PDA

View Full Version : JAL plane flew with engine thrust reverser locked


Sleep Deprivation Chamber
8th Jan 2006, 16:50
TOKYO - A Japan Airlines passenger plane traveled from Osaka to Kagoshima on Saturday with its engine thrust reverser locked, the company said Sunday.
While the 181 crew members and passengers were unhurt, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport gave a verbal warning to the company for improper maintenance, as a mechanic forgot to remove the safety pin locking the engine thrust reverser during maintenance operations on Friday evening.
(Kyodo News Service)
:ouch:

fantom
8th Jan 2006, 17:06
Goodness; that could have killed hundreds. or thousands. or more.

Or not.

canadairguy
8th Jan 2006, 17:12
It's not uncommon to lock an unserviceable T/R closed - so that it will not open inadvertantly. If that's the case this doesn't seem to be real news.

flown-it
8th Jan 2006, 17:20
Flew with one locked on many a leg. For example your plane lands with a reverser problem. Whats more cost effective,(A) delay or cancel while you fix it or (B) lock it out per FAA approved procedures for the return west across the pond?
Obviously (B) and its a non event.

145qrh
8th Jan 2006, 17:26
I'm just glad the crew managed to avoid the primary school, old folks home and the cat and dog home as they brought the crippled machine back to terra-firma.....other wise there would be mass hysteria from the tabloid media.......

scarebus03
8th Jan 2006, 18:35
During certain maint. checks the lockout pin is required to be installed in the t/rev for safety. There is a procedure for ensuring the t/revs are reactivated after maint. sometimes the pin is left in by accident. It shouldn't be but welcome to the world of human factors! Like you 145qrh I'm glad they managed to miss the school!!


Brgds

SB03

Joetom
8th Jan 2006, 18:57
I heard a story about a 744 landing in LHR, only 1 rev operated, Capt asked maint if he should snag 3 revs or the one that operated,!!!.
Fact was 3 revs had been left locked out after maint, unrecorded work was to blame.!!!.

JW411
8th Jan 2006, 19:50
What a wonderful non-story; the use of thrust reversers is not considered in take-off and landing performance calculations.

In really simple terms this means that ALL thrust reversers can be inop and it will change the price of butter not one single iota.

fmgc
8th Jan 2006, 20:05
What a wonderful non-story; the use of thrust reversers is not considered in take-off and landing performance calculations.

Not true, TR are used in wet or worse runway calcs.

fergineer
8th Jan 2006, 20:12
And lets not forget the mechanic left the pin in but also that the crew missed the lockout pin on their walk round........all the TR's locked out that I have come across the pins are clearly visable on the walkround, saves Murphys Law coming in...

JW411
8th Jan 2006, 20:26
fmgc: I thank you for that but it is news to me.

Fish Out of Water
8th Jan 2006, 20:47
I agree - what news?

Again if you look into the books about how much difference it makes to the landing distance required, it's a wonder we don't all land with reverse idle anyway. Horah. :eek: (nice new faces!).

Strepsils
8th Jan 2006, 22:18
Big difference between locking something out for maintenance reasons, and something being locked out because it was forgotten about. I'd say that is the point being made in this story.

Mr @ Spotty M
8th Jan 2006, 22:31
fergineer
Most T/Rev pins used for maint purposes, would not be visible to crew or an engineer doing a walk round check.
The fact is l have yet to work on an aircraft that they would not be under a panel or the engine cowls.
The pins that you have seen are not used for locking out the reversers while maintenance is carried out, only for inservice use to inop the reversers.

fmgc
9th Jan 2006, 01:07
JW411,

This is taken from our 320 manual wrt Depatch with thrust reverser inop:

followed by the appropriate reductions in take off weights.


http://www.monarchcc.com/documents/tr_inop.gif

mutt
9th Jan 2006, 04:00
JW411,

Certain aircraft have takeoff performance from wet or contaminated runways based upon the use of "some" thrust reversers and a 15 ft screen height.. This applies for both FAA and JAA.

Mutt

spannersatcx
9th Jan 2006, 07:30
Most T/Rev pins used for maint purposes, would not be visible to crew or an engineer doing a walk round check.
The fact is l have yet to work on an aircraft that they would not be under a panel or the engine cowls.
The pins that you have seen are not used for locking out the reversers while maintenance is carried out, only for inservice use to inop the reversers.
Not worked on RR 747's then!:ok:

lomapaseo
9th Jan 2006, 12:07
My first reaction followed the majority above. No big deal as thrust reversers are locked on on purpose fairly open.

I believe the issue is, that the crew typically knows they are locked out and as such avoid the asymetry on landing.

History has shown, that it's not nice to surprise crews with gotcha's

r3500vdp
9th Jan 2006, 12:58
I think it makes a difference if you've locked the reverser purposely and have made your decisions based on this versus being caught unaware by it. In the latter case it could become one of those small errors that could trigger a lot of bad news, for example when landing in a snow storm on a wet runway at Chicago Midway. Not a professional so feel free to let me know how you really feel :D

Ranger One
17th Jan 2006, 04:00
While the 181 crew members and passengers were unhurt...

<groans>

Every time I read something like this, I'm irresistably reminded of the 'Day Today' sketch, where an out-of-control helicopter narrowly misses 'a class of schoolchildren looking for worms' and 'an old woman sitting on top of a pole'...

It was the pole that did it for me...

R1

glhcarl
17th Jan 2006, 04:33
Not worked on RR 747's then!:ok:
Or L-1011's!

bubbers44
17th Jan 2006, 05:12
As previously reported flying with TR's locked out only restricts things like accepting Land and Hold Short clearances. Normal operating procedures in our airline. AA is one of the most anal conservative airlines out there.

Alty
17th Jan 2006, 17:49
No one disputes that it is not uncommon to fly with an inop reverser. The fact that it apparently was not placarded as inop for the flight crew is a legitimate concern.

PTH needs tarmac
18th Jan 2006, 02:40
I won't comment on the technical seriousness or not of this incident but for JAL it signals quite a lot of potential trouble from the Japanese authorities and travelling public.

This is another in a longish line of mostly non-events with JAL that has been leaped on by the Japanese regulators and media. JAL were issued a formal warning about it's safety and operational procedures last year (March I think) and following this they have been given a second warning (Jan 9th). Two strikes out of 3! Any more repetitions and the Ministry could impose serious sanctions on JAL.

Public confidence in JAL has already been affected and load factors are down I believe, especially on domestic routes where ANA offer an alternative. As usual, the media have been hunting down any similar events with ANA as well, so they have not been immune from criticism too.

PTH (currently located in Japan)

LindbergB767
18th Jan 2006, 11:36
Did happen to me to take off with a perfect aircraft and after landing had only one reverser, really no big surprise on B767 300 ER
The reason it is a big story this is because in Japan you have a penalty of minus 8000 pounds on Take OFF and that thrust reverser are include in performance fot take OFF and landing which is not the case with FAA or JAR