Virgin Aircraft pod strike 737 Samoa
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: new zealand
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft most likely did several sectors over several days after the Apia landing. That would have provided a number of crews and a number of engineers the opportunity to pick up any damage. That they didn't suggests no- one does proper external inspections or that the damage was extremely difficult to detect. My money is on the latter, especially seeing it was only after the engineers were specifically tasked to look for it.
Buzzbox, we are also encouraged to report "just in case" which is why the majority are inspected, investigated then found to be below the threshold.
The unintended consequence of this, particularly for someone who has previously reported a suspected heavy landing which was subsequently found to be below the threshold, is that your expectation shifts. By that I mean you land the aeroplane with a crunch, go "oh crap I had better write that up", they inspect the airframe, look at the FOQA data and the feedback is that the landing was well below the heavy landing threshold. Next time you go crunch you go "yeah that was a thumper but no worse than what I did last time and that one wasn't even close so no need to report it" or words to that effect
Nothing sinister but it leaves room for the occasional one that goes the other way and does exceed the limit but isn't reported. Sure some might try and cover it up but in the operation I work for I would think (hope) they are in the minority, with the unreported ones there because the crews genuinely didn't think it was that bad.
The unintended consequence of this, particularly for someone who has previously reported a suspected heavy landing which was subsequently found to be below the threshold, is that your expectation shifts. By that I mean you land the aeroplane with a crunch, go "oh crap I had better write that up", they inspect the airframe, look at the FOQA data and the feedback is that the landing was well below the heavy landing threshold. Next time you go crunch you go "yeah that was a thumper but no worse than what I did last time and that one wasn't even close so no need to report it" or words to that effect
Nothing sinister but it leaves room for the occasional one that goes the other way and does exceed the limit but isn't reported. Sure some might try and cover it up but in the operation I work for I would think (hope) they are in the minority, with the unreported ones there because the crews genuinely didn't think it was that bad.
Thanks Snakecharma, I understand all that. The Aviation Herald reported that the return flight to Auckland was cancelled and the aircraft ferried back to Auckland the following day. If that's true and the flight cancellation/ferry flight wasn't for some other reason, then it sounds as though the airline suspected something was up. As ringbinder said, perhaps the damage was extremely minor and difficult to detect.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for the delay, as I understand it, was due to the cyclone. If the 'airline suspected something was up', the aircraft would not have been allowed to fly for 2 further days.
The damage was not minor, in fact it was quite serious. As it was contained to the area around the bottom of the cowl, it was not picked up by all the pilot & engineering inspections after the event. I was told that even the engineers do not look at that part of the airframe when doing daily or EDTO inspections. I was informed that they are only required to ensure that the cowls are latched & squatting to be level with the bottom of the cowl meets that requirement, as latches that aren't fastened will be hanging down.
The damage was not minor, in fact it was quite serious. As it was contained to the area around the bottom of the cowl, it was not picked up by all the pilot & engineering inspections after the event. I was told that even the engineers do not look at that part of the airframe when doing daily or EDTO inspections. I was informed that they are only required to ensure that the cowls are latched & squatting to be level with the bottom of the cowl meets that requirement, as latches that aren't fastened will be hanging down.
If the 'airline suspected something was up', the aircraft would not have been allowed to fly for 2 further days.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 6th May 2016 at 01:18.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the part of the world I fly, QAR exceedence parameters are a big deal, hard landings in particular. If a hard landing is suspected we can print the load report which shows the G load at touch down, on the a320, 1.75g is considered a QAR exceedence.
Can the load report be printed on the Boeings, showing such info?
Can the load report be printed on the Boeings, showing such info?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen some photos. Latches were damaged in the strike, it starts just from the nose cowl all the way back to the reverser latches, with a number of holes through the structure.
As for picking this up on a preflt, if after you have looked at the fan blades you bend over while using the inlet cowl for a hand steady you can bend over far enough without lying on the ground and see all the way back along the engine. This is not the first time for a 737 to have a pod strike. Ryan Air had an identical event on two aircraft 2009 and both were missed by subsequent preflt.
I have watched the preflt being carried out by crew and it varies dramatically. Some walk from the nose around the engine across to the outside of the other engine back again like they are on the modeling cat walk without even looking at the aircraft, obviously thinking more about what's ahead of him or her rather than the importance of the task that he or she are carrying out alone. This task used to be backed up by a ground engineer and this was his sole task and he was equipped for this, no matter what the environment or weather conditions offered. I see crew without raincoats substandard torches (iphone torch) trying to complete a task that is often pushed by time, and sometimes the must get home attitude(defects always logged on the home leg). I see many crew finding themselves in this situation often without any immediate engineering support on hand as a result of a industry wide cost reduction. Two sets of eyes were always better than one. It's a race to the bottom reducing cost, until unfortunately we see a catastrophic incident.
As for picking this up on a preflt, if after you have looked at the fan blades you bend over while using the inlet cowl for a hand steady you can bend over far enough without lying on the ground and see all the way back along the engine. This is not the first time for a 737 to have a pod strike. Ryan Air had an identical event on two aircraft 2009 and both were missed by subsequent preflt.
I have watched the preflt being carried out by crew and it varies dramatically. Some walk from the nose around the engine across to the outside of the other engine back again like they are on the modeling cat walk without even looking at the aircraft, obviously thinking more about what's ahead of him or her rather than the importance of the task that he or she are carrying out alone. This task used to be backed up by a ground engineer and this was his sole task and he was equipped for this, no matter what the environment or weather conditions offered. I see crew without raincoats substandard torches (iphone torch) trying to complete a task that is often pushed by time, and sometimes the must get home attitude(defects always logged on the home leg). I see many crew finding themselves in this situation often without any immediate engineering support on hand as a result of a industry wide cost reduction. Two sets of eyes were always better than one. It's a race to the bottom reducing cost, until unfortunately we see a catastrophic incident.
Blackbook I think you have gone straight to the heart of it.
In this particular case it is a pod strike, but there are 100 other potential cock-ups that are more likely to sneak through as a result of the constant reductions in systemic safety. Each policy change on its own looks like it can be safely initiated but it feels like we are getting to a point after chip chip chipping away where we are relying on a dose of luck and the pilots to get the aircraft away quickly and safely.
Not only has Engineering support be reduced, time available to sign on and get to the aircraft has remained the same while security takes longer and gates are further from the sign on locations. Add to that the ground staff with a clipboard scribbling down what time crew arrive at the aircraft ( read your 250 notams boys?) and the email you receive telling every company employee that the aircraft was 4 minutes late off blocks due to "Pilots" and the scene is set for people to rush and cut corners.
Not checking the bottom of the cowls is now just ops normal for many in a bid to satisfy folk who would stutter if you asked them to define safety.
Edited to ask: How many of you have gone more than five years without being checked or trained on conducting a walk-around? I have gone seven years now. It must be an unnecessary expense I guess.
In this particular case it is a pod strike, but there are 100 other potential cock-ups that are more likely to sneak through as a result of the constant reductions in systemic safety. Each policy change on its own looks like it can be safely initiated but it feels like we are getting to a point after chip chip chipping away where we are relying on a dose of luck and the pilots to get the aircraft away quickly and safely.
Not only has Engineering support be reduced, time available to sign on and get to the aircraft has remained the same while security takes longer and gates are further from the sign on locations. Add to that the ground staff with a clipboard scribbling down what time crew arrive at the aircraft ( read your 250 notams boys?) and the email you receive telling every company employee that the aircraft was 4 minutes late off blocks due to "Pilots" and the scene is set for people to rush and cut corners.
Not checking the bottom of the cowls is now just ops normal for many in a bid to satisfy folk who would stutter if you asked them to define safety.
Edited to ask: How many of you have gone more than five years without being checked or trained on conducting a walk-around? I have gone seven years now. It must be an unnecessary expense I guess.
Has Boeing got a prescribed walk around procedure like Airbus?
You just follow the diagram until it's memorised and then a walk around should be performed exactly the same everytime.
I've noticed most of my colleagues follow the same walk around pattern/procedure at my company.
You just follow the diagram until it's memorised and then a walk around should be performed exactly the same everytime.
I've noticed most of my colleagues follow the same walk around pattern/procedure at my company.
Yip. They have a prescribed single engine approach procedure as well. I have also heard that McDonalds have a prescribed procedure for making a cheeseburger and ensure that the procedure is adhered to as it is critical to the safety of their balance sheet
From the latest version of the FCOM;
the engine inlets and tailpipes are clear, the access panels are secured, the fan cowls are latched, the exterior, including the bottom of the nacelles, is not damaged, and the reversers are stowed
We're not flying the space shuttle boys. Nor are we flying the Constellation anymore.
A thorough check by an engineer once a day should be adequate, plus a thorough walk around by a pilot before each leg.
morno
A thorough check by an engineer once a day should be adequate, plus a thorough walk around by a pilot before each leg.
morno
Obviously we should be treating it a bit more like one. They'll both kill you if you miss something important and they are both mechanical machines hurtling through the atmosphere or above it at a great speed.
They also both have wings
They also both have wings
thorough check by an engineer once a day should be adequate, plus a thorough walk around by a pilot before each leg.
Agreed. I'm not convinced that the pilot walk around is as thorough as it was say ten years ago though.
Virgin pilots failed plane-check duties - smh.com.au
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference the Ryanair pod strike in 2009 mentioned above, here is the report.
http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...2011_007-0.PDF
http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...2011_007-0.PDF
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Porirua
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is some funny stuff there framer.I think we've all seen a walk-around or two and observed that they haven't looked at a bloody thing.Out of curiosity,how is a "hard" landing measured?On the Bus,319/320/321,anything over 300fpm requires inspection.I have to correct myself,that's for a overweight landing,but talking to my engineer mate,he says they use the same criteria for a "hard" ldg as well
....by the way the funny stuff I was referring to was the the hamburger post
....by the way the funny stuff I was referring to was the the hamburger post
Last edited by Pakehaboy; 11th May 2016 at 13:37.