The Atlantic Glider. Some final notes
Iconoclast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Atlantic Glider. Some final notes
Well the Mayday program dealing with the Atlantic Glider has been shown in Canada and the report made by skydriller on 27 September pretty much covers it. Some of the individuals that saw the program took offense to radio transmission language used by the pilots but I can only assume that with the research that went into the program they used tapes of radio transmissions and just scripted it for the pilot (actors). I may be wrong.
The depiction of the leak was not accurate but they could not gain access to a Trent-700 used by any airline so it seemed correct for non technical viewers
What I am about to say can be taken as rumor since this is a rumor network but I have it on good authority that it is true. This material was presented to the Mayday production team but it was after the production was already in the can so it was not used.
Skydriller indicated in his review that Airbus had blamed the pilots for what went wrong with this information coming from an AD written by Airbus Industrie but it has never been officially released. This AD wrote out in very specific language what actions must be taken by the pilots in the event of a severe fuel imbalance. It was broken down into different sections each dealing with a specific problem some reflecting leakage and others reflecting other problems. In every case before the pilots could take action they had to determine the location of the leak as the operation of the bypass valve would be different for each case. It was shown on the TV program that once the pilots suspected a leak they had to cabin crew try to see if they could detect a leak. They were unable to do so because even with flashlights they could not detect a leak at night. This same condition would exist in detecting a leak according to the unreleased AD. Airbus Industrie also modified the computer program to assist in the combating and detection of a severe leak.
Regarding the release of the official report, it has been complete for some time now. But the reason it has not been released is because the principals of the investigation are at each other’s throats relative to the language of the report and the assessment of blame for the actual leak. Each one is blaming the other. During the program an Air Transat manager indicated that in the exchange of parts mistakes were made and for that Air Transat received a very sever financial penalty. In the installation of the fuel tube the mechanic did not check for clearance between the fuel line and the hydraulic tube. Under normal conditions this critical clearance would be automatic if the lines were installed correctly. However, the fuel line was installed backwards and in doing so the spatial relationship between the two metal lines was compromised.
Herein lies the problem. During the design phase of any complex machine the Reliability engineer will create a checklist and submit it to engineering in order to vet their designs relative to Reliability, Maintainability, and Systems Safety. One of the key requirements of the checklist is to determine if it is possible to install a part backwards. On way to do it for a metal tube is to have different fittings at each end. Another aspect of the checklist is to determine if parts can contact each other and what means are taken to prevent this contact. It would appear that if such a checklist was created it was never adhered to.
On the A-330 it was determined that on those aircraft using the GE or P&W engines there was a possibility of tubing contacting and a very small fuel leak ensued. An AD was released that established a specific clearance between the offending tubes and instructions were provided as to how to both establish and maintain that critical dimension. Airbus obviously never made sure that a similar problem would not occur on the Rolls-Royce Trent 700 used on the A-330.
After the A-330 had made the landing it was inspected but it was not revealed as to what actually had transpired. A day or so later a rep from either Rolls Royce or Airbus Industrie showed up with a replacement for the damage fuel line. Nobody knew what had failed but the carrier of the replacement tube obviously knew that this part had failed and either Rolls Royce or Airbus had surmised what had transpired because they knew of the possibility of the leak occurring.
To top all of this off Air Transat took delivery of a brand new A-330 and when inspected it was found that at least one of the fuel tubes had been installed backwards.
The depiction of the leak was not accurate but they could not gain access to a Trent-700 used by any airline so it seemed correct for non technical viewers
What I am about to say can be taken as rumor since this is a rumor network but I have it on good authority that it is true. This material was presented to the Mayday production team but it was after the production was already in the can so it was not used.
Skydriller indicated in his review that Airbus had blamed the pilots for what went wrong with this information coming from an AD written by Airbus Industrie but it has never been officially released. This AD wrote out in very specific language what actions must be taken by the pilots in the event of a severe fuel imbalance. It was broken down into different sections each dealing with a specific problem some reflecting leakage and others reflecting other problems. In every case before the pilots could take action they had to determine the location of the leak as the operation of the bypass valve would be different for each case. It was shown on the TV program that once the pilots suspected a leak they had to cabin crew try to see if they could detect a leak. They were unable to do so because even with flashlights they could not detect a leak at night. This same condition would exist in detecting a leak according to the unreleased AD. Airbus Industrie also modified the computer program to assist in the combating and detection of a severe leak.
Regarding the release of the official report, it has been complete for some time now. But the reason it has not been released is because the principals of the investigation are at each other’s throats relative to the language of the report and the assessment of blame for the actual leak. Each one is blaming the other. During the program an Air Transat manager indicated that in the exchange of parts mistakes were made and for that Air Transat received a very sever financial penalty. In the installation of the fuel tube the mechanic did not check for clearance between the fuel line and the hydraulic tube. Under normal conditions this critical clearance would be automatic if the lines were installed correctly. However, the fuel line was installed backwards and in doing so the spatial relationship between the two metal lines was compromised.
Herein lies the problem. During the design phase of any complex machine the Reliability engineer will create a checklist and submit it to engineering in order to vet their designs relative to Reliability, Maintainability, and Systems Safety. One of the key requirements of the checklist is to determine if it is possible to install a part backwards. On way to do it for a metal tube is to have different fittings at each end. Another aspect of the checklist is to determine if parts can contact each other and what means are taken to prevent this contact. It would appear that if such a checklist was created it was never adhered to.
On the A-330 it was determined that on those aircraft using the GE or P&W engines there was a possibility of tubing contacting and a very small fuel leak ensued. An AD was released that established a specific clearance between the offending tubes and instructions were provided as to how to both establish and maintain that critical dimension. Airbus obviously never made sure that a similar problem would not occur on the Rolls-Royce Trent 700 used on the A-330.
After the A-330 had made the landing it was inspected but it was not revealed as to what actually had transpired. A day or so later a rep from either Rolls Royce or Airbus Industrie showed up with a replacement for the damage fuel line. Nobody knew what had failed but the carrier of the replacement tube obviously knew that this part had failed and either Rolls Royce or Airbus had surmised what had transpired because they knew of the possibility of the leak occurring.
To top all of this off Air Transat took delivery of a brand new A-330 and when inspected it was found that at least one of the fuel tubes had been installed backwards.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: RAF Lincolnshire
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was transmitted again last night in the UK on Chennel 5.
Good drama, but as has been said, much speculation and little fact.
At least for once, the narator did state what parts were based on facts, and what was speculation.
Good drama, but as has been said, much speculation and little fact.
At least for once, the narator did state what parts were based on facts, and what was speculation.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good program but it didn't answer the main question - why did the pilots not wonder why there was such an imbalance and not add up the fuel at that time? I believe it was something like 30 minutes before they did another fuel check, by which point it was already late, but still the x-feed was kept open.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Airbus Girl,
And those nitwits at AB Industries STILL think they don't need a Flight Engineer!
------ even with up to 800 people aboard this new A380 Airelephant, they still think so - it will only take one accident to prove them wrong, and so little comparatively, to have a three man crew aboard.
And I mean a real Flight Engineer, not a 3rd pilot or a computer systems monitor!
Pure madness, with nobody watching the aircraft systems, and with so much at stake.
And please, don't respond with that "guff" (read rubbish) about how Flight Engineers are antiques, has beens, and the like, it's been proven many, many times that they are worth their weight in fuel and salary many times over.
I've been aboard enough long and shorthaul flights to know the difference, during my approx. 13,000 hours worth of experience, mainly on B727 and B747.
It's interesting to note, in my discussions with other crew, that most of the opposition to FEs comes from pilots who have never flown with one!
Cheers,
FD
And those nitwits at AB Industries STILL think they don't need a Flight Engineer!
------ even with up to 800 people aboard this new A380 Airelephant, they still think so - it will only take one accident to prove them wrong, and so little comparatively, to have a three man crew aboard.
And I mean a real Flight Engineer, not a 3rd pilot or a computer systems monitor!
Pure madness, with nobody watching the aircraft systems, and with so much at stake.
And please, don't respond with that "guff" (read rubbish) about how Flight Engineers are antiques, has beens, and the like, it's been proven many, many times that they are worth their weight in fuel and salary many times over.
I've been aboard enough long and shorthaul flights to know the difference, during my approx. 13,000 hours worth of experience, mainly on B727 and B747.
It's interesting to note, in my discussions with other crew, that most of the opposition to FEs comes from pilots who have never flown with one!
Cheers,
FD
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you have worked it out?
I thought it was an interesting program, not entirely correct but given the informations the program makers had to go on not bad.
It made me wonder whether this situation is covered in the training. I bet it is now but was it then?
These are complex aircraft. Given the same situation and without the foresight of having watched the program how many pilots would have done the same?
It made me wonder whether this situation is covered in the training. I bet it is now but was it then?
These are complex aircraft. Given the same situation and without the foresight of having watched the program how many pilots would have done the same?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wondered that too, but its quite unusual to suddenly have a large fuel imbalance. Yes, it could have been a computer error, but even so, I still think I would have thought "fuel" looked at the fuel pages, and added up the total fuel on board.
I know its much easier with the hindsight, but surely this is what the Captain in particular is paid for? We don't have flight engineers on board, the pilots are meant to be doing his job - monitoring the systems. The fact they already had an abnormal oil indication on the same engine should have at least led them into some close checking and monitoring.
We often get an Air Bleed problem on departure, which is usually spurious, but will still check and double check, and then check on it again a bit later on. We don't assume its the same spurious reading.
Interesting that the pilots did not want to be interviewed for the programme.
It had some similarities to the crew who flew to Vienna with gear stuck down and didn't monitor the fuel they were using - again, only just made it to an airport. They had other options but it came down to the basics - monitoring.
I know its much easier with the hindsight, but surely this is what the Captain in particular is paid for? We don't have flight engineers on board, the pilots are meant to be doing his job - monitoring the systems. The fact they already had an abnormal oil indication on the same engine should have at least led them into some close checking and monitoring.
We often get an Air Bleed problem on departure, which is usually spurious, but will still check and double check, and then check on it again a bit later on. We don't assume its the same spurious reading.
Interesting that the pilots did not want to be interviewed for the programme.
It had some similarities to the crew who flew to Vienna with gear stuck down and didn't monitor the fuel they were using - again, only just made it to an airport. They had other options but it came down to the basics - monitoring.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus girl,
A comment on your reference to the Vienna case, to be correct you shoud employ " he " instead of " they". The FO knew excactly what was going on apparently. (and they just did NOT make it .)
Kiss,
A comment on your reference to the Vienna case, to be correct you shoud employ " he " instead of " they". The FO knew excactly what was going on apparently.
(and they just did NOT make it .)Kiss,
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before this reverts to a re-hash of the Vienna thread:
About an F.E. A380. This is going to be more of a flying cruise liner than an aeroplane, if you believe all the guff. Gyms, showers, cinema's, kitchens not galleys etc. IMHO it's going to need a whole on-board maintenance crew. Any F.E. could elleviate his boredom in the caged cockpit by moonlighting as an on-board plumber, electrician and probably after-dinner speaker.
About an F.E. A380. This is going to be more of a flying cruise liner than an aeroplane, if you believe all the guff. Gyms, showers, cinema's, kitchens not galleys etc. IMHO it's going to need a whole on-board maintenance crew. Any F.E. could elleviate his boredom in the caged cockpit by moonlighting as an on-board plumber, electrician and probably after-dinner speaker.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: 1060 West Addison
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting to note that Airbus are expecting airlines to carry a doctor on the A380. Seems strange that the health of the aircraft won't be catered for in the same fashion.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: _
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the program broadcast in the UK the other night, it conveys the idea of what went wrong but does anyone else feel that series is way too over dramatic? When the report into the accident is finally released hopefully Blackbox will make a program about it, their programming is usually more informative I think.
BGPM, I wouldn't believe for one minute anything about doctors on board, chances of getting a doctor set up for a community of 800 people on the ground are zilch so who's going to pay for one in the air? The health of the aircraft is looked after, just in a different way from days gone by.
BGPM, I wouldn't believe for one minute anything about doctors on board, chances of getting a doctor set up for a community of 800 people on the ground are zilch so who's going to pay for one in the air? The health of the aircraft is looked after, just in a different way from days gone by.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I taped it and watched it last night.
It could have been done better without a lot of trouble. If they had just got a bit more factual info that most of us have seen in the industry, it would have been better for people on our side of the fence.
I have flown that exact scenario in the sim - they gave us the leak, we detected and decided on an engine shutdown. Afterwards, we were let go at the same height/distance to an airfield. The first few minutes were hectic - The F/O had to work his buns off coming up with info as I was flying the aeroplane with minimal assistance other than back up nav and radar steers. After about 5 minutes, we could get together and discuss a plan, then work together as we got towards the airport. You only get slats, no flaps, clean speed is about 210kts, target threshold is 170, only accumulator brakes to stop.
In our case, it worked OK but then, it was in the sim !
Even allowing for that, all 3 of us ( inc the instructor) were buzzing and needed a beer afterwards.
A real curates egg - they screwed up to begin with because a simple fuel total check would have established a leak, after that though, they did a good job.
With some very careful extra work and correct info, it would make a good documentary, they nearly got there with this attempt - shame about the flames coming out of the engines........Please !
It could have been done better without a lot of trouble. If they had just got a bit more factual info that most of us have seen in the industry, it would have been better for people on our side of the fence.
I have flown that exact scenario in the sim - they gave us the leak, we detected and decided on an engine shutdown. Afterwards, we were let go at the same height/distance to an airfield. The first few minutes were hectic - The F/O had to work his buns off coming up with info as I was flying the aeroplane with minimal assistance other than back up nav and radar steers. After about 5 minutes, we could get together and discuss a plan, then work together as we got towards the airport. You only get slats, no flaps, clean speed is about 210kts, target threshold is 170, only accumulator brakes to stop.
In our case, it worked OK but then, it was in the sim !
Even allowing for that, all 3 of us ( inc the instructor) were buzzing and needed a beer afterwards.
A real curates egg - they screwed up to begin with because a simple fuel total check would have established a leak, after that though, they did a good job.
With some very careful extra work and correct info, it would make a good documentary, they nearly got there with this attempt - shame about the flames coming out of the engines........Please !
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, right Port Strobe,
Just like the crew that was responsible for the original screw-up!
Just like the crew that overran the 744 at Bangkok, after initiating a go-around, they changed their mind and decided to continue the approach, and forgot that they had inadvertantly cancelled their auto speedbrakes, they didn't deploy at touch, and nobody noticed until it was too late, incredible!
Just like the crew that lost control of the onboard fire on the Md-11 - nobody got serious with fire detection/extinguishing until it was too late, incredible!
Just like the crew that tail scrapped the 744 for over 300 meters on takeoff, then had stickshaker on liftoff and nobody moved any thrust lever from the reduced power setting, incredible X2! (and lucky)
So much overlooked, so often, so unnessessarily - incredible!
And you want me (and others) to be satisfied with flying with no FE in such a large aircraft. One thing is very certain, I will not be flying in the A380 until they install an FE position, so I guess that means I will never see the inside of one - no problem!
Cheers
FD
Just like the crew that was responsible for the original screw-up!
Just like the crew that overran the 744 at Bangkok, after initiating a go-around, they changed their mind and decided to continue the approach, and forgot that they had inadvertantly cancelled their auto speedbrakes, they didn't deploy at touch, and nobody noticed until it was too late, incredible!
Just like the crew that lost control of the onboard fire on the Md-11 - nobody got serious with fire detection/extinguishing until it was too late, incredible!
Just like the crew that tail scrapped the 744 for over 300 meters on takeoff, then had stickshaker on liftoff and nobody moved any thrust lever from the reduced power setting, incredible X2! (and lucky)
So much overlooked, so often, so unnessessarily - incredible!
And you want me (and others) to be satisfied with flying with no FE in such a large aircraft. One thing is very certain, I will not be flying in the A380 until they install an FE position, so I guess that means I will never see the inside of one - no problem!
Cheers
FD
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: 1060 West Addison
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Port Strobe: the plan for carriage of doctors was suggested to me by the chief engineer of the A380 project, further than than that I cannot speculate.
As regards the health of the aircraft being monitored by computer, I see your point, but I feel one of the lessons from the Air Transat accident is that the computers cannot do the same job as an FE, especially if the commander doesn't trust them.
Regards, BGPM
As regards the health of the aircraft being monitored by computer, I see your point, but I feel one of the lessons from the Air Transat accident is that the computers cannot do the same job as an FE, especially if the commander doesn't trust them.
Regards, BGPM
"Just like the crew that lost control of the onboard fire on the Md-11 - nobody got serious with fire detection/extinguishing until it was too late, incredible!"
Is that really fair? They simply followed Swissair procedure for smoke in the cabin. I don't believe the crew were even aware there was a fire until it became uncontained.
Is that really fair? They simply followed Swissair procedure for smoke in the cabin. I don't believe the crew were even aware there was a fire until it became uncontained.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many pilots don't use common sense. If you only ever did things 'by the book' then we would be out of business, computers could fly the aircraft.
Normally you would open the cross feed for a fuel imbalance, but if you check your fuel state and you clearly then have a fuel leak from the low fuel wing you would obviously keep the cross feed closed. That is also in the manual. So maybe we don't need pilots after all if they are not going to get passed the first line in the abnormal checklist.
Normally you would open the cross feed for a fuel imbalance, but if you check your fuel state and you clearly then have a fuel leak from the low fuel wing you would obviously keep the cross feed closed. That is also in the manual. So maybe we don't need pilots after all if they are not going to get passed the first line in the abnormal checklist.
Last edited by Flap 5; 12th Jul 2004 at 09:41.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting to note that Airbus are expecting airlines to carry a doctor on the A380.
I can't get an emergency appointment with my doctor for days, let alone within hours.......