Originally Posted by
Fris B. Fairing
Forgive me if I haven't read the thread thoroughly enough but is the picture in post #10 of the incident aircraft? Furthermore, do we know for a fact that the pitot covers were left on? The preliminary report doesn't say that. Perhaps they were just being charitable?
Rgds
Yes it is a fact that the pitot covers were left on. ATSB preliminary reports are just a brief statement of facts about the flight (eg..... airspeed indications failed, they came back). They do not attribute any causes or suspected causes.
For the others here (speaking as a current aussie A330 pilot):
1) BNE has an ongoing mud wasp problem and it is standard procedure to leave pitot covers on until just before departure.
2) An open (ie, not signed off) tech log entry is required showing that covers are installed.
3) It is permissible to do the walkaround with the covers still on and this does happen when you arrive early at the aircraft. On the Airbus, the pilot
not flying the sector does the walkaround.
4) In our company, the tech log is checked by the Captain in front of the F/O, for being signed off with no open entries before authorising the final door to be closed. I imagine most other airlines would apply similar CRM procedures.
5) Our engineers will come to the cockpit with the covers and show them to us before signing off the covers as "removed" in the tech log.
6) The A330 has the item "Gear Pins and Covers - Removed" as a challenge-response in the Before Start Checklist.
7) Yes on the Airbus there is a "100 knots" call during the takeoff roll as an airspeed crosscheck. The response from the flying pilot is "Checked".
8) The ADR 1+2+3 Fault is inhibited between 80 knots and liftoff.
I have absolutely no idea why they actually got airborne. I would've thought it would have registered this fault before the 80 knots inhibition phase. In any case, they can't possibly have got to 100 knots without an airspeed discrepancy (ie, not increasing from what it was at the start of the takeoff roll)!