ATR down near Palermo (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of a pilot who lost his licence (and I know him very well) for activities that were deemed to be incompatible with his employment (I don't see the need to go into details here about what happens).
Therefore, by exeng's example, all pilots are a safety hazard and should not be employed because of this.
But meanwhile in the real world, most people adopt a more clearer common sense.
Therefore, by exeng's example, all pilots are a safety hazard and should not be employed because of this.
But meanwhile in the real world, most people adopt a more clearer common sense.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on, we ain't fillin' up cars here.
With a proper calibration at zero fuel the upload for the first flight afterwards and the doomed flight would have been CALCULATED and THE AMOUNT IN KGS ordered and filled up from the fuel truck. I don't know about the fuel panel on the ATR, but the AMOUNT filled in from the truck would have been checked against the fuel panel indication on proper operation.
So either no calibration, a loss of fuel records, mishandling on filling up or/and a car like fill up?
With a proper calibration at zero fuel the upload for the first flight afterwards and the doomed flight would have been CALCULATED and THE AMOUNT IN KGS ordered and filled up from the fuel truck. I don't know about the fuel panel on the ATR, but the AMOUNT filled in from the truck would have been checked against the fuel panel indication on proper operation.
So either no calibration, a loss of fuel records, mishandling on filling up or/and a car like fill up?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Soesterberg (NL)
Age: 57
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS27LEFT,
Thanks for the information.
LEM,
ANSV press release:
http://www.ansv.it/IE/Detail.asp?ID=523
and .pdf file , with [security recommendation] => safety recommendations.
Briefly "the Fuel Quantity Indicators (FQI) of ATR42 and ATR72 are almost identical exteriorly, except for the maximum fuel weight allowable in each wing tank (i.e. "L./R. TK.: 2250 instead of L./R. TK.:2500 kg" in white writing -- two pictures included in the .pdf file), and share the same dimensions and installation procedure. Though, they work differently, using different algorithms, since the configuration and dimensions of the fuel tanks, location and number of sensors are different.
According to several refueling tests, it has been ascertained that when a FQI designed for ATR42 is erroneously installed on ATR72, as it was on the accident aircraft, the instrument yields a non conservative error in the displayed fuel weight, directly proportional to the fuel quantity embarked and, however, never inferior to ~ 900 kg of fuel in each tank (two graphics are alleged in the .pdf file)."
Threemiles,
I share your doubts.
Good continuation,
VB
edited for a language lapsus: "security" => safety. Meglio tardi che mai.
Thanks for the information.
LEM,
ANSV press release:
http://www.ansv.it/IE/Detail.asp?ID=523
and .pdf file , with [security recommendation] => safety recommendations.
Briefly "the Fuel Quantity Indicators (FQI) of ATR42 and ATR72 are almost identical exteriorly, except for the maximum fuel weight allowable in each wing tank (i.e. "L./R. TK.: 2250 instead of L./R. TK.:2500 kg" in white writing -- two pictures included in the .pdf file), and share the same dimensions and installation procedure. Though, they work differently, using different algorithms, since the configuration and dimensions of the fuel tanks, location and number of sensors are different.
According to several refueling tests, it has been ascertained that when a FQI designed for ATR42 is erroneously installed on ATR72, as it was on the accident aircraft, the instrument yields a non conservative error in the displayed fuel weight, directly proportional to the fuel quantity embarked and, however, never inferior to ~ 900 kg of fuel in each tank (two graphics are alleged in the .pdf file)."
Threemiles,
I share your doubts.
Good continuation,
VB
edited for a language lapsus: "security" => safety. Meglio tardi che mai.
Last edited by vonbag; 17th Sep 2005 at 19:40.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
according to the chart 600 kg total fuel would read as 2750, and empty tanks as 1800. That would explain the relatively modest uplift: going from 2400 to 2750, for example, on the FQI would require adding 270 kg to the 330kg in the tanks.
The FQI have the same external appearance for a variety of reasons, chief among which is the significant cost savings in crew training across type. The folks in Toulouse -- say what you will about them -- make strong efforts towards cockpit homogeneity across the line.
There are numerous cases of accidents and incidents where the wrong part was fitted, or otherwise inadequate maintenance occurred. Airtransat (Atlantic Glider) comes to mind for the fromer. Even a non-functional fuel indicator with a calculation error in fuel uploading has happened before (Gimli Glider).
The safety recommendations of the ANSV are A) confirm the right FQI is installed on ATRs, B) consider making it impossible to swap the -42 and -72 FQIs.
I'm not sure how feasible B) is, or desirable, since I'm sure there are plenty of other common-appearing parts between the two sets of cockpit instrumentation. It makes much more sense to enforce procedural redundancy.
I'm guessing they didn't recover much paperwork from the crash.
The FQI have the same external appearance for a variety of reasons, chief among which is the significant cost savings in crew training across type. The folks in Toulouse -- say what you will about them -- make strong efforts towards cockpit homogeneity across the line.
There are numerous cases of accidents and incidents where the wrong part was fitted, or otherwise inadequate maintenance occurred. Airtransat (Atlantic Glider) comes to mind for the fromer. Even a non-functional fuel indicator with a calculation error in fuel uploading has happened before (Gimli Glider).
The safety recommendations of the ANSV are A) confirm the right FQI is installed on ATRs, B) consider making it impossible to swap the -42 and -72 FQIs.
I'm not sure how feasible B) is, or desirable, since I'm sure there are plenty of other common-appearing parts between the two sets of cockpit instrumentation. It makes much more sense to enforce procedural redundancy.
I'm guessing they didn't recover much paperwork from the crash.
Last edited by DingerX; 7th Sep 2005 at 15:35.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure how feasible B) is, or desirable, since I'm sure there are plenty of other common-appearing parts between the two sets of cockpit instrumentation. It makes much more sense to enforce procedural redundancy.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pilot question
If you are taking off with empty tanks (as opposed to have nearly one ton of fuel in each tank x 2 tanks = 2 tons), can you 'feel' that the plane is light?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Langley, VA
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I leave A with 10000 kg of fuel and land in B with 5000, but my OFP trip fuel is 7000 a question crosses my mind: how comes I saved 2 tons of fuel?
Then I refuel, I ask to have again 10000 kg, so now I read again 10000 on the gages (I had 5000 before refueling, so I should have loaded 5000kg). Now I insert the data in the techlog and xcheck the actual liters versus the calculated and guess what? Seems that I loaded a lot less fuel! Still saving money!
But now the big question: are the fuel gages working correctly? Should I check with the dipsticks?
Just read your manuals (I'm not an ATR driver, but I think there's no difference) and you get the answer. And some more live souls on this planet....
Then I refuel, I ask to have again 10000 kg, so now I read again 10000 on the gages (I had 5000 before refueling, so I should have loaded 5000kg). Now I insert the data in the techlog and xcheck the actual liters versus the calculated and guess what? Seems that I loaded a lot less fuel! Still saving money!
But now the big question: are the fuel gages working correctly? Should I check with the dipsticks?
Just read your manuals (I'm not an ATR driver, but I think there's no difference) and you get the answer. And some more live souls on this planet....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly FoggyBottom,
and before you unload your ladder to check the dipsticks you can pass by the fuel truck driver and ask him how much is on his gauge.
And he will tell you... Oops... Probably you can then leave the ladder where it is
and before you unload your ladder to check the dipsticks you can pass by the fuel truck driver and ask him how much is on his gauge.
And he will tell you... Oops... Probably you can then leave the ladder where it is
Guest
Posts: n/a
10/10 for ANSV
Well, to me, this looks like a really, really bad one, completely preventable. I say full marks and congratulations to ANSV for their analysis and putting the word out asap (so much for some ill-inspired comments about Italians earlier in the thread). It is absolutely clear what has happened, at least, to me anyway.
Some unpleasant thoughts spring to mind :
1. ATR42 and ATR72 fuel gauges fit in the same slot but are different ?
2. What about normal fuel checks en route (howgozit) ?
3. What about Mr Murphy ? Is he unknown in the ATR design office ?
4. LEM says “And now we immediately think: what about the Airbus gauges?”. I must say, that was also my thought, suspicious reader that I am.
5. How much fuel was actually on board at brake release ? Doesn’t seem to have been enough …
6. Shades of Gimli …… (Thought everyone knew about that prang and its vital lessons ?)
This has happened just when the turboprops seem to be making a comeback.
I better shut up, but I feel very uncomfortable indeed.
oTd
Some unpleasant thoughts spring to mind :
1. ATR42 and ATR72 fuel gauges fit in the same slot but are different ?
2. What about normal fuel checks en route (howgozit) ?
3. What about Mr Murphy ? Is he unknown in the ATR design office ?
4. LEM says “And now we immediately think: what about the Airbus gauges?”. I must say, that was also my thought, suspicious reader that I am.
5. How much fuel was actually on board at brake release ? Doesn’t seem to have been enough …
6. Shades of Gimli …… (Thought everyone knew about that prang and its vital lessons ?)
This has happened just when the turboprops seem to be making a comeback.
I better shut up, but I feel very uncomfortable indeed.
oTd
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: somewhere in the EU
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuninter ATR 72 accident: the safety Recommendations addressed to European Aviation Safety Agency - EASA
ANSV Press Release (English version)
ANSV Safety Recommendation to EASA (English version)
ANSV Press Release (English version)
ANSV Safety Recommendation to EASA (English version)
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
!
Sounds like nobody did a possible problem analysis weighted with the significance of the result of such an 'error' occuring.
Chance - high
Result - disastrous
Even a label attached to the component warning of the need to ensure the correct part for the application might have prevented this. Someone suggested a different harness connector - even an adaptor could have helped . . .
Sounds like nobody did a possible problem analysis weighted with the significance of the result of such an 'error' occuring.
Chance - high
Result - disastrous
Even a label attached to the component warning of the need to ensure the correct part for the application might have prevented this. Someone suggested a different harness connector - even an adaptor could have helped . . .
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another point to this subject:
The only outside difference between the two fuel gauge types are the small lettering of the max cap of each tank for the different types i.e
L.TK:2250 R.TK: 2250 and L.TK:2500 R.TK: 2500
Plus, note the similar numbering used that can be confusing even with huge lettering: 2250 2500.
The pilots are looking for the real information bit, remaining fuel kg digits, so this kind of clues are overlooked very VERY easy. Question: Would you have noticed it?
GD&L
The only outside difference between the two fuel gauge types are the small lettering of the max cap of each tank for the different types i.e
L.TK:2250 R.TK: 2250 and L.TK:2500 R.TK: 2500
Plus, note the similar numbering used that can be confusing even with huge lettering: 2250 2500.
The pilots are looking for the real information bit, remaining fuel kg digits, so this kind of clues are overlooked very VERY easy. Question: Would you have noticed it?
GD&L
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Carcassonne
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lem I begin to understand now
It is so true that if it is possible for someone to do it wrong then sooner or later it happens. If it is possible to fit the wrong gauge then sooner or later it will be done. I have flown ATR72-200 from Bari to Palermo. Because of the Taranto military bases to the south the route then (probably no different now) was to take a TOPNO or GIOIA departure and be at ToC before or at LUNAR. A rough and ready howgozit is 190 miles to waypoint AMANO in 45 mins using fuel at 11.5kg/min when the flight experienced first difficulty. Palermo LICJ is the nearest at 82 miles. If the aircraft is almost dry of fuel she cannot have much more than 520kg aboard at Bari and the weight now is only 16 tonnes. Can I glide?
You may calculate with me but if the drag equation is Cd = 0.023 + CL^2/32.42 (and I believe this to be so) this is giving a L/D of 15.75 closely for my 16 tonnes. Without power the pilots have their plane of descent described no better than D/L and it shows indeed where in the largo of Palermo it is to be the end. The explanation fits the facts and the evidence. This explains what happened but why is sad beyond all measure.
I notice that Flight International has a mistake. Quotes second engine stops at passing 7000ft after 3-4 minutes behind the first. It means 17000ft. This is a well controlled emergency descent.
Mercy on us all that it should be so possible after so many times in the past that the wrong component can be fitted. How many times before we learn?
But when I tell you that for us small guys it is push, push, push, be quick, the other guy can do so why not you? Would I ever be so foolish on my uplift and howgozit? My friend if you keep pushing me then I too will maybe one day be making some mistake too.
My words are not enough,
Read my name
too much toulouse and too much to lose
You may calculate with me but if the drag equation is Cd = 0.023 + CL^2/32.42 (and I believe this to be so) this is giving a L/D of 15.75 closely for my 16 tonnes. Without power the pilots have their plane of descent described no better than D/L and it shows indeed where in the largo of Palermo it is to be the end. The explanation fits the facts and the evidence. This explains what happened but why is sad beyond all measure.
I notice that Flight International has a mistake. Quotes second engine stops at passing 7000ft after 3-4 minutes behind the first. It means 17000ft. This is a well controlled emergency descent.
Mercy on us all that it should be so possible after so many times in the past that the wrong component can be fitted. How many times before we learn?
But when I tell you that for us small guys it is push, push, push, be quick, the other guy can do so why not you? Would I ever be so foolish on my uplift and howgozit? My friend if you keep pushing me then I too will maybe one day be making some mistake too.
My words are not enough,
Read my name
too much toulouse and too much to lose
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice that Flight International has a mistake. Quotes second engine stops at passing 7000ft after 3-4 minutes behind the first. It means 17000ft. This is a well controlled emergency descent.
Blame the sub-editors. It said 17,000ft in the original copy
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Milano Italia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that yesterday the guys opening the FDR discovered that it was "recycled", from another, british plane.
Unfortunately i didn't understood if it was a FDR model fit for another plane, so not usable, or simply a FDR taken somewhere and replaced in the ATR 72 but still readible.
Newspaper very unclear.
Anybody has some news on it ?
LC
Unfortunately i didn't understood if it was a FDR model fit for another plane, so not usable, or simply a FDR taken somewhere and replaced in the ATR 72 but still readible.
Newspaper very unclear.
Anybody has some news on it ?
LC
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Claims of a recycled black box have been refuted by the Palermo's chief prosecutor Pietro Grasso, in charge of the investigation.
Palermo: Grasso smentisce che scatola nera Atr 72 fosse riciclata
Palermo: Grasso smentisce che scatola nera Atr 72 fosse riciclata