Pitot Covers Brisbane Take 2
There are no words…
Perhaps we need big fluro flashing signs at the stand or something? If it was night, they would have departed clearly. Then the fun really starts. An Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation preliminary report has detailed that an Airbus A350 passenger aircraft was about to be pushed back for departure from Brisbane Airport before it was observed that covers were still in place on its pitot probes. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...-probe-covers/ |
As part of its investigation, to date the ATSB has interviewed the LAME, AME and the refueller, and reviewed airport security video, which did not show that the required final walk-around of the aircraft was conducted by either the LAME or the AME prior to dispatch. |
Looking at the history, it's obviously a Brisbane thing. They should NOTAM it.
|
How did the crew pre-flight walk around fail to see this... I assume without any data inputs this would have likely resulted in a rejected take-off due to lack of airspeed data? Or could they have still departed with loss of control risk?
|
The External Inspection is basically an excuse to take some selfies for Instagram or TikTok accounts :rolleyes:
|
How did the crew pre-flight walk around fail to see this Because the FO did a walk around of an A350 in less than 2 minutes. |
Have mud wasps ever actually built a nest quickly in any pitot tubes at Brisbane airport? Because if not, I feel this policy about putting on pitot covers during turns is an example of overregulation that actually reduces safety outcomes.
|
Originally Posted by ThunderstormFactory
(Post 11281088)
Have mud wasps ever actually built a nest quickly in any pitot tubes at Brisbane airport? Because if not, I feel this policy about putting on pitot covers during turns is an example of overregulation that actually reduces safety outcomes.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications.../final-report/ In 2006 it was only 55 minutes turnaround https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...601453_001.pdf |
Was suggested on previous post that covers self destruct at a certain speed but idea shot down . Maybe a big orange sign across windshield ? Maybe red streamer across thrust levers that’s kept with covers . Only thing that’s certain it will happen again .
|
Originally Posted by T Vasis
How did the crew pre-flight walk around fail to see this...
The captain looked up at and likely observed the fitted pitot covers, however they were required to be fitted at that time as per the operator’s policy At 0904 the LAME re-entered the flight deck, certified for the transit check in the technical log, cleared the technical log entry for the fitment of the pitot covers, and removed the pitot cover warning placard from the flight deck pedestal. ”Between 0852:18 and 0854:03, the first officer conducted a preflight walk-around”. Because the FO did a walk around of an A350 in less than 2 minutes. |
Originally Posted by T-Vasis
(Post 11281082)
How did the crew pre-flight walk around fail to see this... I assume without any data inputs this would have likely resulted in a rejected take-off due to lack of airspeed data? Or could they have still departed with loss of control risk?
Airspeed alive goes back the Cessna 172. Airbus no different. |
Between 0852:18 and 0854:03, the first officer conducted a preflight walk-around. The walk- around was truncated from the nose, to the right engine, across to the left engine and back to the airbridge. The aircraft operator’s procedures also required the extremities of the wings, airframe, and tail section to be inspected, however this was not carried out. |
Have mud wasps ever actually built a nest quickly in any pitot tubes at Brisbane airport? How did the crew pre-flight walk around fail to see this.. In a perfect world, we’d be doing the exterior inspection with the jet completely ready to go flying, but that’s rarely how it works, The cargo doors are still open, they’re still refuelling, the NWS lockout pin’s in, the engineer’s headset’s plugged in, etc etc etc. We have to rely on having robust mitigators instead. Having the probe covers still on is much the same. Not ideal, but better than the alternative. |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 11281118)
Does this failure amount to negligence? And does the FO still have a job at SQ?
Pitot covers are meant to stay on until several minutes before pushback, whereas the flight crew walk around usually happens 20-30 minutes before ETD. The SOPs dictated pitot covers would have been on during the flight crew’s walk around. The mitigation the flight crew had in this case was a warning placard placed on the centre pedestal by the engineer which was only to be removed once they had removed the covers, except in this case they removed the placard without taking the covers off or conducting a final walk around before pushback. The pilots were following SOP and trusted the engineering to comply with their SOPs. I know some pilots have a habit of opening the windows, leaning out and physically checking to see the pitot tubes are uncovered in a situation like this, however probably impossible to see from the flight deck of an A350. |
Does this failure amount to negligence? And does the FO still have a job at SQ? Personally I would like to view them before doing any start procedures. |
Ken will hopefully apologise for the inferences which could reasonably be drawn from his questions.
In any event, it’s an odd order of pre-flight inspections (though I understand the justification for it). If there’s stuff left to do which the crew cannot practicably confirm, by first-hand observation before taxiing, it’s little wonder this kind of problem arises. |
Probably handy to keep Ken's questions in context. He prefaced his questions with a direct quote from the investigation report, specifically,
Between 0852:18 and 0854:03, the first officer conducted a preflight walk-around. The walk-around was truncated from the nose, to the right engine, across to the left engine and back to the airbridge. The aircraft operator’s procedures also required the extremities of the wings, airframe, and tail section to be inspected, however this was not carried out. I wouldn't expect someone to be sacked for that but neither would I expect there to be no action at all. |
As usual (with rare exceptions) a valid point, Mick.
My apologies to Ken if his implied call for the FO’s head was based on the pitot covers remaining on rather than the ‘truncated’ walk-around. |
From personal expereince, the wasps also do their work in fuel drain tubes on aircraft parked at the Brisbane GA area. (Dec 2020)
|
Originally Posted by Cilba
At the airline I worked for it was required that the captain and the first officer viewed the gear pins and covers- three of each- before they were stowed in their dedicated stowage.
|
I always understood that certain engineering procedures required a dual inspection, such as after work on critical items like flying controls.
If this final check of pitot covers removed rests with engineering, should there not be a dual inspection given the critical nature of this item? |
There is. The engineer has to physically display the covers to the pilots demonstrating that they have been removed. We are lucky to get one engineer at a gate, let alone two.
|
Thinking outside of box, maybe it is time to redesign pitot tubes to eliminate need for covers?
|
Or design the aircraft such that the probes and ports are always located such that flight crew can visually confirm there are no covers on them.
|
Thinking outside of box, maybe it is time to redesign pitot tubes to eliminate need for covers https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e151534f8.jpeg |
Do they rattle much at Mach 0.85 in the Moth?
|
for something that stick's out like fluro dogs ball's you'll think the problem lie's with the incompetent ground handler's AMSA and now rebranded heston. you can have all the procedues in the world but if the dispatch guy has no clue doesn't bother looking up and seeing REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT FLAGS 1meter from his incompetent head this wiill just continue
|
There is no reason that gates couldn’t have a private webcam showing the aircraft. The crew could then monitor in real time the baggage loading, fueling and yes, pitot covers. “How hard can it be?”he asked rhetorically.
|
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 11282278)
Do they rattle much at Mach 0.85 in the Moth?
|
Quite hard when airlines share multiple gates at multiple airports that none of them own. I guess that's why they employ their own ground handlers and engineering. If aircraft manufacturers thought it was so dire, you'd think there'd be an electronic monitoring system. If Airbus et al can build in cameras so the pilots can see where the wheels are, and the punters can see a nice view ahead from the tail, perhaps they can put ones so the pilots can see if the various pins and covers have been removed. Or carry them all on the flight deck. If they aren't in the rack, don't push back.
|
REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT FLAGS |
A BNE engineer showed me the correct number of pitot tube covers just before push back. I asked him if the covers were from my aircraft and he said no. He was scamming the system by carrying around a spare set of covers to fool flight crews with.
|
Originally Posted by Motorola
(Post 11282397)
A BNE engineer showed me the correct number of pitot tube covers just before push back. I asked him if the covers were from my aircraft and he said no. He was scamming the system by carrying around a spare set of covers to fool flight crews with.
What did you do next? |
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 11282278)
Do they rattle much at Mach 0.85 in the Moth?
(Re your subsequent post drawing a distinction between “Flight” on a “Remove Before” cover on the one hand and taxi then take off on the other: Don’t forget where the rules say a ‘flight’ starts and when flight crews commence logging - and rightly claiming - numero uno responsibility ‘flight time’…) |
Tie the covers to the gate or something fwd and in line.... not rocket science ffs. Use some string and ingenuity.
|
Don’t forget where the rules say a ‘flight’ starts |
Would leaving them heated during turnarounds deter a wasp from moving in? Or would they “burn out” or fail due extended use?
|
After push back on many aircraft the nose gear pin is held up so both pilots can see it. Is there any reason why the pitot covers can't be held up one by one so the pilots can see them?
|
What about old mate whom Motorola says is in the habit of: "scamming the system by carrying around a spare set of covers to fool flight crews with"?
|
Only too happy to provide some light relief. The point is, someone in the 1930's recognised a problem and came up with a solution that was simple using the technology available at the time. Is it beyond the wit of man (or woman), who can build your .85M vehicle, to come up with a modern day equivalent. Kelly Johnson or Joe Sutter could have solved the problem during their coffee break if they saw the need.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.