an excess of water is sitting in the lower aft part of the tanks (due to the positive pitch attitude in almost all phases of flight) it would be likely to come forward (possibly over the top of the standpipes feeding the engines) when a nose down pitch attitude is experienced. This is most likely to occur when the last stage of flap is selected for landing which would typically occur at about 4 miles out. This lowers the attitude of the aircraft . Bearing in mind that the engines would initially be at flight idle due to speed slowing from 160kts to Vref it would take a couple of miles for water to reach the combustion chambers. If you factor in the positive gusts that the aircraft experienced during the approach due to the conditions of the day then these could magnify the required pitch down attitude experienced and exposure to water ingestion.
Purely my own guestimate but I talked about water contamination in my first post and I’m sticking to it!
wysiwygThat is bad reporting by The Guardian, as the EPR Indicating system failure is a non-event, as it is an allowable defect per the MEL. (77-11-1)
If there are any EPR indicating issues the system will automatically go to N1 reversion mode (also manually selectable in the A346) whereby N1 becomes the primary thrust reference. No big deal really. As 3DMax says it won’t even stop you departing as a maintenance issue.
wysiwygI dont think that the backupsystems are at fault, The APU doors are open , which would indicate that it was either running or was in the process of starting up, the question that arises from this is Why?
the APU auto starts when the engines switch off, to me this says the system recieved or didnt recive a command from the engines .the computer triggered the APU thinking that the engines had stopped ,but according to the AAIB and RR both were running at the time
There seem to be a brake down of communcation between the Computer systems onboard
I would guess this is why the Passengers didnt notice the internal lights flicker as the main generators where still provinding power
As for the RAT I lead to belive that this only provides Hydraluic power for the flight control systems and nothing else
Kevin, don’t get too sidetracked by this. My (and most pilots) first automatic reaction would be to reach for the APU start button so that could well be the reason the flap is open. Also, a RAT drives on of the haydraulic systems but also in every installation I have worked with there has been an Emergency Generator (in Airbus speak) or HDG (Hydraulic Driven Generator in Boeing speak). This is a turbine in the hydraulic system that converts hydraulic pressure into electrical output for standby power generation as a step up from dependency on batteries only.
I’m still waiting for any proof that was any onboard electrical loss at all. The initial reports only say that the demand for increased thrust didn’t deliver any actual thrust not that there was any cockpit/cabin power problems at all.
wysiwyg…The RAT isn’t meant to power all the avionics systems, but to power the basic flight controls and basic avionic kit. I am under the impression the RAT on some aircraft deploys automatically, but not instantly. If the aircraft suffered a dual power failure, the power will stay on for a wee while as the turbines spool down, providing power to the generators. Further more (this is a guess!!) I’d imagine for crucial flight control systems there would be some sort of uninterruptable powersupply (UPS) as computer based avionics require a clean power supply, and in some cases take up to 2 minutes to initialise, so a sudden drop out in power isn’t helpful!
If the pilot did lose avionics, it is likely only the displays went out temporarily as the power source switched. Unless the RAT deployed automatically would there be enough time?…
I think there is a basic problem appearing here. Shortly after the accident our ‘airport worker’ friend allegedly had a conversation with the Captain. He then told the media who were scrabbling for any little snippet that all power had been lost. It would seem to me that this ‘airport worker’ may have overheard someone elses conversation and made 2 + 2 = 5. Other than this guy there seems to be no reason or anyone else saying about avionics loss other than what you would naturally expect from loss of main (engine driven) generators. The flight crew mention loss of power meaning thrust while our ‘expert’ thinks loss of power as in the National Grid has gone down! If the standby systems were under question the type would not be airborne today.
wysiwygI know no-one has the answer, but does anyone have any suggestions why the cockpit crew didn’t relay a “brace” message to the passengers?
…because at times like this you have to prioritise. Do you a) use the few seconds you have to fly the aircraft to a successful conclusion or do you b) let the aircraft find its own trajectory and talk to the passengers? If your answer was b) then you may have just killed everybody. Talking to the passengers is a good thing if you have time but there was no time in this case. After all, they did all pay attention to the safety demo, didn’t they? 😉
wysiwygI imagine in that in this case a ‘mate’ sent those pictures in… Certainly is a strange place to store your liquorice mind you ! :rolleyes: 😀
I’m disgusted to admit that I do know the slimeball who sold the story as I used to work with him (not that he ever pulled his weight). He’s the same guy that sold a book about Virgin crew a couple of years ago. That was a load of bull as well. If I ever saw him again I’d like to deck him one, but then I get the impression there would be a queue.
wysiwygI have just seen the ‘article’ that Charley is talking about. I refuse to post a link to it as it is about as gutter as the press can get. What is the point of digging up someone’s past (in this case 16 years ago)??? I say again, the naming of the crews can only ever be a bad, bad thing. Playing the media is a very silly thing to do.
wysiwygA few more viewpoints…
1) the Qantas 744 was possibly a case of desperation to repair what perhaps should not have been repaired to preserve a ‘we have never lost a hull’ status.
2) I am absolutely gob-smacked that the PR machine has kicked in in the way it has. There’s a lot of confliction too. I would definitely not have wanted to be paraded for the media by my company 24 hours after the incident. Correct me if I’m wrong but I got the impression the crew members didn’t seem to keen either. I also would not have done it without union representation right alongside me. I am then completely mystified by the fact that the skippers ex-cabin crew wife is supposedly in cahoots with Max Clifford. If that was my wife she would be expecting divorce papers for that kind of stunt without my say so. Then there’s the situation with the FO and the Sunday Mirror. Whatever happened to his company obligation to refer all publicity to BA’s PR department? Despite the excellent outcome of this awful situation the lawyers will become the hunters and you can guarantee criticism will come the crews way (even if not deserved) so I for one would still be seeking complete anonymity.
3) I wouldn’t be prepared to fly those wings after they are patched up!
wysiwygQuite right… one incident involving one idiot. Tar everyone with the same brush, eh! :rolleyes:
wysiwygThe BBC news was not perfect but they did do a much better job than their rivals. To be fair it must be quite hard for news 24 presenters to find things to say without excessive repetition. I did have to laugh when the BBC News24 bloke started asking a passenger how long the evacuation took! Who cares how long it took, they all got out in VERY good order. Consequently he should have saved that question for the next time an aircraft is being evacuation tested in a hangar.
wysiwygHmmnnn….
Sorry but I am a little sceptical about the airport worker who seems to have found his 15 minutes of fame because he had ‘spoken to the Captain’. A professional in aviation knows exactly who to speak to and more importantly who not to speak to after these events, in fact there are entire sections in Ops Manuals dedicated to it.
Sign In
