ATR down near Palermo (Merged) [Archive]

Nerik

6th Aug 2005, 15:26

At least 20 survivors. CNN was only speculating about the 11 dead. Nothing official yet.

For those who understand Italian, here is what RAI are saying on their website:

Palermo, 6 agosto 2005

Il velivolo era partito da Bari ed era in volo per Djerba, in Tunisia. Poi ha dovuto tentare un atterraggio di emergenza all'aeroporto di Palermo, ma qualcosa è andata male l'Atr 42 è finito in mare.

Il velivolo è stato avvistato a 13 km al largo di Palermo. A bordo c'erano 39 persone tra passeggeri e equipaggio. Secondo testimoni alcuni passeggeri sarebbero stati avvistati sulle ali del mezzo in mare mentre chiedono aiuto.

I soccorritori hanno già portato in salvo almeno 20 persone.

Il presidente dell'Enac (Ente Nazionale Aviazione Civile), Vito Riggio, ha detto che "l'Atr della Tunintair, un charter in volo da Bari all' isola di Djerba in Tunisia, aveva chiesto alla torre di controllo dell' aeroporto di Punta Raisi, di poter effettuare un atterraggio di emergenza".

"L' aereo - ha aggiunto - galleggia e non si sa ancora se vi siano vittime".

L'Atr della Tunisair aveva contattato il centro di controllo di Roma dichiarando un'avaria al motore e chiedendo di poter atterrare all'aeroporto di Punta Raisi.

Nell'ultimo contatto con la torre di controllo, alle 15.37 il pilota avrebbe detto: "Non ce la faccio ad atterrare, sto ammarando".

At least 5 dead.................:(

ctrevisan

6th Aug 2005, 15:33

RAI3 newsflash declared ship was TS-LBB (a 72).

readywhenreaching

6th Aug 2005, 16:10

actual links:

http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/08_Agosto/06/aereo.shtml
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050806-0
http://www.jacdec.de/news.htm

My condolences for all relatives and friends of the victims

flyboy2

6th Aug 2005, 16:39

Accident description

Status: Preliminary
Date: 06 AUG 2005
Time: 15:55
Type: ATR-72-202
Operator: Tuninter
Registration: TS-LBB
Msn / C/n: 258
Crew: ? fatalities / ? on board
Passengers: ? fatalities / ? on board
Total: 9 fatalities / 39 on board
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: 25 km (15.6 mls) off Palermo-Punta Raisi Airport (PMO) (Italy)
Phase: En route (ENR)
Nature: Int'l Non Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport: Bari-Palese Airport (BRI)
Destination airport: Djerba-Melita Airport (DJE)
Flightnumber: 1153
Narrative:
A Tuninter ATR was en route from Bari, Italy to Djerba, Tunisia when the aircraft reportedly developed engine problems. At 15:24 the crew contacted Palermo for an emergency landing. They did not make it to Palermo and ditched in the sea around 15:40. Coast guard vessels reportedly saw surivors on the wings of the floating airplane. At least nine persons are understood to have died.
Preliminary reports suggest that the airplane involved in the accident was TS-LBB.

Source: (also check out sources used for every accident)
ANSA, Reuters

Condolences to the victims relatives

The African Dude

6th Aug 2005, 17:21

Supposedly 24 confirmed survivors and 10 dead. Some unaccounted for.

Apparently the ditching followed an attempted landing at Palermo. Problems initiated by engine trouble according to ATC.

Shocked to hear CNN reporting that "It's not a normal jet, y'know it has wings...." I mean?!!

Anyway, aside from the reporters, Godspeed to all involved.

RiverCity

6th Aug 2005, 17:50

Shocked to hear CNN reporting that "It's not a normal jet, y'know it has wings...."
Was there a context to this statement?

The African Dude

6th Aug 2005, 17:52

The reporter was trying to say it was a t/prop (as opposed to jet) and talked a bit too quickly! It happens... :D

He said "...and propellors" after the quote I mentioned before.

readywhenreaching

6th Aug 2005, 18:03

at this point we have 19 fatalities and 20 survivors

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050806/ap_on_re_eu/italy_plane_crash_11

grf_81

6th Aug 2005, 18:51

Double engine problem during the same flight? it is a rare event****. what is matching 2 engne on the same aircaraft? For me is a problem of fuel ( contaminated?)

Bye

BaronChotzinoff

6th Aug 2005, 19:16

How can BOTH engines fail like that? - unless the wrong one was shut down, as in the Kegworth disaster.

LatviaCalling

6th Aug 2005, 20:35

FYI, following is an update from BBC:
---

Many die in jet crash off Sicily

The plane was headed to the Tunisian island of Djerba
At least 14 people were killed when a Tunisian passenger plane made an emergency landing in the sea off the Italian island of Sicily.
There were 39 passengers and crew on board the plane operated by a subsidiary of Tunisair, Tuninter.

At least 20 have been rescued, with many of them seriously injured. Five are still missing.

The plane was on its way from the southern Italian town of Bari to the Tunisian resort island of Djerba.

A full search and rescue operation quickly got under way at the crash site some 13km (eight miles) off the Sicilian coast, but rescuers now say no-one is left inside the plane.

The first survivors were landed in the Sicilian town of Palermo from a coastguard vessel just over two hours after the crash.

Two small children are among the dead, rescuers said.

Anxious relatives and friends gathered at Bari airport for news of the rescue operation.

One woman said as she was carried off the coastguard vessel that it was a miracle anyone survived.

Engine problems

Italian divers said they had managed to secure floats around the fuselage to prevent the aircraft from sinking.

Officials at Bari airport said most of the passengers were young Italian tourists. The crew of Flight TUI 1153 is said to be Tunisian.

Earlier on Saturday, the pilot of the plane advised air traffic control that he was trying to make an emergency landing at Palermo airport, but came down in the sea instead.

Chafik Garbi, who survived, reportedly told Italian aviation authorities after the crash that the motors lost power forcing him to make an emergency landing at sea, the AFP news agency reports.

"The plane had engine problems and was trying to land in Palermo and had to land in the sea," a spokeswoman for Italy's air safety agency told the Associated Press news agency earlier.

The aircraft was an ATR-72, a French-made twin-engine turbo-prop aircraft which can carry up to 72 passengers. It had earlier been reported to be an ATR-42.

lomapaseo

6th Aug 2005, 21:46

How can BOTH engines fail like that? - unless the wrong one was shut down, as in the Kegworth disaster.

Many things to be considered here. First off I don't5 think that it has been established that any engines actually failed, let alne the last remaining engines.

From what I gather they did declare an emergency due to an engine. OPossibly they even shut it down. The shut down procedure is now just one of many questions, since with a propellor proper feathering is important.

We really do need some more facts here, from the survivors as well as ATC.

pigboat

7th Aug 2005, 02:41

Does the ATR-72 have auto-feather?

320DRIVER

7th Aug 2005, 04:11

RAI is reporting that some passengers are suffering from burns.

captaink

7th Aug 2005, 07:06

Instead of being

ilsrwy12

7th Aug 2005, 09:49

good to hear that no body is "pinpointing" at this stage, few areas need to be highlighted:

let us analyse what might happened with the available datas:

over heading Palermo area, the flight should be above FL150 if not about cruising altitude (especially with the relatively light load 35 pax out of possibly 70 seats config).
crew reported tech.problem (assumimg engine failure), and then identifying the ALTN airfield, now coming to the SOP to shut down the sick engine, the probabilty to go for the healthy one is so slim , for two reasons:
1- flight is not on T/O phase that the crew might panic to commit that deadly mistake .
2- two heads following the SOP and ending killing the good engine is difficult to belieave.

we are left with the fuel contamination scenario !!! will wait for the investigation.

Now coming to ditching an ATR , and evacuate all pax before the fuselage submerge , is a very critical exercise, and i belieave with the number of survivors, crew did fairly good job.

our condolences and prayers to the passedaway pax , and let us wait for CVR and FDR.

Pegasus77

7th Aug 2005, 10:45

Could be anything... Thought of fuel starvation? (fuel leak or similar)
"Engine Problems" really could mean anything, and then nothing because it might be something completely different (journalists are sooo reliable... NOT).

My thoughts are with the victims.

P77

CosmosSchwartz

7th Aug 2005, 11:55

Having to ditch an airliner into the sea has to be the worst of all emergencies in my opinion. Getting even one survivor out in that scenario is a minor miracle, to get 20 is outstanding.

Good work crew.

Maude Charlee

7th Aug 2005, 12:24

Have to agree with Cosmos - excellent work to ensure any survivors at all, regardless what led to the ditching.

Although it may have been a bad week news wise for the industry, it also demonsrates to the public that accidents can be perfectly survivable, contrary to what most people probably believe.

Irishboy

7th Aug 2005, 13:04

Am I seeing things or is there a face in the window in this photo???

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1321322.jpg

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13403775,00.html

Dead on Time

7th Aug 2005, 13:13

Just saw on tv news down here, video taken last night of aircraft wing and centre section being lowered to a wharf after recovery. The rear fuselage was broken off immediately aft of the wing. The forward fuselage section was broken off immediately forward of the wing. The landing gear was still attached to the fuselage centre section.

The stbd engine complete with cowls was still attached to the wing and the propellor blades were not bent however the blades were feathered. Didn't see the port side. The wing appeared remarkably intact, don't recall seeing if the flaps were extended but would anticipate that if they were they would likely be damaged which did not appear to be the case.

Don't know if the fuselage damage occurred on impact or recovery. Did see on tv news last night a picture of the aircraft after ditching riding high on the water, but suspect it could have been an artists rendition.

DoT.

320DRIVER

7th Aug 2005, 14:09

Crew are described in serious but not life threatening condition mainly due head, spine and lung injuries. A female cabin crew is also in serious condition.

The refuelling truck which serviced this aircraft at Bari has been sealed pending the investigation. This does not imply any suspicion in the fuel but is a standard op in these accident investigation cases.

Italian authorities are "excluding" terrorism as a cause and a technical fault is thought to be the culprit.

Gufo

7th Aug 2005, 15:27

This morning at the crew briefing we all (AirOne) got a telex from FOPH, stating refuelling in BRI should NOT be considered as an option, on a temporary basis.
Probably only a precautionary issue, but it made lotta people think, I guess.

aardvark2zz

7th Aug 2005, 16:13

What a contrast between the mid-section being relatively in "good" shape with the attached flaps, cowled engines, wing skins, unbent props, and the landing gear still attached when compared to the complete ripping of the nose and tail.

Any suggestions for the significant contrast.

http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/000atr.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y201/JG1_Rathofer/atr42.jpg

320DRIVER

7th Aug 2005, 16:19

I think that this just demonstrates that the wing box area is one of the structurally strongest parts of the aircraft. The forward and aft sections would probably have broken away and sunk after being flooded, while the central part of the fuselage would have been kept afloat by the bouyancy provided by the space in the fuel tanks.

Its good news both engine were recovered which should aid the investigation. Don't know if the recorders were found as well and just as a side note, the depth of the sea in that area quickly goes down to about 1000m.

clearfinalsno1

7th Aug 2005, 16:20

This news article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1724535,00.html) in August 7th's Sunday Times newspaper mentions that whilst some of the survivors stayed on the ditched aircraft's wing, others started swimming towards the shore.

Surely attempting to swim to shore from a daylight ditching is the worst thing you can do. I am fit, healthy and relatively young. It is year's since I attempted to swim a mile in my local indoor pool. That people might be able to get to shore, fully clothed in the sea is a fantasy I would say unless they are less than half a mile from a beach. Consider the old, children, pregnant women etc. I always bear this in mind when flying single-engine light aircraft over water - 2 miles from the shore may as well be 200.

Clearly the lure of a distant shoreline might be irresistable when the thought of drowning before rescue is on one's mind. However, it is very hard to judge distances when bobbing in the water. When the rescue services do eventually get on the scene, they will find the wreckage and a group of survivors much more easily than a few lone swimmers who are somewhere in between the shore and the aircraft.

So my question to the forum is: Should cabin crew brief passengers (in this and all future accidents) that in the event of ditching, the best chance of survival is to stay with the wreckage and not attempt to swim to shore (unless it is advised pre-ditching by the pilots to be VERY close) ? Opinions please.

lomapaseo

7th Aug 2005, 16:32

So my question to the forum is: Should cabin crew brief passengers (in this and all future accidents) that in the event of ditching, the best chance of survival is to stay with the wreckage and not attempt to swim to shore (unless it is advised pre-ditching by the pilots to be VERY close) ? Opinions please.

No

The cabin crew is trained and experienced by training to assist in people using emergency exits and inflating life vests.

Neither the cabin or cockpit crew are experienced or trained in how far to swim or whether to float with a current to the nearest land vs staying with a sinking aircraft. Thus, the decsison making is both as a collective survivors group and/or individual and not necessarily the responsibility of crew members that happen to be survivors,

Farmer 1

7th Aug 2005, 16:57

No, that's wrong.

You stay together, as a group, all of you, with the aircraft / vessel / car or whatever you happen to be with at the time, always.

Rescuers will be looking for the mode of transport. They know what it is and what it looks like, and it will be many times larger and easier to see than a single person, whether he is in the sea or on land.

If the aircraft or vessel sinks, it changes things, of course, but you must remain together. Twenty people are a hundred times easier to see than one person. In addition, individuals can gain support, both physical and moral, from the others.

Remember - no wandering off. Rule 1 of 1.

7th Aug 2005, 17:09

Been a while since I flew TP's but in the above photos, it looks to me like both props are feathered. Presumably (hopefully) this is a result of crew action just before ditching....? Any ATR drivers out there care to comment on the ditching process.

Condolences to those affected.

A4 :(

Konkordski

7th Aug 2005, 17:35

Been a while since I flew TP's but in the above photos, it looks to me like both props are feathered. Presumably (hopefully) this is a result of crew action just before ditching....?

Any chance an autofeather would have kicked in if the engines were winding down?

SmolaTheMedevacGuy

7th Aug 2005, 18:13

Feathering of both engines is a part of Ditching checklist. As for the autofeather - it's armed only during takeoff, or go-around

marsipulami

7th Aug 2005, 18:54

This just reminds me of a strange story.

It happened to be a flame out after flying for 1 hour on an engine of a similar turboprop. Investigation revelaled likely flame out due to water in the fuel.

Then looking back, before that particular flight, the aircraft had been parked for four days in high temperatures in high humidity.
During the night, temperatures went down quite well, hence causing a lot of condensation in the tanks. Especially in that case, with tanks quite empty.

Image how much water will be found in the tanks after four days!

Just wanted to share this.

The thoughts are with the families.

Clandestino

7th Aug 2005, 19:17

ATR's ditching checklist contains both feathering through condition levers, acting on PCU, and pulling both fire handles, which feather props via separate electric pumps. Autofeather works only during take-off and go around, when TQ is above 53% so if one engine winds down when the other is below that (on approach it's around 25% for ATR42 with PWC-120) you won't get any autofeathering. 42 normally uses 30° flaps for approach and landing but there's 45° available for ditching and emergency landing and it reduces Vapp to 95kt @ MLM. I'm not sure if 72s have that flap setting. Other items in checklist call for closing outflow valves, checking the gear is up and aiming for pitch attitude of +9° at splashdown.
What I was taught in groundschool about ditching is: swim away from aircraft but when you're far enough (60m methinks) form a group, collect all survivors and stay close together. Our instructors never thought that the ditched plane is good floating device.
I really, really hope that CVR&FDR will be recovered. Also hoping that our colleagues make it.

Alpine Flyer

8th Aug 2005, 05:06

At a very recent emergency training the issue of "how far can you swim" was discussed in our company and we were strongly advised against attempting any swimming farther than about 1000m.

Getting half the occupants out of after ditching a high-wing airplane on open waters, even if the weather is fine, is quite a feat. Local media in Austria rather called it a "failure" which shows the usual lack of aviatic insight we have to endure every time.........

Sunfish

8th Aug 2005, 06:16

For goodness sake don't even thinkl about trying to swim 1000m. You will never make it unless you are particularly fit and the water is very, very warm.

Stay with the wreckage while it is floating and remain in a group. Your chances of being spotted as a swimming individual are virtually zero.

And for any Europeans visiting the Australian outback, if you are in a car accident or a crashed light aircraft for goodness sake stay with the wreck.

CargoOne

8th Aug 2005, 09:44

In my previous life I have completed SOLAS (Safety of the life at sea) programme and can tell you that if you are more or less good swimmer (not a sportsman!), water is above +18C, no storm and no panic (important) you can swim for ~3000+ meters without supporting equipment (like a life vest). I did it myself and I'm big, fat & lazy..

However the temperature is the most important factor. If it is below +10C then it doesnt matter how good you are... If it is a winter and water is about +4C then you have 3 to 5 minutes to make the life raft. There should be a life raft onboard for such a flights, isn't it? Why it wasn't deployed?

320DRIVER

8th Aug 2005, 10:42

CVR and FDR recovery hampered by depth of sea in that area at over 1000m. Most victims succumbed to impact injuries, only 3 perished from drowning as reported on Italian TV this afternoon.

Fuel still under scrutiny but no elements pointing to that direction as opposed to other technical causes.

Survivors said little or no info from crew regarding imminent ditching although it was obvious that the aircraft had problems. This of course has to be confirmed officially.

Check 6

8th Aug 2005, 10:52

A passenger told an Italian TV reporter that the flight attendant was screaming and no ditching safety briefing given, including no one told to put on seat belts and no explanation of bracing position to assume before impact.

:ouch:

320DRIVER

8th Aug 2005, 11:09

Yet to be confirmed reports state that the port engine was the one which started to have problems followed by the starboard.
The port engine had been recently "repaired" due to FOD damage according to Canale 5 news.

Approx 350 litres of fuel were uplifted from Bari, also according to Canale 5.

Gufo

8th Aug 2005, 12:18

350 litres???!? What is that, a C152? Sounds weird, to me. Maybe quantity indication failure?

Konkordski

8th Aug 2005, 12:28

Yet to be confirmed reports state that the port engine was the one which started to have problems followed by the starboard.

Heard this morning it was the other way round - but, as you say, yet to be confirmed.

OldAg84

8th Aug 2005, 14:26

First, my thoughts go out to the victems.

This may be a little off track, but what is the prevailing wisdom; or actual ditching experiences; regarding high-wing vs. low wing aircraft? Which fare better?

clearfinalsno1

8th Aug 2005, 14:26

Thanks for your responses to my earlier question on whether to swim for shore or tread water at the scene. There seems to be broad agreement (myself included) that it is important to stay in a group next to the wreckage.

The only scenario that I can imagine where swimming to the shore is better is when engine problems develop over terrain that is built-up or very rough (rocks or forests etc) and an adjacent body of water is available. This might be a city centre river, estuary or lake and possibly the sea. The pilot deliberately makes the ditching parallel and VERY close (say under 100m) to the shoreline.

Every other forced landing in the sea where the coastline happens to be in sight should be considered coincidence. Hence, my opinion is that it should be standard practice for cabin crew (on confirmation from the pilots) to brief passengers that following ditching they should NOT attempt to swim to the shore, and stay together outside the aircraft.

Finally, a different point. From the pictures of the wreckage posted above, it appears the main gear was slightly lowered. Clearly it is better to ditch gear up. Did the crew make a mistake, did the gear fail in flight, or has it lowered itself slightly due to severing of the hydraulic systems that normally retract it?

PaperTiger

8th Aug 2005, 15:34

...no one told to put on seat belts...

They needed to be told ?? The mind boggles.

Capt Pit Bull

8th Aug 2005, 15:47

350 litres???!? What is that, a C152? Sounds weird, to me. Maybe quantity indication failure?

Not a C152, but a very fuel efficient TP. 350 liters is good for about 35 minutes flying in a 72 iirc, its been a while since I flew them.

Uplifts of the order of a few hundred kilos are not uncommon.

cpb

er340790

8th Aug 2005, 16:22

Interesting that the forced landing on water was survivable in a high-wing turboprop. One wonders whether the same would have happened in a jet transport with low slung wing-mounted engines.

Also definitely stay with the wreckage/survivors. As a fit AS&R volunteer and seaplane pilot I can manage just 2nm / hour in warm water and ideal conditions - the slightest adverse current or wind could totally negate this, leaving any swimmer both exhausted and separated from the group. As they say 'survivors are found in dinghies, fatalities are found in lifejackets'. It's only a question of time.

Farmer 1

8th Aug 2005, 16:30

Quote:

"...no one told to put on seat belts...

They needed to be told ?? The mind boggles."

Tiger, you've obviously led a very sheltered life. May you always be so fortunate.

BOAC

8th Aug 2005, 16:34

.........and assuming they knew they were ditching, of course?

PaperTiger

8th Aug 2005, 16:38

...you've obviously led a very sheltered life...

Obviously.

"Ladies and gentlemen, both engines have failed and we are going to ditch. Feel free to move about the cabin" :hmm:

...and assuming they knew they were ditching...

Flights from Italy to Tunisia routinely operate a few feet above the ocean I suppose :zzz:

effortless

8th Aug 2005, 16:40

Passengers were complaining on take off apparently. The start up seemed to them a bit ropey. Still what would they know?

Check 6

8th Aug 2005, 17:00

Passengers from Southern Italy routinely ignore the need to wear seatbelts. Before an airline leaves the runway on landing, it is most common for many pax to be out of their seats and then retrieve their carry-ons from the overhead and head for the door.

Announcements from the cabin crew do little to coax them back to their seats.

Fasten seatbelt sign? What is that?

The media has reported that all pax were from S. Italy, where Bari of course is located.

I live in Southern Italy most of the year.

jabird

8th Aug 2005, 23:30

Are there any reports about:

a) The number of pax who were wearing life jackets?
b) If any mention was made of such devices at any time (if no mention of seat belts, one would assume not)
c) If pax did manage to put on life jackets AND inflate them correctly after exiting the aircraft, did they then survive - report merely mentions 3 drownings.

I accept there is a lot of speculation here, but I have always been curious about the justifications for having life jackets on board, considering that even if 70% of the earth's surface is water, most a/c with problems will have time to find a strip of land to put themselves down on, and that landing on water with hull intact seems to be so much more difficult than a lay person would think (without getting calculators out to understand the physics).

This incident would appear to be a case where the life jackets do have a genuine safety (rather than re-assurance) benefit, but aren't such occurences few and far between?

16 blades

9th Aug 2005, 00:10

In answer to an earlier question, high-wing aircraft have the worst ditching characteristics. Assuming one can ditch and keep the airframe intact (very difficult), any buoyancy provided by the wings (due to the fuel / air in the tanks) will mean the cabin settling well below the surface.

On the sea survival aspects, bear this in mind - even in a warm summer, sea temps around the UK rarely get above 16 deg C. (sea temps achieve their peak much later in the year than air temps). Now that may not seem THAT cold, but because water is so much better at conducting heat away from the body, you will very quickly succumb to hypothermia, even at this relatively mild temperature. Figures of about 20-30 mins before onset of hypothermia in an unprotected (read no immersion suit) casualty are about right.

In terms of swimming for shore vs staying together, there are two main factors at play here. Firstly, swimming will cool your body temp down FAR quicker than staying still and floating, preferably with arms / legs tucked in if possible. Secondly, having been involved in maritime searches before, a lone survivor will be ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to spot from typical visual search heights (200-250ft - assuming one is using a FW aircraft). One can JUST ABOUT spot a 1-man dinghy with a bright orange cover at these heights, and only if you happen to be looking straight at it.

In summary - best bet is to stay together, keep still, and wait for rescue.

Condolences to those who lost loved ones in this tragedy.

16B

UNCTUOUS

9th Aug 2005, 07:05

Now sounding possibly like the Tuninter mechs blew the maint on the a/c's prop-brakes (See story below) - and they engaged inflight and burnt out and seized. Hotel mode was introduced on the ATR planes to avoid needing an APU installation. The SAAB 340 has a similar system, but few airlines ever use it. It's primarily a maintenance issue.

LOT and Eurolot generally uses ATR72 ground power and starts the Hotel mode just before disconnection of ext GPU and normal startup of the engines..

Hotel mode means prop brake "on" and gives DC and Air Conditioning availability. All ground operations are available so you can open cargo door, toilet works, refill fuel will also be possible. At any airport where there's no DC ext power available and higher outside air temps, Hotel mode is used. The passenger door is on the shut-down number 1 (i.e. left-hand) side. The number 2 prop is left spinning because the cabin and cockpit lighting is powered by the AC Wild system and, if the number 2 eng is in hotel mode, it is not providing power to the AC system, just DC power. i.e. with no external GPU pwr, you couldn't see in the cabin and cockpit at night?

At any Airport where the taxi or holding is going to be more than 20 mins, they use Eng #1 running and Eng #2 Hotel mode - so less fuel burned and each year, given the cost of fuel, it makes a big difference.

Plane passengers had been concerned about engine noise

FOREBODING: Before the ill-fated Tunisia-bound flight even got off the ground, people aboard the plane were worried that something was amiss

THE GUARDIAN , ROME
Tuesday, Aug 09, 2005,Page 6

Survivors of a weekend plane crash off the coast of Sicily in which at least 13 people died have said they were so concerned about noise from the engines during the flight that a passenger got up to ask the captain what was going on.

Twenty-three people out of 39 aboard, including the pilot and co-pilot, survived after both engines on the twin-prop plane failed and the aircraft was forced to ditch in the Mediterranean. Three people are still missing, thought to be trapped in the submerged fuselage, and the plane's flight recorder has yet to be recovered.

According to passengers, they were uneasy about the condition of the turbo-prop plane operated by Tuninter, an affiliate of Tunisair, from the minute it rose into the air. One woman said she had a sense of foreboding while the aircraft was still on the ground because the pilot had trouble starting one of the engines. One of the propellers was also stuck and was moving slowly but then got going properly.

"I was worried but I'm a nervous flyer and I never really thought anything would happen," she said. She and her 11-year-old daughter survived the crash but her husband died.

Roberto Fusco, who was on board the plane with his girlfriend, said: "During the flight we heard these strange noises. They were so worrying that one of the passengers, a big man with a flowered shirt, got up and went to the pilots' cabin to ask the captain what was going on. We knew something wasn't right from the beginning."

The 25-year-old passenger told what happened as the plane, which was flying from the Italian town of Bari to the Tunisian resort of Djerba, got into difficulties and began to lose altitude.

"At a certain point the right engine failed and the propeller stopped and they said there was an emergency," he said.

"The plane started to lose power and height. Then the other engine stalled and there was panic. The cabin crew didn't speak Italian very well but they told us to put on our lifejackets. Then there was a terrible impact."

His girlfriend, Ilaria Lo Bosco, 23, said: "Roberto and I had our arms around each other. Other people were shouting and crying. I saw a woman holding her baby tightly, tightly to her chest. Then we were in the water. Roberto saved me. He undid my seatbelt and got us out."

She said she saw the baby, who she had been playing with during the flight, being dragged from his mother's arms by the force of the impact into the sea.

Another survivor Gianluca La Forgia described darkness and a rush of cold water up to his neck as the fuselage split open. He said the experience was "like being in a film."

He and his girlfriend, Annalisa Susca, clung to one of the wings of the wrecked plane as they awaited rescue.

"We stayed on it for more than an hour but it wasn't easy because the waves were washing over us," she said.

9gmax

9th Aug 2005, 08:31

Propeller brake (hotel mode) is installed on right-hand engine only... that does not give an answer to why the left engine stopped.
Engagement of hotel mode in-flight is highly improbable, as a certain logic is required (pb selected, weight on wheels, gust lock engaged, c.l in feather, blue pressure available..), and even if it engages inflight, one still has dc power and bleed air available from that right engine, plus a good engine on the left side... that's no reason for ditching.
Don't blame mechs before you get the facts, and always be very careful with pax comments... "strange noises" will always be part of the prop community to an outsider.
Probably hotel mode was used prior to departure, reason being why passengers saw a prop "being stuck.."
As for those P&W engines, they're so reliable... hard to believe that both would seize simultaneously..
Just wait and see, let the professionals do their work..

threemiles

9th Aug 2005, 09:45

Wonder how we will get the facts with the recorders still not been recovered from 1000m depth. Were the pilots interviewed yet? Will the be a press release somewhen?

Latest news speculation is that the plane was not properly fueled at Bari, if fuelled at all. It had come in from a ferry flight and turned around in 20 minutes or so.

With more than 520 NM distance between Bari and Djerba it is more than unlikely that it carried enough fuel for the return flight when arriving, even if it came from Tunis which is a little closer.

Nothing more than speculations obviously...

blackmail

9th Aug 2005, 11:45

hello every one,

very sad story indeed.
i just heard on italian tv news, investigators concentrate on fuel issues &/or human error, quoting from pictures of the wing section in the water, no traces of kerosene are evident, speculating they were maybe running on empty?

well. ... both july & august 2005 will go into history as very bloody indeed for the tourist industry: sharm & london terror, af a340 overrun in toronto(no fatalities though), atr ditching off pmo.

iceman51

9th Aug 2005, 16:43

Some images are available (34 in total)

here (http://www.repubblica.it/2003/e/gallerie/cronaca/rotamiaer/1.html)

and

here (http://www.repubblica.it/2003/e/gallerie/cronaca/aereopa/1.html)

320DRIVER

9th Aug 2005, 21:15

Latest report appears to show that there was still fuel remaining in the tanks in the recovered wreckage.

320DRIVER

10th Aug 2005, 14:28

Recovery costs for the recorders and possibly some parts of the ditched ATR 72 lying on the bottom are likely to be around 1.5 million Euros.

LEM

10th Aug 2005, 15:41

The propeller brake is strong enough just to slow down and stop a feathered prop.

It's not strong enough to slow or stop a functioning engine.

When you start the engines, you could just hold the propellers still with your hand! It's a free turbine, you know...

Dead on Time

10th Aug 2005, 16:43

Thanks iceman 51 for the links to the photos. Can't help but notice the wing floating on the ocean has lots of buoyancy, so much that with the inboard leading edge only just submerged the wing trailing edge is well clear of the water surface to the extent that the flap pivot fairings are only just touching the water. With the mass of the wing, engines, props, gear and the centre section of the fuselage dragging it down something is providing enough buoyancy to keep it all afloat. Presumably the wing internal cavities are all vented and would flood, leaving to my simple mind only empty or nearly empty fuel tanks (6,400 litres capacity according to specs for ATR72 but don't know the exact model) providing buoyancy to keep it all afloat. Anyone who knows the aeroplane care to comment?

Heard today but have absolutely no verification; the aeroplane loaded 3,000 litres (2,400 kgs) for the flight to Bari. For the return, at Bari was topped with 240 kgs (300 litres), could it have been that the intention was to load 2,400kgs and that for the loss of a zero an incorrect amount was loaded with consequent tragic results? An intriguing thought but coupled with the buoyancy keeping the wreckage afloat....

Well, it is a rumour network!

DoT

Hotel Mode

10th Aug 2005, 18:15

ATR only burns about 700kgs per hour, so 2400kg sounds like a round trip fuel plan with some topping off. It also adds 0 fuel burn carrying fuel. We often used to take 4 sectors worth out of cheap stations if we could.

amanoffewwords

10th Aug 2005, 20:54

Corriere della Sera reports that airline co. procedure require pilot(s) to test the fuel (after refill) for the presence of water by throwing some chemicals in tablet form into the tanks. If water is present they change the colour of the fuel - PIC says this didn't happen in this case and he wrote accordingly in a log which is the hands of the investigating judge.

Link (in Italian) (http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/08_Agosto/10/atr.shtml)

Elsewhere in the Corriere it was reported that the water temperature in the area of the crash was 26 degrees celsius which probably helped lessen the casualties. Three pax are still missing though, probably trapped under water.

amofw

ATC Watcher

10th Aug 2005, 21:47

A rumour tonight that " wrong fuel" could have been used . ( Corsican TV )

A stupid question for a mechanic out there : Speculation : would 300 liters of Avgas added to over a ton of kerosene cause sthat kind of dammage in a turbine ?

Trentino

10th Aug 2005, 23:31

It really makes me feel bad this this crash has so little media coverage offered to it. I guess cause it was 'just' an African ATR and there were 'only' Italians onboard. (wink wink)
Maybe I said too much.

P.s....My old chief told me that you can take a wee wee in a turbine and it will still run, maybe the avgas was added long before the crash?
ok I really said too much

amanoffewwords

10th Aug 2005, 23:33

The wrong fuel theory has apparently been discounted by the investigators since the bowser that served the ATR in Bari also served later aircraft that didn't report/suffer any problems.

Again, that's from the Corriere (http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/08_Agosto/08/carburante.shtml)

Belgique

11th Aug 2005, 03:18

DIRTY fuel or a volcanic cloud might have affected the engines of the plane that crashed off the coast of Sicily at the weekend, Italian media reported yesterday.

Clouds of ash and gas from the active Sicilian volcanoes Etna and Stromboli could have extinguished both engines of the Tuninter plane before it plunged tail-first into the Mediterranean, La Nazione speculated.

Twenty-three people survived the crash, which killed 13.

A pilot flying in the same area at the time of the crash, identified only as BR, told the newspaper that planes had warned of the risk of volcanic clouds between 2100m and 3900m. A plane flying through a volcanic cloud would lose power in both its engines simultaneously, he said. Otherwise, there was more chance of being hit by lightning than to lose both engines.

320DRIVER

11th Aug 2005, 10:37

Belgique, that sounds like total and utter b*ll*cks to me. I flew over the area 30 min before the crash, alebeit a few '000 feet higher and there wasn't a cloud to be seen for miles, let alone a volcanic ash one..

Konkordski

11th Aug 2005, 11:42

It really makes me feel bad this this crash has so little media coverage offered to it.

Good grief. I despair at this forum sometimes...one minute you're all complaining that an air crash turns into a media circus, next you're whining that there's nothing in the papers.

Check 6

11th Aug 2005, 11:46

320 driver is spot on. Even if Etna was spitting, it would have taken an easterly, southerly or south-easterly wind to move the ash over that area.

Stromboli rarely spits anything very high.

Check 6

threemiles

11th Aug 2005, 13:12

With 520NM each leg then 2400 kgs or even 2640 kgs does not appear to be enough fuel for a full round trip with adequate reserves.

Any comments?

Belgique

11th Aug 2005, 13:26

Sounded a little weird to me too - that volcanic ash should go unnoticed in broad daylight, although pyroclastic (rock-spitting) Strombolian volcanoes all over the World are well-known for emitting, not ash, but plumes of rising gas. Whether that might affect engines and not pax if flown through momentarily, who knows?

Looks like it's back to running outa gas or, more likely, because of the concern shown by pax about the engine noises even before take-off, possible mismanaged maintenance on both engines (the classic ETOPS nightmare scenario).

Doubt that any Whyalla Airlines type double engine failure scenario could happen on a turbo-prop.... i.e. the added stress on #2 after #1's failure led rapidly to the total failure of an engine that was already sick due to long-term operating practises (to do with leaning out).

trainer too 2

11th Aug 2005, 14:16

One woman said she had a sense of foreboding while the aircraft was still on the ground because the pilot had trouble starting one of the engines. One of the propellers was also stuck and was moving slowly but then got going properly.

In my world that is a normal start for a turbo prop... unless proven otherwise by the FDR's... Pax are usully not the best sources of information.. :ooh:

Trentino

11th Aug 2005, 15:02

Good Grief Konkordski, I was comparing the media coverage of the ATR to the 340 excursion in Toronto.
No I dont think coverage that was given to the 340 was appropriate,the excursion was really not bad.
Fast forward to the ATR, this was truly someting worth noting and here in the U.S it received about 2 minutes of coverage and not that much either in Italy on RAI

Konkordski

11th Aug 2005, 15:15

Trentino

- I appreciate your point, and agree that, if you're talking about the A340 coverage, there was a huge imbalance.

But that's for a number of reasons:

- the Toronto incident involved a bigger aircraft, more passengers, and plenty of live pictures, so reader interest was greater.

- the investigators in Canada were sharp off the mark in providing regular updates, aided by the fact that the CVR/FDR recovery was swift. Canada's safety board has also taken the trouble to organise press briefings - have you seen a single Italian one yet?

- the A340 accident involved Air France, a much more high-profile carrier than Tuninter. Incidents with bigger companies are more likely to affect your audience.

- there's very little to report from the ATR incident. It's a slow-moving investigation because half the aeroplane is still underwater (along with the recorders).

vonbag

11th Aug 2005, 19:17

Good day / evening / night to all,

Congratulations to you all on your fantastic forum, full of information and variety!
In theme with the present conversation, besides greeting you all real life masters of the air, I wanted to report that it looks like the case temporarily regressed to "finger pointing at the pilot's error(s)";
in fact, according to Italian news sites, the pilot, despite his argumented defence, officially received an "avviso di garanzia" (my apologies, I do not know about legal terminology in English) in which he's being requested to appear in front of the It. justice with the charge of potential manslaughter.
http://www.repubblica.it/2005/h/sezioni/cronaca/atrpa2/copilota/copilota.html

ATC Watcher

11th Aug 2005, 20:03

Danm It ! you are right ! It was the pilot all along !

Why bother spending over a million euros trying to recover the CVR/FDR, send the buggar in jail and we can close the case .

His dudeness

11th Aug 2005, 21:48

@Belgique
What do you mean with:
"to do with leaning out" ???

amanoffewwords

11th Aug 2005, 21:50

Why bother spending over a million euros trying to recover the CVR/FDR.

Don't forget the three missing bodies...

320DRIVER

12th Aug 2005, 00:18

According to RaiNews website, co-pilot states that as far as he can remember, all emergency procedures following the first engine failure were carried out correctly.

The fuel analysis from the bowser in Bari did not yield abnormal results and the bowser has been released to service again. A check of the fuel filters from the recovered wreckage did not yield any impurities.

Co-pilot mentions that following the first engine failure they requsted asisted from the "on-board mechanic"..? Do Tuninter have a flight-engineer/ground mechanic on every flight?

threemiles

12th Aug 2005, 05:48

I can't understand why there is so few information from the interviews, I mean when I try to read the Italian article I can't see any indication about a pilot's statement if
- the engines just stopped by itself (very strange)
- the engines were shutdown by the pilots due to what failure/warning indication

If the fuel filters were checked any other major damage on the engines would be evident by now, wouldn't it?

Very odd to me.
Just my 2 €c.

europilot

12th Aug 2005, 08:30

His dudeness,

"to do with leaning out" ???

Nothing to do with the original thread but Whyalla Airlines WAS a low capacity RPT operation which had a crash in a Chieftain (PA31) some time in the late 90ies, it had a double engine failure on a RPT run from Adelaide to Whyalla (South Australia). The pilot did a text book ditching at night but unfortunately everybody on board died from drowning.

The ATSB investigation found that the double engine failure occured due to to extensive leaning of engines (the pilots were under pressure from management to save fuel) and a bad batch of engines from the manufacture...the company got shut down by the authorities.

EP

lomapaseo

12th Aug 2005, 12:45

threemiles

I can't understand why there is so few information from the interviews, I mean when I try to read the Italian article I can't see any indication about a pilot's statement if

as in most criminal investigations the authorities don't release their day to day inquisitions to the public. Don't expect to hear anything for a year or so.

Do expect to hear from the investigators whatever they find out not associated with a blame factor.

OVERTALK

12th Aug 2005, 12:46

Starting to suspect that the mechanic they called forward after the first engine failure may have screwed up the crossfeed for them, cutting off fuel to the good engine. Shades of the 13 Aug 04 Air Tahoma Flt 185 crash (a CV580 without any engine failures at all)

The mech wasn't strapped in and was killed in transiting the windscreen during the ditching (at least I believe I read that somewhere).

If that was the case it might be difficult for the investigators to reach that conclusion. Definitive DFDR data and physical evidence might not be available.

clarityinthemurk

12th Aug 2005, 13:03

The following report just issued about a forced engine shut-down on an ATR due to zero fuel may be of relevance to this accident. It shows what can happen with a busy crew and schedule delays.

http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=6875&lang=ENG&loc=1652

effortless

12th Aug 2005, 17:34

Castle Donnington seems to chime with this one as well.

Nite Prowler

13th Aug 2005, 12:26

Lets hope the investigation is done as quickly as possible but don't hold your breath.

Hand Shandy

13th Aug 2005, 13:37

wotsyors here`s one for you what happens if the fuel pumps were not selected on prior to engine start .

threemiles

13th Aug 2005, 14:25

Hand Shandy

the engines won't start, won't they

captaink

13th Aug 2005, 16:12

Instead of being

atr42500

13th Aug 2005, 18:50

hi guys

I agree on the engine being fed by gravity but don t forget if you switch the fuel pumps off you also close the motive flow valve so neither the electrical nor the jet pump will work on that side .

with no LP pump working you put lot of strengh on the HP pump i believe so.

atr42500

13th Aug 2005, 21:17

wotsyors

if you fly the atr then you better take a tech refresh , it would be better for everyone

my friend

n5205e00421

13th Aug 2005, 23:05

Hello,

Indeed switching of the Fuel Pump pushbutton also closes the motive flow that powers the jet pump. The suction from the engine driven high pressure pump should be able to start up the engine and keep it running but you will have a "Feed Lo Pr" warning, the white "OFF" light in the Pump Pushbutton, and a "Fuel" warning on the CCAS panel. I think it is quite unlikely to fly around for some time without knowing the pumps are selected off.

L.

tarik123

14th Aug 2005, 18:53

I only can think of 4 reasons to lose 2 engines

1- Volcanic ash
2- Contaminated fuel
3- Fuel leak and then open fuel crossfeed
4- Very unluky crew that just lost 2 engines

Chronic Snoozer

14th Aug 2005, 18:54

5. Loss of one, inadvertant shutdown of the good one.

Farmer 1

14th Aug 2005, 19:28

6. Insufficient fuel uplifted.

smiert spionom

17th Aug 2005, 17:22

You can start up the engines with fuel pumps off, but if you don't turn them on before feeder compartment is empty, the engines will stop. It happened to the no longer excisting Gill Air in the uk years back, the capt. however realized the mistake fast enough to save the other engine by putting the fuel pumps back on before the 2nd engine would die too.
Smiert

manossky

18th Aug 2005, 00:49

Required fuel for that trip would be 2,367 kg plus company fuel.
Sometime fuel readout is not accurate,and adding mistakes on log about fuel burned can make it even worse,for the next coming flights,getting then a few hundred kilos before the departure would lead to the case where u thin u have fuel but you dont.
In a few words fuel starvation during flight.

What about drip-stick fuel metering? that would have saved the situation

fuel low level rings on 160 kg per tank(if i remember well)

with all the respect to the persons involved to that accident

:ok:

amanoffewwords

18th Aug 2005, 21:17

for info, one of the recording devices has been located by the Italian Navy - 1440m below the surface of the water [or at least the ULB has been detected].

Source (in Italian) (http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/08_Agosto/18/scatola_nera.shtml)

amofw

320DRIVER

30th Aug 2005, 22:06

Both CVR and FDR recovered. From TV pics, external condition appears good.

Check 6

31st Aug 2005, 06:56

Aviation International News reports that the FDR was recovered on 30 August, and the CVR and three remaining victims recovered on 29 August.

amanoffewwords

4th Sep 2005, 08:03

More info:

The Corriere della Sera (http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/09_Settembre/02/atr.shtml) has a picture of the plane as it floated on the sea - apparently in one piece (previous reports said that it had broken up on impact).

Link to image:
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/09_Settembre/02/pop_aereo.shtml

amofw

LEM

4th Sep 2005, 09:42

That's quite strange.... so the wings box must have separated later.... maybe it was 99% saparated, when suddenly a wave did the final job...
:confused: :confused:

RatherBeFlying

4th Sep 2005, 19:30

I see wings joined to rear fuselage joined to empennage.

I don't see the forward fuselage in this picture.

Possibly the forward fuselage broke off, but from this picture, it could go either way.

That said, my surmise from this picture is that the forward fuselage broke off.

GrahamCurry

4th Sep 2005, 21:54

>>I don't see the forward fuselage in this picture.
>>Possibly the forward fuselage broke off, but from this picture, it could go either way.
>>That said, my surmise from this picture is that the forward fuselage broke off.

*******************************

I definately saw photos (from links on this forum) that showed the forward fuselage severed with the rescue crews around the 'wreckage'.

amanoffewwords

4th Sep 2005, 22:05

Bit more info: from the Italian press association ANSA (http://www.ansa.it/main/collezioni/maincollection/awnplus_italia/2005-09-03_1163247.html) : some lawyers acting for one of the survivors and other affected parties said that this photograph is part of a series - only the first one has been made public. The rest show that the entire fuselage is as one and only broke up later. It also shows more "dramatic events" but the article doesn't explain further.

The photographs were taken by one of the first airborne rescue teams.

I guess we will know more when the official report is issued, in about five to ten years time, knowing the Italian justice system...

amofw

too much toulouse

6th Sep 2005, 19:35

Dear fellow readers

You may guess as much as my permits but all things given much is available on the net, especially how little fuel the ATR uploads - enough for 9-10kg per min. Maybe 300kg top up to take you 100nm in 30 mins or 500kg top up to take you 200 nm in 55 min. For sure it looks like not enough uplift as both engines spool down

May I suggest some papers on fuel burnout etc?

http://www.atraircraft.com/media/dnl/documentation/ATR%2042-300%2001-2004.pdf especially pp 22, 34, 39-42
http://www.atraircraft.com/media/dnl/documentation/ATR%2072-200%2001-2004.pdf especially pp 19, 34, 39-45

I am indebted to the colleague who draws the attention to the Aer Arann incident but I think a caution is in order. A culture of not writing fault logs, terrible pressure to meet demands in bad weather, pressonitis, overwork, underpay, a confusion facing backwards of left and right, illegible or unmarked fuel panel controls and confusing total with total per tank in conjunction with no ladders to see, uneven ground and a difficulty of communicating with the refueller. How common is this? [Do not answer, I know].

Very tragic

vonbag

7th Sep 2005, 00:02

Farmer 1 wrote "6. Insufficient fuel uplifted." and others expanded on this possible cause.

Just reported by ANSA.IT:
http://www.ansa.it/main/notizie/fdg/200509062220212018/200509062220212018.html
and
http://lanazione.quotidiano.net/art/2005/09/07/5385593
and
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/09_Settembre/06/atr.shtml

Very briefly, according to the N/P linked above, quoting a note sent from ATR to the operators and a statement of the chairman of ANSV as sources of the info. (I checked the site "ansv.it" but found no mention to it, yet), among the possible causes of this accident there is fuel starvation.
Inadequate fuel gauge / indicator (?), those suited for ATR42 instead of ATR72, were mounted the day before in Tunis. Therefore the actual fuel quantity aboard might have been erroneously estimated by the Air Crew.

VB

ILS27LEFT

7th Sep 2005, 10:09

"Inadequate fuel gauge / indicator, those suited for ATR42 instead of ATR72, were mounted the day before in Tunis. Therefore the actual fuel quantity aboard might have been erroneously estimated by the Air Crew"

Yes this has been confirmed by the Italian investigators, they replaced the faulty indicator with the incorrect one in Tunis.
ATR42 indicators are very similar but they give an incorrect amount of fuel, higher than the real...this has been tested on an ATR72, the indicator works but it gives an higher level of fuel.
The engineers installed the incorrect fuel indicator instrument: 100%.
The carrier has now formally been banned from flying through Italian airspace.

The investigators are now assessing the pilots reaction to the loss of power, but the main technical cause is now clear: no fuel.

:confused:

ILS27LEFT

7th Sep 2005, 10:16

The engineers in Tunis replaced the faulty fuel indicators with the ones for the ATR42, the plane was instead the ATR72.

These indicators are very similar and they actually work on the ATR72 as well: only one problem, they actually indicate a sensibly higher level of fuel in the tanks. The aircraft run out of fuel and had to try an emergency landing in water.

This incidents confirms the following, as somebody else said here:

" am indebted to the colleague who draws the attention to the Aer Arann incident but I think a caution is in order. A culture of not writing fault logs, terrible pressure to meet demands in bad weather, pressonitis, overwork, underpay, a confusion facing backwards of left and right, illegible or unmarked fuel panel controls and confusing total with total per tank in conjunction with no ladders to see, uneven ground and a difficulty of communicating with the refueller. How common is this? [Do not answer, I know]"

Welcome to the new deregulated, LoCo, budget, charter etc aviation business.

:mad:

From the "Times" (London):

"Captain Tsolakis is investigating claims that some Helios engineers had raised concerns about the aircraft’s fitness to fly. He is also keen to question Mr Irwin about his radio conversation with the pilot. Mr Irwin told police that the conversation was “confused” and the pilot was difficult to understand. ".

If some Helios engineers had raised concerns about the aircraft fitness to fly,*( pls note the engineers had concerns and not the cleaners!) this demonstrates again that in some airlines there is no pressure at all, and everything is going so well, safety is first, always. In fact that aircraft was grounded...yes, but unfortunately with souls on board.

Why you all say there is too much pressure on pilots, engineers, etc in modern commercial aviation?

Is it pressure a Captain who cannot communicate in English with the FO?
Of course not, because they could understand each other in normal ATC communication...but not in a real emergency?

Are we all going mad here?

It is all clearly under control, please shut up and never say there is a problem with air safety. Everything is fine, the stats are with us.

Scary. Scary. Scary.

...to be continued I am afraid.
So sad.

:mad: :sad:

LEM

7th Sep 2005, 11:16

The fuel qty indicators are in Kg, not in percentage.

How can a swap between the 42 gauges and the 72 ones lead to an incorrect amount of fuel?

If this is possible, Toulouse has to be blamed.

And now we immediately think: what about the Airbus gauges?

Would it be possible to fall into this trap again?

barit1

7th Sep 2005, 11:39

I know that different range FF transmitters (intended for different model engines) are often phyically interchangable - I've seen cases where engines appeared to have different fuel flows, but in fact one had the wrong P/N transmitter.

So I wouldn't be too amazed if ATR tank gages could be swapped.

Rocket2

7th Sep 2005, 11:39

Surely a "fuel zero" & gauge calibration (done on fitment to the aircraft) would have picked this anomoly up (I assume these checks are still done)

luoto

7th Sep 2005, 12:14

I know of a pilot who lost his licence (and I know him very well) for activities that were deemed to be incompatible with his employment (I don't see the need to go into details here about what happens).

Therefore, by exeng's example, all pilots are a safety hazard and should not be employed because of this.

But meanwhile in the real world, most people adopt a more clearer common sense.

threemiles

7th Sep 2005, 13:26

Come on, we ain't fillin' up cars here.

With a proper calibration at zero fuel the upload for the first flight afterwards and the doomed flight would have been CALCULATED and THE AMOUNT IN KGS ordered and filled up from the fuel truck. I don't know about the fuel panel on the ATR, but the AMOUNT filled in from the truck would have been checked against the fuel panel indication on proper operation.

So either no calibration, a loss of fuel records, mishandling on filling up or/and a car like fill up?

gofer

7th Sep 2005, 13:29

Source in German (http://www.nzz.ch/2005/09/07/vm/newzzEDBDRY6X-12.html)

vonbag

7th Sep 2005, 14:26

ILS27LEFT,
Thanks for the information.

LEM,
ANSV press release:
http://www.ansv.it/IE/Detail.asp?ID=523
and .pdf file , with [security recommendation] => safety recommendations.

Briefly "the Fuel Quantity Indicators (FQI) of ATR42 and ATR72 are almost identical exteriorly, except for the maximum fuel weight allowable in each wing tank (i.e. "L./R. TK.: 2250 instead of L./R. TK.:2500 kg" in white writing -- two pictures included in the .pdf file), and share the same dimensions and installation procedure. Though, they work differently, using different algorithms, since the configuration and dimensions of the fuel tanks, location and number of sensors are different.
According to several refueling tests, it has been ascertained that when a FQI designed for ATR42 is erroneously installed on ATR72, as it was on the accident aircraft, the instrument yields a non conservative error in the displayed fuel weight, directly proportional to the fuel quantity embarked and, however, never inferior to ~ 900 kg of fuel in each tank (two graphics are alleged in the .pdf file)."

Threemiles,
I share your doubts.

Good continuation,
VB

edited for a language lapsus: "security" => safety. Meglio tardi che mai.

DingerX

7th Sep 2005, 15:23

according to the chart 600 kg total fuel would read as 2750, and empty tanks as 1800. That would explain the relatively modest uplift: going from 2400 to 2750, for example, on the FQI would require adding 270 kg to the 330kg in the tanks.

The FQI have the same external appearance for a variety of reasons, chief among which is the significant cost savings in crew training across type. The folks in Toulouse -- say what you will about them -- make strong efforts towards cockpit homogeneity across the line.

There are numerous cases of accidents and incidents where the wrong part was fitted, or otherwise inadequate maintenance occurred. Airtransat (Atlantic Glider) comes to mind for the fromer. Even a non-functional fuel indicator with a calculation error in fuel uploading has happened before (Gimli Glider).

The safety recommendations of the ANSV are A) confirm the right FQI is installed on ATRs, B) consider making it impossible to swap the -42 and -72 FQIs.

I'm not sure how feasible B) is, or desirable, since I'm sure there are plenty of other common-appearing parts between the two sets of cockpit instrumentation. It makes much more sense to enforce procedural redundancy.

I'm guessing they didn't recover much paperwork from the crash.

GearDown&Locked

7th Sep 2005, 16:49

I'm not sure how feasible B) is, or desirable, since I'm sure there are plenty of other common-appearing parts between the two sets of cockpit instrumentation. It makes much more sense to enforce procedural redundancy.

It simply could be done by changing the wiring sockets on similar but different instruments.

big fraidy cat

8th Sep 2005, 15:23

If you are taking off with empty tanks (as opposed to have nearly one ton of fuel in each tank x 2 tanks = 2 tons), can you 'feel' that the plane is light?

FoggyBottom

8th Sep 2005, 15:55

If I leave A with 10000 kg of fuel and land in B with 5000, but my OFP trip fuel is 7000 a question crosses my mind: how comes I saved 2 tons of fuel?
Then I refuel, I ask to have again 10000 kg, so now I read again 10000 on the gages (I had 5000 before refueling, so I should have loaded 5000kg). Now I insert the data in the techlog and xcheck the actual liters versus the calculated and guess what? Seems that I loaded a lot less fuel! Still saving money!
But now the big question: are the fuel gages working correctly? Should I check with the dipsticks?
Just read your manuals (I'm not an ATR driver, but I think there's no difference) and you get the answer. And some more live souls on this planet....

threemiles

8th Sep 2005, 19:16

Exactly FoggyBottom,

and before you unload your ladder to check the dipsticks you can pass by the fuel truck driver and ask him how much is on his gauge.

And he will tell you... Oops... Probably you can then leave the ladder where it is

ou Trek dronkie

8th Sep 2005, 21:11

Well, to me, this looks like a really, really bad one, completely preventable. I say full marks and congratulations to ANSV for their analysis and putting the word out asap (so much for some ill-inspired comments about Italians earlier in the thread). It is absolutely clear what has happened, at least, to me anyway.

Some unpleasant thoughts spring to mind :

1. ATR42 and ATR72 fuel gauges fit in the same slot but are different ?
2. What about normal fuel checks en route (howgozit) ?
3. What about Mr Murphy ? Is he unknown in the ATR design office ?
4. LEM says “And now we immediately think: what about the Airbus gauges?”. I must say, that was also my thought, suspicious reader that I am.
5. How much fuel was actually on board at brake release ? Doesn’t seem to have been enough …
6. Shades of Gimli …… (Thought everyone knew about that prang and its vital lessons ?)

This has happened just when the turboprops seem to be making a comeback.

I better shut up, but I feel very uncomfortable indeed.

oTd

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

iceman51

9th Sep 2005, 13:47

Tuninter ATR 72 accident: the safety Recommendations addressed to European Aviation Safety Agency - EASA

ANSV Press Release (English version) (http://www.ansv.it/En/Detail.asp?ID=524)

ANSV Safety Recommendation to EASA (English version) (http://www.ansv.it/cgi-bin/eng/TS-LBB%20RS%20ENG.pdf)

G-CPTN

9th Sep 2005, 14:38

!
Sounds like nobody did a possible problem analysis weighted with the significance of the result of such an 'error' occuring.
Chance - high
Result - disastrous

Even a label attached to the component warning of the need to ensure the correct part for the application might have prevented this. Someone suggested a different harness connector - even an adaptor could have helped . . .

GearDown&Locked

9th Sep 2005, 16:27

Just another point to this subject:

The only outside difference between the two fuel gauge types are the small lettering of the max cap of each tank for the different types i.e

L.TK:2250 R.TK: 2250 and L.TK:2500 R.TK: 2500

Plus, note the similar numbering used that can be confusing even with huge lettering: 2250 2500.

The pilots are looking for the real information bit, remaining fuel kg digits, so this kind of clues are overlooked very VERY easy. Question: Would you have noticed it?

GD&L

davecr

14th Sep 2005, 11:15

Very unlikely, unless you take off with (almost) full tanks and it indicates more than the ATR42 max fuel lvl...

SmolaTheMedevacGuy

14th Sep 2005, 17:27

I concur. Have been flying tha ATR for over a year now (both 42 and 72) and I have actually never noticed there's ANY sign on the fuel gauge :8

too much toulouse

15th Sep 2005, 08:51

It is so true that if it is possible for someone to do it wrong then sooner or later it happens. If it is possible to fit the wrong gauge then sooner or later it will be done. I have flown ATR72-200 from Bari to Palermo. Because of the Taranto military bases to the south the route then (probably no different now) was to take a TOPNO or GIOIA departure and be at ToC before or at LUNAR. A rough and ready howgozit is 190 miles to waypoint AMANO in 45 mins using fuel at 11.5kg/min when the flight experienced first difficulty. Palermo LICJ is the nearest at 82 miles. If the aircraft is almost dry of fuel she cannot have much more than 520kg aboard at Bari and the weight now is only 16 tonnes. Can I glide?

You may calculate with me but if the drag equation is Cd = 0.023 + CL^2/32.42 (and I believe this to be so) this is giving a L/D of 15.75 closely for my 16 tonnes. Without power the pilots have their plane of descent described no better than D/L and it shows indeed where in the largo of Palermo it is to be the end. The explanation fits the facts and the evidence. This explains what happened but why is sad beyond all measure.

I notice that Flight International has a mistake. Quotes second engine stops at passing 7000ft after 3-4 minutes behind the first. It means 17000ft. This is a well controlled emergency descent.

Mercy on us all that it should be so possible after so many times in the past that the wrong component can be fitted. How many times before we learn?

But when I tell you that for us small guys it is push, push, push, be quick, the other guy can do so why not you? Would I ever be so foolish on my uplift and howgozit? My friend if you keep pushing me then I too will maybe one day be making some mistake too.

My words are not enough,

Read my name

too much toulouse and too much to lose