Airbus eats Paperwork
This could easily have caused enough damage to cause an accident and it did impact on the safety of the flight. Anyone who says differently is either lying or doesn’t understand what safety is.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was brave of the guy to admit leaving the clipboard in the engine intake. Judging by the comments of the “hang him high” brigade, this might be the last time that anyone will admit to making a mistake, and who could blame them? May I make a suggestion to the punishment brigade? The next time someone fouls up, gets it wrong, forgets something etc. don’t rip their ears off, even if you think it is deserved. That is the reaction of a bully who deserves a proper punishment, if for no other reason than your actions endanger my flights. You are given the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the aircraft and everyone and everything on and around it. So make sure you creatte the environment around you to that will enable you to play your part in the process.
And the solution is NOT:
That is just their creed. Those words are little more than hot air and a way of shifting the blame. I want people to REALLY look and give me something in their own words that we are ready for a pushback (but I also don’t want a engineering check unless the guy or girl is an engineer).
Safe flying,
PM
And the solution is NOT:
What ever happened to:
“Ground from flight deck, can I have your checks please?”
“Yes flight deck; all equipment removed, all hatches and holds secure. All intakes clear, beacon rotating, tug connected, chocks removed, standing by”.
“Ground from flight deck, can I have your checks please?”
“Yes flight deck; all equipment removed, all hatches and holds secure. All intakes clear, beacon rotating, tug connected, chocks removed, standing by”.
Safe flying,
PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, you are part if the solution. But the same can not be said of others. Poor training of ground crew and useless, unserviceable, poorly designed equipment are major factors that result in unnecessary incidents. Shouting at the poor sod who cocked up will bring about the wrong sort of change. And as many have pointed out above, the main problem is the result pernicious penny pinching by greedy senior management. Only when they become criminally liable for their company’s performance will there be change. A few weeks avoiding prison showers often brings about change in their outlook.
In this instance, the provision of a lightweight waterproof document box might have prevented this dispatcher from using the engine intake as a rain cover. Another solution is a car set up as a mobile office.
PM
In this instance, the provision of a lightweight waterproof document box might have prevented this dispatcher from using the engine intake as a rain cover. Another solution is a car set up as a mobile office.
PM
Site Office vans sounds like a perfect idea to me Piltdown Man - helps in high wind too.
Personally in this case I don't see much safety issue after the fact of take-off and a delay to be notified of FOD being a clip board. A tool kit maybe if no sockets found on tarmac or runway.
- Another serious question. Do twins on ETOPS require instant and continues access to live engine data from a secondary or tertiary provider?
Personally in this case I don't see much safety issue after the fact of take-off and a delay to be notified of FOD being a clip board. A tool kit maybe if no sockets found on tarmac or runway.
- Another serious question. Do twins on ETOPS require instant and continues access to live engine data from a secondary or tertiary provider?
Leaving FOD in the inlet is certainly bad, but it's quite a stretch to say a single clipboard was going to cause an accident. The engine is certified to keep operating after taking 6 large birds going 200+ knots - all at the same time. A clipboard sucked out of the inlet is far less challenging to the engine.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess 40 years experience working high bypass turbine engines, and 25 years on the Boeing Propulsion Safety Board means I don't understand what safety is.
Leaving FOD in the inlet is certainly bad, but it's quite a stretch to say a single clipboard was going to cause an accident. The engine is certified to keep operating after taking 6 large birds going 200+ knots - all at the same time. A clipboard sucked out of the inlet is far less challenging to the engine.
Leaving FOD in the inlet is certainly bad, but it's quite a stretch to say a single clipboard was going to cause an accident. The engine is certified to keep operating after taking 6 large birds going 200+ knots - all at the same time. A clipboard sucked out of the inlet is far less challenging to the engine.
I guess 40 years experience working high bypass turbine engines, and 25 years on the Boeing Propulsion Safety Board means I don't understand what safety is.
Do you think that leaving the clipboard in the intake impacted the safety of the flight? If you don’t, then you don’t understand safety (in my opinion of course). I’m sure you understand engines.
This could easily have caused enough damage to cause an accident
As for impacting safety of the flight - perhaps by a small amount. But several other holes in the cheese would need to have aligned before it could possibly become meaningful.
MMEL dispatch also results in a small reduction in safety and aircraft depart under MMEL restrictions all the time. Or are you suggesting MMEL dispatch be banned since it impacts safety of the flight?
I was specifically responding to this statement.
I was more focussed on the Airline putting out a statement that the safety of the flight was never impacted/ effected, whatever they said. It irks me that they cut costs to the extent that ground handlers don’t get the training they ( and the public) deserve and then roll out trite statements which are not true. The safety of the flight was effected.
You have a lot of engineering experience, do you think it is possible that the airflow could have been affected to the point that a surge or stall occurred during the take off roll?
I remember a rolls Royce engine stopping after a single rivet head bounced around the intake for a bit before making its way past the first stage. Admittedly that was over 20 years ago and the engine wasn’t high bypass.
I also remember an A320 having an engine shut down due to a single black backed gull, I imaging a metal clip could do more damage than a black backed gull.
On 20 June 2012 an Air New Zealand Airbus A320 was landing at Wellington International Airport when it suffered a bird strike to its right engine. The bird strike did not affect the landing. The bird was later identified as a black-backed gull.
1.2. Maintenance engineers inspected the engine in accordance with the Airbus aircraft maintenance manual and released it back into revenue service later the same day for a flight to Auckland with 172 persons on board, including five crew members.
1.3. The Airbus aircraft maintenance manual required parts of the engine to be inspected using a borescope.2 However, as the bird strike had involved only one engine and no damage had been observed, the aeroplane was allowed to continue in service for up to 10 hours’ flying or one more sector (one more take-off and landing), whichever came first. The engine was then required to undergo the borescope inspection. The aeroplane was released to fly to Auckland under this “continued operating allowance”.3
1.4. On approach to land at Auckland International Airport the same engine suffered a failure. The captain reduced the engine thrust to idle and continued with the landing. Although damaged internally, the engine continued to run and was used during the landing.
1.5. An inspection of the failed engine revealed damage to components caused by the bird being ingested down the core of the engine.4 This damage had led to cracking in a compressor blade in the third-stage compressor. The crack in this blade grew further under the stress of continued engine operation in a damaged state. It finally fractured completely and caused significant damage to other components as it passed through other compressor stages in the jet engine.
1.2. Maintenance engineers inspected the engine in accordance with the Airbus aircraft maintenance manual and released it back into revenue service later the same day for a flight to Auckland with 172 persons on board, including five crew members.
1.3. The Airbus aircraft maintenance manual required parts of the engine to be inspected using a borescope.2 However, as the bird strike had involved only one engine and no damage had been observed, the aeroplane was allowed to continue in service for up to 10 hours’ flying or one more sector (one more take-off and landing), whichever came first. The engine was then required to undergo the borescope inspection. The aeroplane was released to fly to Auckland under this “continued operating allowance”.3
1.4. On approach to land at Auckland International Airport the same engine suffered a failure. The captain reduced the engine thrust to idle and continued with the landing. Although damaged internally, the engine continued to run and was used during the landing.
1.5. An inspection of the failed engine revealed damage to components caused by the bird being ingested down the core of the engine.4 This damage had led to cracking in a compressor blade in the third-stage compressor. The crack in this blade grew further under the stress of continued engine operation in a damaged state. It finally fractured completely and caused significant damage to other components as it passed through other compressor stages in the jet engine.
The engine is certified to keep operating after taking 6 large birds going 200+ knots - all at the same time. A clipboard sucked out of the inlet is far less challenging to the engine.
But several other holes in the cheese would need to have aligned before it could possibly become meaningful.
At the Industry level, the regulators are handing over the monitoring and regulating of safety to the Airlines themselves as long as the Airline can point to systems in manuals that would work if human nature was out of the equation. The slice of cheese is thinner and has more holes.
At a Company level, management earn bonuses for hitting KPI’s that are almost exclusively cost related. Their kids school fees literally depend on them cutting costs. You can still smell the cheese but it’s so thin you can’t see it.
At an Operational level, we have the problems we see here, communication is difficult, systems don’t work well ( why was the tug not there, why was there nowhere to keep the paperwork dry, why did the dispatcher not have a sound understanding of what FOD is?) The cheese has more holes than last decade.
At an Individual level we have people not trained as well as they used to be. In addition, they have less experience than in days of old ( 1990) their workload has increased and their shift work has got shiftier, their pay checks don’t go as far and they see little security in their jobs and as a result have less loyalty, and strive ( on average) for a lower bar. More holes, thin cheese.
That’s my thoughts anyway
Have a good day.
What is wrong with standing under a wing out of the rain, being in the hold or shock horror, fill out the paperwork once on the aerobridge or in the aircraft.
Have you seen these...
Have you seen these...
They’re all great ideas but you’re confusing common sense and ‘reasonableness’ with the Jetstar business model......
Aerobridge? What’s that??? Sydney yes, almost all other ports no.
Umberella? Fantastic idea, but all banned as FOD from anyone on the apron. I’ve seen many pax berated by ground staff because they had the audacity to open their umberella and endanger all the other people and engines around them.
Flight deck is a great idea, but most pilots have kicked them out due to the ongoing distractions and radio they carry that needs to be at 300db.......
Aerobridge? What’s that??? Sydney yes, almost all other ports no.
Umberella? Fantastic idea, but all banned as FOD from anyone on the apron. I’ve seen many pax berated by ground staff because they had the audacity to open their umberella and endanger all the other people and engines around them.
Flight deck is a great idea, but most pilots have kicked them out due to the ongoing distractions and radio they carry that needs to be at 300db.......
Last edited by GA Driver; 5th Mar 2018 at 04:07. Reason: Shhhpellling
Flight deck is a great idea, but most pilots have kicked them out due to the ongoing distractions and radio they carry that needs to be at 300db.......
