18 Injured CX880 after RTO.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know what the airspeed discrepancy was . I personally would have done a quick cross check against the standby ASI and used that as ref to disregard the faulty system
However a decision had to be made in seconds so until more facts are known you cannot fault the decision to abort, however I would not taxi the aircraft to a bay at the terminal following a high speed abort .
as for the report that the chief purser elected to call for an emergency evacuation without consulting with the captain , that totally blows my mind . We shall see in time if that is what actually happened
great CRM failure for future courses if this is the case
plus a new sim training module
However a decision had to be made in seconds so until more facts are known you cannot fault the decision to abort, however I would not taxi the aircraft to a bay at the terminal following a high speed abort .
as for the report that the chief purser elected to call for an emergency evacuation without consulting with the captain , that totally blows my mind . We shall see in time if that is what actually happened
great CRM failure for future courses if this is the case
plus a new sim training module
Well to my mind “a/c unsafe or unable to fly” covers the IAS loss or disagree. I’d rather stop at 125 knots and take my time dealing with hot brakes than take the IAS problem into the air, fly around doing the unreliable airspeed checklist for an hour……IMHO. What the CN did was totally reasonable..
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS, I don't think that an absolute like the words..Totally reasonable..is apt until we know what the actual factoids of the event were. It appears that there was NO speed disagree message on the EICAS apparently and possibly the speed anomaly was voiced by the relief pilot/s.? In that case..it would be reasonable to continue and take the issue gear up!!
Manage the risk, that is your sole responsibility.
A high speed abort with the potential brake issues (potential overrun on 07R would be interesting or have we forgotten V1 is predicated on ALL the systems working as stated) vs taking an aircraft into the air with (rumoured) 1 of 3 airspeed indicators not working
➢ Flaps Extended . . . 10 degrees and 85% N1
➢ Flaps Up . . . . . . . . 4 degrees and 70% N1
(Practiced numerous times during recurrent training. Takes 5 minutes max. Power+attitude = performance, as taught to abinitio pilots before they solo)
Counter scenerio, lose an airspeed indicator in the clb/cruise-does that render the aircraft unsafe to fly?
As stated, any excellence at cx has long left the room.
A high speed abort with the potential brake issues (potential overrun on 07R would be interesting or have we forgotten V1 is predicated on ALL the systems working as stated) vs taking an aircraft into the air with (rumoured) 1 of 3 airspeed indicators not working
➢ Flaps Extended . . . 10 degrees and 85% N1
➢ Flaps Up . . . . . . . . 4 degrees and 70% N1
(Practiced numerous times during recurrent training. Takes 5 minutes max. Power+attitude = performance, as taught to abinitio pilots before they solo)
Counter scenerio, lose an airspeed indicator in the clb/cruise-does that render the aircraft unsafe to fly?
As stated, any excellence at cx has long left the room.
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Hk
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day the whole RTO debate is irrelevant noise IMO, for whatever reason, the skipper wasn't happy, the call was 'Stop!', they successfully completed the procedure, end of story! The actual issue is who called for the emergency evac once they'd successfully returned to the bay, and why? Rumor has it that it was initiated by the cabin crew and/or pax, and the cockpit crew were unaware of what was happening until it was well underway!
Clearly the adrenaline levels would have been somewhat elevated all around after the RTO, but I think the CX spin doctors might have their work cut out for them when the CAD report is published.......
Clearly the adrenaline levels would have been somewhat elevated all around after the RTO, but I think the CX spin doctors might have their work cut out for them when the CAD report is published.......
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Transport and Logistics Bureau are entirely complicit
Chief Accident and Safety Investigator is a CAD manager, under a dodgy transfer process not included in any civil service codes
AIA's Deputy Chief Accident and Safety Investigator is ex CX safety
The investigators are all CAD inspectors
The AAIA is not independent, in any sense.
It was functioning as required by the ICAO SARPS when the first Chief Accident and Safety Investigator was there.
When CX and the CAD didn't like the heat, they maneuvered that problem out of the way. LegCo know all this and the PAC have an open case on the CAD for numerous issues reported over the years, some criminal, vis the AT3 system
If a report is ever published. which is unlikely, with the obvious and formerly stated conflict of interest issues throughout the entire organisational set up at Govt and operator level, the report will have been cleaned up of anything useful. Waste of a HK$ 10 million per annum budget
Has the AAIA notified CX that an ICAO Annex 13 investigation is officially underway in accordance with CAP448B?
Until CX are notified accordance with the AAIA SOP manual, the CAD led and ex CX staffed Investigation Authority are just collecting information.
As there are no CX investigation reports published on the website, ipso facto, there have been no investigations of CX.
Worth following up as the CAD are that devious.
Until CX are notified accordance with the AAIA SOP manual, the CAD led and ex CX staffed Investigation Authority are just collecting information.
As there are no CX investigation reports published on the website, ipso facto, there have been no investigations of CX.
Worth following up as the CAD are that devious.
V1 would be somewhere near 150 knots, so 125 knots is quite reasonable to reject the TO “if you consider the A/c is UNSAFE or unable to fly”
Simple really.
He made a call, he did the right thing, they all lived……...
They were safe and in NO danger…..He’s done his job.
As they say, “better to be on the ground with a problem wishing you were in the air than in the air with a problem wishing you were on the ground”
The CN is a good guy, lots of experience and he doesn’t deserve all the “Monday morning quarterbacking”
Simple really.
He made a call, he did the right thing, they all lived……...
They were safe and in NO danger…..He’s done his job.
As they say, “better to be on the ground with a problem wishing you were in the air than in the air with a problem wishing you were on the ground”
The CN is a good guy, lots of experience and he doesn’t deserve all the “Monday morning quarterbacking”
The CN involved may well be a great guy but that does not render the decision beyond analysis.
17 people claiming injuries, a CAD investigation initiated and the aircraft damaged as a result, all for 1 failed airspeed indicator(alleged) which does not render the aircraft unsafe for flight.
I doubt the insurer will take such a benevolent approach.
17 people claiming injuries, a CAD investigation initiated and the aircraft damaged as a result, all for 1 failed airspeed indicator(alleged) which does not render the aircraft unsafe for flight.
I doubt the insurer will take such a benevolent approach.