Always pay attention to your fuel status
Maybe the check list would be better to have a requirment to state the number of pumps on....ala.......13000 kg, 6 pumps on.
But will the pumps be ON? Maybe. Maybe not!
Checklists can lead to complacency. You merely read then respond with what should be set.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Queensland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Initial threats to this flight are unknown, however from this thread the threat is that of fuel starvation in the wing tanks due to the centre pump being in the off position. Was the threat recognised - yes. Was an error made, initially yes, was the error recognised - yes, the outcome was inconsequentional.
Seems to me that they have some sort of threat and error management in place and it worked. Maybe some retraining in the new checks or as the case may be. To me post flight should consist of a 1 page summary of the threats, errors and consequences for all crew to read and learn from. We are human and we need to stick together and learn from one another, at the end of the day we all share the same sky.
From LOSA (4500 Flights) 80% of all flights have some form of error, of these 25% are mismanaged, 6% lead to additional errors and 19% lead to undesired aircraft states. We all have a part to play.
My verdict, well done to the crew for identifying the error, I hope you have learnt from it. I do not fly jets, none the less we all have fuel on board. I have learnt from it.
Seems to me that they have some sort of threat and error management in place and it worked. Maybe some retraining in the new checks or as the case may be. To me post flight should consist of a 1 page summary of the threats, errors and consequences for all crew to read and learn from. We are human and we need to stick together and learn from one another, at the end of the day we all share the same sky.
From LOSA (4500 Flights) 80% of all flights have some form of error, of these 25% are mismanaged, 6% lead to additional errors and 19% lead to undesired aircraft states. We all have a part to play.
My verdict, well done to the crew for identifying the error, I hope you have learnt from it. I do not fly jets, none the less we all have fuel on board. I have learnt from it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quit the BS
Anyone who flies or fixes the 737 know exactly what has occurred and why they were in such a position after flying from PER.
The penalty is applied for what occurred afterwards (not that I feel it was suitable), I feel for all involved as I thought the white rat was a just culture. pffffffffffffffttt
"THERE FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I" how true a statement
A colleague of mine says "A man who never made a mistake, never made anything"
Lets all live and learn
Anyone who flies or fixes the 737 know exactly what has occurred and why they were in such a position after flying from PER.
The penalty is applied for what occurred afterwards (not that I feel it was suitable), I feel for all involved as I thought the white rat was a just culture. pffffffffffffffttt
"THERE FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I" how true a statement
A colleague of mine says "A man who never made a mistake, never made anything"
Lets all live and learn
Initial threats to this flight are unknown, however from this thread the threat is that of fuel starvation in the wing tanks due to the centre pump being in the off position. Was the threat recognised - yes. Was an error made, initially yes, was the error recognised - yes, the outcome was inconsequentional
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were the poor, oblivious customers down the back aware that they were minutes from a double engine flameout? I think not.
Is it even possible to relight a 737 with only centre tank fuel?
This has potential CATASTROPHE written all over it.
The fact that the event was initially reported by the receiving engineer, not the crew, is grounds for dismissal, not demotion.
Is it even possible to relight a 737 with only centre tank fuel?
This has potential CATASTROPHE written all over it.
The fact that the event was initially reported by the receiving engineer, not the crew, is grounds for dismissal, not demotion.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that they have some sort of threat and error management in place and it worked.
You should be a journo Lambsie!
All that's missing is a "yeah, we knew there was something wrong when we heard the engines backfire" quote from a terrified passenger.
Factual investigative reports can often overlook the subtle exterior, often personal, influences that lead to this sort of incident.
Educate yourself before you condemn a guilty but flawed person or system.
All that's missing is a "yeah, we knew there was something wrong when we heard the engines backfire" quote from a terrified passenger.
Factual investigative reports can often overlook the subtle exterior, often personal, influences that lead to this sort of incident.
Educate yourself before you condemn a guilty but flawed person or system.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lambsie
Good question to ask! I hope we get some sensible answers, I would think if you can feed the engines, you can light them up. However I do believe you may not be able to restart at altitude, so a restart might have to be attempted after being a glider for a while.
Plenty of time to read the manual........
Good question to ask! I hope we get some sensible answers, I would think if you can feed the engines, you can light them up. However I do believe you may not be able to restart at altitude, so a restart might have to be attempted after being a glider for a while.
Plenty of time to read the manual........
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never (thank goodness) flew the Slug. But if its is anything like the DC9 or MD80 you could die with lots of fuel in the center tank. Both engines flamed out and no way for them or APU to get the gas.
Thats why Captain K, there's such interest in this......as I read, the PIC had 10,000 hours or so on the Slug....that alone tells us a lot about the holes in the cheese....don't just tap the side of your nose and say "nuff said".....this was minutes from black armbands......share with your colleagues.......please
Thats why Captain K, there's such interest in this......as I read, the PIC had 10,000 hours or so on the Slug....that alone tells us a lot about the holes in the cheese....don't just tap the side of your nose and say "nuff said".....this was minutes from black armbands......share with your colleagues.......please
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
The facts are broadly known and I have nothing to add to that. I don't fly the 737 either. My concern is for the crew. Having said that, had they self reported, the outcome would have been much different.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Queensland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, The figures do in fact come from TEM's training. A course which I believe is going to become compulsary for all pilots. My thinking has certainly changed since the course in so much as that I am always challenging checklists, procedures and the way I do things and looking for potential threats. If this means that a checklist or procedure should be changed then, outline the threat and potential consequences and have it sorted.
My backing of the pilots here is merely at rumour value. All the facts are not on the table on this forum non the less disaster has been avoided. The outcome could of been completely different, if it were we would have everyone on this site offering condolences and sympathy, probably rightfully so. But an accident did not occur, we know what happened, yet we scold the pilots. On the non reporting of the incident, major issue. In some companys still, you are damned if you do an damned if you don't. I personnally would of reported it. If the company wants to sack me then so be it, at least I will be able to sleep at night.
My backing of the pilots here is merely at rumour value. All the facts are not on the table on this forum non the less disaster has been avoided. The outcome could of been completely different, if it were we would have everyone on this site offering condolences and sympathy, probably rightfully so. But an accident did not occur, we know what happened, yet we scold the pilots. On the non reporting of the incident, major issue. In some companys still, you are damned if you do an damned if you don't. I personnally would of reported it. If the company wants to sack me then so be it, at least I will be able to sleep at night.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way QF has become, I'm not surprised it was not reported. In the past you used to be told that if you reported a mistake (you or someone else made) that that was the most important thing due to the safety of the flight. And importantly they wouldn't do anything against you, as you had done the right thing by reporting it.
I personally know of people involved in areas that do with the day to day operation, that have been sacked for reporting an error they made. One had an aircraft called back via the tower as it was at the holding point. It was an error that was more going to be an inconvienence to pax at the other end, but an error no less.
When we did the figures later the figures for the aircraft were not even 5% different. And the settings would have been the same.
Even in my role I made an error that went all the way through and was missed, but I reported it as soon as I noticed it. The only reason I didn't get hauled over the coals for it, was that the operating crew missed it on 3 different ocassions. It was covered up by them. No doubt for the same reason as this person was thinking. My error also related to fuel.
I personally know of people involved in areas that do with the day to day operation, that have been sacked for reporting an error they made. One had an aircraft called back via the tower as it was at the holding point. It was an error that was more going to be an inconvienence to pax at the other end, but an error no less.
When we did the figures later the figures for the aircraft were not even 5% different. And the settings would have been the same.
Even in my role I made an error that went all the way through and was missed, but I reported it as soon as I noticed it. The only reason I didn't get hauled over the coals for it, was that the operating crew missed it on 3 different ocassions. It was covered up by them. No doubt for the same reason as this person was thinking. My error also related to fuel.
There are only two sorts of fuel tanks on aircraft:
1. Feed tanks.
2. Transfer tanks.
Feed tanks are tanks that can supply fuel to the engines.
Transfer tanks tanks are tanks that can supply fuel to the feed tanks.
It is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient fuel in the feed tanks to sustain engine operation throughout all stages of flight.
EVERYTHING else is secondary.
We are all human. But, let us all learn from the mistakes made by other pilots faced with the same responsibility outlined above.
1. Feed tanks.
2. Transfer tanks.
Feed tanks are tanks that can supply fuel to the engines.
Transfer tanks tanks are tanks that can supply fuel to the feed tanks.
It is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient fuel in the feed tanks to sustain engine operation throughout all stages of flight.
EVERYTHING else is secondary.
We are all human. But, let us all learn from the mistakes made by other pilots faced with the same responsibility outlined above.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt sherm also has a rather strange attitude, methinks!
Never operated on "the slug" he says...and I presume he means the 737?
Flown 73s for 20 odd years, never heard the term slug in reference to them and would suggest no other 737 driver has either!
Having flown the 9 and the MD80 also, as he has, if what he says he believes is correct about the centre tank fuel not being available to the donks I would have to say"please explain"!
And if he's correct why would he rubbish the 737 that doesn't have that problem?
I suppose it goes without saying that he's an anti Airbus pilot also!
Never operated on "the slug" he says...and I presume he means the 737?
Flown 73s for 20 odd years, never heard the term slug in reference to them and would suggest no other 737 driver has either!
Having flown the 9 and the MD80 also, as he has, if what he says he believes is correct about the centre tank fuel not being available to the donks I would have to say"please explain"!
And if he's correct why would he rubbish the 737 that doesn't have that problem?
I suppose it goes without saying that he's an anti Airbus pilot also!