Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Dreamliner preflight error, ground and tech crew?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Dreamliner preflight error, ground and tech crew?

Old 29th May 2022, 02:03
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dreamliner preflight error, ground and tech crew?

On the evening of 21 September 2021, a Boeing Company 787-9, registered VH-ZNJ and operated by Qantas Airways was prepared for a freight flight from Melbourne, Victoria, to Los Angeles, United States. This involved removing covers from the pitot probes and static ports, among other tasks, associated with restoring the aircraft to flight status following an aircraft ‘park’ procedure.

At about 0825 on 22 September 2021, a pre-flight exterior inspection was conducted by one of the flight crew, with no anomalies detected. The aircraft was also subject to a pre-departure exterior inspection by ground service dispatch personnel, before departing Melbourne at about 0900. The aircraft landed at Los Angeles about 14.5 hours later, following an uneventful flight. During the post-flight inspection, engineering identified that all 4 engine fan cowl static ports were covered with tape.
c100driver is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 02:22
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by c100driver View Post
On the evening of 21 September 2021, a Boeing Company 787-9, registered VH-ZNJ and operated by Qantas Airways was prepared for a freight flight from Melbourne, Victoria, to Los Angeles, United States. This involved removing covers from the pitot probes and static ports, among other tasks, associated with restoring the aircraft to flight status following an aircraft ‘park’ procedure.

At about 0825 on 22 September 2021, a pre-flight exterior inspection was conducted by one of the flight crew, with no anomalies detected. The aircraft was also subject to a pre-departure exterior inspection by ground service dispatch personnel, before departing Melbourne at about 0900. The aircraft landed at Los Angeles about 14.5 hours later, following an uneventful flight. During the post-flight inspection, engineering identified that all 4 engine fan cowl static ports were covered with tape.
Fascinating.
KZ Kiwi is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 02:29
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bit like the Malaysian A330, engineer fails to remove items, however post that we do have multiple layers of responsibility from others to try and pickup on these issues post that. Do not rely on ground operators to pickup on these things, it's a bonus if they do, however I have seen a Captain fall into this situation before, who got into serious trouble from the training department when the ground crew reminded them about something that they failed to pickup during a preflight.

I don't believe the Roo has engineers dispatching flights from the stand anymore, however whoever conducted the preflight here, I assume SO, failed miserably.

I am sure our Boeing rated friends could advise us on why no engine warnings at all appeared? Strange.
PoppaJo is online now  
Old 29th May 2022, 03:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it standard procedure to use that sort of tape?
Cilba is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 03:41
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PoppaJo View Post
I am sure our Boeing rated friends could advise us on why no engine warnings at all appeared? Strange.
According to the ATSB report (p.4):
The engine electronic control (EEC) uses the ambient air pressure data from the ADRS for engine control algorithms, engine thrust calculations and to optimise engine performance. The fan cowl static port air pressure data is only used when an EEC determines that the ADRS data is unreliable. Where no ambient pressure data is available, the EEC assigns a failsafe mode for continued engine operation.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/578122...-040-final.pdf
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 07:14
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The pit of despair
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

And what exactly do we do a pre flight walkround for?
Having seen the pictures - no matter what the rush, time of day, or outside Wx, someone was negligent in their walkround!

Aeroperú Flight 603 didn't find it fascinating either

SASKATOON9999 is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 08:12
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: East of Westralia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep, someone screwed up. Lucky it didn’t cause any hassles. Lucky no one was injured as a result.

Hopefully lessons learned.
ScepticalOptomist is online now  
Old 29th May 2022, 08:21
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seems somewhat risky sending a second officer (not saying this one was, but I believe that’s pretty standard for QF WB)
I’m surprised so many captains accept this

Last edited by TimmyTee; 29th May 2022 at 09:12.
TimmyTee is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 09:51
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Lower North Shore
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TimmyTee View Post
Seems somewhat risky sending a second officer (not saying this one was, but I believe that’s pretty standard for QF WB)
I’m surprised so many captains accept this
you do realise most of these second officers are ex Captains themselves…
Brakerider is online now  
Old 29th May 2022, 11:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A 787-9 is flying freight?
RickNRoll is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 11:25
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TimmyTee View Post
Seems somewhat risky sending a second officer (not saying this one was, but I believe that’s pretty standard for QF WB)
I’m surprised so many captains accept this
Why? They’re type rated aren’t they?
morno is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 12:30
  #12 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist View Post
Yep, someone screwed up. Lucky it didn’t cause any hassles. Lucky no one was injured as a result.

Hopefully lessons learned.
There were a number of failures here, but the most obvious safety breach was whoever applied the tape in the first place without an accompanying maintenance snag requiring it to be removed before flight.
Two's in is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 14:26
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PoppaJo View Post
I have seen a Captain fall into this situation before, who got into serious trouble from the training department when the ground crew reminded them about something that they failed to pickup during a preflight.
Sounds like a really fun place to work 🙄
havick is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 18:07
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We have checklists for most things, why not a check list for the walk around?
uxb99 is online now  
Old 29th May 2022, 18:15
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think there is accumulating evidence for a slightly more detailed checklist than simply "Gear pins and covers?.........." Certainly probes and engine cowl locks could be added, based on recent incidents.

One would hope that any pilot member of a crew i.e. who is type-rated, would know how to do a walk around and what to check, no matter what their rank is.

Everybody makes mistakes, but forgetting to look to see if probes are uncovered and clear is surely not open to a pilot forgetting. How can one forget ? - it is the reason you are outside, walking around the aircraft.
Looking into the front of a fan engine, you look at the intake probes, right? As well as the condition of the intake housing, the spinner, the fan blades etc. Don't you ?
Uplinker is offline  
Old 29th May 2022, 18:35
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PoppaJo View Post
I am sure our Boeing rated friends could advise us on why no engine warnings at all appeared? Strange.
It would have set numerous FADEC maintenance faults and the "L/R ENG CONTROL" EICAS messages. However the ENG CONTROL messages are inhibited above 80 knots, so the crew would not have seen them until they landed, and we don't expect the flight crew to check CMC faults (I don't think there is anything that would prevent it, but unlikely there would be any reason for them to look).
Engine operation may have been a bit 'abnormal' - not up to speed on the Trent 1000 Air Data Logic, but the general rule is if both engine sensors agree but disagree with aircraft, the system defaults to the engine sensors to protect engine-to-engine isolation. Of course when engine sensed Pamb became greater than the P total, it likely would have faulted everything and gone to some default failsafe value.
tdracer is online now  
Old 29th May 2022, 19:32
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Two's in View Post
There were a number of failures here, but the most obvious safety breach was whoever applied the tape in the first place without an accompanying maintenance snag requiring it to be removed before flight.
We don't know that.
There may well have been a log entry to remove the tape, however, as happened in the other incident discussed recently, a communication breakdown between the certifying engineer and the delegated indivual who was tasked to remove the tape can easily happen.
HOVIS is online now  
Old 29th May 2022, 23:37
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HOVIS View Post
We don't know that.
There may well have been a log entry to remove the tape, however, as happened in the other incident discussed recently, a communication breakdown between the certifying engineer and the delegated indivual who was tasked to remove the tape can easily happen.
A mechanic would not likely be near a storage aircraft. Never in my lifetime and storage aircraft have been fairly common. Oh, certifying means checking before signing. That simple. I did to another LAEs work yesterday as he didn't have company approvals. Guy was way more capable and experienced than myself but I still checked the work. Argue your way out of that statement of fact. We as engineers know that storage checklists are comprehensive in the scope and responsibilities.
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 30th May 2022, 05:44
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Blighty
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cat Techie View Post
A mechanic would not likely be near a storage aircraft. Never in my lifetime and storage aircraft have been fairly common. Oh, certifying means checking before signing. That simple. I did to another LAEs work yesterday as he didn't have company approvals. Guy was way more capable and experienced than myself but I still checked the work. Argue your way out of that statement of fact. We as engineers know that storage checklists are comprehensive in the scope and responsibilities.
Not sure why you want to start a fight over this, I was merely making the observation, as previously stated, that communication errors between individuals can occur. I am not condoning it, or making excuses. It doesn't matter how capable or experienced you are. Everyone, and I mean everyone is capable of erring.
HOVIS is online now  
Old 30th May 2022, 05:57
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whatever the reason(s) for a mistake; the final arbiter is that one of the pilots - who is actually going to be in the aircraft, taking off - needs to check that important things such as probes have been individually looked at and checked.

The pilot walk-around should be the one that catches any mistakes such as probe covers being left on.
Uplinker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.