AAIB June2018
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
I read it as that the cowling was opened and closed rotors running (by the second engineer), which photos of the type show to be feasible, rather than that the pilot missed it in his pre-flight. Could be wrong of course.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 423 Likes
on
223 Posts
A BT was issued a while back, explaining how the catches themselves, if incorrectly operated, could sit flush with the cowling, as per normal, but in fact the "hook" of the catch missed the "hoop" on the airframe.
A "gotcha" that was pointed out to me many years ago, during my initial walk round lesson.
A "gotcha" that was pointed out to me many years ago, during my initial walk round lesson.
Yep - I’m afraid this is an old ‘gotcha’ of this latch type - such a shame that it is still catching people out - shows either a failure of type rating teaching or regulatory oversight.
This kind of nonsense is typical of manufacturers of all kinds.
A proven problem / weakness is identified - in this case a latch that can be put in a position where it appears to be closed and is not. Their solution is not to redesign the latch so that it is unambiguous, their "solution" is to tell people about their crap design so they can say "we warned you it was crap so if you make a mistake it's your fault".
How's that for a Safety Culture we can all be proud of eh?
A proven problem / weakness is identified - in this case a latch that can be put in a position where it appears to be closed and is not. Their solution is not to redesign the latch so that it is unambiguous, their "solution" is to tell people about their crap design so they can say "we warned you it was crap so if you make a mistake it's your fault".
How's that for a Safety Culture we can all be proud of eh?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this really a proven problem? Anyone know of other incidents? It is very obvious from the feel of these catches whether the finger has caught the latch. And the slightest tug on closing the cowling will show whether it has latched. This is clearly a basic engineer error - no doubt aggravated by the fact the cowling closing was done in a hurry in a noisy, turbulent rotors running environment. And I bet it won't happen again at Sywell!
Does it need a redesign - that would no doubt cost all owners circa £5k - £10k? No!
Does it need a redesign - that would no doubt cost all owners circa £5k - £10k? No!
I'm not suggesting that they should be designed to preclude any kind of mistake, however, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to design and construct a fastener that can't appear to be closed when it's not!
And I remain deeply cynical of the continued attitude of OEMs in cases like this. "We've warned you about our crap design so it's you problem if you make a mistake". And then they bombard you with spam SBs written by their legal department rather than their engineers listing all the ways it's not their fault if you screw up. "Look at SB blah blah blah Your Honour - We clearly told him it was dangerous to make this mistake with our equipment so how can it be our fault?"
The AW 109 has been in service for over forty years. The catch involved has been installed in hundreds of thousands of aircraft from the 1930s. It's a but late to throw ones hands up in horror because somebody did it wrong.
On the S76 we had a problem with similar catch. They attached a short plate over the loose end which was locked down with a dzus fastener. They issued us with a small piece of metal with blade ends so that you could unlock and lock them when offshore.
I never saw them on any other company's aircraft.
I never saw them on any other company's aircraft.
