Voyager Plummets (Merged)
lj101
On going SI or not, the reason for the 6000ft plummet must have been known, and the operating crews fully informed before resuming flights.
Otherwise the grounding would not have been lifted would it??
The rumour that a mod. of a pee tube at the P2 position so he/she can remain seated the entire flight, is apparently untrue.
The only change to SOPs appear to be, to further encourage the pax to keep their seatbelts fastened at all times.
Otherwise the grounding would not have been lifted would it??
The rumour that a mod. of a pee tube at the P2 position so he/she can remain seated the entire flight, is apparently untrue.
The only change to SOPs appear to be, to further encourage the pax to keep their seatbelts fastened at all times.
Last edited by cessnapete; 16th Mar 2014 at 08:56.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hopefully Inverted
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Oops is the phrase! This has quietly appeared on MOD home page.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ger_report.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ger_report.pdf
Extract from the report:
The Panel has found evidence to link the movement of the seat to the movement of the side-stick, in the form of a Digital SLR camera obstruction which was in-front of the Captain’s left arm rest and behind the base of the Captain’s side-stick at the time of the event. Analysis of the camera has confirmed that it was being used in the three minutes leading up to the event. Furthermore, forensic analysis of damage to the body of the camera indicates that it experienced a significant compression against the base of the side-stick, consistent with having been jammed between the arm rest and the side-stick unit. Crew interviews have corroborated this evidence. As such, the Inquiry has confidence that the pitch-down command was the result of an inadvertent physical input to the Captain’s side-stick by means of a physical obstruction (the camera) between the arm-rest and the side-stick unit. Simulations have been carried out which have re-created the scenario which has shown that it is possible for objects to become inadvertently lodged in the space between the arm rest and the side-stick, generating an identical pitch-down command to that seen during the incident. Safety advice has been issued to the RAF and to Airbus to highlight this possibility.
In post #163 BEagle wrote
As yet nobody has blamed the crew. However were they fortunate to have Flight Law protections since:
As for blaming the crew, if anyone was stupid enough to try that they'd soon wish they hadn't..
Within 27 seconds, the aircraft lost 4,440 ft in height, before the self-protection system initiated a recovery back towards controlled flight
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a Just Culture hat on.
How many times has that side stick been knocked by mistake?
So have 'we' set up people for 'failure' due to design? This incident hi lights the issue and so barriers can be now be out in place.
That's where we are.
Something happened, why did it happen, what can we do to reduce the chance of it happening again.
How many times has that side stick been knocked by mistake?
So have 'we' set up people for 'failure' due to design? This incident hi lights the issue and so barriers can be now be out in place.
That's where we are.
Something happened, why did it happen, what can we do to reduce the chance of it happening again.
Anyone got a picture of the armrest and side stick arrangement on an A330?
How did the camera come to be put between the 2? Is there a flat space?
Edit : found one or two
and a bit of youtube "side stick cam"......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaQch_y9DA
How did the camera come to be put between the 2? Is there a flat space?
Edit : found one or two
and a bit of youtube "side stick cam"......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaQch_y9DA
Last edited by JFZ90; 19th Mar 2014 at 20:00.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just culture?!
This is gross incompetence bordering on negligence frankly.
1) The camera should arguably not have been on the flightdeck
2) Failure to connect movement of seat with aircraft pitch down
3) Failure to identify movement of sidestick (did the captain even touch it during the event?!)
4) Failure to control speed in the ensuing dive
5) Why did this take so long to come to light - was there an attempt to cover it up?
Thankfully the actions of the copilot (having crawled back into the cockpit via the ceiling) brought some order back into the cockpit.
Several people were badly injured and a fully serviceable fleet grounded with the associated severe knock-on effects thanks to this incident - If I hadn't read it I wouldn't have believed it.
This is gross incompetence bordering on negligence frankly.
1) The camera should arguably not have been on the flightdeck
2) Failure to connect movement of seat with aircraft pitch down
3) Failure to identify movement of sidestick (did the captain even touch it during the event?!)
4) Failure to control speed in the ensuing dive
5) Why did this take so long to come to light - was there an attempt to cover it up?
Thankfully the actions of the copilot (having crawled back into the cockpit via the ceiling) brought some order back into the cockpit.
Several people were badly injured and a fully serviceable fleet grounded with the associated severe knock-on effects thanks to this incident - If I hadn't read it I wouldn't have believed it.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A sticker ought to suffice between the two. "PUT NOTHING HERE".
Not blaming the crew for crew's actions is like blaming Ford/Mercedes/Rolls Royce if you put a camera under the handbrake handle, preventing you from using the brake in your Focus/S Class/Silver Wraith. (I have no idea if these vehicles have lever operated handbrakes, but you get the picture).
I'm sure the operating manuals don't say "do not dive this aircraft into terrain". They can't cover every eventuality!
Not blaming the crew for crew's actions is like blaming Ford/Mercedes/Rolls Royce if you put a camera under the handbrake handle, preventing you from using the brake in your Focus/S Class/Silver Wraith. (I have no idea if these vehicles have lever operated handbrakes, but you get the picture).
I'm sure the operating manuals don't say "do not dive this aircraft into terrain". They can't cover every eventuality!
...it is possible for objects to become inadvertently lodged in the space between the arm rest and the side-stick...
BEagle - do you consider the report suggesting that the DSLR was not placed on that particular flat space deliberately?
How else would it have got there - crept along the flat space due to aircraft motion/vibrations? In 3 mins?
How else would it have got there - crept along the flat space due to aircraft motion/vibrations? In 3 mins?
According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'inadvertently' is an adverb whose meaning is:
It has the following synonyms:
Without intention; accidentally:
accidentally, by accident, unintentionally, unwittingly; unawares, without noticing, in all innocence; by mistake, mistakenly
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
accidentally, by accident, unintentionally, unwittingly; unawares, without noticing, in all innocence; by mistake, mistakenly
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just culture?!
This is gross incompetence bordering on negligence frankly.
1) The camera should arguably not have been on the flightdeck
2) Failure to connect movement of seat with aircraft pitch down
3) Failure to identify movement of sidestick (did the captain even touch it during the event?!)
4) Failure to control speed in the ensuing dive
5) Why did this take so long to come to light - was there an attempt to cover it up?
Thankfully the actions of the copilot (having crawled back into the cockpit via the ceiling) brought some order back into the cockpit.
Several people were badly injured and a fully serviceable fleet grounded with the associated severe knock-on effects thanks to this incident - If I hadn't read it I wouldn't have believed it.
This is gross incompetence bordering on negligence frankly.
1) The camera should arguably not have been on the flightdeck
2) Failure to connect movement of seat with aircraft pitch down
3) Failure to identify movement of sidestick (did the captain even touch it during the event?!)
4) Failure to control speed in the ensuing dive
5) Why did this take so long to come to light - was there an attempt to cover it up?
Thankfully the actions of the copilot (having crawled back into the cockpit via the ceiling) brought some order back into the cockpit.
Several people were badly injured and a fully serviceable fleet grounded with the associated severe knock-on effects thanks to this incident - If I hadn't read it I wouldn't have believed it.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A culture that recognizes that competent professionals make mistakes and acknowledges that even competent professionals will develop unhealthy norms (shortcuts, "routine rule violations"), but has zero tolerance for reckless behavior.
Not a large aircraft operator myself but find it hard to imagine it is not common place to have loose articles on the flight deck. If it can go wrong it will go wrong and this incident has highlighted an area where this is the case. We can learn from it, design can be improved, loose article procedures tightened up.
Clearly some on prune are perfect aviators
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, object deliberately placed in an unfortunate position. Mistake.
But do you not think that the actions (or lack of) that follow are some cause for concern when considering the Captain of an aircraft with several hundred passengers onboard? I am also wondering why the investigation into this incident took so long.
But do you not think that the actions (or lack of) that follow are some cause for concern when considering the Captain of an aircraft with several hundred passengers onboard? I am also wondering why the investigation into this incident took so long.