Air-Scotland major problem ??
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: HADDINGTON
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air-Scotland major problem ??
Colleague at work - " it was a problem involving miles and miles of wires "( words of pilot to passengers ) , he was on heavily delayed flight , technician had to be flown out from UK .
Wonder how pax felt hearing this ...........
Wonder how pax felt hearing this ...........
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a problem with the "Spar Valve" The CB continually popped. It was traced to both a mechanical problem (failure of the spar valve), and an electrical problem. Both fixed by Thomas Cook Engineers from MAN. Delay due crew out of hours, and time to get engineers to TFS.
Hasn't the Air Holland contract expired?. Thought Air Scotland were currently only using the ex TCX a/c - Greece Airways
jethro
UK and Ireland Airline Fleet Listings
http://www.jethros.i12.com
jethro
UK and Ireland Airline Fleet Listings
http://www.jethros.i12.com
It was a problem with the "Spar Valve" The CB continually popped.
Read about the Air Canada DC9 in flight fire if you want to know why continualy reseting a CB is a bad idea.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It helps to get one's facts correct before posting.
The spar valve light only comes on when the valve disagrees with the fuel control switch position. The fuel control switch is only moved when on the ground during engine start or engine shut down. Assuming there is no engine failure during flight, which in this case there was not. From this we can assume that the aircraft was on the ground, in fact it was discovered during engine shut down. So we now have the aircraft on the ground with the engine shut down. The cb was reset 3 or 4 times by the flight crew ON THE GROUND. There is no problem with resetting a cb on the ground as often as you please. Indeed the engineers reset it 30-60 times during the rectification process.
I am well aware of the dangers in constantly resetting a cb or holding it in place, as I believe was the case in the Air Canada accident. I am also aware of the standard procedure of resetting a cb only once. To suggest that any professional crew would do such a stupid thing during flight, as to continually reset a popped cb is preposterous!
The spar valve light only comes on when the valve disagrees with the fuel control switch position. The fuel control switch is only moved when on the ground during engine start or engine shut down. Assuming there is no engine failure during flight, which in this case there was not. From this we can assume that the aircraft was on the ground, in fact it was discovered during engine shut down. So we now have the aircraft on the ground with the engine shut down. The cb was reset 3 or 4 times by the flight crew ON THE GROUND. There is no problem with resetting a cb on the ground as often as you please. Indeed the engineers reset it 30-60 times during the rectification process.
I am well aware of the dangers in constantly resetting a cb or holding it in place, as I believe was the case in the Air Canada accident. I am also aware of the standard procedure of resetting a cb only once. To suggest that any professional crew would do such a stupid thing during flight, as to continually reset a popped cb is preposterous!
I admit I don't fly a Shorts, but on a Boeing there is no caveat saying it's ok on the ground rather than in the air. Setting an aircraft on fire may be potentially less lethal on the ground, but it's still not a great idea!
What the engineers do in controlled conditions is their business.
Had the CB stayed in on the third or fourth attempt, would you have called the problem solved and gone flying? It poped the othe two or three times for a reason!
What the engineers do in controlled conditions is their business.
Had the CB stayed in on the third or fourth attempt, would you have called the problem solved and gone flying? It poped the othe two or three times for a reason!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ma maw flew on that plane just before it positioned out to GCTS and said it was a good flight and crew were fine, just wish people wouldnt put them dow so much heck they have lasted longer than a lot of other newcomers.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C/B reset
In our FOM the pilots are NOT authorized to reset a C/B even
once. We wrote that in the book to prevent every cause what
can be source of smoke or fire. Prevention is the best defense.
Resetting a C/B = a no no. We operate over 100 Aircrafts.
NG
once. We wrote that in the book to prevent every cause what
can be source of smoke or fire. Prevention is the best defense.
Resetting a C/B = a no no. We operate over 100 Aircrafts.
NG
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cb was tried to see if it would re set once. It poped after around 10 mins, it was tried again for interest's sake and would not hold in place, ie it poped straight away. The engineers had already been called, as well as speaking to the company and engineering in the UK. This was classed as "continual popping". I really don't see the problem here. Had the cb reset then yes the aircraft would have gone flying. Is there any problem with resetting it once and if it works accepting it? I don't think so, and legally there is nothing wrong with doing so.The aircraft was grounded following the second pop. The situation was it was never going to go flying as it states in the QRH "Do not attempt engine start", which is I am sure you will agree essential to flight. 
Are the crew to be deemed wrong for not accepting an aircraft with a popped CB, then incurring a delay while we rectified it out of base?
As for what the engineers do is their business. Is it more likely to go on fire when a pilot resets a CB than an engineer? I dont feel justification is needed here. The correct procedure was followed, the aircraft did not fly until it was fixed, and we had some pissed off pax, but thats the nature of the game.
Are the crew to be deemed wrong for not accepting an aircraft with a popped CB, then incurring a delay while we rectified it out of base? As for what the engineers do is their business. Is it more likely to go on fire when a pilot resets a CB than an engineer? I dont feel justification is needed here. The correct procedure was followed, the aircraft did not fly until it was fixed, and we had some pissed off pax, but thats the nature of the game.
EO,
No offence intended or defence needed. Just that what appeared in your first post could be (and was) interpreted as refering to an unsafe practice, and I felt it was appropriate to highlight the "Right way" of doing things.
The procedure you relate in your final post indeed sounds just fine.
I reiterate, however, that "continually" (i.e several times) resetting a CB is bad in the air or on the ground if the cause is not known, and I have never seen anyone, engineers included, do so.
I think we've done this to death, and I'm glad to here the operation is back up and running.
No offence intended or defence needed. Just that what appeared in your first post could be (and was) interpreted as refering to an unsafe practice, and I felt it was appropriate to highlight the "Right way" of doing things.
The procedure you relate in your final post indeed sounds just fine.
I reiterate, however, that "continually" (i.e several times) resetting a CB is bad in the air or on the ground if the cause is not known, and I have never seen anyone, engineers included, do so.
I think we've done this to death, and I'm glad to here the operation is back up and running.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Wizofoz.
Sorry if my first post was somewhat obscure. On re-reading it I can see now that I was not very clear, and where you were coming from.
All the best.
"Safety is our prime concern"
Sorry if my first post was somewhat obscure. On re-reading it I can see now that I was not very clear, and where you were coming from.
All the best.
"Safety is our prime concern"
