Preliminary report on Cathay Pacific aircraft accident released
 

From the CAD website:

Full Report: http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/AB-01-2010e.pdf

Press Release: Preliminary report on Cathay Pacific aircraft accident released
Preliminary report on Cathay Pacific aircraft accident released
*******************************************************
In accordance with the Hong Kong Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations, an inspector's investigation is in progress to determine the circumstances and causes relating to the accident involving an Airbus A330-342 aircraft operated by Cathay Pacific Airways with registration mark B-HLL at the Hong Kong International Airport on April 13, 2010.

The investigation is being conducted by a team of investigators from the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department (CAD), the Bureau d'Enqutes et d'Analyses pour la scurit de l'aviation civile of France and the Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the United Kingdom. The National Transportation Safety Committee of Indonesia, the National Transport Safety Board of the United States of America, and experts from Airbus, Rolls-Royce and Cathay Pacific Airways are also assisting in the investigation.

The investigation team today (May 6) released a preliminary report on the accident.

A spokesman of the CAD said that the preliminary report contains facts relating to the accident as determined up to the time of issue and must be regarded as tentative.

"The investigation team will continue to collect and study all relevant information in order to determine the circumstances and causes relating to the accident. More in-depth investigation and analysis work has to be done before any conclusion can be drawn," the spokesman said.

"This preliminary report is published at this stage for general information," he added.

The full preliminary report is attached in the annex. It is also available for download at the CAD webpage (www.cad.gov.hk/english/reports.html).

Ends/Thursday, May 6, 2010

Nothing really new there. At least it will put an end to baseless speculation. The important thing is WHY and that hasn't been answered yet.

Are you sure there is absolutely nothing new there ping pong? Read carefully, there is one or two interesting point in the report.

HKAforever

For those of us in the know the only new piece of info is what the ECAM items were. Now that we do know what they were we know the crew and engineering made the right call at the time to continue. The ECAM item in question isn’t a “LAND ASAP” item.

If this is an accident what do they call AF447 :confused:

I would classify this occurrence as an incident, rather than as an accident, as there was no substantial damage and no real injuries. But even as a non airbus pilot, I venture to say that I would have shut down Engine No.1 on short final, rather than touch down with the power stuck at 70% and travelling at 230kts. . . .

Said the monday morning quarterback.

Isn't there a speedbrake to slow the plane down say from 1500ft-500ft AGL? Then continue short finals at the approach speeds, even with one engine at 74% N1 and the other at sub-idle, the approach speed would not have crept up to 230kts. It might have been a " hurried " approach but the crew have the tools available to slow down. Like someone mentioned somewhere else, difficult questions gonna be asked unless CX has the investigators in their pocket.

Anyone heard of flap blowback?

Makes it hard to configure when your fast.

Excellent post Kalistan but it does not mean an excellent question .....:rolleyes:

Try yourself in a sim and you would be surprised to see the result even with LG down + full speedbrake .........:=

Bear in mind that the aircraft involved was a non 'E' model, therefore, speedbrake is only avail up to Conf 2 or less .......:{

Until then, I think the crew did an excellent job to put the tube on the tarmac in one piece with 0 loss of life .........:D

VR

The crew had all the tools to slow down. Flap blow back? How about vectors with a level deceleration phase? I can understand that it is a hurried approach because of trouble from both engines but touching down at 230 knots may mean ignoring tire speed limitations etc. Between the devil and the deep blue sea, you bet but ....................tough questions coming..........

Another Sunday wannabe quarterback who thinks he knows everything but in reality knows nothing. Next.:ugh:

Yeh the armchair experts are full of it.

Option 1. do orbits, weaves, extra track miles etc to bleed off energy but get it wrong and you go in short. Result - Hull lose with who knows how many casulties

Option2. Get it down, carry extra speed and make sure you get it on. Result - Some blown tyres, aircraft saved and no fatalties.

Sure, when I was a fighter pilot in the air force I could glide a macchi, Hawk or equivalent in from 20nm, given enough altitude. But I trained and instructed for it regulalry. These days we don't train for this anymore chaps (rightly or wrongly), so there is a high chance of f..k ups!

I say good job, but there may be some out there who think they could have done better. Zero fatalities and a saved aircraft is the benchmark!

I always thought that was when the girls with, how shall we say, large bomb doors, go skydiving au naturel.

TOUCHE!!!!!

Well Said JizzMonkey & Big Picture :ok:

Now that we've got a pretty clear picture that BOTH engine STALLed during descent, you got to give it to the company spin doctor who said "at no time where both engine on CX780 where SHUT DOWN". What clever use of words by CCD, because technically it is true.

I gotta say job well done again to the crew on CX780! Must be stressful dealing with both engine stall and then stuck EPA. A lot of armchair pilot on pprune will always think they can do better, but I tend to agree wtih Big Picture that zero fatalities and a saved aircraft is definitely the benchmark in a difficult situation like this!

To be sure, if I'm at 230kts on short final [at 300' AGL] in any airplane with an engine stuck at 70% thrust I wouldn't need an armchair pilot to remind me that the engine could be shut down in order to slow down prior to touchdown. It's practical reality. :rolleyes:

Sunny Boyle, don't waste time with these hero worshippers and self-aggrandizers! They obviously have never faced a technical enquiry board who really slice with a fine scapel into every action the crew took. Typical school boy bravado of a great job done with the fly open!

GlueBall

As a matter of interest, do you know what speed you'd reduce to if you shut down the engine at 300'? Also, do you know what effect losing the only operative thrust reverser would have had on the deceleration capability after landing from your reduced speed?

STP