PDA

View Full Version : calls to ground A330 and A340s


dragon man
2nd Jul 2009, 01:25
From The Times

July 1, 2009


Airbus could be asked to ground all long-range airliners


Charles Bremner in Paris

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;} Airbus is expected to face calls to ground its worldwide fleet of long-range airliners tomorrow when French accident investigators issue their first account of what caused Air France Flight 447 to crash off Brazil on June 1.
It is believed that the accident bureau will report that stormy weather was a factor but faulty speed data and electronics were the main problem in the disaster that killed 228 people.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is likely to be asked why it had never taken action to remedy trouble that was well known with the Airbus 330 and 340 series. Nearly 1,000 of the aircraft are flying and until AF447, no passenger had been killed in one.
“EASA has a legal and moral obligation to get to the bottom of this problem now. If there is a defective system and the aircraft is unsafe then it should be grounded,” said James Healy-Pratt of Stewarts Law in London. The firm, which specialises in aviation, is representing the families of 20 of the victims of flight 447.
Related Links



Child plucked alive from ocean after Airbus crash (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6609440.ece)
Computer bug is main suspect in Airbus crash (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6523467.ece)
Airbus crashes into ocean with 153 on board (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6606836.ece)




Only 11 bodies of the 50 recovered from the Atlantic have been identified. They include Captain Marc Dubois, 58, who is believed to have been resting when his two co-pilots lost control of the aircraft in a storm. The search for bodies has been called off but ships continue to hunt for the black boxes although their locator beacons are assumed to have expired.
Suspicion over the air data systems on the Airbus 330 and 340 series has increased after the disclosure that the aircraft had experienced 36 episodes similar to the one that brought Flight 447 down as it flew from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.
Airbus first reported problems with the speed sensors — known as pitot tubes — in 1994, it emerged this week. The company advised remedies, but no mandatory action was taken.
Last weekend, the US National Transportation Safety Board, began looking into two incidents in which Airbus A330s flying from the US suffered critical episodes apparently similar to that of AF447.
This raises the prospect of a possible US order on modifications to the Airbus.
The first US incident occurred on May 21 when a TAM Airlines flight from Miami to Sao Paulo, Brazil, lost primary speed and altitude information while in cruise flight. The other was on a Northwest Airlines flight, on June 23, from Hong Kong to Tokyo.
Accounts on the internet from the pilots report a desperate struggle to keep the jet in the air.
The fate of Flight 447 would probably have remained an eternal mystery had the aircraft not automatically transmitted data back to the Air France maintenance base.
In the final four minutes, they told a story that was familiar to the airline. Ice particles or water had blocked the three pitot tubes. This upset the air data computers which in turn caused the automatic pilot to disconnect. The pilots would have had to fly manually in near-impossible conditions.

Going Boeing
2nd Jul 2009, 03:02
If those aircraft were grounded, the screams from Jetstar management would be heard on the moon.

Sand dune Sam
2nd Jul 2009, 03:31
Yep thats right..they would squeal...but no one would listen, after all, they are only Jetstar........

Founder
2nd Jul 2009, 06:05
A lot of different accidents which are much worse has happened without fleets being grounded... for example, the 737 model still flies with the same rudder hydraulic installment that has caused up to 3 proved fatal accidents. No change has been made...

rmm
2nd Jul 2009, 06:23
for example, the 737 model still flies with the same rudder hydraulic installment that has caused up to 3 proved fatal accidents. No change has been made...

Not quite true. There was an AD that required the rudder PCU to be changed to a dual input type.

Jackson
2nd Jul 2009, 06:33
Founder,

Please list the three PROVED such fatal accidents. I emphasise the word "PROVED."

Eight Ball
2nd Jul 2009, 08:28
And then, there's that Yemeni Airlines A310 accident.

The last A310 lost if i remember was with American Airlines that lost it's tail fin while the PF was trying to control the aircraft in wake turbulence using excessive rudder inputs.

Dunnza
2nd Jul 2009, 08:37
AA was an A300

porch monkey
2nd Jul 2009, 08:41
Won't happen, and neither should it.

haughtney1
2nd Jul 2009, 10:16
Not trying to sound callous, nor dimininsh the level of human suffering experienced by the loved ones of the people recently lost etc, but IMHO this is merely a statistical correction of sorts.
Murphy says that if it can happen it will, no comfort if you are on the doomed aircraft, but ultimately we all end up being safer because of it.

Eight Ball
3rd Jul 2009, 12:08
ooopppsss..... my bad. It was an A300. Tail came off, went on a flat spin to the ground.

clear to land
3rd Jul 2009, 12:28
Sorry I can't help post this. Question: What does "My bad" mean? It is so far from grammatically correct as to beggar belief, yet seems to becoming an accepted/tolerated expression. It is NOT an English language expression!:ugh:

stepwilk
3rd Jul 2009, 13:16
Clear to Land, it's an Americanism, if there's such a thing, that's intended to suggest what a child, a toddler, might say. Not that that makes it right, but it's meant to be like saying, "Me fix" or "Night-night."

But we should worry more about such inanities as, "I could care less" and "It's not that big of a deal," if you want to worry about sub-literacy in the Colonies.

Lon More
3rd Jul 2009, 15:08
Jackson asked
Please list the three PROVED such fatal accidents. I emphasise the word "PROVED."

As the aircraft were not fitted with the latest FDR systems so it is more a reasonable assumption.
The NTSB View

Dennis Crider, chairman of the NTSB’s Aircraft Performance Group, told the board members “A rudder reversal scenario will match all three events,”



Also of note, from the B737 Technical site (http://www.b737.org.uk/rudder.htm)

13 Feb 2007 - 737 rudder issues resurface despite redesign

Guy Norris, Flight International

Boeing's long-running problems with the 737 rudder, thought to have beenfinally settled six years ago with the redesign of the power control units (PCU),have resurfaced with the discovery of fractures in the input control rods to theunits, and a subsequent call for wide-ranging corrective action by the USFederal Aviation Administration.

oicur12
3rd Jul 2009, 18:26
Jackson,

The UA (I if I recall correctly) incident at ORD was one such event that Boeing has acknowledged.

Two others? Pittsburgh and Colorado Springs maybe.

I am willing to have these "proved" if you are willing to have "proved" that the moon is not made of cheese.

DutchRoll
3rd Jul 2009, 19:18
I think worldwide grounding calls are a bit premature - these things have flown tens of thousands of hours with a very good safety record.

However the multiple emerging incidents concerning the ADIRU (Air Data Inertial Reference Units for the uninitiated) and flight control computer interface must surely be causing a lot of angst within Airbus. They really need to get it sorted in quick time.

Of interest to me is that apparently the ADIRUs in, for example, the QF incident were made by a different manufacturer than the ones in the AF incident. Possibly points to deeper problems than just the units themselves, IMHO. Pure speculation of course, but this might be just one of those "swiss cheese" things where normally perfectly safe computer systems align in a one-in-a-million situation to produce a bizarre and potentially disastrous result.

Condition lever
4th Jul 2009, 05:17
Going Boeing

the screams from Jetstar management would be heard on the moon
Isn't Jetstar higher management AJ???
Additionally Jetstar only operate 6 long haul Airbus.
Qantas operate 14 - where are the screams coming from???
No to mention airlines like EK and CX.
Why don't you concentraite on the MRTT:rolleyes:

Going Boeing
4th Jul 2009, 10:03
CL, my post doesn't critise the aircraft in any way but is simply an observation of the way J* Management "use" the media to get an advantage. Management of other airlines around the world simply get on with the job of managing their company.

Lookleft
4th Jul 2009, 11:55
I don't think J* management are any different to any other airline. GD did a good job of using the media to browbeat his employees when he was in the chair and RB is the master of media manipulation.

Windshear
4th Jul 2009, 12:02
... call in G.T. from the Australain he'll find away of saving Airbus, time for a coffee G.T. Windy