Water leak made A330 'bounce'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Water leak made A330 'bounce'
AAP
Water leak made plane 'bounce'
May 15, 2003
A WATER leak caused a Garuda Indonesia plane to bounce several times and become airborne as it attempted to land at Melbourne Airport, an investigation has found.
The Airbus A330, en route from Adelaide, was also forced to make a second approach after landing mechanics failed to operate during the incident on August 27, 2001.
The pilot of the aircraft eventually landed the plane manually and no one was injured.
A report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) today found a leak into the radio altimeter antenna coaxial cables caused the loss of normal aircraft handling characteristics, disengaging the plane's two autopilots.
The pilot continued the landing approach on manual but during the first attempt, the aircraft bounced on touch-down and was airborne for four-and-a-half seconds.
It bounced three more times, the ground spoilers failed to deploy and the thrust reversers did not activate.
The report said a second landing was attempted and the plane bounced again, but this time the ground spoilers deployed, although not the thrust reversers.
"The landing rollout was completed without further incident, and the aircraft was taxied to the terminal," the report said.
The report said "water ingress" into the radio altimeter antennas caused its signals to be interpreted as out of range, rather than failure, causing the loss of normal handling characteristics.
AAP
Water leak made plane 'bounce'
May 15, 2003
A WATER leak caused a Garuda Indonesia plane to bounce several times and become airborne as it attempted to land at Melbourne Airport, an investigation has found.
The Airbus A330, en route from Adelaide, was also forced to make a second approach after landing mechanics failed to operate during the incident on August 27, 2001.
The pilot of the aircraft eventually landed the plane manually and no one was injured.
A report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) today found a leak into the radio altimeter antenna coaxial cables caused the loss of normal aircraft handling characteristics, disengaging the plane's two autopilots.
The pilot continued the landing approach on manual but during the first attempt, the aircraft bounced on touch-down and was airborne for four-and-a-half seconds.
It bounced three more times, the ground spoilers failed to deploy and the thrust reversers did not activate.
The report said a second landing was attempted and the plane bounced again, but this time the ground spoilers deployed, although not the thrust reversers.
"The landing rollout was completed without further incident, and the aircraft was taxied to the terminal," the report said.
The report said "water ingress" into the radio altimeter antennas caused its signals to be interpreted as out of range, rather than failure, causing the loss of normal handling characteristics.
AAP
In a related incident....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: West of East
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See here for more details.
To cut a long story short - there are several conditions that must be met for the deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers. One of these conditions is that the radio altimeter reading is less than 6 feet.
With a failure of both radio altimeters the < 6 feet rad alt is no longer considered in the equation but the water in the coax cable in this case resulted in the radio altimeter signals being interpreted as out of range signals, rather than as a failure of the radio altimeters. Consequently the logic sequence wasn't completed and there was no depolyment of spoilers and trust reversers on the first landing attempt.
To cut a long story short - there are several conditions that must be met for the deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers. One of these conditions is that the radio altimeter reading is less than 6 feet.
With a failure of both radio altimeters the < 6 feet rad alt is no longer considered in the equation but the water in the coax cable in this case resulted in the radio altimeter signals being interpreted as out of range signals, rather than as a failure of the radio altimeters. Consequently the logic sequence wasn't completed and there was no depolyment of spoilers and trust reversers on the first landing attempt.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then why isn't there a simple logic test in the circuit that compares IRS/pneumatic altitude and approach/airport elevations with rad alt indications to flag spurious "out of range" indications as distinct from failure mode.?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Perth, W.A.
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the weather at the time of the incident? After reading the report I was more worried about why the Captain was not able to control the landing better. Two bounces and then the Right Hand Mains lifted off again. Was the wind gusting, was the crosswind limit of the aircraft reached or excedded. Or was the pilot having a really bad day, having to manually land the aircraft for the first time that month. The fact that the Radalt was out should not result in the problems the Captain ended up with.
More questions than answers on this one.
RMA
More questions than answers on this one.
RMA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: West of East
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no expert on the A330 but reading the report I got the impression that an additional problem caused by the rad alt being 'out of range' was that the flight control system didn't go into 'flare' mode.
I believe that this change of mode changes the handling characteristics of the aircraft. Consequently the aircraft wasn't handling as would normally be expected during the landing.
I'm sure someone with more A330 knowledge will correct me if I'm wrong!
I believe that this change of mode changes the handling characteristics of the aircraft. Consequently the aircraft wasn't handling as would normally be expected during the landing.
I'm sure someone with more A330 knowledge will correct me if I'm wrong!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: By the Bay
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gday,
Sounds like too much computerised HooHah to me!
Give me a "Magical system of Gears,Wires,Wheels,Pulleys and Levers" anyday!
If its not Boeing...(its bouncing in this case)
Its not going!
Cheers,
I'm gone!
Sounds like too much computerised HooHah to me!
Give me a "Magical system of Gears,Wires,Wheels,Pulleys and Levers" anyday!
If its not Boeing...(its bouncing in this case)
Its not going!
Cheers,
I'm gone!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, what a complete load of nonsence this is!
The facts are...the automatics thru a shoe(not uncommon).
The crew went to manual flight...
and F..k.d it right up!!
Haven't we all been there, done that?
Nah!...don't think so! After all, we are talking about Garuda. God help us!!
The facts are...the automatics thru a shoe(not uncommon).
The crew went to manual flight...
and F..k.d it right up!!
Haven't we all been there, done that?
Nah!...don't think so! After all, we are talking about Garuda. God help us!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: London
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years back we had an A320 positioning flight. Just the 2 pilots on board. Unbeknown to them the fwd toilet faucet was stuck in the on position. The sink overflowed and water found it's way below floor to the avionics racking. The whole show went to pot . They ended up in direct law and no doubt required an underwear change after the flight ! 
