Tiger A320 - another "lost" cowling?

[The Old Swedish]

Seen a Tigerair A320 with rescue services arround parking at a remotebay in WSSS. Looks like the cowling is missing on one of the engines. Some infos on that?

TOS

[Metro man]

From the company Facebook page.

Tigerair aircraft TR2638 which departed Changi Airport for Chennai today at 2046hrs (local time), has encountered a technical problem shortly after take off. The plane landed safely back at Changi Airport at 2320hrs (local time). All pax will be scheduled to depart for Chennai on the next available flight.
Safety is of utmost importance to Tigerair and we will be holding investigations on this issue.

[The Old Swedish]

Tigerair flight to Chennai forced to turn back after engine cowling falls off - Channel NewsAsia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/tigerair-flight-to/2199734.html)

http://s28.postimg.org/6iw88wt4b/Clipboard01.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

Predictably, the aircraft in question is another IAE-powered example.

[PoppaJo]

Certainly not due to aircraft age, brand new Sharklets equipped this one.

[flying.monkeyz]

Some of Tiger's sharklets are retrofitted.

[peekay4]

Full ATC recording, TGW2638, lost cowling & unsafe gear warning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyG4uFsR8_M

[sandos]

Any VIP onboard?

Wow, started laughing at that. Also the spelling lesson was fun.

So what exactly does a VIP onboard mean? What would ATC do if they had one...

[TomU]

It is absolutely astounding that this keeps happening to V2500 powered A320. I believe that there is a mod available to a put spring loaded plunger assembly on the back face of the Inlet Cowl such that it holds the cowlings a couple of centimeters open when not latched. I wonder why that is not mandatory?

[Trim Stab]

Wow, started laughing at that. Also the spelling lesson was fun.

So what exactly does a VIP onboard mean? What would ATC do if they had one...

What a bizarre question for ATC to ask the crew! I know a lot of Asian and African countries are steeped in "VIP culture", but amazed to hear professional ATC asking that. Would the ATC response have been different if there had been a "VIP" on board?

I think if they had asked me that, I might have flippantly replied "yes - 183".

It happens about 5:00 for anybody interested.

[blimey]

Every car I've driven in the last 40 years has a safety catch which stops the bonnet flying open if it's not been shut properly. That the IAE bus doesn't have a similar feature is unacceptable. Just think of the millions in litigation if lives are lost as a consequence.

[FlightDetent]

Thinking of a simple warning to ECAM, inhibited in phases 4-10, ENG 1(2): COWL UNLKD, what's wrong with that? Somebody has to pay for the development of the modification but one day:
a) a regulatory body will mandate it; or
b) the marketing team from IAE will budget it; or
c) a large enough customer will convince AIB to build it.

FD.

[spannersatcx]

It's already mandated by EASA, airbus maintenance manuals now say whenever you open an engine cowl, a log entry must be made, quite clearly this has not been followed!

[DaveReidUK]

It is absolutely astounding that this keeps happening to V2500 powered A320. I believe that there is a mod available to a put spring loaded plunger assembly on the back face of the Inlet Cowl such that it holds the cowlings a couple of centimeters open when not latched. I wonder why that is not mandatory?

The hold-open device mod is indeed mandatory, has been for several years.

[PAX_Britannica]

The hold-open device mod is indeed mandatory, has been for several years.

But it doesn't seem to be holding-open far enough to make unlatched cowlings sufficiently obvious that they don't get missed on walk-arounds.

[Kitbag]

Or, and I am merely speculating here, the cowling locking devices are inadequate, and are failing in flight?

In fact, for all the armchair engineers (me included) how do these devices operate?

[FlightDetent]

Whenever left open they do not hold the panels in place as per design, that's how they work. No failures in the public domain AFAIK.

FcScjE_QDTM
The most interesting sequences are 00:10 - 00:50 and 07:50 until the end.

What do you think is the production date of the original video?

regards,FD.

[Kitbag]

Late '80's at a guess.

2 things jump out:
1. The cowling when unsupported and not secured does appear to be closed.
2. The lower cowling catches, in requiring the hooks to be manually engaged seems like a gotcha, if not correctly engaged on a cold wet night, lying on your back at the end of a shift with a take-off time to meet.

I guess the hold open device was not at that incorporated on the aircraft.

[Semaphore Sam]

It has happened before....poor design leads to inevitable results (cowl separation, in this case) over time. What is unfathamable, is that it has taken this long to ID and fix it! Sam

[Machinbird]

One thing I am not seeing on this thread is what training pilots are receiving to detect an unlocked IAE engine cowling.

Of course, I am old school, but if an item on the type of aircraft I was flying was a problem, I knew the gotchas in detail and how to protect myself.

Wouldn't it be appropriate to train each pilot flying with the IAE engines to properly close the cowl by themselves, just one time, so that they can see the issues up close and personal.

[fatboy slim]

It's so simple - get on your knee on walk-round and check! Then it can't happen. I always do this whatever the weather. We are paid to be the last line of defence. These guys clearly didn't do that.

[DaveReidUK]

I guess the hold open device was not at that incorporated on the aircraft.

If you mean the Tigerair A320, it was delivered in February 2013. Clearly it would have had the hold-open device installed when built.

[DaveReidUK]

It's so simple - get on your knee on walk-round and check! Then it can't happen.

I thought the whole point of the hold-open device was to obviate the need for wet knees by, er, holding the doors (slightly) open when unlatched such that the gap can be seen from ahead without the need to bend down ?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGgjldLUZ6Z03zhocfVlQArl-_ZDxcFzEFeT5leAU7wDq_Ab9e

[ZeBedie]

It's so simple - get on your knee on walk-round and check! Then it can't happen.

In theory, yes, but events in the real world disprove that idea as a way of preventing these accidents.

Will Airbus wait until there's a hull loss with a couple of hundred deaths before they fix this problem?

[fox niner]

That youtube video has had 23000 views already.
I wonder why? :E

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Why has this become an issue now given the V2500 powered A320 series dates from approx 1988? What's the change or did we just have decades of good luck?

[DaveReidUK]

What's the change or did we just have decades of good luck?No, nothing has changed.

The first recorded losses of A320 cowl doors (both CFM and IAE variants) were over 20 years ago (1992, possibly earlier).

Edit: arithmetic fail :\

[FlightDetent]

I thought the whole point of the hold-open device was to obviate the need for wet knees by, er, holding the doors (slightly) open when unlatched such that the gap can be seen from ahead without the need to bend down ? I am afraid not. The operational procedure suggested by Airbus, as laid down in FCOM, remain unchanged >> CHECK THE LATCHES.
If you want to go full depth in risk assesment and HF, the hold-open device has an inherent defficiency in its failure mode. If the hold-open fails (or indeed is not installed) the resulting position is a false closed.

regards, FD.

over 30 years ago (1992, possibly earlier). careful with the numbers...

[tdracer]

There is no such thing as a foolproof system, because fools are too ingenious.
Wemher Von Braun
Most aircraft/engine types have had the rare occurrence of an unlatch cowling departing the airplane. You can make the system fool resistant, but it is really, really hard to make it foolproof (see above quote). Problem is, the V2500 loosing engine cowls is not particularly rare.
It's clear there is something unique about the V2500 installation that is resulting in the relatively high rate of cowls departing the aircraft. It's also clear that the steps taken so far have not addressed the fundamental problem.
The FAA considers 'parts departing airplane' to be inherently unsafe (and I'm sure EASA has a similar policy). :ugh:
BTW, who provides the V2500 engine nacelle (or does Airbus make it in-house)?

[DaveReidUK]

BTW, who provides the V2500 engine nacelle (or does Airbus make it in-house)?

UTC Aerospace Systems delivers its 5,000th nacelle system for a V2500® engine on an Airbus A321 - Oct 31, 2013 (http://news.utcaerospacesystems.com/2013-10-31-UTC-Aerospace-Systems-delivers-its-5-000th-nacelle-system-for-a-V2500-engine-on-an-Airbus-A321)

Originally developed by Rohr, which became Goodrich Aerostructures before being acquired by UTC in 2012.

[lomapaseo]

BTW, who provides the V2500 engine nacelle (or does Airbus make it in-house)?

The manufacturer of the nacelle is not necessarily the certificate holder under part 25. Since it only fits and works on an Airbus I would look to Airbus as the responsible party for its operation in-service.

UTC would be happy to weld it shut :).

[tdracer]

The manufacturer of the nacelle is not necessarily the certificate holder under part 25. Since it only fits and works on an Airbus I would look to Airbus as the responsible party for its operation in-service.


Airbus is most certainly responsible for the Part 25 certification - with the notable exception of the actual engines (that are certified separately) the airframer is responsible for certification. But apparently Rohr/Goodrich was responsible for the design of the cowl and the associated latching system and presumably would be responsible for any sort of redesign to avoid future cowl separations (although Airbus would likely be 'involved').
However it's an Airbus aircraft, they own the TCDS, and ultimately Airbus has the responsibility.

[DaveReidUK]

Has anybody got any evidence that this is particularly an A320 / V2500 issue?

Depends what you mean by "particularly".

Yes, fan cowls fall off other aircraft types, but the fact that there have been around 40 such events on the A320 family (not just IAE-engined variants) is partly because there are so many of them in service and partly because the design of the door makes it possible to miss the fact that they aren't latched.

Compared that with the 737, for example, where the rate of cowl loss events is (I think) around 25% of that for the Airbus. Here, although the nacelle also comes from Rohr/Goodrich/UTC, the latches are different and, because of the way the doors hang, an unlatched door is much easier to detect.

Incidentally, there's an interesting statistic in the AAIB report on the Heathrow incident, namely that IAE-powered Airbuses are more likely to lose the doors from the left engine, whereas for CFM-powered variants it's the right engine. In both cases, the latches are on the inboard side of the relevant engine.

[Bull at a Gate]

Is it just me, or was there an unusual level of misunderstanding in that ATC recording? On many occasions the flight crew had trouble communicating the nature of the problem and their needs.

[wheels_down]

Agree with the above, however I wouldn't say it's unusual, if you've flown across Asia you will get use to the language barrier. Sounds like a local Captain, a lot of Tiger Captains were expat (AU,UK etc..) no idea if they have cleared them out aka SIA.

But Yes, not fantastic communication between both parties.

[peekay4]

Come now, how was he supposed to know that the engine bowling wasn't the problem??? :confused:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/org.barkah.misc/V2500+bowling.jpg

[Uplinker]

For f...s sake !!!!!!!!


How difficult is it to crouch down and check these latches?

You don't need to get a wet knee, only a wet hand:-

Stand at the side of the engine just aft of the intake, facing to the rear of the aircraft. Crouch down like a cricket wicket keeper. Place one hand on the join between the front of the cowling and the engine anti-ice ring housing, (which will give you a tactile indication as to whether the cowling is correctly flush). Place your other hand on the ground and lean downwards until your head is low enough to look underneath at the latches. You should not be able to see anything hanging lower than the cowling line, (apart from the drain mast). If you do, call the engineers.

At the very worst, you might get a wet hand, but how bad is that compared to the idiocy of taking off with the cowlings unlatched ????????????????

Come on people, we are pilots, and we should properly check our aircraft before flying them. It is no good trying to blame engineers etc, the pilots accept the aircraft to fly, the pilots should perform a proper walk around. No excuses. End of.

[Superpilot]

Alternatively, a selfie stick might do the trick.

[penitpete]

Quite right.

However, the flt crew are only one layer of inspection. The engineer who opened it is responsible for ensuring it is closed again, either by them selves or make a tech log entry for another engineer to close it. It is also normal for the pushback crew to c/o a panel insp and confirm to the flt crew that all are closed and latched. The whole idea of this is to try and stop the old Swiss cheese problem.
I know the V2500 cowl and latches are an inferior design compared to the CFM cowling, but every one knows it is, so should take extra care when checking them.
At the end of the day all things taken into account it comes down to self preservation, it saves an awfull lot of paperwork and greif.

[subsonicsubic]

As an aside:

I miss hearing the "stripes" call-sign on 118.7 (RPLC). "Go-cat" seems tacky. Any idea why it changed?

[PoppaJo]

From memory Tiger Airways Phillipines used that as the callsign, they merged with Cebu and no longer exist. Tiger in Singapore did use STRIPE until around 06'

If you hear a SMART CAT, Tiger Airways Taiwan!

[Ken Borough]

Tiger in Oz also use 'Go cat". I wonder if Tiger have secured a sponsorship deal with the manufacturer of a certain pet food? :}

[Calvin Hops]

For f...s sake !!!!!!!!


How difficult is it to crouch down and check these latches?

You don't need to get a wet knee, only a wet hand:-

Stand at the side of the engine just aft of the intake, facing to the rear of the aircraft. Crouch down like a cricket wicket keeper. Place one hand on the join between the front of the cowling and the engine anti-ice ring housing, (which will give you a tactile indication as to whether the cowling is correctly flush). Place your other hand on the ground and lean downwards until your head is low enough to look underneath at the latches. You should not be able to see anything hanging lower than the cowling line, (apart from the drain mast). If you do, call the engineers.

At the very worst, you might get a wet hand, but how bad is that compared to the idiocy of taking off with the cowlings unlatched ????????????????

Come on people, we are pilots, and we should properly check our aircraft before flying them. It is no good trying to blame engineers etc, the pilots accept the aircraft to fly, the pilots should perform a proper walk around. No excuses. End of.

For f**k sake, shut up before full investigation completed!

With short turn round times, the flight crew could have completed the walk around checks and then proceeded woth very busy preflight in the cabin and cockpit.

Maintenance could have done a lot of routine oil/fluid top up plus other checks which require opening the cowls after the pilots' walk around check.

The maintenace must check before pushback!

FELLOW PILOTS ARE A PILOT's worst enemy!!!!!!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Chris2303]

We are arguing about whose job it is to check.

Shouldn't we be saying to Airbus that you know there is a problem - redesign the cowling before somebody gets hurt?

[DaveReidUK]

For f**k sake, shut up before full investigation completed!

Yes, let's not speculate.

With short turn round times, the flight crew could have completed the walk around checks and then proceeded woth very busy preflight in the cabin and cockpit.

Maintenance could have done a lot of routine oil/fluid top up plus other checks which require opening the cowls after the pilots' walk around check.

Well OK, then - you speculate, we won't. :ugh:

[lomapaseo]

Cause-effect-consequence

Clearly something is out of kilter here with way too many causes (humans)

Seems like the effort needs to go into the effect-consequence area

Has the 'fix" not been employed? or is it a case that it doesn't address the effect or consequence?

By consequence I mean the safety of flight by level

My gut feeling is that they need to significantly reduce the human involvement or at least the effect which is the release of the door in flight (make it pop open on start-up etc.)

[FlightDetent]

CFM:
http://i67.tinypic.com/3460spv.jpg

IAE:
http://i64.tinypic.com/66kron.jpg

[penitpete]

Although I have made next to no posts prior to this incident I do happen to know a lot about this problem.
One thing is that a lot of people don't really know what they are on about when making posts.
It really is not rocket science, they are just engine cowles, even though they could be a better design, they just need to be checked for correct closure and latching.
People just need to do what they are paid for.

[SKS777FLYER]

Pentepete and FlightDetent......Well written and pictured

So much gnashing of teeth and whining around here:ok:

[DaveReidUK]

It really is not rocket science, they are just engine cowls, even though they could be a better design, they just need to be checked for correct closure and latching.

People just need to do what they are paid for.

And yet on 40-odd occasions, that has failed to happen.

What makes you think that preventing a recurrence is going to be that easy?

[penitpete]

Well ok if you are suggesting that we need to make it so fool proof that a pilot or engineer dosn't need to do their job properly.
A/c fitted with V2500 engines could have a special certification block on the tech log sector page for the pilot or engineer to sign stating that the engine cowls have been inspected for correct closure and latching prior to despatch, just like the icing check.

[FlightDetent]

I feel you are both correct. The problem is not really with the latches, they do lock once closed. If left open, the fact is perfectly obvious provided you look at them. BTW, there never was need to get wet, that idea only came up in the post "BA situation" face-saving excercise.

YES, People just need to do what they are paid for. NO, preventing a reocurrence is not going to be that easy.

The only difference with CFMs is that when left unlocked it is hard not to notice.

[training wheels]

I don't know why Singapore ATC is always so pedantic in asking the exact reason for the return to WSSS. It's not the first time I've heard this level of interrogation by Singapore ATC for aircraft diverting to WSSS. Is it for security reasons? They don't appear to be welcoming to diverting aircraft.
As for Tiger's callsign, they changed to 'Go Cat' a few years ago because their previous callsign sounded too much like another carrier's. And now since Air Asia changed to 'Red Cap', they're back to the same problem.

[India Four Two]

What struck me when listening to the audio tape was how poorly the Singapore controllers behaved during this incident. I recall hearing at least twice, the controller reading back verbatim what the PNF had just said to him and then added "Confirm?". As for not understanding the word "cowling", I would have expected better English comprehension than that.

I got the feeling that the controllers were completely out of their depth, when handling a non-normal situation. As for asking how many VIPs on board, I expect that was a requirement of their SOP, but I would have been tempted to answer "183!"

It seems as if the Mayday declaration did not trigger the undivided attention of ATC - they still seemed to handle the flight as if it was a part of the normal flow.

The PNF could have perhaps influenced the situation by using the Mayday suffix, at least on initial contact on a new frequency.

Unless I missed it, ATC never did confirm that the fire trucks were standing by, even though the PNF specifically asked.

Finally, I have to say, I thought the PNF (local or European?) was amazingly patient with ATC throughout the whole incident.

PS I flew into Changi on Sunday on Tiger and I was tempted to ask the Captain, as we deplaned, if both cowlings were still attached, but I thought he might not appreciate my humour! ;)

[Guglielmo]

Something maybe deeper to ponder guys?
Part of the response in post 33 from DaveReidUK stated
Quote:
"Incidentally, there's an interesting statistic in the AAIB report on the Heathrow incident, namely that IAE-powered Airbuses are more likely to lose the doors from the left engine, whereas for CFM-powered variants it's the right engine. In both cases, the latches are on the inboard side of the relevant engine."


Referring to pics on the net shows that when standing facing the front of the engine the CFM fan rotates CW but the V2500 rotates CCW.
I'm not an engine man, over to the experts.

[PAX_Britannica]

YALC = Yet Another Lost Cowling

According to AVH (http://avherald.com/h?article=48fe047b), a Luxair DH8D-400 on LG4605 arrived at London City with a bit missing.

Time to reconsider the Ford Solution (http://www.trimotors.awiggins.com/images/Ford414Hand707atSFO.jpg) ?

DH8s seem to do this regularly, like A320s.

Is Inattentional Blindness part of the problem ?

Spot the Gorilla:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGgjldLUZ6Z03zhocfVlQArl-_ZDxcFzEFeT5leAU7wDq_Ab9e

[DaveReidUK]

Something maybe deeper to ponder guys?

Referring to pics on the net shows that when standing facing the front of the engine the CFM fan rotates CW but the V2500 rotates CCW.
I'm not an engine man, over to the experts.

As far as I can see from the report, the AAIB don't draw any conclusions from the statistic, but I'd be surprised if it has anything to do with the direction of engine rotation.

I suspect it's a consequence of where you have to stand/crouch/kneel (delete as appropriate) in relation to the engine/wing/fuselage in order to check the latches depending on whether they are on the outboard or inboard cowl.

But obviously I don't have any proof.

[Terry McCassey]

Where I work the closing and latching of A320 cowlings are now a Critical Inspection task. Another pair of eyes may or may now help alleviate the problem - time will tell I guess

[torquemada60]

I cannot believe that these brainwashed morons are in charge at Changi Airport. Double confirm? VIP? Spelling of cowling? Then again this is Singapore where people are taught not to think but obey.:ugh:

[ManaAdaSystem]

So why does it happen then? Well for the A320 my best guess is that these incidents are associated with the weekly oil level check of the IDG. "We'll top that up later so not point latching it."

Do you have to open the cowl to check IDG oil on V2500?
On the CFM, oil/IDG oil checks can be done without opening the cowlings.

[Terry McCassey]

Some A320's I work do not have the small panel to quick view the IDG oil level and opening the fan cowls is the only way. That in itself creates amongst some the hesitation in opening the cowlings to see the sight glass . . .

[ManaAdaSystem]

And those cowlings would be opened and closed more often than the CFM cowlings (or other V2500s with an access panel).

[Uplinker]

For heaven's sake, just check thoroughly that the aircraft is fit to fly before flying it. (I am not specifically commenting on this particular incident, but on the general issue about checking engine cowl latches).

If turnarounds or maintenance procedures mean that cowls need to be opened AFTER the walkaround has been completed, then write ASRs and get the procedures changed.

The walkaround is the final check that the aircraft is secure, safe and ready for flight. Engineers should not open a cowl after the walkaround has been completed and the tech log has been signed. If they do, they should inform the flight deck, write the reason in the tech log and sign it again, and it should be confirmed without doubt that the cowl has been relatched and checked.

We are in the business of being SAFE. No amount of commercial pressure or short cuts should be allowed or tolerated if they impinge on safety.

@Calvin Hops, It was hopefully clear from my post that I was making a general point about checking cowlings, since I made no reference to the incident referred to on this thread, or any others.:ok:

[FlightDetent]

On a routine maintenance schedule, what are the reasons to open the cowling and the frequency of doing so? Also, is it any different between CFM and IAE, some posters above seem to indicate it is the case.

regards, FD.

[ZeBedie]

The last couple of years, there has been increased awareness of this issue, as the regulator leant on airlines to re-educate pilots and engineers.

And has that effort has made any difference at all?

[DaveReidUK]

If turnarounds or maintenance procedures mean that cowls need to be opened AFTER the walkaround has been completed, then write ASRs and get the procedures changed.

The walkaround is the final check that the aircraft is secure, safe and ready for flight. Engineers should not open a cowl after the walkaround has been completed and the tech log has been signed. If they do, they should inform the flight deck, write the reason in the tech log and sign it again, and it should be confirmed without doubt that the cowl has been relatched and checked.

Sound advice, which if followed would no doubt have prevented some of those 40-odd cowl loss events.

But worth bearing in mind that the above circumstances (opening the cowls after the walkaround) aren't what happened in, for example, the BA incident. Nor was that a simple case of engineers "forgetting" that they had not latched the cowls.

[ManaAdaSystem]

For heaven's sake, just check thoroughly that the aircraft is fit to fly before flying it.

The for heavens sake method clearly doesn't work when it comes to V2500 engine cowls. So, we need to look at other ways to solve this problem.
The for heavens sake method should also be applied throughtout aviation, but for some odd reason it doesn't work all the time. Even if it is in the OM-A.
That's why we have (E)GPWS, TCAS, stall warnings, overspeed warnings, and a number of other defensive measures installed.
We are just not perfect enough.

[Filler Dent]

If you open the cowls, you put an entry in the Tech log.
"ENG #1 cowls opened for .........whatever"

When you shut them you close the entry.
"ENG #1 cowls closed, secured and latched satisfactory"

Simple.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse. :ugh:

[lomapaseo]

Simple.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.


All this does is finger the blame

You can't eliminate human error, all you can do is mitigate the effects

[Filler Dent]

All this does is finger the blame

No it doesn't it's called taking responsibility. :rolleyes:

If I replace a Rudder Travel Limiter Actuator, (as it's a popular subject) I sign for it in the appropriate paperwork, I take the responsibility. If I open the engine cowls to replace the IDG I take responsibility. I follow the procedures and making the appropriate tech log entries. Opening and closing the cowls is part of that procedure. If I don't follow the AMM and the company policy then I'm breaking the law - simple.

If there's an entry in the tech log that refers to the cowls being opened when reviewing the tech log the pilots can easily see what work has been done and have a good look on his walk around.

Unfortunately basic airmanship has been forgotten about in an effort to drive down costs. Fewer staff, less qualified and less experienced.

[TURIN]

Filler Dent

Have you read the report on Airbus A319-131, G-EUOE, 24 May 2013?

Viewable here... (https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-1-2015-airbus-a319-131-g-euoe-24-may-2013)


If you open the cowls, you put an entry in the Tech log.
"ENG #1 cowls opened for .........whatever"

When you shut them you close the entry.
"ENG #1 cowls closed, secured and latched satisfactory"

Simple.
It gives visibility and responsibility to all concerned.
It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.

You forgot

"Carry out verification check of ENG #1 cowl latches"

"Verification check carried out of ENG #1 cowl latches, all secure."

It's in the AMM, company procedures - no excuse.

[DaveReidUK]

No it doesn't it's called taking responsibility

We're going round and round in ever-decreasing circles here.

Yes, clearly if everyone did everything by the book, we wouldn't have a problem with departing cowls. But obviously they don't always, and as a consequence we do.

Simply saying "well, they should do", or "I do, why can't everyone else?" isn't particularly helpful unless it's accompanied by practical suggestions as to how that can be made to happen.

If I don't follow the AMM and the company policy then I'm breaking the law - simple.Maybe you're on to something, lock up a few engineers pour encourager les autres, but somehow I don't see that working either.

[Hassan Bok]

I agree with Calvin Hops.

Flight crew walk arounds are cursory checks; final absolute checks must be a maintenance function.

Eg: If for any reason a departure is delayed by last minute loading and the loading truck unknowingly punctures or gouges the fuselage, the flight crew cannot be aware of that! Only the final THOROUGH INSPECTION by the maintenance crew can ensure absolutely nothing unacceptable.

The captain signs acceptance well before doors finally closed.

Unless we want to flight and maintenance logs to be signed after a walk around inspection by captain just before start...it would be an interesting new procedure. Then someone would want captains to inspect every cargo loading, every DG or NOTOC items. Damn it, check fueling panel latches as well! Check doors properly closed by accessing CCTV pictures through iPads as well........👿

[TURIN]

Flight crew walk arounds are cursory checks; final absolute checks must be a maintenance function.

Eg: If for any reason a departure is delayed by last minute loading and the loading truck unknowingly punctures or gouges the fuselage, the flight crew cannot be aware of that! Only the final THOROUGH INSPECTION by the maintenance crew can ensure absolutely nothing unacceptable.

Excellent idea. :ok:

Now, how are you going to re-employ all those maintenance crew who lost their jobs when flight crew took over that function (for a nominal fee:suspect:)?

[Uplinker]

On some/many turnarounds these days, there are no engineers, so the pilots must perform a proper walkaround check. Once airborne, we can't pull over to get out and check what's causing the funny noise.

Meanwhile the loose cowl might have just severed the fuel line or damaged the FADEC, so now you are down to one engine, or possibly none. Pretty stupid really, since a two second check of each cowling would have prevented all that from happening :ugh: