Jetstar Engine Failure?!?!?!
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Earth
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks "Concerned LAME" I do recall talking about the standpipe in groundschool although of course, in our pilot book FCOM1, there is no system diagram that shows the standpipe only an implication it exists
:
The RAT automatically deploys, if both engines fail, or if there is low level in the green and yellow
or green and blue reservoirs.
or green and blue reservoirs.
As for the HSMU controlled engine pump isolation valve - the books don't tell us - is it near the pump or up on the pylon i.e. could a catastrophic failure cut the green supply line above the shutoff valve?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HotDog
A few years ago I was given the job of checking a tech librarary for redundant documents. In it I found an original Boeing sales brochure for the B767. At that stage it was most assuredly a 3 man crew.There was nothing in the document about a 2 man crew.
Later I came across at least 2 Asian carriers who had E/Os on their B767s. However they seemed to disappear quickly so I am not sure if the aircraft were actually E/O panel equipped or the E/O was operating the pilot panel.
I suspect the real catalyst for a 2 man crew was the arrival of the
A310, not Boeings wish to suddenly go to a 2 man cockpit in what was at the time a difficult airline environment both commercially and industrially.
A few years ago I was given the job of checking a tech librarary for redundant documents. In it I found an original Boeing sales brochure for the B767. At that stage it was most assuredly a 3 man crew.There was nothing in the document about a 2 man crew.
Later I came across at least 2 Asian carriers who had E/Os on their B767s. However they seemed to disappear quickly so I am not sure if the aircraft were actually E/O panel equipped or the E/O was operating the pilot panel.
I suspect the real catalyst for a 2 man crew was the arrival of the
A310, not Boeings wish to suddenly go to a 2 man cockpit in what was at the time a difficult airline environment both commercially and industrially.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From http://www.ansettinwa.org/pages/airc...ilshistory.htm
The Ansett Boeing 767’s VH-RMD, VH-RME, VH-RMF, VH-RMG and VH-RMH are the only Boeing 767s to be configured for three man crew but if sold can easily be changed to two-man crew configuration.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotdog
Firstly that is a document written at the time of delivery of Ansett's
767s so nothing to say 3 man crew cockpits weren't built later.
Secondly I met 2 E/Os for an Asian carrier in NRT customs ( they had purple on their shoulders) who told me that they were on the B767 and that at least one other carrrier had 3 man B767s.
Firstly that is a document written at the time of delivery of Ansett's
767s so nothing to say 3 man crew cockpits weren't built later.
Secondly I met 2 E/Os for an Asian carrier in NRT customs ( they had purple on their shoulders) who told me that they were on the B767 and that at least one other carrrier had 3 man B767s.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wunwing, perhaps you are correct. Hardly worth an argument but for all it's worth, here is a picture of a very expensive and unnecessary option created by union pressure.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotdog
From my distant memory the AN B767 E/O's panel was a bit more than what is in the photo. Since I am not ex AN I can't say for sure.
It is very easy to "bag out" decisions of an earlier era with knowledge of subsequent events. Much like the real thread here where those who know the A330 seem to view the J* incident differently to those who don't.
At the time of the B767 introduction there was little experience of cockpit screens and electronics and as a result of the methodology a complete distrust of the US 3v2 man crew enquiry which resulted in the 2 crew B767.
Later episodes such as the Gimly? glider accident tended to prove that rapid removal of the E/O was not all that well thought out.Some procedures at the time were set by looking at what the E/O did from the panel operation point of view, but failed to look at other duties such as handling MEL/DDG items, calculating fuel on board via means of sticks etc. and what later became CRM procedures. As a result for the beginning years, in some airlines, a number of former E/O tasks were not covered by anyone.
From my distant memory the AN B767 E/O's panel was a bit more than what is in the photo. Since I am not ex AN I can't say for sure.
It is very easy to "bag out" decisions of an earlier era with knowledge of subsequent events. Much like the real thread here where those who know the A330 seem to view the J* incident differently to those who don't.
At the time of the B767 introduction there was little experience of cockpit screens and electronics and as a result of the methodology a complete distrust of the US 3v2 man crew enquiry which resulted in the 2 crew B767.
Later episodes such as the Gimly? glider accident tended to prove that rapid removal of the E/O was not all that well thought out.Some procedures at the time were set by looking at what the E/O did from the panel operation point of view, but failed to look at other duties such as handling MEL/DDG items, calculating fuel on board via means of sticks etc. and what later became CRM procedures. As a result for the beginning years, in some airlines, a number of former E/O tasks were not covered by anyone.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second the above comment. The only function that panel has (aside from giving any jump-seater an oxy mask and intercom panel) is for pre and post flight stuff which I won't bother going into. And it IS standard on a 767.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That FE panel was the original Boeing fit. I believe Ansett retrofitted the FE's panel with a third EICAS display later.
Wunwing, don't get me wrong. I'm a retired flight engineer and all for a three man cockpit. A lot of accidents , caused by technical failures could have been avoided if a flight engineer had been present on that flight deck. However, there was no need for a flight engineers position on the 767. I think it was United who insisted to carry a flight engineer on the 737-200 for a while due to the increased workload on this new jet. 953 767s have been delivered to date and the production line is still open, five out of that definitely had a flight engineer's station, I don't know how many more but not a significant amount for sure. As Lord Flashhart has pointed out, this is a serious thread creep so I'll butt out. Cheers, HD.
Wunwing, don't get me wrong. I'm a retired flight engineer and all for a three man cockpit. A lot of accidents , caused by technical failures could have been avoided if a flight engineer had been present on that flight deck. However, there was no need for a flight engineers position on the 767. I think it was United who insisted to carry a flight engineer on the 737-200 for a while due to the increased workload on this new jet. 953 767s have been delivered to date and the production line is still open, five out of that definitely had a flight engineer's station, I don't know how many more but not a significant amount for sure. As Lord Flashhart has pointed out, this is a serious thread creep so I'll butt out. Cheers, HD.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Haha "Union Pressure" bring it damn on and more of it, there's not enough already, much better than Mr Eyebrow's pressure! ..... 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All .. dont mind me diggng up an old thread & event but ...
I was a passenger on this flight that diverted to Bali with one engine
... and though not a pilot or in the industry I am a keen commerical aviation follower
Now apparently the likely cause was failure of the Fuel Metering Valve - but the first things that ran through my mind as the cabin lights came on in the dead of night and the captain made the announcement were - what were the chances of the other engine also failing .. ?
I immediately thought 'fuel contamination' - is there a realistic chance of this ever being a problem ? What checks are in place to determine the fuel being pumped into the plane is of a sufficient quality and if not - is there much a modern jet could do to survive on bad gas?
And apparently this FMV failure is common on GE powered A330's - that is pretty worrying in itself they have not yet found the root cause and grounded these aircraft in the interim ???
Excuse the ignorance on these matters but appreciate the feedback ..
I was a passenger on this flight that diverted to Bali with one engine
... and though not a pilot or in the industry I am a keen commerical aviation follower
Now apparently the likely cause was failure of the Fuel Metering Valve - but the first things that ran through my mind as the cabin lights came on in the dead of night and the captain made the announcement were - what were the chances of the other engine also failing .. ?
I immediately thought 'fuel contamination' - is there a realistic chance of this ever being a problem ? What checks are in place to determine the fuel being pumped into the plane is of a sufficient quality and if not - is there much a modern jet could do to survive on bad gas?
And apparently this FMV failure is common on GE powered A330's - that is pretty worrying in itself they have not yet found the root cause and grounded these aircraft in the interim ???
Excuse the ignorance on these matters but appreciate the feedback ..
Completely O/T but there is a pic of the FE panel on the AN 767s. They were all converted back before the collapse
Before
http://www.rosboch.net/aviationmedia...%20station.JPG
After
http://www.rosboch.net/aviationmedia...conversion.JPG
Before
http://www.rosboch.net/aviationmedia...%20station.JPG
After
http://www.rosboch.net/aviationmedia...conversion.JPG
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age
Chance of second engine failing. Very remote. It has happened on several occasions to commercial jets but there are much bigger things to worry about. I can only think of 1 or 2 twin jets crashing with fatal results after losing both donks.
Fuel contam. Can happen. Very rare. There are a lot of checks to ensure fuel is of good quality. Jet engines are very forgiving and most problems from mild fuel contam are long term health issues as apposed to short term engines failing issues.
I dont know much about GE donks. FMV problems - could be. The RR engines on 330's were having huge problems too. and the rudder servos on 737's. And the flap tracks on 737's. and centre tanks also. And fairing vibrations on old 320's. The list goes on but there are monitoring process's in place and airworthiness directives and operational bulletins and modified procedures that are all designed to prevent the issue from becoming front page news. Hopefully. The airlines and plane makers are generally conservative with mechanical issues and safety.
Chance of second engine failing. Very remote. It has happened on several occasions to commercial jets but there are much bigger things to worry about. I can only think of 1 or 2 twin jets crashing with fatal results after losing both donks.
Fuel contam. Can happen. Very rare. There are a lot of checks to ensure fuel is of good quality. Jet engines are very forgiving and most problems from mild fuel contam are long term health issues as apposed to short term engines failing issues.
I dont know much about GE donks. FMV problems - could be. The RR engines on 330's were having huge problems too. and the rudder servos on 737's. And the flap tracks on 737's. and centre tanks also. And fairing vibrations on old 320's. The list goes on but there are monitoring process's in place and airworthiness directives and operational bulletins and modified procedures that are all designed to prevent the issue from becoming front page news. Hopefully. The airlines and plane makers are generally conservative with mechanical issues and safety.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...most problems from mild fuel contam are long term health issues as apposed to short term engines failing issues.'
Though it should be said that if not handled correctly, the short term engine failure issue could very easily turn into a long term health issue.
Though it should be said that if not handled correctly, the short term engine failure issue could very easily turn into a long term health issue.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: AUS
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interested passenger (or 'The Age')
Problem has been diagnosed as a faulty ECU from the factory.
Each ECU (one per engine) has 2 channels A and B. In this case one channel failed, then as it should have, the other channel took over. However due to a manufactuing defect, the failed channel was still sending a 'closed' signal to the fuel valve which could not be overpowered by the operating channel, therefore disallowing fuel to the engine.
In the many thousands of ECU units produced this is the first such occurence worldwide.
As above, a failure due to fuel contamination in modern day jets would require a very large amount of contaminant, not possible if proper procedures are followed.
Dual engine failure on a modern day twin, the only incidence I can think of is fuel starvation.
There's every reason to trust that if you have enough fuel the 'live' engine will get you down safely.
Problem has been diagnosed as a faulty ECU from the factory.
Each ECU (one per engine) has 2 channels A and B. In this case one channel failed, then as it should have, the other channel took over. However due to a manufactuing defect, the failed channel was still sending a 'closed' signal to the fuel valve which could not be overpowered by the operating channel, therefore disallowing fuel to the engine.
In the many thousands of ECU units produced this is the first such occurence worldwide.
As above, a failure due to fuel contamination in modern day jets would require a very large amount of contaminant, not possible if proper procedures are followed.
Dual engine failure on a modern day twin, the only incidence I can think of is fuel starvation.
There's every reason to trust that if you have enough fuel the 'live' engine will get you down safely.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Flashhart: Hah no I dont represent the newspaper I'm afraid .. it's shorthand for Adrian (my real name) .. SLF# 29J on the ill-fated bird ..
AnQrKa: Thanks for the comments .. I guess 2 x FMV failures on the same flight still very remote despite it being a 'common' problem on GE A330's .. ?
AnQrKa: Thanks for the comments .. I guess 2 x FMV failures on the same flight still very remote despite it being a 'common' problem on GE A330's .. ?