View Full Version : Star of TV, L Zuckerman
Vfrpilotpb
8th Jul 2004, 18:40
Hey Lu,
Saw you on the box last evening, giving details on the Canadian Airbus Glider, some how had a different picture in my mind of how you would look!
PeterR-B
Vfr
RDRickster
8th Jul 2004, 19:10
Lu's profile said that he was a part-time male prostitute. I didn't see any gold chains or silk shirts to fit Lu's Gigalo lifesyle. :p
HeliEng
8th Jul 2004, 21:18
What was programme called? On Sky?? Repeat??
gizmocat
9th Jul 2004, 09:27
Seen last week. Aircrashinvestigations, National Geographic Channel.
Nice to put a face to the rotorhead Lu!
Great doco; 80nm glide!
Lu Zuckerman
9th Jul 2004, 21:04
To: RD Rickster
Lu's profile said that he was a part-time male prostitute. I didn't see any gold chains or silk shirts to fit Lu's Gigalo lifesyle.
RD I begged you not to tell anybody about what I do when I am not working. After our last encounter I could see that you might reveal me for what I was. My suspicions were correct.
As far as what I wear during my real job I dress accordingly. No flashy clothing, no gold chains and especially I do not use greasy creams to flatten out my hair. Also I do not refer to myself as a gigolo. I am a sex surrogate or better still a paid companion.
I can only assume that the members of this forum will keep quiet about my after hours activities.
:E :E :E :rolleyes:
Just saw it last night on the discovery channel.
I think the offical accident report missed the mark by blaming the pilots.
If you take it back to thr root cause, it is definitely engineering .
Lu Zuckerman
13th Nov 2004, 16:18
To: IHL
If you take it back to thr root cause, it is definitely engineering .
When you use the term “engineering” are you referring to maintainers-mechanics (engineer UK version) or are you referring to design engineers?
If you are referring to the latter then you are correct. On any major design program the product assurance organization would have created a design checklist to improve design for maintainability and reliability. A section of that checklist would deal with the design of parts so that they can be installed in only one way. In the case of the fuel and hydraulic lines they could be installed backwards. Installing them backwards decreased the clearance between the two lines allowing the hydraulic tube to abrade the fuel tube resulting in the fuel tube fracturing and the attendant massive leak.
Either there was no design checklist or engineering decided for their own reasons not to follow the checklist. Tech pubs did not pick up on the design deficiency and did not include any cautions or warnings relative to establishing the necessary clearance.
With no warning to check for clearance between the tubes the mechanics at Air Transat installed the tubes without any check on the clearance.
It should be noted that both GE and P&W suffered a similar defect resulting in minor leakage from a fuel tube. An AD was put out warning of the problem and a procedure was written to establish the clearance and the monitoring of the clearance to ensure it did not close up. This occurred long before the Air Transat glider incident but was never picked up by Rolls Royce.
According to my sources Air Transat took delivery of a new A-330 after the glider incident and when they checked the two lines they were touching each other. So much for learning from experience.
:E :E
Actually I was referring to both. Apparently the engineer who installed the lines had concerns with the installation but was over ruled by is supervisor.
heedm
13th Nov 2004, 22:01
IHL, absolutely agree that the root cause was not pilot, however the reason that we put people in the cockpit vice autoeverything is to deal with unusual situations. The way this emergency was dealt with was not according to regulations, was not logical, did not use good CRM and it led to a ditching. The ditching was diverted to a landing where the glide was not flown according to any published procedures and almost went off the runway down a cliff and into the ocean. The engines failed well above profile to make that landing, excess energy was purposely maintained almost resulting in catastrophe.
I think pilot error played a huge part and pilot heroism played no part.
Lu Zuckerman
14th Nov 2004, 00:51
Although the captain was portrayed as a bumbler he did everything according to published procedure. He was presented with a situation in which the computer monitoring system showed an increase of oil pressure and a decrease in oil temperature. This was caused by the impingement of super cold fuel on the oil heat exchanger. This particular situation was not a part of the training syllabus and as such it was presumed there was a computer error. This set in motion the Captains thoughts about computer irregularities.
The A-330 unlike similar Boeing aircraft has a delayed indication of a fuel imbalance. The leak was going on long before the pilots were warned of the imbalance. The operating procedure under the observed conditions was to open the crossfeed valve.
When the pilots determined that there was a possibility of a leak they requested the cabin staff to check out of the windows. Since it was nighttime they were unable to detect any fuel flow.
After the incident Airbus did two things. They changed the software to provide an indication of fuel imbalance once it is detected (within specified parameters).
They also created an AD that to my knowledge has not been officially released. This AD first of all blamed the situation on the pilots and this is never done. The text of the AD specified the actions to be taken when a leak is detected. The leak must be observed in order to determine the location of the leak. Once the location of the leak had been identified the pilot is instructed to operate or not operate the crossfeed valve depending on the location of the leak. This is all well and good but what if the leak occurs at night when the location of the leak can't be determined. Déjà vu all over again.
Before it was actually determined what caused the leak a fuel tube and a hydraulic tube were delivered to the accident aircraft.
To me it seems that Rolls Royce and/or Airbus knew exactly what had happened.
:E :E
Lu et al: I am very dubious of anything an EADS company would do or say whether its Airbus or EUROCOPTER.
For an interesting read check out : http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
Its a report of the A320 acident at Mulhouse Habsheim in France
( the official report determined pilot error).
There have also been numerous AS 350 accidents in which the aircraft rolled left/right unexplicably and always attributed to pilot error.