Lufthansa Cargo B772 unreliable airspeed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KMCO
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa Cargo B772 unreliable airspeed
Saw this on AV Herald (link)
[Crew was] reporting unreliable airspeed. The crew subsequenty (sic) inquired with ATC what their altitude reading were, the controller responded 200 feet. The crew reported their standby altimeter was indicating 6100 feet and according to GPS they were at 6200 feet, so they should be around that altitude.
Not a pilot. What might cause the discrepancy between the altitude that ATC was showing versus what the plane's standby altimeter and GPS were showing. Which instructions/reading should the crew follow? Don't know if they were in IMC or not.
The three altimeters are using different sources I assume (not a 777 pilot).
Standby and GPS ALT was around 6.000 ft, MAYDAY declared, which means they were well above sector altitude and ATC kept the airspace clear.
Standby and GPS ALT was around 6.000 ft, MAYDAY declared, which means they were well above sector altitude and ATC kept the airspace clear.
The ATC value is probably the value that has been encoded and sent by the transponder (secondary radar information is based on the information the aircraft sends to a ping). If the static source/s involved are giving the transponder duff info (a combination of sensor fault, icing, water ingress, FMS super brain fart, unlucky Tuesday), then ATC is not telling the crew anything useful. If the satellite signal generated altitude and standby altimeter correspond, then I‘d trust that, especially as nobody would be expecting to talk to ATC at 200ft.. or suddenly find themselves there!
The last sentence In the article about the ADS-B data saying that the aircraft did not get above 250ft for the entire flight is just a reflection of the same info that ATC was receiving and reporting, low just a reflection of the fault.
The last sentence In the article about the ADS-B data saying that the aircraft did not get above 250ft for the entire flight is just a reflection of the same info that ATC was receiving and reporting, low just a reflection of the fault.
Last edited by Torquetalk; 12th Oct 2020 at 15:27.
777 uses flush-mount "salt shaker" static ports on the side of the fuselage to measure static pressure - there are no 'static covers' as such. Although they are sometimes taped over (and the tape left on) 
Boeing had thought that it had found an engineering solution to the problem of unreliable airspeed with the development of the FT-ADIRU. The original QRH entry for unreliable airspeed was just a condition statement as the "box" should have taken care of the problem. If its not an issue with the static ports then possibly it is a result of a software failure in the ADM or FT-ADIRU.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In an ivory tower
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BFU has published an interim report. It is accessible (in English) onr their website and the AvHerald features a decent summary.
Extract:
QUOTE
The examination of the airplane after the landing showed that the connecting lines of the left and right static ports were not linked with the respective ADMs (Fig. 5).
The maintenance work taking place prior to the flight included opening the pneumatic lines, flushing them with dry air and closing them again. The subsequent leak test and system test were meant to ensure proper function of the pitot-static system. On the respective job cards these tasks had been signed as performed and released.
UNQUOTE
While the report gives some details on the individuals involved, it is not clear which organisation achieved this; Lufthansa or Lufthansa Technik. Hopefully the final report will go beyond that and try to identify the systemic cause involved, if any, and not stop to protect the reputation of some well established organisations, including Lufthansa, Lufthansa Technik and LBA. This is common belief in Germany that they are infallible and there is no need for proper oversight.
Extract:
QUOTE
The examination of the airplane after the landing showed that the connecting lines of the left and right static ports were not linked with the respective ADMs (Fig. 5).
The maintenance work taking place prior to the flight included opening the pneumatic lines, flushing them with dry air and closing them again. The subsequent leak test and system test were meant to ensure proper function of the pitot-static system. On the respective job cards these tasks had been signed as performed and released.
UNQUOTE
While the report gives some details on the individuals involved, it is not clear which organisation achieved this; Lufthansa or Lufthansa Technik. Hopefully the final report will go beyond that and try to identify the systemic cause involved, if any, and not stop to protect the reputation of some well established organisations, including Lufthansa, Lufthansa Technik and LBA. This is common belief in Germany that they are infallible and there is no need for proper oversight.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: In an ivory tower
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BFU report:
(could not include it in the previous post, as I was just short of the 10 posts threshold required to include URL)
(could not include it in the previous post, as I was just short of the 10 posts threshold required to include URL)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What surprises me, is the radio altitude reading being at 0 throughout the flight on the chart. Is the RA disconnected at LH until 2500ft in descent?
If ATC told them they read 200ft all along, a quick check of the RA might help. Or am I completely off on this?
If ATC told them they read 200ft all along, a quick check of the RA might help. Or am I completely off on this?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, it was more of a rhetorical question ....
"In almost all cases, the display of radio height ceases when an aircraft climbs through 2500' above ground level (agl) and recommences when it descends through 2500' agl. This is confirmed visually by the appearance/disappearance of an 'OFF' flag and emergence of a pointer from behind a mask or activation of a digital display."
.... and therefore i am still wondering about the chart RA readout ......
"In almost all cases, the display of radio height ceases when an aircraft climbs through 2500' above ground level (agl) and recommences when it descends through 2500' agl. This is confirmed visually by the appearance/disappearance of an 'OFF' flag and emergence of a pointer from behind a mask or activation of a digital display."
.... and therefore i am still wondering about the chart RA readout ......
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good job by the pilots. As always recognition is the hardest part. Looks like they got to 300kts with the flaps out! Be interesting to read the full report and see how effective the relatively new checklist was. Sounds like the standby ASI may have been reading correctly? And perhaps standby ALT as well. And radalt works below 2500ft.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is my understanding correct that is was the electrical plugs that were not inserted? What kind of transducer is this? Strain gage? Is there no self test programmed in to the box that makes sure on startup that the ADC readings are in the expected range?